The Ketchum Report

[Guest vilnoori]

Slim, here are the haplotypes that she listed. Again this is being partially quoted for educational purposes in accordence with fair use.

Sample # is on the left, haplotype is on the right.

26 - H1a, one novel SNP

1, 2, 12, 36, - T2b

28 - H1

35 - H10

29, 44, 46, 138 - H2a2

39b,41, 42, 43 - T2

37 - H12

11 - A6L2c

31 - LOd2a

38 - V2

24 - H1s

4,37 - H3

33. 95 - H

140,168 - D

81 - C

71,117,118 - L3d

8, 139, 18* - HV2 (human specific) only

46-137 - Partial HV1 (human specific) screened only

#26 is the steak. So this list is not just the 20 that she got full mtDNA genomes on but all the samples. The last two groups (Hv1 and HV2) were screened as human but not assigned to a specific haplotype.

So out of all these samples, haplotypes T2b, H2A2, and T2 have the most repesented samples with 4 each---these are common European types. L3d has 3 represented samples---this is common type for West Africans and African Americans.

Only three samples came back with a Native American haplotype (Samples #140, 168, and 81)

Note that there are no examples of Haplotype X --- the so-called "Solutrean haplotype."

Before jumping the gun on this, recall that mummies found of early modern humans in China were not of typical Asians--what we think of today, but were dolichocephalic, tall red heads. Racial assumptions break down the farther back you go into prehistory. The fact is that people have been moving around very well and mixing for a very long time. Heck, if pre-erectus people were found in Liang Bua cave in Indonesia that tells you something about how well and how far back all types of hominins were mixing and moving around, even across strips of oceans. And there has been longer European contact in N. America than most would think. Russians have been here through Alaska, and the Norse even longer before that. If you consider stories like the voyage of St. Brendan, there may have been very early contact all along. The new anthropological stuff about pre-Clovis peoples, the africanoid woman in Mexico (circa 30,000 ya I think, not sure) all tells me we should maybe be throwing out a lot of preconceptions about this.

[Guest Tyler H]

I'm pretty sure Dr. K has stated unequivocally that she was a skeptic until she saw the results. So she started out with a clean slate and did the study with no prior assumptions. Now when she wrote the paper she obviously had already seen the data and perhaps this creeps into the text of it. I have yet to read it, though...too poor right now. lol

"I was a skeptic, and then I became a believer" - there is no more overworked line amongst BF 'researchers' who want to convince people of their objectivity. Not saying it's never true. Just saying someone claiming such a thing about themselves means nothing.

[Guest vilnoori]

Of the testing???

Yeah. She never got into the squatching aspect of this until after getting positive lab results. They are what convinced her, not field stuff.

[Guest]

Humans have been moving around BIG TIME. AND?????

[Guest Ishcabibble]

Ronn, I'm not sure what your post means, but just to be clear, I was not making a case for the paper, I'm not supporting MK in her analysis, and I am not making a case either for or against the existence of BF. All I'm saying is that the conclusions of this particular paper are flawed and should not can not be taken seriously.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Ishcabibble

[Guest vilnoori]

His objection is that there is too much variety in the human "eves" to support an early hybridization scenario. What it does support, it seems to me, is precisely what the NA stories said all along...that sasquatches abducted women and children on a regular basis. There ARE NA samples represented there, but Europeans have been here in NA a fairly long time already, even on the West coast if you consider Alaska and Russian contact.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/folklore/talking-bc-squatch/

[Guest Ishcabibble]

At some point, she saw habituated Bigfoots, and knows that they donated a sample or two.

Ding, Ding, Ding. Here we have a priori knowledge.

[Guest]

Ronn, I'm not sure what your post means, but just to be clear, I was not making a case for the paper, I'm not supporting MK in her analysis, and I am not making a case either for or against the existence of BF. All I'm saying is that the conclusions of this particular paper are flawed and should not can not be taken seriously.

I was backing your statement...lol

[roguefooter]

But Bart and Tyler's labs did easily detect bear.

Isn't that what Theagenes was quoting from (post 13907)? If so it doesn't sound like they were really definitive of anything.

[Guest Theagenes]

Isn't that what Theagenes was quoting from (post 13907)? If so it doesn't sound like they were really definitive of anything.

No that was from Melba's paper. And youre right it isn't definitive of anything.

.

BTW, read the sentence right before the one you cherry picked. It says alopecias (i.e. areas of hair loss) were observed. In any case my mangy bear comment was not a declarative statement (note the question mark). I'm no skin and hair expert; but maybe somebody here is and can weigh in.

But ask yourself this, after Tyler went public a few weeks ago why didn't she call up this guy Toler who did the analysis and say, "hey, remember that tissue sample I sent you last year? Can you pull out those slides and look at them again and see if it's consistent with bear?"

If that was done it isn't indicated in the report. She just leaves it with the vague "not consistent with human." Why do you think that is? It's kind of an important point don't you think?

Edited February 15, 2013 by Theagenes

[Guest]

But ask yourself this, after Tyler went public a few weeks ago why didn't she call up this guy Toler who did the analysis and say, "hey, remember that tissue sample I sent you last year? Can you pull out those slides and look at them again and see if it's consistent with bear?"

If that was done it isn't indicated in the report. She just leaves it with the vague "not consistent with human." Why do you think that is? It's kind of an important point don't you think?

Oh. My. God. Does she not think that people are tuned in and aware of what events have occurred? I think she just demonstrated her own bias there. Such hubris. She needed to stop, take a step back and correctly verify. I've given her the benefit of the doubt in the undertaking of this difficult to cope with study. I've wished that she could somehow pull it through against all odds. I was behind her. But her actions and behavior is very disturbing. She'd better have some **** answers and they better be good.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Cornelius

[Guest Llawgoch]

I see the DeNovo Scientific Journal has another paper(?) scheduled for release Sunday: The Dawn Of Novum Speciese Discovery

That 'paper' was already linked from the website when it was first put out there. It was not a scientific paper by any stretch but an article , probably about one side of A4, railing about how scientists won't give anybody a fair shake, and written by someone who didn't appear to have English as a first language.

