Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Loren Coleman Hilights a difference between Erickson/Ketchum Project and Pangboche Yeti Finger DNA tests


In a comment to Loren Coleman's post on Cryptomundo titled, "Pangboche Yeti Finger In Context: What Does Human Mean?" An astute reader asks a very important question:
Wendigo Truth Force responds:
So I’m a little confused here, admittedly. They found this [Pangboche Yeti] finger bone the other day? And DNA testing is already complete? I thought it took much longer, and that was part of the reason the Ketchum/Erickson debacle is taking so long

Loren Coleman has a great response explaining when the Pangboche Yeti finger bone was found and highlights, by example, a difference between the two DNA studies.

Loren Coleman responds:
The Pangboche finger was found some time ago, filming of interviews were conducted, Peter Byrne was flown in, more taping occurred, and in the meantime the DNA analysis was taking place. A timeline was not published, but it is apparent this BBC program has been in the works for some time. However, unlike the Erickson Project, there were no leaks.
He is referring to the Erickson Project leaks by several sources, the one with the loosest lips may be Richard Stubstad.

Watch this clip from Unsolved Mysteries: Episode #4.29. This 1992 episode talks about the Pangboche Yeti Hand and interviews Loren Coleman at some length.

46 comments:

  1. It's easy to say that the Pangboche Yeti finger was sequenced for DNA, but WHAT parts of the DNA were actually sequenced? Part of the mitochondrial genome? All 16,569 pairs of the mito genome? Any of the nuclear genome?

    My guess is they worked on the mito because it's easier to sequence. Everyone who has done this in North America has concluded the same basic thing: "Within human ranges". What about the nuclear genome? What about the male origins of the Yeti and Sasquatch and other equivalents?

    Once one starts looking at a number of complete mito genomes, a strange sort of pattern emerges, but only when you have more than a single sample.

    If there is a significant difference between the sasquatch and modern humans, it will be found primarily in the nuclear genome.

    This is not "junk science"; it is incomplete science and jumping to conclusions with inadequate DNA information.

    If someone only tested the mito genome of a mule deer from the western USA, they would think it was an eastern whitetail -- until they saw it or sequenced the nuclear DNA.

    Why stop with the mito? Even the Densisovan and the Neanderthal have been sequenced well into the nuclear genome as well -- from 40,000 +/- year old fossils. Can't we do as well as the Max Planck Institute with reasonably fresh specimens?

    Richard Stubstad

    PS: I know nothing about the Erickson project beyond my early participation in unlocking the connection between four different purported sasquatch specimens -- not all of which were from the Erickson project.

    A sample of one from ANY project -- like the Yeti -- is difficult to draw any conclusions from without comparing it to other similar sequences that in fact may NOT be 100% "modern human".

    ReplyDelete
  2. The yeti finger, famously smuggled out of Asia by actor Jimmy Stewart, was recently tested for DNA by scientists. It turns out the famous yeti finger is actually from a man. Article source: DNA testing reveals yeti finger is a fraud

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi, there!

    Who is "Newsytype"?

    So far, I've only seen assertions such as the one above that "DNA testing reveals yeti finger is a fraud" and many similar conclusions -- but no DATA?

    The first time I saw a complete 16,569 pair mitochondrial genome from a purported sasquatch, my conclusion was similar but not as categtorical. I concluded, "within modern human ranges".

    However, I did notice that this particular sequence was strange indeed. It appeared to be from a mitochondrial Eve who resided in sub-glacial Europe some 15,000 or more years ago, but with no perfect matches in Genbank.

    Then, when the complete mitochondrial genome came in for the second purported sasquatch sample -- from the same year & over a thousand miles away from the first sample -- lo and behold, it appeared to originate from the same mitochondrial Eve of Sample 1. This 16,569 pair sequence also was not present in GenBank.

    The odds of these two being two consecutive "frauds" to use the terminology from Newsytype, above, were less than 2%, statistically speaking.

    These two specimens were not only from two disparate research groups or individuals, they were from an extremely rare haplotype in the database commonly called "H*" since no category has yet been established for this haplotype.

    Later testing of a specific gene from the nuclear genome confirmed my suspicions: Each nuclear sequence differed by one or two sites from ANY modern human.

    If I were a "Newsytype", I wouldn't conclude something such as the above without seeing the DATA itself. It would have been easy for me to conclude the same thing from Sample 1, but I didn't. I waited for more data and, especially, some nuclear DNA data -- not the mitochondrial data which only indicates where one's maternal roots reside. What about the fraternal roots? What if we have, say, a kind-of hybrid, just like the Mule Deer of the mountain west is actually a hybrid from a whitetail female from eastern North America and a Colombian blacktail from the pacific Northwest?

