I am not usually one to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon.
Heck I have even told people they were foolish to believe there was CAUSE for a conspiracy cover-up when it comes to Bigfoot.
In pursuit of continued and corroborating Peer review of her findings, Melba Ketchum seems to be running into one roadblock after another.
According to her FaceBook Page:
In response to the latest round of criticism.
1. We did give these folks access to the genomes.
2. They only pulled random sequences and did not look at the whole genomes. The person from UT that did our analysis told me that he never got all of the raw data uploaded to the second lab due to computer problems on the receiving lab’s end.
3. I offered raw DNA to this lab so they could extract and sequence themselves. They would not even give the courtesy of a reply.
4. They refused to even speak with me on the phone. The entire thing was completely and totally unprofessional.
5. They never tried to check the analysis done at the University of Texas even though the bioinformatics person put himself at their disposal.
What findings they gave were impossible since both of our labs would have had to extract feces to obtain these results. If it had been feces, we would not have been able to obtain the preliminary results that we got prior to the genomes. After all, they were the same extractions. You can’t get feces from tissue, blood and saliva. If we did extract feces, the quality scores would not have been this high. That is in the literature. This leads to a couple of possibilities. One, there is a conspiracy to suppress our findings. Two, they just didn’t care and didn’t believe that there is even the possibility that Sasquatch exists and therefore just wanted to be done with it because they had other projects. Three, they themselves suppressed it for fear that their careers would be damaged. The things that I know for sure are that it was not an adequate analysis, they did not even try to double check or recreate our findings. If they really had an interest, they would have jumped at the chance to re-sequence the raw samples. Funny thing, I offered the samples to three other places also and nobody was willing to test. Something is just not right. I also offered several people an opportunity to visit a habituation site including this reporter and his lab people so they could have a sighting. Of course they didn’t want that either. Bottom line, nobody except a few of you here even care about the truth. Most would rather perpetuate that BF is a myth or an ape.
A couple of answers to some of the comments: 1. Nobody wants to touch this. I even contacted Paabo and he wouldn’t answer my email. I thought that they, of all people would be interested what with published work on other novel hominins. Even if they want to work on it, oftentimes the higher ups will not allow it. 2. As far as media. They do not care. It will take somebody with a connection to main stream media to get any interest. I do not have those connections. If anyone should have those types of connections, feel free to approach them on behalf of the study. I emailed Fox after they made a huge deal on prime-time about a blobsquatch. Of course there was no response.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I have issues with her findings as well, but I am no expert on genetics. I have posted analysis in these pages and at least one informed commentator has had some very interesting things to say.
According to John Marsh:
THINGS I NOTED ABOUT MUTATIONS DIFFERENT IN BIGFOOT AND HUMANS:
One thing I noted was that all the 52 number diverse T2b haplogroup listed humans in the T2 project had a mutation 146T, but none of the Bigfoot had that mutation. It seems in fact that all T haplogroup have 146T. I am guessing that the earliest common ancestor of all Bigfoots had a back mutation on that marker to the CRS value.
Another thing I noticed was that all Bigfoots which appear to have been tested on the lower number markers, have mutation 73G. Yet not one of the
52 human mtDNA T2b persons had the mutation 73G. Why not? Was 73G a very early mutation in the Bigfoot line?
All the fully tested 4 Bigfoots had the 263G mutation, but not one single one of the 52 humans had 263G. Why not?
It seems all human T2bs have have 16187C and 16189T, but no bigfoots have either. In fact, all human haplgroup T are postive for both these mutations, so presumably in the common ancestor of all Bigfoots there was a mutation reverting to CRS.
According to the Ketchum knockers, all the mtDNA Haplotypes in her project are modern contamination. All of these Bigfoot haplotypes are different.
Isn’t it a bit puzzling that all of these humans mistaken as Bigfoot have different T2 mtDNA haplotypes, all have 73G and 263G mutations not found in humans, and all seem to have had back mutations on 146T, 16187C and 16189T, where these back mutations are apparently not found in any human T2b s?
Mr Marsh appeared also in our commentary on the article:
I am the John Marsh quoted on this. The quote was from an evolving discussion, and it was discovered that these 5 markers were ones affected by a change in reference sequence used by the test company. The Bigfoot results were reported using the old reference, and Genebank still uses the old reference. But some mtDNA databases now use the new reference sequence. If corrections are made for the reference sequence changes, these 5 markers are not as significant as they seemed.
But having said that, I still think the alleged Bigfoots with mtDNA haplogroup T2b are quite significant, and when I get some free time, I want to study them more. The data seems consistent with a single mating of a T2b human female with a Bigfoot male around 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. My personal view is that this might have hapened in Europe or Asia before Bigfoot crossed the land bridge to America around 10,000 years ago, but that is just my guess at this stage.
In tests recently of a European alleged Bigfoot, it has apparently also shown a T2b mtDNA. I think an in depth study of T2b alleged Bigffots would be very interesting.
My personal opinion is that Melba Ketchum is on the right track with her conclusions. As more data becomes available from other studies these may find corroberating information to support the Ketchum study.
I will pretty much always speak in support of seeking scientific answers, through valid scientific methods when it comes to the search for answers in stories of the unexplained, and I will stick to the science that we have when it comes to questioning stories that contradict that knowledge.
In this case we have someone using known scientific methods to do exactly that, and right or wrong, she at least deserves to have her findings treated scientifically instead of prejudicially by the establishment.19 comments