She did buy the other journal and not just create it from scratch.

http://www.bigfootbu...nt-peer-review/

Yes, everybody knows that. But nobody can find any trace of this 'other journal' before she bought it. So IF it existed rather than just being created by one of her associates purely in order to sell to her, it was a worthless pipe dream that somebody had invented in their garage, and never got off the ground. So it was, for all intents and purposes, created from scratch,, either by her, or by the person who sold it to her, and did nothing - please bear that in mind - nothing - not even created its own website - before publishing her paper.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Llawgoch

[Guest]

No that was from Melba's paper. And youre right it isn't definitive of anything.

.

BTW, read the sentence right before the one you cherry picked. It says alopecias (i.e. areas of hair loss) were observed. In any case my mangy bear comment was not a declarative statement (note the question mark). I'm no skin and hair expert; but maybe somebody here is and can weigh in.

But ask yourself this, after Tyler went public a few weeks ago why didn't she call up this guy Toler who did the analysis and say, "hey, remember that tissue sample I sent you last year? Can you pull out those slides and look at them again and see if it's consistent with bear?"

If that was done it isn't indicated in the report. She just leaves it with the vague "not consistent with human." Why do you think that is? It's kind of an important point don't you think?

Why should she? There is no evidence that the sample came from a bear. Not only that, there is more evidence that this sample is NOT from a bear than there is evidence that she and Tyler analyzed the same specimen.

[Guest Llawgoch]

As far as I can tell, given the text of the press release and the intro of the paper, the authors have already accepted the existence and jumped to making the data fit their conclusions.

In the context of trying to get this paper any serious consideration, they've already lost. I'll say it again, given the methods and assumptions that this paper are based on, its DOA. The dna data might be worth something once someone credible looks at it, but based on the sloppy analysis, cognitive dissociation, a priori assumption, and completly amateur handling of the release, nobody, and I can't stress this enough, NOBODY, with any real scientific underpinning is going give this paper a first look. People can put all the hope they want into this story, the simple fact is that it's not good science, and without that, it will not get noticed outside of these forums.

Precisely.

She's been sent a lot of samples of Bigfoot and from this is trying to work out what Bigfoot is, instead of being sent a lot of samples and trying to work out what they were. You get the feeling if all people had sent were raccoon samples, we'd be hearing that Bigfoot are raccoons.

All the samples with purely human DNA should just have been discounted as human. Instead, she's theorising about them.

The only ones worth anything are the 3 (I think 3) with unusual nuDNA, and as she won't tell anyone what the unusual sequences are, the paper is worthless.

Not only that, there is more evidence that this sample is NOT from a bear than there is evidence that she and Tyler analyzed the same specimen.

How on earth do you know that? She hasn't published the sequences. (And I wouldn't understand them if she did).

[Guest Theagenes]

Hey - I'm still catching up on all the thread so not sure if this has been corrected, but I've seen you say this (or versions of) a couple of times.

It was one of the first things I was looking for, so I'm not sure how so many people have missed it:

I personally would have tried to go with more well known names, but at least it does appear that she didn't "go it alone" in the writing.

This also shows ridiculousness of the JREF'ers in instantly assuming that none of the listed co-authors would be aware of the content - and yes, that is exactly what several of them said.

Beyond this, I agree with a fair bit of what you've been saying.

Edit to add - as soon as I hit reply I then see this has been addressed, sort of.

Cut & Paste? That's a bit of an assumption. And weren't you criticising her earlier for not using experts to co-author bits she's not speecialised in? Seem a bit both ways.

As for the JREF'er confirmations... well, they're always suggesting that we don't take people's word for it, so I'll wait for "P.W." to make a statement of his own, un-JREF-filtered...

Again you're assuming I meant something negative when I said she copied or paraphrased from the reports. Yes it's an assumption because that would be the normal to do when you're including specialized material. Take for example the skin and hair passage on the steak that I quoted above. That's the histopathology section she refers to and lists DT (Doug Toler from a pathology lab in Houston) as the author. If you note that's just a descriptive passage with no real interpretation, as you would expect from a report. She sent off a sample for specialized testing, got a report back, added Toler's conclusions to her paper and listed him as an author. That's normal; there's nothing wrong with that.

If you break down her acknowledgements that's what they are for the most part part. As for substantive contributions she lists AW (Aleice Watts) and PW (Pat Wojtkiewicz, though she misspells his name as "Wojtkiecicz"), both director of forensics labs as writing and editing, so these are the two that would be the "real" co-authors. And appropriately PW is listed as the second author and AW as the third (generally you rank the authors in an order reflecting the magnitude of their contribution).

Now, as I noted in a later post, PW is one of the ones that the JREF posters contacted and he was aware of the paper, had helped her format some images, and had tests a few samples for her. This is the person listed as the second author. But maybe the JREF guys are misrepresenting what he's saying, so if people want to call him and ask him here is the number the for crime lab in Louisiana where he works: (318) 227-2889.

Aleice Watts is the director of a forensics lab in Euless, TX and is the only co-author who has her contact information included with Melba's on the paper. So I would imagine she did help write some of it. Great. Would have been nice if she got some writing help from someone like Hadj-Chikh (who submitted a sample) don't you think?

But people, all of this is a distraction. It doesn't really matter who wrote what. Even if all of these lab directors got together and banged out this report as a massive collaborative effort you are still left with the end product---and that end product is junk.