Ketchum 2.0

[Huntster]

40 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

I thought sample 26 was Justin Smeja's "bear steak" tissue that Bart Cutino had independently tested and which came back bear.

 

 

Oh, maybe. I didn't know that Smeja's steak was part of Ketchum's lot. I thought I remember the NAWAC shooting as being in the lot.

[hiflier]

8 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Oh, maybe. I didn't know that Smeja's steak was part of Ketchum's lot. I thought I remember the NAWAC shooting as being in the lot.

 

To be clear, in Hart's book he said that there is really no direct correlation between Smeja's claimed shooting and sample 26 since the time between Smejas'a shooting and actually collecting the sample was apparently a couple of weeks. Also, IIRC, Nawac said that by the time they goot their blood sample off the rock after their shooting that it was too degraded to show anything. And remember, too, that red blood cells only have mtDNA because red blood cells do not contain a nucleus.

Edited June 14, 2023 by hiflier

[MIB]

18 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

To be clear, in Hart's book he said that there is really no direct correlation between Smeja's claimed shooting and sample 26 since the time between Smejas'a shooting and actually collecting the sample was apparently a couple of weeks. Also, IIRC, Nawac said that by the time they goot their blood sample off the rock after their shooting that it was too degraded to show anything. And remember, too, that red blood cells only have mtDNA because red blood cells do not contain a nucleus.

 

Right.   Chain of custody of evidence was broken since the samples went uncollected for a period of weeks.   Even Smeja indicated a disconnect, recognition of wishful thinking regarding the nature of the collected sample relative to what he shot.   And so far as testing his boots, they'd been off and on in salt water for a long period before they were ever tested for the potential blood stains.

 

[9-dot]

for clarification:  Smeja's shooting occurred October 8, 2010.  He covered the juvenile he had shot with brush and departed.  He returned in the Spring 2011 with snow still on the ground and after searching found a bit of hide with hair.  That later became Ketchum Sample #26.

Also for amplification of Hiflier's and Hunster's discussion regarding DNA (YES - it is evidence without regard to one's opinions regarding Ketchum), Dr. Hart posted this in another thread on this site, and I think it apropos to repost it.

Dr. Hart @hvhart replied in his Library thread about the rarity:  The random occurrence of three rare mutations (7852A, 9083C, and 13209T) in all of these samples is a statistically improbable coincidence."  

Your questions are answered in Chapter 16 of my book, which I attach here for use of Forum Members ONLY.  Please do not forward to anybody else.  In summary, no genome of 20,000 human mtDNA sequences had two or three of these mutations.  Very few had even one.  Percentages of each primate group which have these mutations are found in Figure 27 of Chapter 16.  These range from less than 1% for humans to 100% in some groups.

 

 

16.  Unusual Extra mtDNA Mutations

“Shouldn’t we not throw the baby out with the bathwater?…Is there anything we can salvage from the Ketchum study?”     Anonymous Facebook Post

In Chapter 12 we reviewed the mtDNA results and the number of extra mutations from each haplogroup.   Comparisons between the specific extra mutations reveal some improbable coincidences. Table 22 shows these. Sample 26 has been shown to be a black bear from its nuclear DNA sequence taken from the original Ketchum paper, but the mtDNA results were much closer to human, though far outside the normal range of number of extra mutations. Although the Ketchum et al. conclusion was that sasquatch is a hybrid of an unknown primate male and a modern human female, human mtDNA in this sample has been attributed to contamination (Chapter 13).  ES-2 was discovered unlabeled below and to the right of other entries in the Ketchum et al. Supplementary Data 2 and is not listed in their sample Table 1.  Sample 24 failed to produce human Amal X and Y STRs and had a very low 63% of 2.5 M human SNPs. Samples 29 and 138 are not included in any nDNA analyses in the Ketchum paper. Sample 28 appears in Ketchum et al. Table 5, where it shows human STRs in all but one locus (D3S1358) of sixteen total microsatellite loci.  It also matched nine of ten human SNP sites, with a heteroplasmic mutation at the tenth (478RHC) on the MC1R gene (Ketchum et al. Table 6).  However, this sample failed to sequence at Amel X and at AmelY exons 1, 3, and 8, while showing human sequences at exons 2 and 4/5 (Ketchum et al. Table 4). Overall, Sample 28 is the most human-like of those samples which were put through all of these nDNA tests.

 

[9-dot]

Regarding existing DNA studies relating to sasquatch (including the Ketchum study) the following Haskell Hart paper may be available online, and it is not too unwieldy for a layman to comprehend:

 

The RELICT HOMINOID INQUIRY 5:8-31 (2016)
Correspondence to: Haskell V. Hart, email: hvhart@swbell.net
RHI Research Article DNA AS EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF RELICT HOMINOIDS
Haskell V. Hart

[Bigfoot Ed]

On 6/13/2023 at 11:54 PM, MIB said:

 

If you believe that  you don't know what "evidence" means.     Anything offered AS evidence IS evidence.     It doesn't have to be accepted as convincing or substantiating a claim.   That is a different thing from "evidence."

 

MIB I know what evidence means. Maybe I should clarify those things are what are called trace evidence. And you can get convicted in a court on trace evidence and circumstantial evidence. But any discussion that includes Melba is far as I'm concerned idiotic.

