The Ketchum Report

[Guest Thepattywagon]

I don't understand why it is only now, after the study has been released in what many in the field consider to be a haphazard way, that some "qualified people" are stepping in and offering to take a serious look at it.

[Guest Check]

Derek, Bart, etc:

Is it your opinion, now, that Justin encountered a Bigfoot? Simple yes or no will suffice...

[Oonjerah]

@ Thepattywagon

Maybe they weren't given the opportunity.

[Guest]

As I predicted some time ago:

Yep, as predicted (mostly by Parnassus I think?)

1) Ketchum probably has DNA indicative of a new primate species.

False.

2) Ketchum over-claimed her paper, which also had some technical issues.

True.

3) "Legitimate" (translation: Skeptic-approved) journals didn't take it seriously from the get go and she had to go around them to publish.

True.

4) Skeptics are having a field day screeching and throwing poo at the study, which they have no intention of actually reading, or attempting any scientific work to counter the claims of the study.

False.

Several knowledgeable individuals have read and commented on the "study".

There is no need for 'scientific work to counter the claims', as there is no data provided indicating support of the conclusions drawn by Ketchum. What is present is nonsense.

Have I missed anything?

Lots. Especially those pesky little details that science finds so interesting...

The next step needs to be "naming and shaming" all the so-called "legitimate" journals and reviewers who failed their duty to honestly and ethically evaluate the paper in an impartial manner.

LOL. Yes, I agree, lets see all the return letters and review notes. Please.

[Guest]

Derek, I seem to remember years ago you were about on the inside as you can get. Someone would have a question here and you'd respond "I'm not sure about that, let me check with Melba and I'll get back to you." and you would the next day. That's not on the edge or outside. That's in it. For guys like me that are armchair Bigfoot enthusiast types, all the submitters and groups listed in the report are part of the report. I think people are letting y'all off pretty easy for getting suckered into this thing and signing nda's with her. Those nda's are like glue keeping you from getting any distance. I appreciate those that did contribute. I understand the hours and effort you put in. We had some hope in this project, and we all hope to see the rest of Adrian's footage very soon. I would suggest those who submitted be putting the pressure on him to do so as well.

[Guest]

I don't have expertise in this field and I don't know that any posters who say they do are telling the truth.

I know there were high expetations for this and many feel let down. Let's wish better luck to whoever tries next.

[Oonjerah]

Bryan Sykes didn't (still doesn't?) know if Bigfoot, Yeti, Yeren, Yowie, Almasty are real.

He didn't set out to prove something. Just wanted to check out the samples and see if

any are unknowns.

Also, when asking for samples, as for those who claim to have seen them, he said he

wanted to give those people a fair shake. i.e., Science will accept their evidence in good

faith.

If he says these creatures exist, many will accept his word on it.

[Guest Tyler H]

Derek, I seem to remember years ago you were about on the inside as you can get. Someone would have a question here and you'd respond "I'm not sure about that, let me check with Melba and I'll get back to you." and you would the next day. That's not on the edge or outside. That's in it. For guys like me that are armchair Bigfoot enthusiast types, all the submitters and groups listed in the report are part of the report. I think people are letting y'all off pretty easy for getting suckered into this thing and signing nda's with her. Those nda's are like glue keeping you from getting any distance. I appreciate those that did contribute. I understand the hours and effort you put in. We had some hope in this project, and we all hope to see the rest of Adrian's footage very soon. I would suggest those who submitted be putting the pressure on him to do so as well.

I must say I differ with many posters here, and agree with some of your points Hoosier.

I've talked to police who get very frustrated with women whom they separate from their abusive boyfriends, and then the women just return to them. People involved in Ponzi schemes often had many clues along the way. Other people take their car to the mechanic with the worst reputation, but do so because the mechanic tells them what they want to hear. All these people bear SOME responsibility.

Justin was not nearly as educated on Sasquatch, or Sasquatch researchers, or genetics, or most any topics surrounding this saga, yet he seemed to be the only one with enough backbone to take action when he realized the evidence that pandered to everyone's ‘heart's desire’ might actually be bogus.

That same backbone is incumbent upon every one of us as humans. When we have something that matters to us, and we see red flags surrounding it, and we just sit idly by, and don't take steps to make sure that suspicious people are kept in check, then we all become complicit in whatever 'crimes' they enact. Only extremely ignorant (in the true sense of the word - naive, uneducated) people might have some excuse. Even then, 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'.

Many people knew enough to do more to vet what they were being told. Those that would like to be at the lead in researching this animal need to take the lead in responsible actions to keep the public’s expectations in check, and to properly vet claims being made by anyone they associate with or represent.

