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

[Guest slimwitless]

No external (verification or proof) testing at another lab has been indicated. Stubstad (given what he knows) has said that this has been a one woman show. Everything has been done by Ketchum herself (except the sample collection).

This doesn't match up with what we've heard - namely that there were multiple labs doing the testing. I believe it was Stubstad that stated Ketchum's lab didn't have the equipment to do all the required sequencing. We've also heard there are other authors.

[gigantor]

Maybe a veterinary journal? after all, it is an animal we're talking about here...

[TimB]

I thought I heard on the Coast-to-Coast blip from Paulides in August that the paper was 95% finished and they were adding a 6th PHD to complete it and send it into peer review.

Tim

Edited October 10, 2011 by TimB

[Guest parnassus]

A Review of the Information

This is just to review the current status and clear things up, because some people have misunderstood, misconstrued, or distorted the available information.

About the paper and Ketchum's work:

1. Many samples were donated from multiple sources, collected by multiple people and organizations.
   
2. The samples were analyzed by Ketchum in her (commercial) lab.
   
3. No external (verification or proof) testing at another lab has been indicated. Stubstad (given what he knows) has said that this has been a one woman show. Everything has been done by Ketchum herself (except the sample collection).
   
4. We know the paper has been submitted, according to Ketchum.
   
5. According to third hand (since it came through me) information, Ketchum was all set for the conference, and then had to go to Europe (Germany?) to meet with the paper reviewers. She probably had to buy the ticket herself. Meeting the reviewers is highly unusual, and according to the second hand source, the first hand source noted that. The second hand source had no cause to know that such a thing was unusual.
   

About the Honobia presentation:

1. Back in early September, Ketchum, or someone from the conference, indicated that if the paper was not yet accepted, that Ketchum might not appear, or would change the subject of her presentation.
   
2. According to Troy Hudson (the conference organizer), Ketchum was all set to attend the conference a few days before it started, but then was called away abruptly, and called Hudson to quickly film a video of her presentation.
   
3. The video presentation was played at the conference, and the topic of the presentation was the methods which Ketchum used in her work, which would probably constitute about a third of the paper. No results were presented, or were ever likely to have been presented. That is, it was probably wishful thinking that the review might have been completed and paper accepted by the conference date. The video was of Ketchum giving the presentation she intended to give live.
   
4. Hudson's story and the story I heard came from unconnected, independent sources, and back each other up.
   

About Stubstad:

1. Stubstad was involved in the very early stages of the work, and only has 3 sequences for his analysis.
   
2. Stubstad saw that the sequences were self-consistent (nearly identical), and were a near match to one of the earliest human mtDNA lines, but had several mutations which have been unobserved in that line. Three mutations could be as short as 100 generations, or as long as 1000.
   
3. Exactly which part of the mtDNA Stubstad has the sequence for is undisclosed.
   
4. Stubstad has not been in close contact with Ketchum, and has no knowledge of the updated findings.
   
5. Ketchum has said that Stubstad is wrong, possibly indicating that longer sequences from a larger sample set are pointing toward a different answer.
   

About mtDNA:

1. After ruling out the known, non-human and non-bigfoot samples, if the samples remaining provide self-consistent DNA that is unknown primate, or is human-like but from an unknown family branch, then the existence of bigfoot is essentially proved, as there could be no other source for the DNA.
   
2. In the total mtDNA sequence, the human-to-human difference can be as large as a couple hundred base pairs. Bigfoot mtDNA will show less divergence to some humans, and more to others, if bigfoots are human or near human. If bigfoots are non-human, then the mtDNA could have several hundred to a thousand differences.
   
3. The length of a "tick" in the mtDNA genetic clock has not been well established. It appears that mtDNA can recombine, just like strands of bacterial DNA, and paternal mtDNA can enter into the mix (it isn't all inherited from mom). What we thought we knew has been thrown into the air, yet again. For example, modern human lineages may only be about 6,000 to 8,000 years old. Obviously, we know humans have existed longer than that, but there was a massive migration that occurred around 6,500 years ago, so it is conceivable that a human family exploded out across the globe, and replaced the genetic distribution which existed at the time. What this means, is that bigfoots might have split from the human population only a few thousand years ago, if Stubstad is correct. This would be a wonderful explanation for the hairy giants which are described as living among us in the biblical texts. Then again, it could be us who split from them.
   
