The Ketchum Report

[Guest njjohn]

Most of the negative views say the results suggest contamination or degradation. If the quality results from the blind studies like University of Texas Southwest are coming back higher than average, and take away the degradation possibility and the same with the contamination issues, what would your view be then? I'm not saying to toss out your current views, but what would your view of the results be if you could eliminate those as reasons for the results?

[Guest]

Difference being --- DNA in humans, the collection and testing is proven. Not for bigfoot. There is no way the case could be made for bigfoot in a court of law based on a blood sample and video - using Melba Ketchum's study - at least not yet - and any prosecutor or defense attorney would NEED her science to be sound.

There is opinions on both sides of the fence so that's your opinion it's not sound, not fact.

[Guest]

Somewhere in one of these 700+ pages I mentioned that proving Bigfoot is exactly like proving someone guilty in a court if law. Let's say a guy robs a bank and fights to get away and stabs someone. We have the blood of a victim. We have the robbers blood mixed in too. Would a prosecuter go to make the case solely on that DNA evidence? Heck no! Get the surveillance tape and it's case closed. Same here. "here is some DNA and here is a vid taken at the same spot we collected the hair or blood or whatever. This tape shows an upright huge hairy being. The hair in that being matches the hair in this sample." See what I mean? I thought that was the point of her and Erickson tying each other up here. Make it a 1-2 punch that science can't ignore. We got the 1-? Where is the 2?

The 2 would be very helpful indeed. The analogy you make works only if the DNA from the robber is MATCHED to someone. There may be BF DNA, but there is nothing to compare it to, no reference. As we are not trying to identify an one individual out of many, as in the case above, but to identify a species, I would think modern human could be a reference point for the BF sequence. As I have stated perviously, if it was able to produce a viable offspring, it would have to be highly related. The unknown DNA should be coming up as human in blast, possibly with a good number of variations. I would expect it to be different yet similar (say 99%).

In reading the paper, do you feel you could replicate what was done to obtain the novel raw data?

There is the facility to do this where I am working, but I have not undertaken this type of work personally. If the raw data were available, I would probably take a stab at this, or solicit help from someone who has a better understanding of the software. That said, from what I have read in the paper, it would be difficult to replicate their analysis, as it is not well stated exactly how they did their generation and analysis of their contigs.

[Guest]

There is opinions on both sides of the fence so that's your opinion it's not sound, not fact.

Really? Do you know what it takes for DNA to be introduced into a court of law - and used as evidence?? I am thinking you do not. So, at this point in time - what I said - IS fact.

No worries - I didn't take it personally.

[Guest]

My notes from recording the C2C show last night.….as near as possible word for word from Ketchum.

1. She thought it would be a piece of cake because the science was good on getting the paper published. She didn’t realized how naive she was.

2. She says that she found a young journal that was leaning towards next generation sequencing. She says the editor of the journal (prior to acquisition by her) sent out the paper for peer review to those who were doing next generation sequencing. She got passing reviews (with revisions) and she was then told that the journal would be published. She had no idea who the peer reviewers were. Then just before she was going live with it, she gets an email from the editor. The editor says his lawyer doesn’t want him publishing this. The lawyer even says within the email to the editor that he will “quit†him if the editor goes ahead and publishes the paper. Also he was scared so bad it would ruin his career. (not positive if she is referring to editor or lawyer). So he back out….then she made acquisitions for the journal as she didn’t want the peer reviews to be lost. She didn’t want to take what she says another two years to get published or wait another five years to go through 100 journals that would be fair.

3. The people from the journal help to make changes to the new journal and get it up and running so she could get the paper out. She says that there are still some changes that need to be done to the journal.

4. She has nothing to do with the publishing. And again she says that the previous people on the journal help her get this new journal up and running.

