The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

Because Ketchum doesn't own it. She never promised to release HD video with her paper. All the HD video is Adrian Erickson's. He just donated that short snippet tease to her study.

I'm pretty sure she said that her study bought out Erickson. I recall hearing it on a C2C interview. I also recall her describing a stunning video that would displace the Patterson footage and that it would be released in conjunction with the paper.

I can think of no other subject that continually promises so much and continues to deliver so little. It's a never-ending shell game of broken promises and tantalizing hooks. I was hoping the MK study would put a stop to that, but instead she has done just the opposite by contributing to it.

[Guest gershake]

I'm pretty sure she said that her study bought out Erickson. I recall hearing it on a C2C interview.

Link would be great. I'm only going off of her comments a few days ago that she didn't own Erickson's footage and that it was up to him when to release it. She specifically said he only donated that small teaser snippet to her study.

I also recall her describing a stunning video that would displace the Patterson footage and that it would be released in conjunction with the paper.

Probably because she (like everyone else) assumed that Erickson was going to release his footage when her study was out. From what one hears, they had a contract that he couldn't release it before it was out. The question is why he hasn't given any signs of life since Wednesday, and maybe she's as clueless to that as us. Edited February 16, 2013 by gershake

[Guest]

LOL, sorry..and good...there's a lot of things I hope to never be called and the "Bigfoot Steak People" is one of them.

Ok, that was funny! I bet we see that moniker over at BFE soon! It could be worse, no? Tatersteak People or such?

Edited February 16, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

I misspoke. Apparently there are two videos of Matilda. One of her sleeping and then stirring awake; the other, she walks towards the camera, notices the filming, bares fangs, walks away.

In any event, Ketchum would be better off without presenting a "teaser" at all. People don't like teases.

Edited February 16, 2013 by jerrywayne

[Guest]

Hi everybody,

I have the paper and have been trying to wade thru it for several days now in hopes of providing yet another review from a scientist. However, I still have a job and a family and they come first.

The Ketchum paper has lots of problems. Almost all of the problems I have found have already been reported by others on this forum and other websites. Theagenes has done a truly outstanding job of exposing the problems with the mitochondrial DNA analysis. Kudos Theagenes!

Since Theagenes covered the mtDNA, I have been focusing on the genomic analysis. The problem is that there is not enough data in the paper to even determine what Ketchum did.

Disotell mentioned the paper's abstract. But, where is it? If it exists I can't figure out where the abstract ends and the introduction begins.

The issue of provenance has been brought up many times. If I remember correctly, Ketchum said they had dealt with that issue. How? Other than getting swabs for DNA analysis from the submitters, there is no other information on provenance. I'm sure that (most of) the submitters are above board, but submitting hair, spit, feces or tissue isn't the same as submitting a body or recognizable body part. How do we know these samples came from a squatch?

Where are the figure legends? Every science journal requires figure legends! Why are the columns in some of the tables not labeled? What do they mean?! Scientists/reviewers can't interpret an figure/table without legends and column headings.

Did Ketchum really digest tissue in a solution containing 1M DTT? I've never seen a procedure or personally digested tissue in more than 1 mM DTT. Typo? And, why isn't there any detergent in the tissue digest conditions? We use sodium dodecylsulfate as do many other labs. Proteinase K doesn't work well without detergents that denature proteins!

The single nuclear gene analysis is also baffling. Some genes results were human, others didn't amplify, and other came back unknown. Huh? Unknown? Even if the sequence is not in GeneBank, a BLAST search will return a "best guess" on what the sequence is related to. Hell, you could type in a completely random, artificial DNA sequence and BLAST will tell you it's related to such-and-such an organism by X%. Maybe it's only 2%, but BLAST still gives you an answer.

Also, some of the samples failed to amplify or gave unexpected results. I wonder whether the same samples failed to amplify for all genes tested or whether a sample amplified for one gene but not another. Was there consistency in the failures?

"Next generation" whole genome sequencing is a disingenuous term. Lot of labs have Illumina technology. It's CURRENT generation technology. Next gen sequencing is under development and beta testing.

So, using "next generation" sequencing methods they generate a supercontig related to human chromosome 11. But, the supercontigs are roughly 2.5 MBp and human chromosome 11 is over 11 MBp in length. How did they stitch their supercontig together? What portion of chromosome 11 is homologous with their supercontigs? Are the regions homologous for human and non-human large or small? Which regions are non-human? Please specify so I can analyze them by myself.

Why did they develop their own primers? Why develop "human"primers? I can buy primers for any human gene from several sources. Why not tell us the sequence of the primers? Oh, because squatches are "special", completely unrelated to any known critter (sarcasm alert). Or, because the primers are proprietary. Melba is making a Squatch ID Kit for sale, so we don't get to know the primer sequences. Okay - but surely the journal demanded that the sequences were made known to the reviewers under NDA to make sure that we are not all being hoodwinked....