All that being said, if Melba is telling the truth now, and does have competent, independent scientists analysing her data, then we still have to wait. Maybe there will be some amount of vindication. In the meantime, I think this has taught us all some valuable lessons. I know I learned a few throughout this saga. It motivated me to create some protocols that I think can help other people with physical evidence that they want to test. Richard Stubstad had reached out to me shortly before his death, asking me to take over some of his samples – to get them looked after properly. If I had known the situation he was in, I would have obliged. I hope that they get treated properly.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Tyler H

[Guest]

Great post Tyler. I respect all of you who go out and search for the unknown. I am merely a spectator and have never claimed to see/hear any evidence of a Bigfoot. And I know alot of this study was outside of the contributors control. But if someone submitted some hair or whatever to the study, they are in it. Smack dab in the middle of it.

I hope there is a mountain of potential evidence that folks held back from sending to her. Like I said in an earlier post yesterday, there is a group with a common bond now. Regroup and give the evidence to a respected member if the science community. All eyes fix on Sykes now. Good luck, but remember he went in to the study not to prove Bigfoot, but call the cryptozoologists out on their claims.

I think this study has also shown what it will take to "prove" Bigfoot exits. We have known for years what it will take. Shoot one, haul it to your local tv affiliate. Done. Sorry, but that's what needs to happen to prove one to the world.

[Guest Ishcabibble]

Derek, I seem to remember years ago you were about on the inside as you can get. Someone would have a question here and you'd respond "I'm not sure about that, let me check with Melba and I'll get back to you." and you would the next day. That's not on the edge or outside. That's in it. For guys like me that are armchair Bigfoot enthusiast types, all the submitters and groups listed in the report are part of the report. I think people are letting y'all off pretty easy for getting suckered into this thing and signing nda's with her. Those nda's are like glue keeping you from getting any distance. I appreciate those that did contribute. I understand the hours and effort you put in. We had some hope in this project, and we all hope to see the rest of Adrian's footage very soon. I would suggest those who submitted be putting the pressure on him to do so as well.

I have to respectfully disagree with you Hoosier. I may be in the minority here, but there is no reason to throw the submitters under the bus in this train wreck. I will admit, I'm making the assumption that those who submitted samples followed at least basic evidence collection protocols, but beyond that, these people collected what they think is evidence, and sent it to someone who claimed to know what they were doing. A claim which has come under serious doubt now that the paper has been released. The onus is on the authors to properly analyze and interpret the results, not the submitters.

[Guest Tyler H]

I have to respectfully disagree with you Hoosier. I may be in the minority here, but there is no reason to throw the submitters under the bus in this train wreck. I will admit, I'm making the assumption that those who submitted samples followed at least basic evidence collection protocols, but beyond that, these people collected what they think is evidence, and sent it to someone who claimed to know what they were doing. A claim which has come under serious doubt now that the paper has been released. The onus is on the authors to properly analyze and interpret the results, not the submitters.

.I realize that we still need to give this latest "scientific team analysing Melba's data" a chance before rushing to judgment... but I have to respectfully disagree with this again.

As those who have become convinced of Sasquatch's existence, we all think that "taking what the mainstream scientific community wants to feed us" is unacceptable - We challenge their assertions that this animal doesn't exist... we think for ourselves...why should we suddenly become complacent when some "saviour" scientist comes along claiming to have the 'Midas touch' of testing methods? Why shouldn't we challenge whomever we give our evidence to? If I had accepted Trent University's results at face value, and never challenged their conclusions at every step of the way when they told me it was bear, everyone here would have faulted me for 'drinking their cool-aid'. Yet now we should defend those who drank Melba's cool-aid, when it was way more far-fetched, and had way more red flags?

Potentially valuable evidence was compromised because people had their ears tickled. Contrary to the fairy tale, it's unlikley that you'll get a goose that lays a golden egg if you trade your cow for 'magic' beans.

I hate to make the comparison, and I think there are rather substantive differences, but if we adopt the reasoning that people get a pass because they were 'duped', we would also have to defend the person who claims to have been 'duped' by the Georgia body in a freezer hoax. I don't think we gave him a pass on that one.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Tyler H
per member's request

[Guest Ishcabibble]

And I have to respectfully disagree with this again. As those who have become convinced of Sasquatch's existence, we all think that "taking what the mainstream scientific community wants to feed us" is unacceptable - We challenge their assertions that this animal doesn't exist. Why should we suddenly become complacent when some "saviour" scientist comes along claiming to have the 'Midas touch' of testing methods? Why shouldn't we challenge whomever we give our evidence to? If I had accepted Trent University's results at face value, and never challenged their conclusions at every step of the way when they told me it was bear, everyone here would have faulted me for 'drinking their cool-aid'. Yet now we should defend those who drank Melba's cool-aid, when it was way more far-fetched, and had way more red flags?

I hate to make the comparison, and I think there are rather substantive differences, but if we adopt that reasoning, we would also have to defend the person who claims to have been 'duped' by the Georgia body in a freezer hoax. I don't think we give him a pass on that one.

Let's see what the new 'scientific team vetting Melba's data' have to say... but contrary to the fairy tale, it's unlikley that you'll get a goose that lays a golden egg if you trade your cow for 'magic' beans.

Tyler, I don't want to tell you what to do, but it looks like you need to find a quiet place to rest your head and sleep off your consumption. I was kinda following you until you started talking about magic beans and golden cows.

