The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

I agree with what Tyler said about our need to be way more careful in the field with samples, documentation is critical, and a full chain of custody.

I don't disagree at all that these things are VERY important. This is not the first time these issues have been discussed. These things always become critically important - when it's too late. Maybe now people in this community will start taking these things a little more seriously.

But - the problems with this paper and it's outcome - is on Melba.

Just my opinion.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Melissa

[Guest]

Agreed this is her work to straighten out ( if possible), she wrote it, and presented it and it's hers to fix. No argument from me.

edited for spelling and stiff fingers tonight!!!

Edited February 18, 2013 by doglover

[Guest Tyler H]

Tyler said:

I'm sorry. Is there an online list of DNA scientists that will work with Bigfoot Researchers? I am not aware of one. Is there a list on this forum where all the people on it have been vetted? When Melba first came on the scene she came highly recommended by others - who have been around longer than you or I. In fact - the first time I ever heard her name it was in a conversation about her project - and I was told - if I had any samples worthy of consideration by Melba's project I should first send them to Dr. Meldrum and he would forward them on to her. Now, I do not blame Dr. Meldrum for any of this - but how many people heard his name and thought, "If Dr. Meldrum is involved it must be legit"... I don't even know for a fact he was involved - I just know his name was out there.

So, I'm not sure who you want me to blame - but I sure don't and won't blame those who simply sent in samples. They trusted Melba and with no evidence or information to the contrary - why shouldn't they? Once they sent in their samples - then the problems started coming out. What were they supposed to do then? They couldn't pull out of her project.. Not everyone has the resources you and Bart have.

I agree their needs to be more due diligence within this community - but I won't blame people who have little or no knowledge of DNA analysis and those who are capable of doing such work. The responsibility for Melba's work - is on her - no one else.

No, there is no online list - that is part of my point - it's not easy. I'm a nobody. I have no scientific credentials, and I knew no one of influence prior to this incident. I had no connection to Wally or anyone with deep pockets. I simply asked what I feel were the right questions. I got faulted for that. So, I went elsewhere. I began using google (that's really all the resources anyone needs these days to get started) to find DNA testing facilities in Canada. I made a dozen or more calls and settled on 3 labs. I then vetted those 3 more thoroughly. I settled onTrent University. I'm a nobody, and they accepted my sample, and told me what they would charge. I'm not saying that every submitter is going to be up to doing all this... but in my view, anyone who calls themselves a researcher, and advises others on what to do with their samples, ought to perform at least this much effort in vetting their lab choices, and if they are ONLY open to using the one that enforces an absurdly draconian NDA, then I think other options should be looked at.

Yes, the respnosibility for her work rests with Melba. But the responsibility for resisting efforts to substantiate Melba's work may rest in more than just Melba's lap. (If her claims are proven to be bogus)

On the protocols and call to professionalism, etc and the shadow this casts, yeah probably. but, no one took BFers serious before, hard to really measure the change IMO....and Oxford already in this..and Falcon Project is a fairly high end effort....and the TV/film shows....some contribute, or not? I don't know.......

we have some serious attention

I don't want to derail on this, but must disagree with your first point. Perhaps you project your ability to read and understand fully the effect and consequences of legal documents to all researchers, as well as your level of risk aversion. IMHO unfairly, or maybe just in the spirit of let's tighten it up folks? .yeah sure..lol, we all agree I think on that...and having some "society' ....why doesn't it happen?...oh...other threads for that!...and it continues, the 'free rider' problem that plagues humanity...

Now if what you are really wanting to say is about a specific person or group's accountability in this I understand your reluctance and so you throw all the submitters in that accountable group..? Ok, that's one way... I called mine out though, and it's the three main stake holders... after that few had the means or leverage to start a study or alter the course of this one....

Re the current attention BF is getting - that is my point - some of this serious attention gives some semblance of credibility. Oxford, Meldrum, Falcon, maybe some TV efforts, etc. But then something like this derails the opportunity these credible efforts start to gain for us. 1 month ago, a promising biology student may have faced less ridicule for thinking of getting funded for Sasquatch research, then they will if Melba's claims are shown to be bogus. We could miss out on that potential reasearcher, or a potential grant. When Wally and Erickson say that millions have been spent on this effort... how quickly do you think they will open up their wallets for the next person who may want legitimate funding for a project?

I do apologize if I have projected my own perceptions of what is reasonable on to others - you are right, everyone has different strengths. Personally, when I read that NDA, it was immediately clear that the document walked a fine line as to what is even legally enforceable, and what is ridiculously selfish and tyrannical. But perhaps what I read is not what everyone read. Yes, you are right - it is more in the spirit of saying to anyone who wants to call themself a researcher "Let's do better!" If you are an "enthusiast" or just someone who had something strange happen, and now have some evidence, I get that those people don't know what to do. And that's the very reason why if they ask a seasoned researcher what to do, we have to try to make rational, careful choices in our recommendations.

Even if she is wrong or worse I don't think the efforts of the contributors should be ignored by association...or chastised really.

Except Wally, b/c he has too much money. Is he a researcher? How can one correct his choices and hold him accountable? Would you turn down his help because of his trust and generosity to MK and submitters?