5. The host of C2C says that MK was hoping that the subject, even if all the i’s were not doted, t’s not crossed or MK not writing the paper that they (they – not clarified) would take a look at the paper and publish it, put it out there so people would evaluate it. He goes on to say that he has read what MK has sent him on the give and take of the paper between MK and the different journals and it’s outrageous. It was from his understanding that some of the complaints were from people who had not even read the paper. She agreed, and said it happen multiple times. She says that one journal ask her to start from the beginning again, make the changes they requested, document the change requests then send it back to them….and it also was by this journal (not hers) ask to get at least one gene-o and she says her team got three (3) from the same species and when they pulled the mitochondrial out and it was same mitochondrial sequences that they had done individually prior to the whole gen-o. She says it was definite proof and when they sent it back, they (journal) wouldn’t even view it. She mentions something about three (3) others (implications of same) of not viewing the revisions.

6. The host says that within the paper that results are consistent, reproducible and novel.

7. The host then asks for details of how the process was done. MK says there were two labs that extracted the samples, the samples were washed, they did all the normal technique, they clean the samples for contamination and there was none. They then went and screen for species with some sort of primers, where it would make any animal show up…even human. She then says all their samples came back human, and this was after all the hair samples had been look at by a forensic hair specialists that does primary human, but also animal. This specialists said the samples were novel, it was not human hair, and it didn’t match any of animals known that he had tested against.

8. ...So she goes on and forwards and outsources because she knew she had good clean DNA and knew she would have a problem if only one or two labs did work. None of the samples that were sent out to these labs were told what the samples were of. She mentions sending out samples that do mitochondrial DNA trees. They got 20 whole gene-o’s, 10 partial gene-o’s and the rest of the samples they just screened because when you get that many samples, it pretty much tells the story. Non-human hair giving human sequence, and she has some none hair samples in with the batch. After getting the results she says the hairs didn’t look human so they went after the nuclear DNA. Then they started getting some “strange†results, talking about weird looking bands and different sizes. She then gets an email from the lab doing the nuclear testing (normal mito was also outsource to same lab) that says that got a really weird fragment, that it isn’t as long as it should be, it’s like 490 some bases..and they was suppose to get 500+ bases. That lab (and she refer’s to the person doing the testing as “sheâ€) blasted it in GenBank (short description of what GenBank is) and it didn’t come out matching anything that has been put into GenBank out of millions of sequences. Then the person wants to know what it was that was sent to them for testing, as they didn’t know what it is…..have you discovered a new species? MK has all this in an email. Mk says she finally had to tell them what they were testing….and none of the labs like it. She says the lab that does the family tree was the only one who was nice about it. She says that one threaten them if MK used their name, so they wasn’t able to publish the name of the lab…and when the lab(s) found out, none of them would take the money for the testing. She says something about getting their pictures out of it, but that was it.

9. MK says she shopped around for accredited labs that had good reputations. They were university labs, state crime labs. She then seems to spill the beans and says Texas A&M backup the results of the lab that she wasn’t able to use the name of. And Texas A&M saw the same strangeness the other lab did.

10. The host and Mk then start talking about the physical appearance of the hair, that it looks animal but has human DNA in it.

11. Next the host goes into the 16 types (assuming he is talking about collected specimens) as he says something about them not all being from the same area. After listening further she goes into the “tree†structure of mitro DNA. Talks about the land bridge, Asia, etc.

12. After commercial break there is talk about this David Paulisits (sp) and his folks help in finding some specimens for testing. Also was mention that the collectors DNA was taken, including DNA from all the lab individuals so they could rule out contamination by the personnel involved.

13. Samples were taken from I witnesses or control areas (Erickson is mentioned where it was being over seen by a wildlife PhD). She goes on and says about using gloves, etc….and paper plates that had sandpaper on it to pickup extra cells. They then would put the paper plate in Tupperware where a hand had to be used to open it. After subject raid the Tupperware, the paper plate would be collected and put in a cooler. It was mention by MK that the subjects (betting the Kentucky area) were not over fearful of the humans watching them…or it was so implied…and was getting use to being fed.

14. The Madelia film is mentioned and is mention as “sample 37â€. No further mention has to when any additional footage would be released.

