The Ketchum Report

[Guest mitchw]

A link to YouTube for the interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LOnLTeuCCY

[Guest]

Thanks Christopher, helpful .

[Guest]

Yes in the introduction there is a graphic with four rotating images. One is a triptic of a structure along with a hair trap inside the structure.

Great googley moogley.. Cool thanks.

[Guest]

Some highlights from Melba's appearance on C2C:

*Bryan Sykes has requested to speak with her.

I find it incredible they haven't spoken. She should have contacted him the minute she heard he would be testing. Requested to speak with her? Shouldn't this read differently? Is she that insulated Sykes can't reach her? wow..

Thanks Violet for the link to the show - plussed...and yes I lied, I woke up wondering how it went and came here..lol ...hard to move on when so many had so much hope so long!

Edited February 18, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

Exactly

There are many convicted felons doing looooooooong sentences based upon DNA hits in the national law enforcement computer bank from DNA recovered years ago. Sure you can argue contamination, but not for all samples and all blind tests which all came to the same conclusion.

What Ketchum is attempting to do is far more complicated than comparing and matching the DNA of one human to another.

[Guest]

Silent Sam said:

I'm afraid to ask, but did she include photos of said structures in the woods? I see she has a picture of a horse with a braided mane on the website (or she did a couple days ago)..

Yep, still there. https://sasquatchgen...ave-been-up-to/

Wow, just wow.

Those horse mane knots are very common for horses to get, caused by wind, rolling around on ground etc.

It would take multiple modern humans with tools to replicate the kind of arches made by just one large, unaided Sasquatch.

To make a statement such as this, with such certainty, a scientist such as Ketchum must have lots of data supporting it, right? Surely it could not all be conjecture?

[Guest]

Hi All,

I have not yet listened to the C2C interview, but noticed one quote from HODS that she mentioned the single stranded DNA could be a result of the "hybridization process". Did she provide a reference for this? Single stranded DNA that is not undergoing repair/replication can not be propagated in cells (cells could not properly divide).

There may be some data in the manuscript that could be valid, the hair analysis and the mtDNA work. The hair work points to unknown, the mtDNA to modern human. The nuclear DNA stuff is what I have issues with. The sequences that align in GenBank come back as human, pointing to human. The unknown points to unknown. If it were not so dis-similar to human, I would have a less hard time to understand this.

A close relative to a known species should have similar DNA - that is just how it works. Something so different may be BF, but I don't think this means it is a Hs sub-species. The raw nuclear data may be fine - but the processed analysis that has been put forward does have issues.

There are a number of things that makes me suspicious of their generation of their contigs and supercontigs. This is not the raw data! It is a stuck together composition, that they used a human chromosome 11 as a template. Yet it is not very homologous to the template! Perhaps the raw data was reproduced in independent labs. In the end the data is the data, and if there is no contamination and it was properly assembled, and verified and reproduced, I will happily accept the result (although I will be scratching my head). But again, if the results hold true, still do not know why they are calling this HS.

I want this all to be correct as I would love to work with BF DNA and cell lines in the future, but with what has been put forward, I can not buy it (although I did shell out 30 bucks for the opportunity to read this work). The authors can put forth as many expert "peer" reviews as they like (this in it self does not make something true), but when I can analyze the data myself, and come to the same conclusions, is when I will accept this. Let the debate continue!

[Guest]

They've got electron microscopy images showing both single and double strands in the nuDNA. Yes, this is unprecedented (except many viruses have single-stranded DNA), but do you know that it is therefore impossible, ridgerunner?

[Guest]

^the immediate reaction of geneticists to this single/double strand Chris was contamination....but it is what DP and others seem to allude to as novel (or out of this world)...and that will take someone else to replicate or disprove is my understanding.....?

Those in the field who sent in some samples are pretty certain it's from a BF...JC Johnson's vid comes to mind and a few others, and the hairs also collected from traps.....the provenance as good as it gets really in the BF field.....so we know the BF DNA is in there somewhere...

listening to C2C info on the Journal....she should just produce proof of the passed peer reviews......is there? ahh.....

ok going back to this show

Edited February 18, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

They've got electron microscopy images showing both single and double strands in the nuDNA. Yes, this is unprecedented (except many viruses have single-stranded DNA), but do you know that it is therefore impossible, ridgerunner?

Impossible, no, I would never say impossible. Highly improbable, yes. It could be viral DNA (which would not be BF nuclear DNA), or RNA (looking at their methods, they do not indicate RNase treatment to remove RNA). An artifact from the sample being heated up to "melt" the DNA then cooled rapidly, forming mis-aligned double stranded/single stranded DNA, but again not natural or even relevant to BF. I don't know more that what they report in their findings and their methods. But it is not viable (cells can not divide with ssDNA).

[Guest]

Here is a professional biochemist, that does not believe the paper needs to be "Salvaged" because the analysis is correct.

Lately all we have heard from is the critics and their list of scientist that say the DNA Study is "bunk". Dr. Ketchum has posted a statement in support of the DNA Study from a scientist with credentials that rival the studiescritics. David H. Swenson, Ph.D. who is a Biochemist and has over 39 journal publications to his credit. (Click here to read his resume)

Below is his statement:

David H. Swenson

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.

