Dr. Melba Ketchum Schedule To Speak About Sasquatch Dna On October 1, 2011

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Ballpark: If the sequencing of the sample mtDNA shows greater than 120 base pairs different from human, and yet not a known animal, then you have something.

Hi

But what are the chances of that really happening ~ ?

Tim

[Guest]

Hi

But what are the chances of that really happening ~ ?

Tim

As much chance as any at this point I think.

What else can this be?

We know BF is real, but where does it fit into science or the animal kingdom?

That's whats going to be amazing to discover..

[Guest Nalajr]

Hey all,

Like many of you I have looked in from time to time about the "study" and listened to a couple of podcasts about it. I have heard MANY times that it is due, in the process, out for review and so on. I don't think I have ever heard anyone mention exactly WHAT JOURNAL this is going to appear in. Can someone post that information or is that TOP SECRET and subject to the famous NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT too?

One of the questions I have always had since hearing of this is why whomever is behind it would pick Dr. Ketchum. I am NOT commenting on her credentials, ability, methods or anything else. In MY MIND if I were trying to prove that SASSY was real and wanted the world to recognize and accept it, and I had the EVIDENCE that would lead to DNA findings in hand, I would go to the BIGGEST Sassy Skeptic I could possibly find with credentials that are above reproach. Someone that the media or other detractors couldn't even begin to level charges of any kind against.

Look at the hurdle you have to overcome BEFORE ANY SCIENCE COMES INTO THE PICTURE.

Nalajr

[Guest parnassus]

Hi

But what are the chances of that really happening ~ ?

Tim

I don't understand your question. The chances of that happening are roughly the same as the chances that bigfoot is a non-human primate. That is, if it exists, its mtDNA will have at least 120 base pairs different from human.

If bigfoot is a non-human primate, then its mtDNA has been mutating independently of human mtDNA for thousands of generations. voila. lots of differences. Chimp mtDNA is different by some 200 base pairs.

Edited October 9, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest]

Thank you Parn, I love an explanatory post that helps me learn something as you just posted.

Thank you and if possible, please keep it up because I love learning new things, and you are a go too guy to learn stuff from..

[Guest parnassus]

Thanks Parn. It is much appreciated.

I have read Stubstad's webpage http://www.footprintsinyourmind.com/Richard_Stubstad and I don't understand all of what he is doing, largely because he doesn't tell us which mtDNA locations show mutations and he doesn't give a source (that I noticed) for his numbers. However, I will give you a short synopsis.

There are two specimens under discussion. The Arizona toenail and the paperplate "something." I will refer to them as AT and PP. They were supposedly collected by unrelated groups in different locations; this might be of some marginal importance if it were verified but I don't take anyone's "assurances" on it.

AT: Weird old guy has some sort of cabin off in the boonies and sounds like he gets visited by a bear, but he thinks it might be a bigfoot. He finds a toenail but it has no relationship to bigfoot tracks. AT is supposedly the size of human toenail but "dark," as if that were somehow suspicious. Duh. Wow. Ever drop something on your toe and have it turn black and then later fall off? So the old guy picks up the toenail (??!!) and gives it to.... Biscardi!!??....dum de dum dum......

I don't know anything about PP but it looks like fresh bloody something. Supposedly from another part of the country. Supposedly nothing to do with Biscardi. ??

Well, all that aside.

According to Studstad's figure, the two mtDNAs are human, (and they are) and differ by "5 or less" base pairs. He doesn't tell us what mutations these are, which muddies the water a little bit. But that is probably insignificant. He says that means that there is only a 1.9% chance that this degree of similarity of mtDNA's could be explained by chance. Now, in the first place, what would it mean if Stubstad were correct (he isn't, but what would it mean if he were correct)? It would pretty much mean that it there is a possibility (not proven) that either:

a: the source organisms were related, or

b: there was another non-random reason for these two samples getting to Ketchum's lab (you can fill in the word "hoax" here.)