    Let's see some DATA folks; otherwise this is someone's random guesswork -- in all likelihood based on partial mitochondrial DNA sequencing at best.

    Richard Stubstad

    ReplyDelete
  4. In other words, is there any way to get the word over to Scotland or wherever the purported Yeti finger was sequenced that we are essentially finding the same thing with purported sasquatch specimens? The differences start to emerge once the nuclear testing begins in earnest, SO DON'T JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS BEFORE ALL THE DATA ARE IN !!!

    My post, above, has recieved surprisingly little interest, for some reason.

    Richard Stubstad

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hello! Is anyone out there?

    Richard Stubstad

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Creator of Project Sasquatch paying ttention sir....

      Delete
    2. Creator of Project Sasquatch paying attention.

      Delete
  6. Since no-one else has replied, I will jump in. You are absolutely right regarding the need to sequence both the mito and nuclear DNA. I await with baited breath, and swirls of speculation in my head.

    btw - Do you know anything about the new attempt to get DNA from Flo's teeth? The first attempt last year failed, but I heard they are trying again with a different drilling method.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am very sorry, but I don't know who "Flo" is?

    In my recent studies, we have extracted DNA from teeth with few if any problems.

    The Max Planck Institute does this routinely, if not on a daily basis then very often in any event.

    This is an art form, not a one-size-fits-all routine that depends on the teeth, potential contamination thereof, and the age of the fossil.

    Richard

    ReplyDelete
  8. Guy, ladies & gentlemen:

    I am happy to report that we (a loosly-knit group of a half-dozen sasquatch researchers) have now made contact with the BBC and with the lab that sequenced the Pangboche 'yeti' finger and found out that indeed it was only bits and pieces of the mitochondrial genome (the "D" Loop, such as HVR-1) that were sequenced. Glancing at my own results from my early research with Melba Ketchum, out of the three mito specimens where WE sequenced the entire genome (all 16,569 pairs), only a single polymorphism (or potential mutation) was found within the "D" loop, and that was from Specimen 2 where this particular polymorphism was not only shared by the Denisovan and most of the Neanderthal genomes from the same region, but by a few other modern humans as well.

    Now that Loren Coleman was so impressed that I was not "loose lipped" about these test results (how could I have been -- I wasn't involved?, I (or we) finally made contact with the Brits so we can attempt to connect the dots between the various samples and not just take each one on their own -- especially stopping short of testing beyond HVR-1 and -2.

    Again, to summarize: almost all DNA testing of purported sasquatch, yeti, almasty, etc. has revolved around parts of the mitochondrial genome -- usually HVR-1 or -2 and/or Cytochrome B, which as pointed out above (and elsewhere) miss the differences between the sasquatch and modern humans entirely.

    In fact, if we count up the number of polymorphisms in the entire mito genomes, we get between 2 and 5. These do not count the modern human polymorphisms that have occured in the meantime, which means the mitochondrial "Eves" of these three samples lived between 15,000 and 50,000 years ago--not long enough to find more than a single polymorphism (if any) in the "D" region.

    What researchers are missing -- with or without the venerable Ph.D. behind their name -- is the possiblity that sasquatch and maybe the yeti & other similar hominids have evolved much more recently than the two other hominids we know about now:Neanderthal and Denisovan. In the case of the two latter (sub)species of archaic humans, they evolved approximately 600,000 and 1,200,000 years ago respectively, so they have had time to develop their own unique polymorphisms on the mitochondrial side.

    My estimate (not knowledge) regarding the limited data I have seen from four likely sasquatch specimens is that sasquatch as it exists today evolved less than 100,000 years ago,and possibly less than 50,000 years ago.

    This is precisely the reason that it is absolutely necessary to test a large portion of the nuclear genome, not just the mitochondrial DNA that basically "tags along for the ride" from mother to mother, ad-infinitum.

    Loren, are you OK with all this now? I'm not really "loose-lipped" as you say; I am simply trying to get some "parallel" testing done, regardless of Ketchum et.al.'s project. Even if she comes up with a peer-reviewed DNA paper, both Melba and the rest of us will need all the help we can get, DNA-wise, because her paper will be of a highly controversial nature to say the least.

    Some researchers with a better history of credibility will be sorely needed; neither Ketchum nor I nor you have the necessary creditials to pull this off alone or together.

    Richard Stubstad

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Stubstad -

      Is it possible to obtain these mtDNA sequences for independent assessment?