4. Building on the above, it has been found that mtDNA mutation rates can be 100 times greater than were previously thought (in worms and insects). The date of our hairless ancestor was set as 2,000,000 years ago by lice mtDNA, but now, our hair loss could have been as recent as 20,000 years ago.
   

aj

Not sure you clarified anything.

Everyone is entitled to speculate but I don't think this is the place for putting forth religion based explanations. If you have scientific sources (not religio-sci sites) plz give them. And if you can find that summer radio interview with Ketchum I'd appreciate it.

I will say with 99.99999 percent conviction that Ketchum was not suddenly called away to Europe to meet face to face with journal reviewers. This is frankly laughable for anyone who knows the system. Sorry. (I expect she went for the same reasons you and I would go. ) 

The chances that this is a "one-woman show" are only slightly greater than those for the purported European reviewers trip. For example: does Ketchum have the ability to sequence mtDNA in her lab?

Your statement that up to "a couple hundred" mtDNA differences could be human is incorrect. See the graph at 

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/complete-ntal-mtdna.html..

I bet she comes back with French perfume!!

Edited October 10, 2011 by parnassus

[masterbarber]

"What Journal?" has been merged with this thread.

[gigantor]

Parn,

The radio show "SquatchDetective" has the Ketchum interview, me thinks. There is a thread in the media forum with a link to the archived podcast.

Edited October 10, 2011 by gigantor

[southernyahoo]

aj

Not sure you clarified anything.

Everyone is entitled to speculate but I don't think this is the place for putting forth religion based explanations. If you have scientific sources (not religio-sci sites) plz give them. And if you can find that summer radio interview with Ketchum I'd appreciate it.

I will say with 99.99999 percent conviction that Ketchum was not suddenly called away to Europe to meet face to face with journal reviewers. This is frankly laughable for anyone who knows the system. Sorry. (I expect she went for the same reasons you and I would go. )

The chances that this is a "one-woman show" are only slightly greater than those for the purported European reviewers trip. For example: does Ketchum have the ability to sequence mtDNA in her lab?

Your statement that up to "a couple hundred" mtDNA differences could be human is incorrect. See the graph at

http://pandasthumb.o...al-mtdna.html..

I bet she comes back with French perfume!!

You might put yourself in the shoes of a journal, think about what assurances you would want before you published DNA that could prove bigfoot. You'd propably want to meet the scientists and interview in person to confirm their knowledge and understanding of the results, review the sequencing data straight from the head of the project. This might be unheard of, but hey , this is bigfoot which is most extraordinary.

[Guest slimwitless]

Have you listened to the show? I can't verify it right now but I seem to remember Ketchum was unable to participate in the "on air" interview. Rather, Steve Kulls relayed details from a conversation with Ketchum. I think he did say he was told the paper was out for review. In fact, isn't this where the "by the end of the year" revelation first appeared (that may have been later)? As I recall there was some confusion at the time because Paulides(?) or someone was hinting that the paper wasn't yet out for review. That's how I remember it anyway.

Edited October 10, 2011 by slimwitless

[Guest]

I would have to agree that the extraordinary circumstances of a valid Sas DNA study would likely change protocol a bit with most Journals. It would seem that none of them are going to want to move forward with a subject that has been relegated to supermarket tabloids and sensationalized TV shows without uncovering every stone first, which I would think would include examining the personnel involved with the samples and study.

I'm not sure where Stubstad came up with this business that Ketchum was a woman show. She told Steve Kulls that there were 6 co-authors on the paper, if I'm remembering right. And she said in her Honobia video that there were 9 different labs that took part in the testing. How is that in any way a one woman show?

[Guest]

Have you listened to the show? I can't verify it right now but I seem to remember Ketchum was unable to participate in the "on air" interview. Rather, Steve Kulls relayed details from a conversation with Ketchum. I think he did say he was told the paper was out for review. In fact, isn't this where the "by the end of the year" revelation first appeared (that may have been later)? As I recall there was some confusion at the time because Paulides(?) or someone was hinting that the paper wasn't yet out for review. That's how I remember it anyway.

I think this is the major problem I have. You're right about Kulls. And my recollection is that she did tell him it was out for review. Paulides has since said that it is 95-99% complete. Now ajciani (who I understand to be the physcicist that has done some photographic analysis of some bigfoot images) has given us some indication that it has indeed been accepted for review.

I am, as they say, discombobulated.