15. Next is the Sierra killings and about who lied concerning the samples. MK goes into details that her sample that is not dried looking, and is pretty fresh meat on it (muscle tissue on it) and subcutaneous tissue on it and that they turned it up to show the hair side and the flesh side of it. Some talk about the undercoat. One of the complaints was the sample was degraded. She says they even used her blood to test to see how degraded tests would look like. Some sort of high-futing (histopathology) test was done and all the tests showed no bacteria and the cells were all intact. She says the samples were pristine.

Then there is mention of a certain blogger ….and the lie†about the “meat’ …..bear… (my term-not hers) sample that was sent to Canada (says something about the pictures of said samples) and that the DNA is different and thus is a different sample. (If I understood correctly, this specimen was the same as MK had- but something doesn’t add up because of >)If it had been the same sample the DNA would have been the same, “she said.†There is talk about taking just 6-7 months to get the results of just a small amount of the DNA (she name the specific type) She talks about the pictures and that you can see the undercoat of the sample sent to Canada. (Off hand- it sounds from my point of view, as lame as it is….there was a switch)

Her opinion is that someone got worried….perhaps...about the repercussions about the creature being almost human. It is the opinion of this writer, she was referring to….well best that I can tell, not the shooter.

16. The host gets back into the GenBank and that it didn’t match anything else. MK says they could keep them or blasted in Gen Bank though the whole paper (individuals and mitochondrial) and got 2.7 million bases. She says she attempted to do (verification to email sent to host of C2C) so with GenBank and ask the host to verify the emails that were sent were GenBank didn’t want it to go into it. MK says when a paper is being submitted that this deposit into GenBank is a rule for other scientists can use the data. GenBank. At first Genbank refused, then came back (documented by emails) If it was to be put in, then MK had to put human as the source, and if you do, you HAVE TO HAVE SIGNED WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE DONOR…..and Mk says good look in getting Sasquatch to signed their DNA over! They also had a couple of other rules in there, of which they couldn’t do…no mention of what these rules were.

The host says you just can’t put these in Gen Bank blind. MK agrees and says that you have fill out all sorts of information on the specimens. When GenBank found out what the subject was….she implies that they said no way Jesus…and if they didn’t then they would have to put it in the paper….which we know she did.

The host acknowledges the whole paper trail of these problems, etc, etc. That MK sent to the host of C2C. And he says he hopes that MK will put out that paper trail for the rest of us curious, nail biting, paranoid and fearful of a hoax types. (Them there are my words)

17. Next up is the breeding of the species as too how the hybrid was produced. Not much really of interest…IMO. She talks about the famous 1800 story about Zana? I guess the female BF who did the mumbo-jumbo with male humans and produced some viable offspring. This was talk about in the chat room last night. This discussing someone can come forth and give more details about, perhaps!

18. She mentions of other scientists now coming forward and taking a hard look at the paper, and is willing to help get the info into GenBank, even though it is in the paper now. She mentions she has the whole thing in a text file.

19. She says it takes a whole year to analysis a whole gen-o.

20. Now their back into the video for having supporting evidence alone side of the DNA from a critic. MK goes into how the critics still would not be satisfied and would scream of hoax. That the answer is in the DNA as it can’t be faked, she says.

21. Then there was talk about the quality score of the next generations of sequencing and she talks about talking to the supervisors of the machine used and possible contamination of the specimens. Those people said sequences should be above 80 and MK’s were above 88 and better, which is considerable to be “outstanding†scores for quality.

22. NOTE: I had a technical difficulty with my recording the show through my Smartphone. I unknowing was not recording for a period of time.

23. It picks up about if the specimens were not mention to the labs as being suspected Bigfoot, there wouldn’t have been such uproar.

24. Talk now about the Bigfoot communities in that some are having fits over the evidence as not being an “apeâ€. She says she has had threats made upon her. It is hope that now that the paper is out that someone else will pickup the baton and continues on and mentions studies other than DNA on Bigfoot taking place She says her research will still continue and that she has see at least three Bigfoot’s herself.