      If there are so few interesting polymorphisms then the DNA is probably that of one or more normal modern humans. I

      f you randomly chose mtDNA and sequenced it, you would quite possibly find a situation of an mtDNA sequence differing by one or two base pairs from lodged human gene records in Genbank - and this difference could be actual novelty, or a sequence read error or PCR-based substitution. Sequence reading error is surprisingly common. It seems premature to discuss any conclusions based on DNA work unless the information can be scrutinized - right down to the raw sequence trace files.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, I do not feel it is ethical for me to send anyone the actual sequencing, because I believe that Ketchum intends to use it in "her" supposedly upcoming peer-reviewed paper.

      Still, I have mentioned the numbers of polymorphisms in many of my entries or articles.

      What I haven't mentioned in any published material is that the three MC1R sequences were NOT "within modern human ranges". That was especially interesting to me, as was the very strange complete mito profiles we obtained for three specimens (two overlaps with MC1R).

      Richard

      Delete
  9. Mr. Stubstad would do well to re-read my Cryptomundo posting. I did not attribute any "loose lips" comments to anyone. Indeed, I only used the word "leaks," and did not name names.

    Loren Coleman

    ReplyDelete
  10. OK, Loren, fair enough. I only read Guy's posting above.

    No problem.

    I would really like to see more than a single lab/group do some extensive DNA work. We know --more or less -- where to look for differences now.

    Richard

    ReplyDelete
  11. Richard . I just read over these posts and just wanted to thank you so much for your honesty regarding your findings and results thus far. I am a PhD scientist who has been following this story now for the past few months . I have been blown away honestly with the NDAS and secrecy surrounding Melba Ketchums work . I do understand her concern regarding journal restrictions, but press embargoes are rarely if ever enforced, and even if they were, this does not necessitate being secretive about whether or not a paper has actually been submitted or is perhaps still in review . Your honesty and willingness to work with others in the field is not only refreshing, but reflects how good science should be conducted... with both collaboration and sharing of information , and NOT NDAs and secrecy . Thank you !!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous:

    Thanks so much for your kind words, above.

    The facts of the matter are:

    1) I am virtually certain (approx. 97%) from DNA and statistical points of view alone, that the sasquatch exists.

    2) Testing to-date has revealed some kind of cross- or hy-brid creature that emerged relatively recently, with their "mito-Eves" being of the stone age or maybe archaic human types, and the male side (perhaps through mutation) being some kind of closely related but still unidentified hominid.

    3) The oldest "mito-Eve" we've noticed from the mito side lived some 50,000 years ago, and while there are a handful or two of polymorphic sites on the mito side from this particular sample, these were not enough to quite push the mito-DNA results outside of modern human ranges, while Neanderthal has had at least 10 times as long to create their own, isolated mito DNA profile that is only some twice as different than the difference between, say, the Cambridge Reference Sequence and the oldest mito sequences from Subsaharan Africa. This is NOT the case with the positive sasquatch sequences -- which emerged much more recently than Neanderthal's emergence some 600,000 years ago.

    4) The challenge for the non-believing scientists who are convinced that the mito should be a whole lot more different from modern human mito sequences is to SUFFICIENTLY TEST THE NUCLEAR DNA GENOME. We already have three sequences of MC1R data that ARE NOT WITHIN MODERN HUMAN RANGES. And this is only a single gene from the extensive nuclear genome.

    5) In addition to the "Ketchum" study, it will be very important for parallel studies over the following years to verify (or deny) Ketchum's results before the scientific proof is provided -- well beyond the 97% certainty level mentioned above.

    6) We (an ad-hoc group of a handful of independent researhers) already have a dozen or so pre-vetted sasquatch samples that do NOT overlap those from the "Ketchum" study. THE CHALLENGE OUT THERE IS FOR SOME RESEARCHERS TO HAVE BOTH THE BALLS AND THE ABILITY TO DESIGN NEW PRIMERS & EQUIPMENT TO LAUNCH THE PARALLEL STUDY, MAINLY BASED ON THE NUCLEAR DNA GENOME. Hello, anyone?

    I assure you all that this is NO RED HERRING or some huge hoax or conspiracy. All positive sasquatch samples come from different researchers, and the hoaxes or errors have already been sorted out.

    Richard Stubstad

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous:

    Thanks so much for your kind words, above.