[BobZenor]

I misstated something above. I meant they tried to recalibrate the mtDNA genetic clock because of the fossil record showing signs of bipedalism before the previously established date when we shared a common ancestor with chimps. After finding that evidence of early bipedalism, many expanded the clock from about 5 million to up to 7 million years based on the differences with a chimp. Ardipithecus pretty much made that line of reasoning irrelevant in my opinion.

Another comment on the recombination of male mitochondria from sperm. That is exceptionally rare and not likely to change much unless the sperm mtDNA recombination was with a very divergent male. Then it should be noticeable as significantly divergent. It probably adds some uncertainty to the absolute dating by mtDNA but not relative dating. I also doubt it would be significant. It would logically make establishing your maternal ancestors less certain. I don't think they have that recombination very well established and last I heard there was only one case that was accepted of it happening. It is hard to see the possible implications.

aj

Not sure you clarified anything.

Everyone is entitled to speculate but I don't think this is the place for putting forth religion based explanations. If you have scientific sources (not religio-sci sites) plz give them. And if you can find that summer radio interview with Ketchum I'd appreciate it.

That was not a religious based explanation.

I will say with 99.99999 percent conviction that Ketchum was not suddenly called away to Europe to meet face to face with journal reviewers. This is frankly laughable for anyone who knows the system. Sorry. (I expect she went for the same reasons you and I would go. )

You can't possibly know that. Considering the enormity of what she is apparently suggesting, special treatment wouldn't really be that surprising.

The chances that this is a "one-woman show" are only slightly greater than those for the purported European reviewers trip. For example: does Ketchum have the ability to sequence mtDNA in her lab?

I had a problem with the idea that she hadn't got verification in other labs as well.

Your statement that up to "a couple hundred" mtDNA differences could be human is incorrect. See the graph at

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/complete-ntal-mtdna.html..

I bet she comes back with French perfume!!

The bold text is from your link.

The Neandertal mtDNA sequence was compared with mtDNA from chimpanzees and 53 modern humans. The human mtDNA sequences had between 2 and 118 differences from each other.

I don't see how it is contradicted by that article. It depends on the variation in the 53 humans. A more diverse and larger group could show a couple hundred. His number was larger than I expected but I haven't seen the range for the whole human population variation on the entire mitochondrial genome.

[TimB]

It just shouldn't be hard to get their facts straight. I lends credence to the idea that there's something else going on...

Tim B.

[southernyahoo]

RW, you and slimwitless have got the facts straight from what I can tell. Slim, at the time of Paulides statements he was stating that the paper was 99% done, while there was also word that the paper was in review. Perhaps the remaining 1% pertained to revisions requested from reviewers. I think Paulides didn't want to confirm it was in review. This might have been the basis for optimism that it would be past review by the conference date and was subsequently played by ear down to the wire. This is pure speculation on my part.

[Guest ajciani]

I think Ketchum said that the paper was out for review during an interview on Coast-to-Coast AM.

Now, I had heard from one of the sample providers, back in February, that the paper had been completed, but there was never any confirmation on it. I do recall that in July, the news that it had been submitted came straight from Ketchum, and it was announced in some type of radio interview.

Also, Stubstad had said that in his estimation, Ketchum was not capable of doing this amount of work on her own, and he suggested that other labs would be required, if not just to handle the volume, but to double check her important results as well. This was what Stubstad projected would be necessary to do everything prim, proper, and above reproach. I think that Ketchum could have done all of the work on her own, and probably did.

Ketchum comes from what used to be a highly competitive industry of carefully guarded secrets, ruled over by lawyers who sought any excuse to rack up the hours. It is not possible to patent a genetic sequence, but it is possible to patent a bigfoot rapid assay, which is probably what Ketchum intends to do (but has not yet done). Of course, with the rapid sequencers available today, all anyone needs for the identification of bigfoot DNA is the characteristic sequence.

[gigantor]

I just listened to the squatchdetective show referenced above. The clip of interest begins at the 17:15 minute mark.

The following points according to Steve Kulls:

* He interviewed Dr Ketchum for a long time over the phone in July 2011

* Dr Ketchum has six or seven co-authors, some MS and some PhDs

* Ketchum directly said to Kulls, that by the end of the year, the "report" will be out.

* Kulls confirmed with Ketchum that there are other labs involved in a "blind test"

Note that Kulls never claimed the paper "was out for review".