Seriously, Tyler, get a good nights sleep and then read your post again. I have been reading it for the last half hour and I can't discern any logical thought process whatsoever. I can't even figure out if you're argueing for or against the "paper".

Admins, I throw myself on the mercy of the court, but come on, Tylers post doesn't deserve some kind of ridicule?

Edited February 17, 2013 by Ishcabibble

[Guest]

Derek, I seem to remember years ago you were about on the inside as you can get. Someone would have a question here and you'd respond "I'm not sure about that, let me check with Melba and I'll get back to you." and you would the next day. That's not on the edge or outside. That's in it. For guys like me that are armchair Bigfoot enthusiast types, all the submitters and groups listed in the report are part of the report. I think people are letting y'all off pretty easy for getting suckered into this thing and signing nda's with her. Those nda's are like glue keeping you from getting any distance. I appreciate those that did contribute. I understand the hours and effort you put in. We had some hope in this project, and we all hope to see the rest of Adrian's footage very soon. I would suggest those who submitted be putting the pressure on him to do so as well.

Letting me off easy for getting suckered in? Guess I'll answer that statement first. I so appreciate you for letting me off easy. I'll make this real clear for you. I don't answer to you or anyone else here on this forum. I always try very hard to take the high road but that's just a stupid thing to say. Inflammatory, yes, sorry admin.

A lot of you here don't do field research. I do, a TON of it. We had the chance to submit samples to someone that was willing to run them. We were asked to sign NDAs, and we all did. I showed support for her from start to finish because I said I would. When I give someone my word I mean it. Those of you here that know me know this to be true. Do i agree with everything she said and did? No. Do i think she tried very hard? Yes. I very much appreciate her effort.

In the beginning everybody involved was extremely excited , and the results and information was coming hard and fast. Melba was very communicative with myself and others. Then leaks started happening and she became more guarded about what she would say and who she'd say it to. There was even a time I believe she thought I was leaking things. I wasn't. There was a period when she avoided talking to me but we got past that because she discovered who the leak was and it wasn't me. She apologized to me and we moved forward. All the while I showed support for her. My NDA is over, but that doesn't mean I'm going to join with so many others and pitch her under the bus tires. That's not in my character.

We had very high hopes for the study, and it's disappointing to watch how the release is being received. I will say this again. We had no control how the study was put out, or how the paper was structured. Our job was to gather samples and submit them. I'm not ashamed of showing her support throughout the study. If anyone want's to knock me for that then get after it. Knock away. We did our part. Oh and BTW, I can't speak for other submitters, but as far as the Olympic Project goes, we used proper technique and protocol when gathering our samples. Sterile bags and gloves, and we all gave mouth swabs.

As far as Adrian is concerned, I have nothing to do with him. One of our Olympic Project members was in Canada at a symposium with him and overheard a long conversation where he was talking a lot of crap about our organization. I confronted him about that on the phone, but that's the only time I've ever spoken to him. It's not my job or responsibility to pressure him to do anything. I'd prefer not to talk to him at all, I don't care for him or his nasty comments.

DR

[Guest Llawgoch]

.

Admins, I throw myself on the mercy of the court, but come on, Tylers post doesn't deserve some kind of ridicule?

No. It makes absolutely perfect sense to me.

I think this study has also shown what it will take to "prove" Bigfoot exits. We have known for years what it will take. Shoot one, haul it to your local tv affiliate. Done. Sorry, but that's what needs to happen to prove one to the world.

How does it show that? All it shows is you can't prove Bigfoot by testing samples that aren't Bigfoot. If someone tests some samples that are Bigfoot, it will be proved. In the unlikely event that when Ketchum actually puts her 3 'interesting' (ie not obviously human) nuDNA samples into Genbank and they're not just what you would expect from contamination or degradation, then you might have something worth looking at right there.

Ketchum's failure is not a failure of DNA testing. There are two failures (assuming the 3 nuDNA samples do not have anything worth investigating) - firstly, nobody gave her a genuine Bigfoot sample. Secondly, instead of reporting this, she wrote a nonsense paper and held the whole field up to ridicule.

Sykes is testing entirely different samples. Some of his samples might actually be Bigfoot samples. If they are, then you have proof of a new species.

Of course if nobody has managed to send a genuine Bigfoot sample to either of these studies, you have to question why.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Llawgoch

[Guest Theagenes]

From a copy of a sequence file related to Sample 26, a preliminary analysis was performed using the BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Tool) at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI).

Here is what was found:

2) some bear sequences turn up as highly significant matches

A further look at one of the bear sequences, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), provides a good illustration of the problems at hand. Only a partial sequence of the bear gene seems to be present (red type below).

Tyler,

I wanted to highlight this snippet from your earlier post, so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle, because this is very significant.

I just want to clarify that you had a specialist run the sequence for the Justin's sample that Ketchum provided as a supplement to her paper with BLAST. And when that was done, portions of that sequence were a match for bear. Is this correct?