Now here is where the issue of the "unrelated groups/widely different locations" comes into play. Stubstad tries to minimize the possibility of "b" by just sort of giving assurances. (Let's not discuss his assurances further because it doesn't matter anyway.)

So if "b" is not the case, Stubstad thinks, then we are left with "a" as the most likely explanation. To extend Studstad's "logic": if the two donors were "related," then they are probably bigfoots. Somewhere in there Stubstad makes some reference to possible nuDNA sequencing, hybrids, glacial survivors, and god knows what, as if somehow they held some yet-to-be-explained potential to suddenly turn this run of the mill humans into bigfoot.

What?

See, that doesn't make sense. If you have two organisms with human mtDNA who are, by chance, distant cousins or something, how does that make them bigfoots? why are they not humans who turn out to be distant cousins?

You see, it doesn't make much sense even if you buy his whole schtick up to that point.

However, Stubstad's schtick, his math, is not correct up to that point.

He misses badly in his assessment of the chance of two humans differing by 5 or less basepairs, by chance. He doesn't tell us how he came up with that number, but I, unlike Stubstad, am willing and able to show you the real numbers.

If you look at the graph here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html entitled Distributions of Pairwise Sequence Differences among Humans, etc, and you will find a histogram of how many base pairs are different between pairs of humans. Look at the all the upright black bars for 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 base pairs differences. Add up the %s shown in the y axis and you come up with at least a 20% chance that two random humans will differ in their mtDNA by 5 or less base pairs.

Game over.

A 20% chance of non-randomness in science is of no consequence. The reality likely is that these mtDNA sources are just two humans of European ancestry ie white folks (how rare!!...."NOT" ) who share a common ancestor a few thousand years ago. Wow...NOT. I could say the same thing about me and the girl who is sitting at the next library table and probably not be far off.

(Now, if you are interested in the issue of relatedness, I can suggest the story of finding Jesse James' remains, http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Stone.JFS.2001.pdf and this article http://lslab.lscore.ucla.edu/Mitochondria/pdf/mitoclock.pdf

on how many generations it takes to produce, on average, one change in mtDNA: it's at least 33 and possibly as many as 600 generations. How closely related are the donors who have 5 differences? you do the math.)

So, to my way of thinking, (speculation coming....) since Stubstad was Ketchum's "statistical consultant" initially (wtf?), I think it was he who fed her this cockamamie story about a 98% chance that these were bigfoot samples. (Realistically, I think he volunteered his services). I think she bought his schtick, and she went public on the radio, blah blah. yadda yadda.

Then she talked to someone who knew what-in-god's-green-earth they were talking about, and got something more like a realistic idea of what these samples meant and didn't mean. As a result (I would speculate)she told Stubstad to stfu/gtfo ie his "statistical services" were "no longer required." But now she's stuck with her statements, though she has retreated as much as she can without abandoning ship altogether.

Stubstad, notwithstanding, is still trying to play the role of "The First Man to Recognize Bigfoot DNA" (he seems to be of an age for midlife crisis, perhaps he wants a suitable legacy for his headstone), and so is blasting out his bio, his qualifications, and his misbegotten concepts, and advertising for more DNA statistical gigs. LOL.

That's the way I see it; I could be mistaken...why, just this morning I thought the dog would like to play with the pull toy, but I was wrong.

ps: in a recent interview with Robert Lindsay, I believe that Stubstad indicated that if a sequence wasn't among those human sequences in GenBank, it wasn't human. How big a "NOT" can I give that statement? Jesse James wasn't in there either. Does that mean he was a bigfoot???? There are something like a few thousand human sequences in GenBank. How many humans have lived/are living on the earth? you do the math. If you needed proof that the man is out of his depth, that should be it. Nothing personal. I'm sure he's a fine man and a heck of an engineer.