    The facts of the matter are:

    1) I am virtually certain (approx. 97%) from DNA sequencing results and statistical points of view alone, that the sasquatch exists.
    2) Testing to-date has revealed some kind of cross- or hy- brid creature that emerged relatively recently, with their "mito-Eves" being of the stone age or possibly archaic human types, and the male side (eg. through mutation) being some kind of closely related but still unidentified hominid.
    3) The oldest "mito-Eve" we've noticed from the mitochondrial side lived some 50,000 years ago, and while there are a handful or two of polymorphic sites on the mito side from this particular sample, these were not enough to quite push the mito-DNA results outside of modern human ranges.
    4) Meanwhile, Neanderthal may have had at least 10 times as long to create their own, isolated mito DNA profile that is still only some twice as different than the difference between, say, the Cambridge Reference Sequence and the oldest mito sequences from Sub-Saharan Africa. This is NOT the case with the positive sasquatch sequences -- which appear to have split from other hominids much more recently than Neanderthal's split some 600,000 years ago.
    5) The challenge for the non-believing scientists who are convinced that the mito should be a whole lot more different from modern human mito sequences is to SUFFICIENTLY TEST THE NUCLEAR DNA GENOME. We already have three sequences of MC1R data that ARE NOT WITHIN MODERN HUMAN RANGES. And this is only a single gene from the extensive nuclear genome.
    6) In addition to the "Ketchum" study, it will be very important for parallel studies over the following years to verify (or deny) Ketchum's results before the scientific proof is provided -- well beyond the 97% certainty level mentioned above.
    7) We (an ad-hoc group of a handful of independent researchers) already have a dozen or so pre-vetted sasquatch samples that do NOT overlap those from the "Ketchum" study. THE CHALLENGE OUT THERE IS FOR SOME RESEARCHERS TO HAVE BOTH THE BALLS AND THE ABILITY TO DESIGN NEW PRIMERS & EQUIPMENT TO LAUNCH THE PARALLEL STUDY, MAINLY BASED ON THE NUCLEAR DNA GENOME. Hello, anyone?

    I assure you all that this is NO RED HERRING or some huge hoax or conspiracy. All very likely positive sasquatch samples come from different researchers, and the typical hoaxes or errors have already been sorted out.

    Richard Stubstad

    ReplyDelete
  14. Based on some or all of the above, I would like to enter into an efficacy dialog with Loren and (I can see) Guy, above.

    The issue is secrecy during vetting or testing of (in this case) the Panboche finger.

    What in fact took place here is that a British lab was obtained to take the finger and find out whether it was really from a Yeti, not something else like a modern human or even an ape of sorts.

    Peter Byrne himself was flown to the UK to participate, which was kept secret as well (although I knew he was going somewhere or other).

    I had already gone over the importance of dealing with DNA testing with him; i.e. that to find out anything whatsoever of importance, both the mito and even more importantly the nuclear genomes had to be tested.

    Still, the testing portion of the project steamed ahead, as it turned out in a vacuum beyond any form of common sense whatsoever. Why? Because the researcher(s) had NOT done their homework but rather decided unilaterally to only test a part of the D-loop HV-regions) of the mitochondrial DNA alone. If they had NOT operated in a vacuum this pitfall could have been totally avoided. Peter, although meaning well, also did not understand the importance of testing not only the entire mtDNA genome (not just the D-loop) but a good part of the nuclear genome as well. Peter, after all, is an explorer and tracker, not a genetics or hybrid expert by any stretch, so he accepted the British labs results without question. Why? Because he was not allowed due to this secrecy to discuss it with me (or others).

    Of course, several other researchers had already been there through the easy way out (the D-loop) and failed miserably. The Brits followed their correct but grossly inadequate footsteps without hesitation, ending with a public declaration of a hoax; even fraud. Based on the limited but compelling work I have done to-date, I could have not only told them, but shown them in no uncertain terms that as many as four samples tested out identical to the Panboche finger within the D-loop; yet three and probably all four of these samples ended up being from real-life sasquatch none-the-less. This does not mean that the Panboche Finger isn't a hoax, but it means WE STILL DON'T KNOW.

    WHY NOT? SECRECY AND OUR RELUCTANCE TO SHARE AND WORK TOGETHER.

    I think the secrecy approach sucks. I think us sasquatch researhers should work together, NOT in another vacuum.

    Any comments?

    Richard

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm apparently not smart enough to follow all of the DNA studies, but I live in KY and I hope the Melba Ketchum's test results from the Crittenden area are released soon along with the pictures and videos! Great luck to Mr. Substad.

      Delete
  15. Mitochondrial DNA [mtDNA] is the easiest to retrieve or sequence from all sources; both ancient and modern. The reason is each cell contains multiple mitochondria. Depending on the part of the body, it can number in the hundreds in a single cell. It ONLY is passed from females. Both males and females get it from their mother.