...Was the paper ever reviewed? Does the journal have an editorial board (can't find one)? Senior editor?

Okay, I gotta stop before I become apoplectic with disdain. For everyone who thinks I am biased, let me reiterate that I have had 2 BF encounters, years and miles apart. I am a believer. I wanted MK to come thru and deliver the goods. NO SALE! I'm also a scientist, and I know what science demands in the way of evidence (for better or for worse). This ain't it.

I also stand by my previous comments on Bart's and Tyler's analysis. They sent SEVERAL samples to an ESTABLISHED and RESPECTED animal forensics lab for analysis. The lab did not use the most sophisticated "next gen" techniques, but I would argue that the most "sophisticated" techniques were not needed. Instead the lab used conventional, well-established and unbiased techniques to assess the samples. Bart and Tyler had the "brass ones" to publish the ORIGINAL lab report and data. After looking at the report several times I can't find any major flaws.

To summarize, Bart and Tyler gave us solid, understandable results (although not "next gen") that we can replicate (because the primers used by Trent are commercially available). MK gives a paper in journal that probably doesn't exist, that bypassed traditional peer-review, lacks crucially-important details, and no one can replicate because primer sequences are missing.

Moderators - my comments are not meant to be inflammatory. I understand that my comments may considered to be inflammatory. My apologies. You may sanction me as you see fit. But, this is how I see it. Please do not remove my post. If you want to view my professional credentials, I am happy to share them with you in private.

Genes

[Guest slimwitless]

unless you believe Justin did so all the way back in July 2011 (when we got the other half of Melba's piece, which was salted so it would last the 4 day trip) and he managed to find a piece of "bear" that looks virtually identical to the supposed "sasquatch" piece Melba tested.

Well, Justin did manage to find a piece of "bear" that looks like the "sasquatch" he shot.

But yeah, it's the same piece.

[bipedalist]

Nice critique GenesRUs. Perhaps an admin or chief exec or Director could invite Dr. K to discuss and answer the call of the critical review here. I for one would like to know the name of the Editor/Assoc. Editor of the journal that it passed peer review under. Peer reviewers being anonymous could be contacted by an admin or Director to confirm they worked in reviewing such and give some backup cred. to this development of purchasing the journal that approves your paper.

It is either a peer reviewed paper or it is not. We should not have to wait to know which it is ..... a monograph or a peer reviewed open source pay per view article.

Edited February 16, 2013 by bipedalist

[Matt Pruitt]

Thank you, GenesRUs, for the informative post. Kudos!

[Guest]

Very informative post Genes.

In your opinion is it worthwhile to look further into the three Genomes?

[bipedalist]

The "SquatchD" weighs in with a collage of opinion and sources:

http://squatchdetective.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/ketchum-paper-released-unfortunately-theres-some-problems/

[Guest]

I gave my plus to GenesRus. Wondered where you had been. Just with family and your life, seriously? Thanks for the time here!

Bipedalist I am with you, to me it is essential to verify passing peer-review through the Journal of Advanced Multidiscilplinary Zoology because it is fundamental to her claim.

Edited February 16, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

Derek,

If you do not mind me asking- Are you and the OP satisfied with how the Dr. Ketchum data has been presented and is being excepted thus far?

I'm just very curious to hear from someone on the inside.

Thanks,

Gary

[scoobiestkn]

Thank you GenesRus, plussed.

[Guest Tyler H]

Hi everybody,

I have the paper and have been trying to wade thru it for several days now in hopes of providing yet another review from a scientist. However, I still have a job and a family and they come first.

The Ketchum paper has lots of problems. Almost all of the problems I have found have already been reported by others on this forum and other websites. Theagenes has done a truly outstanding job of exposing the problems with the mitochondrial DNA analysis. Kudos Theagenes!

Since Theagenes covered the mtDNA, I have been focusing on the genomic analysis. The problem is that there is not enough data in the paper to even determine what Ketchum did.

Disotell mentioned the paper's abstract. But, where is it? If it exists I can't figure out where the abstract ends and the introduction begins.

The issue of provenance has been brought up many times. If I remember correctly, Ketchum said they had dealt with that issue. How? Other than getting swabs for DNA analysis from the submitters, there is no other information on provenance. I'm sure that (most of) the submitters are above board, but submitting hair, spit, feces or tissue isn't the same as submitting a body or recognizable body part. How do we know these samples came from a squatch?

Where are the figure legends? Every science journal requires figure legends! Why are the columns in some of the tables not labeled? What do they mean?! Scientists/reviewers can't interpret an figure/table without legends and column headings.

Did Ketchum really digest tissue in a solution containing 1M DTT? I've never seen a procedure or personally digested tissue in more than 1 mM DTT. Typo? And, why isn't there any detergent in the tissue digest conditions? We use sodium dodecylsulfate as do many other labs. Proteinase K doesn't work well without detergents that denature proteins!