EP actually seemed to have raised the alarms you suggest, (and seems oddly remote now, the footage not out), so did a few others now long gone.

Paulides ... had reputation and position (his books well done) in the community to work with, to either vet or influence in ways guys like Derek didn't...or many others.

The responsibility for the study (good or bad) here is with MK IMO and no-one can be held accountable for her behavior/results but her....and the $$ reward she did reap, and is currently reaping. It is not clear how the submitters will benefit so directly (or recover money!).

Ok...I am done. I throw in the towel. time will tell, it may all work out just fine, somehow. it's been pretty amazing here really, thanks for this forum.

I don't think Wally would say he is a researcher. He is passionate about the topic, and gets involved with worthwhile projects. He too put his trust in the recommendations of a trusted voice. Wally never resisted efforts to vet Melba anjd her claims. EP raised alarms, and then he and Melba reconciled to some extent or other. I don't know if that was due to legal threat, or due to mutual understanding or what.

Let's say I am a stock broker (researcher) and I hire an assistant (lab) and that assistant has authority to act on my behalf, and starts calling around, and starts to take liberties with my client's investments/money. Now, let's say that I am warned by some of these vendors that my assistant is up to no good. But I stay in denial, and tell everyone to back off, quit investigating my assistant, and let her do her thing. She continues to abuse her position and my clients lose money because of it. Would everyone think I was right to only blame my assistant? Or should I perhaps have been more open to the efforts of many who tried to warn me about her?

Edited February 18, 2013 by Tyler H

[Martin]

.........

I agree their needs to be more due diligence within this community - ................

How do you propose "more due diligence"?

I think the correct term would be some due diligence, a slither of due diligence or a flicker of due diligence.

and how is it going to be administered?

It would and should be much easier just to provide some tangible evidence of this creatures existence considering its proclaimed proliferation............ which doesn't seem to be happening.

[Guest]

Thanks for the response Tyler, I really do mean to let this go, generally - the whole study thing....hard though!

Let's say I am a stock broker (researcher) and I hire an assistant (technician) and that assistant has authority to act on my behalf, and starts calling around, and starts to take liberties with my client's investments/money. Now, let's say that I am warned by some of these vendors that my assistant is up to no good. But I stay in denial, and tell everyone to back off, quit investigating my assistant, and let her do her thing. She continues to abuse her position and my clients lose money because of it. Would everyone think I was right to only blame my assistant? Or should I perhaps have been more open to the efforts of many who tried to warn me about her?

Yes, well who is the broker here, not you right? Who acts on behalf of Wally's money as researcher and should be held to all the normal ethics anyone should anyway? Was it their denial or Wally's?

That is the crux of the problem, that somehow Bigfoot fever, this mythical wild chase, results in less than normal business, and often becomes a mess of delusional hopes/greed/competition/whatever...isn't it?

Or not, some say this problem of fiduciary duty lays in everyday exchanges too... I think so.

i think you can/have contribute(d)/lead in ethics, commitment, intelligence, passion, and Candianness...so I wiil be listening.....good stuff!

Edited February 18, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

sorry this comment removed b/c the above one finally showed up....so redundant!

oh well..what the heck..

It really does fall on Wally to keep his broker accountable, and how does he measure researchers (unlike that P&L brokers provide)?

MK is a licensed professional, who routinely handles client money, more is expected of her than the amateur. Just like more is expected of PhD's like.Meldrum.

So, who does Wally listen to?

isn't that what a lot of arguing has been about over the years? His money and who gets it?

I think Wally is capable of policing how he spends it, maybe not,. Did RL say he was 80 or something? Not that that it matters...

Anyway...I am really signing off now...!

.

Edited February 18, 2013 by apehuman

[southernyahoo]

I do apologize if I have projected my own perceptions of what is reasonable on to others - you are right, everyone has different strengths. Personally, when I read that NDA, it was immediately clear that the document walked a fine line as to what is even legally enforceable, and what is ridiculously selfish and tyrannical. But perhaps what I read is not what everyone read. Yes, you are right - it is more in the spirit of saying to anyone who wants to call themself a researcher "Let's do better!" If you are an "enthusiast" or just someone who had something strange happen, and now have some evidence, I get that those people don't know what to do. And that's the very reason why if they ask a seasoned researcher what to do, we have to try to make rational, careful choices in our recommendations.

I'll tell you what I thought about the NDA. I knew when I signed it I was signing on with a "study" not a paid for "testing" of a single sample. I knew I didn't have the funds to pay for the level of testing my sample would need "if it was from BF". The result of "human" was all too common, and if it wasn't even primate, I felt Ketchums lab and other's would catch that fact, and call no joy. With her blinded labs responding to her with questions about what the samples were because the data wouldn't blast in genbank, I figure the issue of getting the ID of the samples right, doesn't fall solely on her.

[Guest]

With her blinded labs responding to her with questions about what the samples were because the data wouldn't blast in genbank, I figure the issue of getting the ID of the samples right, doesn't fall solely on her.