Edited October 9, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest]

I wouldn't have worded it quite that way, I don't follow Stubstad's logic for the same reasons, and I agree with Parnassus 100% on this. The only people I want to hear from anymore are the ones who submitted their samples, and hopefully will eventually get those results, from the reference labs they were sent to for evaluation.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Jodie

[Guest]

I wouldn't have worded it quite that way, I don't follow Stubstad's logic for the same reasons, and I agree with Parnassus 100% on this. The only people I want to hear from anymore are the ones who submitted their samples, and hopefully will eventually get those results, from the reference labs they were sent to for evaluation.

Agreed. It's pretty clear that the Ketchum camp denies the validity of Stubstad's results, so at this point it doesn't mean much until the Ketchum study is public.

[Guest slimwitless]

We have no idea if these samples are even part of the study.

[TimB]

I can only think of two reasons the sample submitters wouldn't come forward with the results that they all seem to know.

1) The results are such as to make a greater impact were they all released together. Epic announcement type of thing.

2) Prolonging the time before the pain and embarrassment kick in.

Option one has never happened, therefore I have to bet on the second. I hope I'm wrong, but realistically, I anticipate another fail...

Here's another question. How long is long enough? Or, in other words, when is "soon" over?

Tim B.

[Guest slimwitless]

But now she's stuck with her statements, though she has retreated as much as she can without abandoning ship altogether.

You've said this before. What exactly has Ketchum said or done that suggests she's "retreated as much as she can"?

[Guest RedRatSnake]

The chances of that happening are roughly the same as the chances that bigfoot is a non-human primate. That is, if it exists,

Hi

That is what i am getting at, with out anything to compare too who knows what the DNA is telling us, Just cause it comes back unknown don't mean anything really, it is just still all a guess with a ton of hope and wishful thinking thrown in ~

I think i want to try and make my last post a bit more understanding.

We all have been waiting on this DNA thing too help prove there is a BF running around out there, but so far nothing positive has come from it, ya there are samples that are unknown or come up primate but is that really going to help at all, after all we are all primates too, seems to me that the description of what a BF is kinda changes as this DNA stuff comes in, first it is a primate of sorts, then it is a form of neanderthal, just too many if's in all this DNA stuff ~

Thanks Tim

[Guest slimwitless]

I can only think of two reasons the sample submitters wouldn't come forward with the results that they all seem to know.

1) The results are such as to make a greater impact were they all released together. Epic announcement type of thing.

2) Prolonging the time before the pain and embarrassment kick in.

Option one has never happened, therefore I have to bet on the second. I hope I'm wrong, but realistically, I anticipate another fail...

Here's another question. How long is long enough? Or, in other words, when is "soon" over?

Tim B.

The common response from the sample providers is that they've signed an NDA. If they've seen the results and those results indicate human or some known animal, I don't know why they'd bother keeping quiet. If they're embarrassed (as you suggest), why would they continue to offer Ketchum support? I have to think they believe Ketchum has something interesting.

As for when is "soon" over, I'd say give them until the end of the year. After that, it may be wise to find another hobby.

[Guest HairyGreek]

I have read Stubstad's webpage...

+1 from me. Parnassus, I appreciate you taking the time to research and post this information for a layman like myself.

I am not trying to attack Ketchum's study. Everyone should know that about me by now. What I am trying to do is understand who is telling the truth and who is telling stories out of school. It was important for me to hear this about things I have been reading. I hope everyone finds it as informative.

Maybe it can also end the debate in the other thread of why skeptics are a necessity on this board. JMVHO.

[Guest parnassus]

Hi

That is what i am getting at, with out anything to compare too who knows what the DNA is telling us, Just cause it comes back unknown don't mean anything really, it is just still all a guess with a ton of hope and wishful thinking thrown in ~

Tim

Tim

I feel like I have to again respond to the idea that: "since we don't have Bigfoot DNA to compare, we wont know what it is when we see it."

That is only likely to be true if Bigfoot is actually a known species eg human.

Edited October 10, 2011 by parnassus