The single nuclear gene analysis is also baffling. Some genes results were human, others didn't amplify, and other came back unknown. Huh? Unknown? Even if the sequence is not in GeneBank, a BLAST search will return a "best guess" on what the sequence is related to. Hell, you could type in a completely random, artificial DNA sequence and BLAST will tell you it's related to such-and-such an organism by X%. Maybe it's only 2%, but BLAST still gives you an answer.

Also, some of the samples failed to amplify or gave unexpected results. I wonder whether the same samples failed to amplify for all genes tested or whether a sample amplified for one gene but not another. Was there consistency in the failures?

"Next generation" whole genome sequencing is a disingenuous term. Lot of labs have Illumina technology. It's CURRENT generation technology. Next gen sequencing is under development and beta testing.

So, using "next generation" sequencing methods they generate a supercontig related to human chromosome 11. But, the supercontigs are roughly 2.5 MBp and human chromosome 11 is over 11 MBp in length. How did they stitch their supercontig together? What portion of chromosome 11 is homologous with their supercontigs? Are the regions homologous for human and non-human large or small? Which regions are non-human? Please specify so I can analyze them by myself.

Why did they develop their own primers? Why develop "human"primers? I can buy primers for any human gene from several sources. Why not tell us the sequence of the primers? Oh, because squatches are "special", completely unrelated to any known critter (sarcasm alert). Or, because the primers are proprietary. Melba is making a Squatch ID Kit for sale, so we don't get to know the primer sequences. Okay - but surely the journal demanded that the sequences were made known to the reviewers under NDA to make sure that we are not all being hoodwinked....

...Was the paper ever reviewed? Does the journal have an editorial board (can't find one)? Senior editor?

Okay, I gotta stop before I become apoplectic with disdain. For everyone who thinks I am biased, let me reiterate that I have had 2 BF encounters, years and miles apart. I am a believer. I wanted MK to come thru and deliver the goods. NO SALE! I'm also a scientist, and I know what science demands in the way of evidence (for better or for worse). This ain't it.

I also stand by my previous comments on Bart's and Tyler's analysis. They sent SEVERAL samples to an ESTABLISHED and RESPECTED animal forensics lab for analysis. The lab did not use the most sophisticated "next gen" techniques, but I would argue that the most "sophisticated" techniques were not needed. Instead the lab used conventional, well-established and unbiased techniques to assess the samples. Bart and Tyler had the "brass ones" to publish the ORIGINAL lab report and data. After looking at the report several times I can't find any major flaws.

To summarize, Bart and Tyler gave us solid, understandable results (although not "next gen") that we can replicate (because the primers used by Trent are commercially available). MK gives a paper in journal that probably doesn't exist, that bypassed traditional peer-review, lacks crucially-important details, and no one can replicate because primer sequences are missing.

Moderators - my comments are not meant to be inflammatory. I understand that my comments may considered to be inflammatory. My apologies. You may sanction me as you see fit. But, this is how I see it. Please do not remove my post. If you want to view my professional credentials, I am happy to share them with you in private.

Genes

Hi All

I have been too busy to follow this thread closely, and didn't feel it was really my place to comment - I was somewhat qualified to post on my report, but less so on this one, and would be perceived as having bias.

Genes - thanks - great post, I hope it does not get removed. I'm hoping Tomafoot can post as well (maybe I have missed it) as he came up with some creative ways for Melba's data to be credible, back prior to its release.

[Guest]

GenesRUs,

Thank you for your evaluation. I have been trying to make sense the manuscript as well and come to many of the same conclusions. It is not like any other paper I have read in my scientific career of 25yrs. I have been waiting on the sidelines to chime in, hoping to add some critical evaluation to this. I truly hoped for a lot more from this paper, but trying to fairly critique it based on what it is.

I have done a few independent blast searches with the available nuclear sequences from the paper, and it is rather odd to put it mildly. Some coding sequences of genes on Chromosome 11 are picked up (typically small fragments of 150bp), but most of the sequence (I would guess 90%) is not homologous to any published sequences. I did a blast search with some chimpanzee genomic sequence from chromosome 11 (for comparison), and it comes in at 99% homologous to human, with a few gaps. How could a sequence being found AND being stated as a new Homo sapiens sub species NOT be more homologous than chimpanzee? If the sequence is correct, this is no where near being "human". I can imagine a highly related species interbreeding with homo sapiens sapiens somewhere in the past, and hence generating a viable hybrid, but not from the sequence they put forward. I wonder if there were issues with generating their contigs? They mention that they used the human chromosome 11 as a template, but how could this be done if it is some non-homologous?

I also did an alignment between the first 15kb of two of these sequences (I think from sup fig 4 and 6), and there was homology between them, but not as much as would be expected from two members of the same species (or even two different primates). My analysis is far from thorough, and hopefully further analysis will be done in time by someone with a bit more expertise in this field.

That is my two cents for now - I will continue to evaluate the data, hoping for something that makes sense.