And this is why I personally don't see why we should be blaming the submitters. Of course they supported the study - we all did by arguing that it had to be judged on its merits. Just because we are now unhappy with those merits doesn't mean we were misguided in waiting to make that judgement.

Has anyone even looked at the described morphology of the samples?

Bingo, yes I did a bit, and that is a section I'd like to hear a bit more discussion on.

Leave aside the DNA arguments for now - what did the paper reveal about suspected Ssq hair morphology (apparently they were pretty confident by the end of the study in being able to identify it on sight alone, to send for further testing). How do the characteristics identified compare to those previously highlighted, such as Fahrenbach's analysis on hair morphology.

IF this part of the study was done right and well, it could be useful for those out in the field working on getting the next round of samples for the next DNA study...

[Guest]

^^^ I would like to know more about the hair issue as well. I also am curious to know how a 'bear' sample which was screened first by such methods made into the DNA testing in the first place.

[Guest]

And this is why I personally don't see why we should be blaming the submitters. Of course they supported the study - we all did by arguing that it had to be judged on its merits. Just because we are now unhappy with those merits doesn't mean we were misguided in waiting to make that judgement.

Don't count me in as a supporter. I've been arguing about all the red flags for a year now. When ever I asked a question or brought up a discrepancy with Melba I would get attacked, called names and most people on this forum turned a blind eye to the obvious problems that were showing up with her study.

[gotafeeling]

Who are the people MK names on her fb page just now?

Nevermind - googling names right now. Swenson must be one of the scientists she was having take a look.

Edited February 18, 2013 by gotafeeling

[Guest]

David H. Swenson

8 hours ago

Brien Foerster, Jeff Kart, and other interested parties. I went over the manuscript by Melba Ketchum on Bigfoot genomics. My desktop had difficulty with a blast analysis of the consensus sequences. It helped me understand more about the project. This collaborative venture has done a huge project that taxes me to fully grasp. I see interesting homology with a standard human sequence with 99% match for mitochondria. From my abbreviated study, the nuclear genome seems to have human and nonhuman sequences.

My opinion of the creature is that it is a hybrid of a human mother and an unknown hominid male, Just as reported. For all practical purposes, it should be treated as human and protected under law.

Brien, selection of Melba's lab for your studies is a very good call.

Sasquatch is real, as proven by genetic analysis.

[Guest Scout1959]

http://greenresourcesredux.com/

His company website

[Guest]

http://greenresourcesredux.com/

His company website

Check out the other two names in the Facebook post.

Oh, thus far MK explanations (on C2C) of the other testing facilities "backing" off seems reasonable.

Edited February 18, 2013 by treadstone

[Guest]

Hello Tyler,

You said:

No, there is no online list - that is part of my point - it's not easy. I'm a nobody. I have no scientific credentials, and I knew no one of influence prior to this incident. I had no connection to Wally or anyone with deep pockets. I simply asked what I feel were the right questions. I got faulted for that. So, I went elsewhere. I began using google (that's really all the resources anyone needs these days to get started) to find DNA testing facilities in Canada. I made a dozen or more calls and settled on 3 labs. I then vetted those 3 more thoroughly. I settled onTrent University. I'm a nobody, and they accepted my sample, and told me what they would charge. I'm not saying that every submitter is going to be up to doing all this... but in my view, anyone who calls themselves a researcher, and advises others on what to do with their samples, ought to perform at least this much effort in vetting their lab choices, and if they are ONLY open to using the one that enforces an absurdly draconian NDA, then I think other options should be looked at.

Yes, the respnosibility for her work rests with Melba. But the responsibility for resisting efforts to substantiate Melba's work may rest in more than just Melba's lap. (If her claims are proven to be bogus)

You know what - you are absolutely right - there is not even a list within this community for researchers to refer to now. And the sad part is there have been questions about this study for a very long time and yet I bet people still sent in samples. Problem being - people in this community will believe who they want to believe and I don't know how we can fix that. I go to friends all the time for advice on how to handle a situation - they give me their best advice and opinion. I would hate to think I could not do that anymore myself - without being called on the carpet. Also, not everyone is as comfortable with doing the kind of research you and I are. I am grateful I could go to Bart and others to get good advice on where to send DNA evidence to. If I were new to this community right now - I would be terrified wondering who can I trust for advice about the confusing world of DNA analysis.

Well I have seen 1 page NDA's be called Draconian. LOL. If a researcher is contracting with a lab for testing - there should be no NDA. I am fairly certain the only reason why Melba had people sign NDA's was to try and protect her study information from getting out - which I don't see as unusual based on her situation. Would I sign a document like that? No way.

In all honesty what I think happened here is Melba announced she was doing this study - and people could submit samples at no cost. They heard that - and it was game on. I think many simply seen this as an opportunity to get their samples tested. I know a few who did not even consider the ramifications of being involved in this study... Good or bad.

You're a good guy Tyler and I respect and admire what you did trying to help Justin. I really do. You and Bart went above and beyond - but that is what a good researcher does. I sense your frustration - and I would never take that away from you - as I think you have every right to feel what your feeling. I understand it - I just don't know what we can do.

We can make up a list - but will anyone pay attention? I would hope so - but I don't know...