    When they sequence these, they are a long list of letters. One file format is .fasta and it can be compared with any in the NCBI GenBank. This is my own personal sequence:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/334360929?report=fasta

    Now, if they have a fasta file or some other useful format, then they can prove it by publishing it. Proving where they got it from is another issue, but do not claim to have done such testing unless you are willing to publish at least that file to compare with.

    I took the time to have myself sequenced and get it published. They should put up or shut up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And ... your point is?

      I have had my own nu and mt DNA tested as well. That I can publish, no problem.

      Testing the mito alone for sasquatch does NOT give definitive results. Ketchum has the data to prove this. Others (ie. us remaining sasquatch researchers) can also test the nuclear to find out using new data whether this is true or not. If they don't do so they will never know.

      That's the point. The data I have is limited but very compelling. You cannot test the mito alone and learn a whole lot about the nature of our beast.

      That's the point.

      Richard

      Delete
    2. I think you are in denial and minimizing the usefulness of mtDNA. No, it does not tell me what color their hair or eyes are. Then again, most genetic testing will not. It does, however, allow important identification of the relationship to other species, as well as energy use.

      Let's not play games here about the issue. You know better than what you are claiming. I am no expert, but you do not need a whole genome autosomal DNA testing to exclude other species.

      Certainly a FBI type testing of autosomal STRs is useless.

      The kind of DNA testing of autosomal DNA SNPs of 700,000 to 1,000,000 is a better picture, IF you knew what part had the most variation.

      If you did not do a complete mitochondrial sequence, then just say so and I can dismiss anything further you have to say. It is NOT any more compelling without at any rate without a full genome sequence. We do not need a whole genome sequence. We do not need X-STRs, Y-STRs, Autosomal STRs, or yDNA.

      All my personal data is posted, so I know what you can give up. SEE:
      http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.427524841456.204572.637766456

      For my SNPs, SEE:
      http://opensnp.org/data/139.23andme.59

      I do not hide anything or behind anything.

      As I said, put up or shut up. Send your mtDNA genome sequence to johnlloydscharf@yahoo.com

      Delete
    3. Wrong!

      We have three 16,569 pair whole genome mito data, with sequencing provided for all pairs on Samples 1, 2, and 3. While I cannot publish out of deference to the "Ketchum" study where these (she believes) will be published "ASAP", I cannot ethically resease the actual data. I paid for two of the four complete mito sequences myself, but Ketchum has asked me not to publish the actual data, a request I'm honoring whether I need to or not.

      My website: www.ScienceAliveNews.com has three PDF entries, where the last of these three details that findings and statistical conclusions I've calculated myself. Please have a read for this entry at least.

      The situation is this: we are in all likelihood dealing with interbreeding between whatever male (maybe 50,000 years ago) wa the progenitor species of sasquatch. These males apparently liked the idea of illicit (huh?) sex with an archaic or stone-age Homo sapiens sapiens female, and also others later on (approx. 20,000 years ago, more or less) the resulting subspecies did the same thing. For the approx. 20,000 year old mito Eve (same Eve for Samples 1 and 2), only very few polymorphic sites on the mito side have had time enough to cause more than 3 or 4 mutations--not enough to cause the mito (full genome, not just a snippet) to fall outside of "modern human ranges.

      Still, there WERE mito differences, but not a lot of them (3 or 4; more in the case of Sample 3, being much older), indicating we have a hybrid or interbreeding situation some tens of thousands of years ago, unlike (say) Neandertal who has had upwards of 600,000 years to develop their own unique mito compared to modern humans (approx. 200 mito differences), whereas the most distant Homo sapiens sapiens from one another are about 90 pairs on the COMPLETE mito side.

      Still, research has shown that all of us who eventually left Africa through the Suez region have 1% to 4% Neandertal genes within us ALL, also indicated limited but statistical interbred genetics in action. In other words, the joke is on US, us "Neandertals".

      In conclusion, sir, we have a hybrid here (just like the mule deer of the mountain west) and this hybrid is partly "modern" human and partly something else the mito will not likely reveal -- only the nuclear will do that.

      We will not know whether this hypothesis is true without testing at last some genes in the nuclear DNA to really know for sure.

      Ketchum says this IS the very situation we are dealing with. While I realize she says what she wants to say, I have seen enough nuclear data to place three of the four purported sasquatch samploes outside of human ranges.

      Hybrid or Cross Breeding indeed seems to be in effect here. We will never know for sure without doing the testing of the nuclear, or at least several key genes within the nuclear DNA to compare with modern humans.

      You are right -- the mito gave this researcher (statistician actually) enough evidence to discover that two of the three complete mito sequences were likely NOT modern human (and probably all three). The odds of the results we got on the mito side -- if one connects the dots and doesn't take each sample in isolation (duh) are between 2% and 4% that these were hoaxes or errors. Bottom line: 96% or better we have a new hominid on our hands.