It appears Dr. Ketchum has made her raw genome data available to Dr. Swenson and he was able to confirm her findings. I am afraid we are now entering the "debate" phase of the study. We are going to have Geneticist and Scientist review her data and publish conflicting opinions on what the data means. But, this was the ultimate goal, to get legitimate scientist to take a hard look at the DNA and Bigfoot as a living, breathing, biological entity.

posted on : http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/

Edited February 18, 2013 by zigoapex

[Drew]

They've got electron microscopy images showing both single and double strands in the nuDNA. Yes, this is unprecedented (except many viruses have single-stranded DNA), but do you know that it is therefore impossible, ridgerunner?

It is absolutely impossible if the creature is a hybrid of a human.

[Cotter]

@zigo - interesting now how the contributors are coming forward, putting THEIR reputation on the line.

Interesting development.

[Guest]

Here is a professional biochemist, that does not believe the paper needs to be "Salvaged" because the analysis is correct.

Lately all we have heard from is the critics and their list of scientist that say the DNA Study is "bunk". Dr. Ketchum has posted a statement in support of the DNA Study from a scientist with credentials that rival the studiescritics. David H. Swenson, Ph.D. who is a Biochemist and has over 39 journal publications to his credit. (Click here to read his resume)

Below is his statement:

David H. Swenson

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.

It appears Dr. Ketchum has made her raw genome data available to Dr. Swenson and he was able to confirm her findings. I am afraid we are now entering the "debate" phase of the study. We are going to have Geneticist and Scientist review her data and publish conflicting opinions on what the data means. But, this was the ultimate goal, to get legitimate scientist to take a hard look at the DNA and Bigfoot as a living, breathing, biological entity.

posted on : http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/

yeah that is!

regardless of the ultimate science/dna we know BFs are real, whether she is spot on or not, there are those looking now that never did before. And the conventional wisdom of BF witness numbers and BF signs, etc do seem to be coming forward in a way not before?

Just wish the process/track was less messy....

Listening now to strong statements of personal witness...and pitch for protection, hands off....who can argue with those?

so for those that do listen to C2C (or BF forums) is it coming off persuasive? I imagine so,.

But it's that larger media audience that must be won.. Huffington Post would be a start.....

Perhaps the problem is she has tried to put her arms around too many disciplines in one paper...and her efforts...today science is so specialized...so this could be ground breaking in some ways, but maybe more of a general overview, hey wake up guys paper.

Whether it is cited to, and the Journal, going forward among those who do elect to study BFs will be the real test. That will take years to reveal..

now pitches of her Journal..with a "real editorial staff..."... so, we'll see! not ready to tell my family and friends..

witness call ins now..and signing off here.. Too bad this isn't an NPR Ira Science Friday interview! maybe one day...

Edited February 18, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest Tyler H]

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.

My last attempt at answering all these posts crashed - this one may be more brief. the site is really bogged down, and I can't spare the time to do this again.

Due diligence will vary by circumstance/incident. No one can write an exhaustive list of what it will entail. But if we want to wear the title of "researcher" then we must research, and if we want the title of "investigator" we must investigate. Otherwise, if we just place blind trust in people, we must stick with "enthusiast" and not try to control or direct the actions of others.

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.

Again, it's possible that the iteration of the NDA that I saw, was not the iteration that all submitters saw.

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.

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.

I don't mean to paint all submitters with the same brush. But if any submitter tried to disuade other people from doing due diligence, or from getting secondary test sources, then I don't think they acted appropriately or responsibly.

Again, I can only comment on Justin's sample - for that one, Fahrenbach and Meldrum and another hair expert phd all said it was not consistent with primate.

Hello Tyler,

...

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.

Thanks Melissa

Sykes did the same thing (advertised a free study)... but he didn't try to say he would hold all rights to all information related to anything that came from his efforts, and woule heretofor rule all of Squatchdom... as far as I know. And again, perhaps the Melba NDA I saw was more controlling than others.

This is make or break week for the Ketchum project. It'll either get news coverage and some credible genetic community backing, or it'll fizzle into a non story by next weekend. Whoever has contact with her, please bend her ear to listen. Release all the pics, emails, etc you can while the opinion is still open. If you wait much longer the calls of faking them will increase. Especially from the EP! If it is as good as claimed. Maybe Erickson is a hoax?!

I don't think Ericson is a hoax. I do think it is conceivable that he was hoaxed.

Hoosierfoot: "This is make or break week for the Ketchum project. It'll either get news coverage and some credible genetic community backing, or it'll fizzle into a non story by next weekend."

And then it will instantly and explosively UNfizzle the moment it is confirmed by an outside authority, whether that's two weeks from now, two months, or longer.

And yes, this is an excellent post by Scott Carpenter: http://bf-field-jour...study.html#more

Christopher, I'm sorry but some things said in this article need correction:

It says "So the assertion by the critics is these labs contaminated the samples"

No, one assertion is that there WAS contamination - not that these labs created it.

It claims that there were fantastic efforts at preventing contamination. THat may be true for some of you, but not for all samples. Regardless, even forensic labs where people wear masks and hair nets, and gloves, still have contamination issues. And with the illumina testing system's sensitivity, merely breathing near the sample may be enough to contaminate it.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Tyler H