The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

The project has had terrible PR and oversight. It makes you wonder who really is in charge of PR and marketing?

Cornelius - your comment here about PR is what I have been praying she would take more seriously when Melba released this paper.. I guess she knew better. Let's face it, Melba, is in as much of a PR campaign (and fight) as she is a fight to prove Bigfoot exists. She had to know the topic of Bigfoot is not wildly popular within the halls of science - so why she refuses to take the PR seriously is beyond me. I really hate to say this, but I am beginning to wonder if Melba thought she could simply write the paper, publish it - and that's that.

I see Robin Lynne is still handling her PR.... At least the press releases.

I can understand the frustrations of not being reviewed and published but to create your own journal and then to say, 'see it's published', comes across as a childish protest.

Now she is saying she didn't self-publish. I think that ship has sailed.

My answer is that it is Melba. I get the sense that she struggles with delegation and has her hands in too many pies. In doing so, she has undermined her own ambitions for the project. She has also become too emotionally attached to the project and this shows through her clinging like a child to content produced for the project. I mean to say this in the most respectable way but I believe that her ego has gotten the best of her and has misguided her through the process.

I could not agree with you more. You know, when Melba typed, "Buckle Up" on her Facebook page - maybe that was a personal reference she could look at daily?

I think she knows exactly why her paper hasn't been well received within this community and the scientific world - but she just does not want to deal with it. She has the results she wants (I think she was looking for all along) and that's that. I am also having trouble believing there was another Journal bought out - that is now being called DeNovo. Why? What was the point of that purchase? I see nothing on that site but Melba's paper. If that other Journal was established and successful - why wouldn't they leave the name alone (name recognition is priceless when the name is good) and simply add Melba's paper to the site? If the prior owners wanted to keep the name - fine, there are ways around that too. But - Melba did a complete dump of everything - to include the reputation of the prior journal... Makes zero sense to me.

Anyway, this is just my opinion. I hoped for far better...

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

"She's saying that all 20 of the samples that she got a full mtDNA genome on were fully modern human. Beyond that she'd also saying that most of the other 90 or so samples that she didn't get a full mtDNA genome on were also likely 100% human. That goes beyond the occasional kidnap/rape scenario. For this to work you would have to argue that female bigfoots aren't allowed to reproduce and that the BF males only mate with human females. "

mtDNA is not affected by paternal lineage. All it could take is one modern human female for an entire species to take on that same mtDNA. For example, if a female human/chimp hybrid were to mate with regular chimps. Their offspring will have the same 100% human mtDNA. It could continue over many generations.

[Guest Theagenes]

Ha...well, I'm almost kicking myself for wanting to play devil's advocate but what the heck, I'm hiding behind a ridiculous screen name.

What if you combine your bottleneck theory with the kidnap theory? All BF in NA would have human mtDNA (and would always have modern human mtDNA). I would think, with enough samples, one could identify the mito Eve of the bottleneck population from the "purer" offspring. Am I wrong in my thinking?

Actually, that's not bad. So let's start with the genetic bottleneck. For those who aren't aware of it, I was proposing as a possible scenario that you had a hybrization event between a group the BF hominin and and group of humans ca. 15kya in Asia. Then that small group or clan of BFs or their descendents migrated into N. America over the Bering land and that small group were the only BFs to cross over. For this to work all of the females in that group would need to have the human mtDNA, let's say for the sake of the example it's H1a (the one the steak had). Now all the modern BFs in N. America would be the descendents of that group and would have human H1a mtDNA. Then there is an occasional kidnap/rape event in modern times. That would introduce new haplotypes. If that were the case then we should see the majority of her samples having the same haplotype---in our hypothetical example it would be H1a---with a couple of other haplotypes through in. But that's not what we see. She has 16 different haplotypes out 20. A couple of the more common ones she got more than one of. So that doesn't work either, though it gets closer.

"She's saying that all 20 of the samples that she got a full mtDNA genome on were fully modern human. Beyond that she'd also saying that most of the other 90 or so samples that she didn't get a full mtDNA genome on were also likely 100% human. That goes beyond the occasional kidnap/rape scenario. For this to work you would have to argue that female bigfoots aren't allowed to reproduce and that the BF males only mate with human females. "

mtDNA is not affected by paternal lineage. All it could take is one modern human female for an entire species to take on that same mtDNA. For example, if a female human/chimp hybrid were to mate with regular chimps. Their offspring will have the same 100% human mtDNA. It could continue over many generations.