      Why do you want to only stick with the mito? I simply don't see any logic in your reasoning whatsoever, unless you don't WANT to know.

      Richard

      PS: At this point, we are talking "been there, done that" with this gentleman. Could Loren and/or Guy please chime in, whether in support of my educated hypothesis, or not?

      Delete
    4. When you say "your mtDNA genome sequence, I assume you mean then my personal sequencing? If so, I'll certainly send it to you. I also have my nuDNA results; I'll send that as well, if you wish.

      Sorry, but I cannot send the actual sequencing for any of the purported sasquatch sequencing.

      Richard

      Delete
  16. No. Absolutely not. I mean a sequence of the animal. Your bluff that you had useful DNA test results is called.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry; these data are not mine alone.

      However, if you give me an NDA between us, I'll see what I can arrange.

      Melba will have to have a say in this, since she facilitated the testing of both the mito and the nuclear DNA.

      These data do not belong to me exclusively. Even if I allow you to see the data, you may not publish anywhere the results; give Melba a chance here, man.

      I'm not bluffing; not at all, sir.

      Richard

      Delete
  17. I not buying your story; not at all, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am not accepting Melba's excuses either.

    ReplyDelete
  19. John:

    Judging from both the content and tone of all your entries, I wouldn't expect anything different coming from you, sir. In fact, I kind of doubt there's more than a handful of readers of this blog that accept your accounts whatsoever -- only those that believe (but do not know) that sasquatch even exists.

    What is it about not sending you data that makes you believe my story is "false"? I'm simply bound by both a single NDA and plain, every-day integrity not to reveal any actual data before Melba publishes "her" data.

    This will be the last time you hear from me directly. Give and take is not only take. Aren't you old enough to know any better?

    Guy and Loren, what's up with this guy. One of the worst and most opinionated I have run up against -- ever?

    Richard

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since my name has been invoked. I thought I would chime in. All I can say is this. Richard, it seems your hands are tied. Due to the restrictions you have regarding the sharing of your (Melba's) data. In my mind, this is what all of this hinges on, the openness of the research. I wont speak to anyone's intentions or behavior, I just want the Bigfoot community to be more transparent in it's research.

      Delete
    2. Guy:

      Agreed.

      It isn't me. I'm as open as a book. It's all Melba, and of course she has her reasons (probably mainly financial and the fact she works with lawyer(s) who get a contingency fee).

      I could probably legally release the data from Sample 1 only (the toe nail), but in deference to her study, I won't do that.

      Meanwhile, why her paper has been either "returned" or rejected is anyone's guess, but she must have gone beyond the data alone and conjectured about something that was not scientifically verifiable.

      That's my guess. I guess what pisses me off is that I'm trying to play by the rules, even though Melba's rules are not the same as mine. In fact, that's precisely the conversation I wanted to open between you and Loren; I think the bigfoot community is WAY too secretive, which is why we can't get anywhere, really.

      Fortunately, we are now starting a parallel study using all new samples; at the rate Melba is moving, we may well reach the finish line first. Still, we need her study (without conjecture) because the topic matter is so controversial -- in part due to folks like my earstwhile detractor.

      He should check out my track record; I'm an engineer with plenty of accolates in that field. I'm not "full of excuses"--only facts.

      Lastly, even if I did release Sample 1 data, it wouldn't do any good because it is still within modern human ranges -- taken alone. It becomes compelling only when one compares it to Sample 2's and 3's mtDNA profiles.

      Richard

      Delete
    3. Post the results and let them stand. This is not engineering. This is DNA. You have NOT published fact. You have published claims without data.

      Your most recent claim:
      Lastly, even if I did release Sample 1 data, it wouldn't do any good because it is still within modern human ranges -- taken alone. It becomes compelling only when one compares it to Sample 2's and 3's mtDNA profiles.

      Publish the sequence. Your bluff is called. As is NONE of it is compelling.

      Delete
  20. Richard:
    I am 61 years old. I have worked with robbers, rapists, and killers. At least one of them had a Ph.D. in math. In one of the programs I worked in, the need for a command of the language was so high that many of them had degrees.

    In regard to "give and take" you have had years to give up some real information, if you had any. I know of a Behar who deals with mtDNA research. He has published four papers [two of which are significant] in the time you supposedly have had your samples.