25. She makes a reference to protection of the species…..from us. Especially the “trophy huntersâ€.

26. At some point the paper will be made available for free… at some point. The journal does have an editor. The journal is hoping to provide those that want to publish papers for peer review to have an easier route to take, not like the bias one MK had to go through.

….that’s about the best I can give of what I recorded

[Guest Thepattywagon]

Plussed ya for that effort, Treadstone!

[Guest]

I plussed also treadstone - and thinking you have summarized a deposition once or twice?!

[Guest]

Really? Do you know what it takes for DNA to be introduced into a court of law - and used as evidence?? I am thinking you do not. So, at this point in time - what I said - IS fact.

No worries - I didn't take it personally.

not talking about the law, referring to you saying it's not sound, AGAIN that's your opinion, it's not a fact, And i'm not worried in the least

treadstone good read +

Edited February 18, 2013 by zigoapex

[Guest]

I've posted a short version, thinking we can link it to people who might be interested but don't have as much patience as we die-hards.

And this version might be more digestible by media outlets.

[Guest]

My above analogy was not for it to be Bigfoot in a courtroom. I'm just saying do you think when a prosecutor or ambulance chaser goes into a courtroom with solid DNA evidence against someone, do they have the "stones" to just use that alone as proof? No. They make a well prepared case. DNA AND video evidence, plus an eyewitness who has passed a lie detector plus a reason why someone would commit an act. Melba should have unloaded this DNA paper and at the same time had Erickson video plus the researchers on media outlets stating how they captured the video and hairs. The reason would be they baited them in with food etc. A well prepared and executed case is the difference here. This has not been executed with any plan to tie the evidence together. And the longer the wait until video accompanies the DNA, the more foul cries of hoax will happen. Lets say a hoaxer is fairly new and hears this study last week. "glass was glued to a plate to collect blood". How hard would it be to put food on a plate, get a costume and film your buddy as he comes up and takes an apple or pancake or whatever off the plate? Maybe he growls when he grabs it to simulate a cut finger? And film it in low light also. It would hit 50,000 YouTube views and the dorks would claim success! By waiting on the EP, she is opening herself up to this situation. That's why i have been hammering the point the past few days. The time is now! This week for sure! Even today?! Get it done folks before you miss your shot.

[Guest mitchw]

Yeoman's work, Treadstone. On the 'text file,' MK gave me the impression that this format allowed for her data to be checked out by the people looking at the paper now. Pluses for the your summary.

[Guest]

not talking about the law, referring to you saying it's not sound, AGAIN that's your opinion, it's not a fact, And i'm not worried in the least

treadstone good read +

Maybe you should go back and read what I posted again. There are different standards between science and the law for what passes as "evidence". Science can go along with the - possibility and discuss and debate it- but in a court of law there is little to no wiggle room for possibilities - especially when you are dealing with things like DNA. It's either accepted proven science - or it is not. I would love to see this argued in a court of law though - as part of "expert testimony".. It would be interesting to watch.

[Guest TwilightZone]

If there is such a question of videos and photos not being believable, why show that uninspiring snippet of a video at all? I wish the host of C2C would have asked her why there is no shot of the face, feet or hands and see what she says about that. Maybe the Chewbacca mask looked too silly in direct lighting upon further review.

[Guest Check]

@treadstone thanks so much! I listened to the full interview, and can attest to your review being absolutely complete. Appreciate the effort.

[MIB]

If there is such a question of videos and photos not being believable, why show that uninspiring snippet of a video at all? I wish the host of C2C would have asked her why there is no shot of the face, feet or hands and see what she says about that. Maybe the Chewbacca mask looked too silly in direct lighting upon further review.

How many times does that have to be answered?

The video is property of the Ericksen Project. Dr Ketchum only has permission to use that 16-19 second clip. I don't know if she has the rest, but if she does, she doesn't have rights to release it.

I'm as interested to see it as you are, but she's not the person to harangue to "force" release of it. You might as well be arguing with a tax collector about your parking ticket.

MIB