You missed my point. For all 20 of her BF mtDNA genomes plus the 91 remaining samples to all be human that means that BF males would have to be constantly mating and reproducing with human females. How many generations of that would it take for BF to not look like BF anymore? It's beyond non-sensical.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Theagenes

[Guest crabshack]

Or the truth could be like the dna shows multiple and not just one mito eve’s so to speak and several, again not just one, of the “unknown†fathers.

[Guest njjohn]

Theagenes - I understand what you're saying, but part of this isn't making sense. You're saying the original species is still around as the reason it would show up in the mDNA? But if original species mated with human creating new species which took over while original species died out, wouldn't all offspring from the new species at that point have the same mDNA? And since they were spread all over North America, couldn't 16 variations just be the result of variations in the family tree. The native americans talk about openly breeding with them, so it's not the rare kidnap idea alone that could explain things.

I think the part being lost is the modern sasquatch is a new species that developed from the original species mating with human. There could have been multiple variations of species at that time and the strongest survived. It's not a process that happened overnight. Perhaps the mixture with european DNA ended up being more resilient than the arabic or native american. Perhaps if we saw a breakdown of where the hap variations occurred in the samples, it could be that the difference was regional, and not just variations in the same group of samples. If the PNW samples were all the same, the Tennessee samples were all the same, etc.. would that make sense then?

Yes, there's more information that should be included and it can be confusing at times. But is what I said above possible? Or is the above irrelevant?

[Guest slimwitless]

Actually, that's not bad.

I take back what I said about my screen name.

So let's start with the genetic bottleneck. For those who aren't aware of it, I was proposing as a possible scenario that you had a hybrization event between a group the BF hominin and and group of humans ca. 15kya in Asia. Then that small group or clan of BFs or their descendents migrated into N. America over the Bering land and that small group were the only BFs to cross over. For this to work all of the females in that group would need to have the human mtDNA, let's say for the sake of the example it's H1a (the one the steak had). Now all the modern BFs in N. America would be the descendents of that group and would have human H1a mtDNA. Then there is an occasional kidnap/rape event in modern times. That would introduce new haplotypes. If that were the case then we should see the majority of her samples having the same haplotype---in our hypothetical example it would be H1a---with a couple of other haplotypes through in. But that's not what we see. She has 16 different haplotypes out 20. A couple of the more common ones she got more than one of. So that doesn't work either, though it gets closer.

Were the few shared haplotypes from the same mito Eve? Two of Stubstad's samples had the same mito Eve (one being the toenail which we now know for sure is in the study). Anyway, wouldn't we need to know the size of the BF population and frequency of hybridization to statistically rule out the idea with absolute certainty?

Edited February 14, 2013 by slimwitless

[Guest Tontar]

She's saying that all 20 of the samples that she got a full mtDNA genome on were fully modern human. Beyond that she'd also saying that most of the other 90 or so samples that she didn't get a full mtDNA genome on were also likely 100% human. That goes beyond the occasional kidnap/rape scenario. For this to work you would have to argue that female bigfoots aren't allowed to reproduce and that the BF males only mate with human females. It's beyond implausible.

It's actually quite simple. Female sasquatches are quite ugly, never shave or wax or pluck or bathe. The male asaquatches would never find them as attractive as they would human females. And so, the only males that would find female sasquatches attractive and alluring enough to mate with are all over on the PGF threads. ;-)

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

You missed my point. For all 20 of her BF mtDNA genomes plus the 91 remaining samples to all be human that means that BF males would have to be constantly mating and reproducing with human females. How many generations of that would it take for BF to not look like BF anymore? It's beyond non-sensical.

That's what I'm trying to clear up here. They don't need to mate with a female human every generation for the mtDNA to stay 100% human. The mtDNA stays the same every time it gets passed down. It could get passed down hundreds of generations without another female human and the entire species could have the exact same mtDNA. These are like the ABC's of genetics.

Edited February 14, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest]

Theagenes - a personal thank-you for your patience and effort. I feel a little smarter when I read comments like yours.

To all of you who do post and share...a big thank you , really. I know many tease the online posters as hang-arounds or whatever..but, I have found your thoughts important to my own, and helpful. Don't stop, even when it hurts....lol which is today!

Generally I don't see much gloating here, and a heck of a lot of disappointment. And, even some spin to make this a good scenario, somehow, and perhaps it will be ultimately in ways no one can see today.