    I recognize when someone is obfuscating. Your excuses are not accepted and your bluff is called.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Obviously, Richard Stubstad, you have no respect for me, so it should have been easy for you to ignore and discount my objections. I retired from a world where everything I did was monitored by a court system. We do not all live in a world where what we say and do is held to the Daubert Standard.

    However, if you claim something in the professional world, be ready to deliver a preponderance of evidence that demands a verdict.

    Whether you are in court or dealing with a committee in peer review makes no difference in the expectations of the products of your work.

    The transparency in your "research" has been weighed and found wanting.

    ReplyDelete
  22. QUOTE:Let's see some DATA folks; otherwise this is someone's random guesswork -- in all likelihood based on partial mitochondrial DNA sequencing at best.- Richard Stubstad

    ReplyDelete
  23. With a guy who is used to dealing with crooks (robbers, rapists and killers) I don't think he's a very good candidate to tell the rest of us when and if we should release any data. We (the sasquatch community) may be a lot of things, but we are not robbers, rapists or killers.

    In fact many of us are dead-serious, but not yet dead. Simply put, anyone who works on white collar "crimes" knows that we at least attempt to work by the rules. The data is not entirely mine to share, so I won't do that.

    This will be my last look at the Lunch Club blogs. You folks can listen to John Loyd's ranting and raving all you want. You get what you pay for.

    I'm outta here.

    Richard

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Richard,
      I hope you continue to visit. Your expertise is valuable and not in dispute. I take you for your word, that out of deference to Melba's research you feel it is important to keep your data under wraps. I don't agree with Melba's unforthcoming policy/philosophy, but I do take you for your word.

      I don't police remarks or comments on this blog or my Facebook page, because I trust my fans are unified in the same goal, trying to understand the nature of Sasquatch. Under this collective goal, we should be able to disagree with each other in a civil manner.

      I am truly grateful for the contributions you and John Loyd have made to the community and my blog, I'm sure there are aspects of DNA research you and John agree on. I would be even more grateful if you both could discover that overlapping area where you also agree. It would be great for the community and it would be great for our collective understanding of this complex world of DNA.

      Delete
    2. At this point, those saying they are doing DNA testing seem to be more interested in speaking engagements than in giving us facts any skeptic can test.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, Guy, you are wrong though. I am disputing his claims and his expertise with regard to DNA. He has made too many mistakes to believe that.

      He may understand how to read results and use probability math, but he seems to have very limited understanding of evolutionary biology, DNA testing and research methodology.

      I am not an "expert" in this field either. No one without a degree and published papers in peer reviewed journal is. I do have enough course work in research to know how to construct research methodology to test a hypothesis.

      What I have done is read 1000s of papers in this field so I could interpret my extensive testing. That means reading any paper on population studies and sequenced ancient DNA from several species of human and mammoth.

      Even molecular biologists make claims they do not confirm and are often refuted, but Richard Stubstad is nowhere near their level. His take on mtDNA and switching up on his expectations when applied to him were very revealing. QED.

      Delete
  24. Mr. Stubstad -

    Dr. Ketchum is a forensic scientist who works with DNA on a daily basis, testifies as an expert witness in court, and has experience with both animal and human DNA. You are an engineer who was involved with this project only a short time.

    DNA requires the skills of forensic scientists, geneticists and statisticians. Is it common knowledge, based on what you have stated in many forums, that you and Dr. Ketchum had a parting of the ways. So WHY should anyone listen to you? You lack the skills, the education and the experience to provide any meaningful analysis. You are privy to only a fraction of the data involved in this project, based on all accounts, and most of what you say is only conjecture ... from an engineer, NOT a DNA specialist.

    Your continued sniping at Dr. Ketchum appears based only in sour grapes and an ongoing attempt at character assassination. And in EVERY forum, as soon as someone challenges you, you run away.

    You, sir, are a what they call a "sniper" in the "how to deal with difficult people" vernacular. You are comfortable shooting accusations at your target from a what you believe to be a secure location, but once you are exposed, you are no longer "safe" and you turn tail and RUN. In my book, that means you have zero credibility.

    Why can't you just wait for Dr. Ketchum's paper to work its way through peer-review? That paper is the BEST opportunity this field has EVER had for proof and vindication. Why you continue to try to shoot it down is illogical ... unless you are simply driven by jealousy. In which case, I again ask, WHY should anyone listen to you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His first mistake was to try to question the use of mtDNA in identifying a species.... The mtDNA is one of the most common ways to do DNA barcoding...

      His bluff is called.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous & Guy:

      Guy, a good friend of yours encouraged me to get back onto your blog(s), in spite of trolling and phishing that seems to prevail from time to time.