Why don't you just address the glaring issue that we have no evidence that is even remotely near proving what the Beastie is. 

I've concocted a theory that hits all the bases of the existing phenomenon. But it falls into the woo category. But just like most of this stuff that's out there it can't be proven wrong. It can't be proven right. Until we have a specimen or some other form of concrete evidence. 

 

 

[Bigfoot Ed]

Like those guys out there with their area x. They're so afraid that someone's going to take their little pot of gold that they don't have any actual proof. I love it when it shows them all covered in camouflage why in the hell would you wear camouflage. It's idiotic. You're not going to sneak up on a Sasquatch or a Bigfoot. These guys are like Don Quixote running around in the woods chasing windmills that they claim or dragons. 

Ridiculous. 

[Huntster]

On 6/23/2023 at 7:17 AM, Bigfoot Ed said:

.........I love it when it shows them all covered in camouflage why in the hell would you wear camouflage. It's idiotic. You're not going to sneak up on a Sasquatch or a Bigfoot.........

 

Have you hunted big game or engaged in military combat, Ed?

[Guest]

Where does Scott Carpenter fit into all this? Before I started reading the rest of this thread, I watched Scott give a thorough report on the DNA testing on his YouTube page.  Not really knowing much about him and his motives, the report was pretty clear to me that the DNA results being discussed were indeed credible. 

In fact, I'm not a religious believer at all, yet when Scott covered the evidence of genetic manipulation, it gave me a start.

[ThePhaige]

26 minutes ago, djm5971 said:

Where does Scott Carpenter fit into all this? Before I started reading the rest of this thread, I watched Scott give a thorough report on the DNA testing on his YouTube page.  Not really knowing much about him and his motives, the report was pretty clear to me that the DNA results being discussed were indeed credible. 

In fact, I'm not a religious believer at all, yet when Scott covered the evidence of genetic manipulation, it gave me a start.

 

I believe he is/was involved with much of the more recent specimen gathering, but is in a somewhat close communication with the current work ... You may glean some interesting tidbits from his youtubes... 

[wiiawiwb]

On 6/23/2023 at 11:17 AM, Bigfoot Ed said:

You're not going to sneak up on a Sasquatch or a Bigfoot.

 

Do you mean the same way that Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were able to sneak up and surprise a bigfoot?

[ThePhaige]

52 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

Do you mean the same way that Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were able to sneak up and surprise a bigfoot?

 

In my experience it is a fact that these things are incredibly efficient at being avoided , in ways that are quite amazing... but to say they are infallible is also not really accurate.  It is as though they have a built in GPS of the topography and a kind of knowing of the area, sound reflections, shadow placement, wind direction... kind of pre reacting to things as they move forward, always reaching and touching things as they move in what might seem more like swimming through the area connected to things, whether its thick forest or other obstruction it doesn't matter. They make the best human parkour champ look silly by comparison, and then how they can contort inside a bush so as to seem to flow with the curves of the branches etc... wild stuff.. .but yea sometimes we do get that glimpse though  

[Guest]

Scott’s analysis pretty much shows in detail that the DNA tests were valid and the results accurate. 

[MIB]

On 6/24/2023 at 7:27 PM, djm5971 said:

Where does Scott Carpenter fit into all this?

 

Scott is one of Melba's minions and has been for quite a long time.    He's way, way out the "woo" limb AND he appears to have no scientific "licks" of his own.   He can regurgitate what others have said but he can't prove or disprove anything on his own.    I wouldn't say ignore him, he does seem to listen to people with interesting ideas, but I wouldn't take anything he says at face value, it requires competent validation by people with relevant skills.    I guess another way to say it is he can bring interesting things to your attention but you have to validate them yourself, don't count on him having done it or even being able to do it.   

 

IMHO .. of course.

 

MIB

[ThePhaige]

3 hours ago, MIB said:

 

Scott is one of Melba's minions and has been for quite a long time.    He's way, way out the "woo" limb AND he appears to have no scientific "licks" of his own.   He can regurgitate what others have said but he can't prove or disprove anything on his own.    I wouldn't say ignore him, he does seem to listen to people with interesting ideas, but I wouldn't take anything he says at face value, it requires competent validation by people with relevant skills.    I guess another way to say it is he can bring interesting things to your attention but you have to validate them yourself, don't count on him having done it or even being able to do it.   

 

IMHO .. of course.

 

MIB

 

Wow MIB you really said a lot there concerning what in my opinion is so rather a rangy list of generalizations directed at Scott Carpenter and the context of his involvement etc....  You lost credibility with me there when you say he is way out on a woo limb, the fact is I would say if there is a exact opposite of this then Scott more closely falls into a mostly NON woo category.. in fact Its been years since he decidedly stopped seeking out the SSQ but he does and has helped out many people who are actually dealing with SSQ ... So in a way I kind of resent your evaluation of the individual when you obviously dont have all the context or have decidedly not revealed it here...  

 

I will go on record to say, people may not like the man personally for whatever reason, but he has indeed made a contribution and to sort of infer otherwise in my opinion while incorporating a kind of ad hominem slant there is also slightly offensive on a scientific level ...  Some may call it a tactic, but knowing you for some years now I will like to think of it in another way... 

 

I will also go on record saying that while I dont think They and Scotts conclusions are exactly correct... but the DNA is...  more on that later perhaps