I did ignore the security warning and visited the SGP website...I enjoyed the submitter page, and like others here want to hear from them. Some already with blogs, but many not. I wonder if the SGP will be a platform for them to discuss their story, or a different venue will be required.

I was surprised to see "The Melba Ketchum Global Protection Fund" or some name close.....that was a surprise and immediately called to mind "The Jane Goodall Institute," and then it was downhill from there.... not feeling it today

Happy Valentine's as well... yesterday was my B-day and this release felt like some classic Universe backfire, reminding me how little I am and how grateful I should feel to be alive one more year...to see the Sykes study...lol oh, and planning that next BF trip...

gracias and adios!

Edited February 14, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest Ishcabibble]

I have a couple of questions. First, others here have made comments about Mary Green and Janice ?. Those are names that I am not familiar with. Would someone be kind enough to fill me in on who they are or at least point me to a relevant resource.

Second, unless I am missing something, I was under the impression that the journal that was purchased was called Frontiers of Zoology. I did a search and I can find no reference anywhere to that journal. None. It didn't exist. There is a Frontiers in Zoology, but that one looks to be legitimate and still active. So right from the start, the premise of buying an established journal and changing the name is a lie.

Lastly, I am not surprised at all that the others who are associated with this "paper" have not come forward. I'd be embarrassed if my name was on it and would want nothing to do with the resulting implosion.

[Guest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inEeI2xIpcE

Here ya go Ishcabibble.

If you don't feel like watching the whole show - forward to 30:36.. Enjoy Edited February 14, 2013 by Melissa

[Guest njjohn]

It was Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology, not Frontiers in Zoology, so it's not a lie. That journal was new and just getting started itself, hence them not wanting to take the risk. While it doesn't look good from a PR standpoint, from a business standpoint it's smart. Ugly, but definitely not a lie.

[Guest Theagenes]

Theagenes - I understand what you're saying, but part of this isn't making sense. You're saying the original species is still around as the reason it would show up in the mDNA? But if original species mated with human creating new species which took over while original species died out, wouldn't all offspring from the new species at that point have the same mDNA?

That original mating event or events wouldn't have created an entirely new species. They just would have picked up some human DNA, just as those of us of European descent picked up a little Neanderthal DNA from some interbreeding in the past. The trick is finding a way to have the mtDNA from the minority species survive more than a few generations. For that to happen you have to have an unbroken line of females passing the mtDNA down from mother to daughter. The sons would get the human mtDNA too but if they reproduced with a "pure" BF female that line would be cut off. So my idea was to have a mechanism like a genetic bottleneck that would make sure there were no pure BF females around. If all the females in a breeding population had the human mtDNA then so would all of their descendents.

And since they were spread all over North America, couldn't 16 variations just be the result of variations in the family tree.

No these 16 haplotypes are all known documented haplotypes that developed in the Old World; they aren't mutations or variation from one particular type.

The native americans talk about openly breeding with them, so it's not the rare kidnap idea alone that could explain things.

If so then then they should only show NA haplotypes, but that isn't they case.

I think the part being lost is the modern sasquatch is a new species that developed from the original species mating with human. There could have been multiple variations of species at that time and the strongest survived. It's not a process that happened overnight. Perhaps the mixture with european DNA ended up being more resilient than the arabic or native american. Perhaps if we saw a breakdown of where the hap variations occurred in the samples, it could be that the difference was regional, and not just variations in the same group of samples. If the PNW samples were all the same, the Tennessee samples were all the same, etc.. would that make sense then?

Yes, there's more information that should be included and it can be confusing at times. But is what I said above possible? Or is the above irrelevant?

That would be an interesting comparison and can be done with the data she provided.

[Guest Ishcabibble]

Thank you Melissa and NJ.

And, yes, I agree that it's ugly, but plausible. However, I agree with you Melissa that the PR and release of this "paper" was sloppy and amateurish. That's more to the point that none of the other authors listed have come forward. This could be the best, most accurate study ever published, but the way that the release was handled strips any claim of legitimacy and builds a wall against other professionals even considering reading it.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Ishcabibble

[Guest]

It was Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology, not Frontiers in Zoology, so it's not a lie. That journal was new and just getting started itself, hence them not wanting to take the risk. While it doesn't look good from a PR standpoint, from a business standpoint it's smart. Ugly, but definitely not a lie.

Smart from a business standpoint? How so?

Edited February 14, 2013 by apehuman