      So I'm back. For starters, I won't reply let alone acknowledge from trollers; I am very ill now to boot, which doesn't help matters either. Give me 60/40 seeing the end of this year (very advanced prostate cancer).

      Anonymous:

      While I'm quite suspicious of your title, I can state the following points:

      1) Actually, I worked with Ms. Ketchum for almost a year. I did not make any "genetic" conclusions whatsoever; essentially, I connected the dots (the first four samples) and examined, statistically, the relationships between these using GenBank.

      2) No, I do support Ms. Ketchum's work 100%. I hope she gets her paper published sooner rather than later. My point was and still is: at least two parallel studies (regardless of who is first) will be needed due to the highly controversial nature of the subject matter.

      3) Really, the only thing I don't like about how she works is her secrecy throughout. I think this secrecy hurts our "industry" as it were. In fact, since she has 20-some fresh samples (relics are not yet included in her work), of course she knows a whole lot more than I do about results.

      4) Secrecy to that degree, I maintain, is detrimental to our search for both the existence and nature of sasquatch.

      5) I worked with Melba through the first four of her 20-some samples.

      6) In the event, Sample 1's mito dna (all 16,569 pairs) came out within modern human ranges.

      7) Melba and I, while being somewhat disappointed in this result agreed to test Sample 2 as well (whole mito genome again), and lo and behold Samples 1 and 2 both indicated that their mitochondrial "Eve" lived in the sub-glacial region of Europe some 15,000 or more years ago.

      8) The odds of this happening using the modern human population in GenBank were less than 2%. Meaning the odds of us happening to identify a new hominid were some 98% or better. Ms Ketchum didn't notice this connection, but rather she took each sample on its own and surmised they could have been hoaxes or misidentifications.

      7) Both Adrian Erickson and I pointed out to her that by connecting the dots between Samples 1 and 2 (mito only), it was definitely worth pursuing further, so Sample 3 was tested for the mito genome (full loop) next.

      8) This sample indicated a sub-Saharan mito Eve from perhaps 50,000 years ago more or less; totally at the opposite ends of the human family tree, although still within modern human ranges.

      9) THe number of differences between Samples 1 & 2 vs Sample 3 was about 90 pairs (almost the maximum that exist in the modern human database).

      10) Still, the statistics changed by virtue of having three mito sequences instead of two, so the odds of a hoax or misidentification changed from less than 2% to 3 or 4%.

      11) Erickson then funded a nuclear DNA study, which began in earnest. The first gene tested was MC1R, and the results were equally or even more astounding. Samples 1, 2 and 4 all showed the MC1R sequences to be outside of human ranges (in the database), with two of three (2 and 4) as 100% identical.

      12) Sample 1 was also not within modern human ranges, but it differed from 2 and 4 by two pairs (out of 950 or so).

      13) Bottom line: I am 97% certain that SASQUATCH EXISTS. I am not at all certain what its genesis is, but IT EXISTS. I am not positive of this conclusion, only 97% certain. This is evidence but not proof. Proof requires 100% certainty.


      Richard

      Delete
    3. Richard,
      Very interesting, thanks for sharing and thanks for returning. I'm anxious to see where this all leads and will do my best to be patient.

      --guy

      Delete
  25. Wow, I misssed this when it was happening, I am sorry I am so late. But, I see one key statement, a statement I have seen alluded to from the Ketchum power-point presentation: Novel methhods.
    It sounds like a new primer or some lab process has been developed for this situation? If so then that is the hold up I would imagine. It also could be a major hurdle to acceptance after publication, even with a strong peer review.
    Novel processes by definition put this is a "maybe" basket until many others can confirm. That sounds wrong doesn't it? Seems if it passes review it's OK? Not for Law anyway, and probably not for the many scientists who can replicate the processes, until they have.
    Secrecy and the BF world, much borne of competition. But also because there are so many involved without ethics or professional training, and all too willing to cross boundaries that don't bind them. It is legendary, the BF BS, one can't get it, until they live it. It is IMO the reason BFs aren't proved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ape Human:

      This bit of insight may be exactly what is happening and why Ketchum's publication efforts have not succeeded. You should post this bit of insight on Lindsay's blog as well.

      If somehow Ketchum has also tried to patent her "special primers", this move alone will probably doom her peer-reviewing efforts, since no one could check her work with other samples without paying her royalties.

      If so, too bad. Greed is the root of all evil, followed by money.

      Richard Stubstad

      Delete

Let's keep the language and material clean, keep in mind we have younger fans that get their Bigfoot News here too. If your comment is directed specifically to our editor, Guy Edwards, he will personally take time out of his day and ask one of us interns to reply to you in his name.

Please read our terms of use policy.