Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Thom Powell Drinks the Ketchum Kool-Aid

Thom offers up a tasting of the Ketchum Kool-Aid
"If that makes me a “Ketchum supporter” then, yes, I guess I drank the Kool-Aid. All I can say is, it was delicious." -- Thom Powell

There is no doubt that Bigfoot Lunch Club is a friend of Bigfoot author, Thom Powell. Heck I even illustrated the cover of his best selling Bigfoot book Shady Neighbors. I am also a huge fan of his previous must-have book The Locals. Click the following link to buy either of his Bigfoot books.

Due to Thom Powell's books he is on record for reporting many of the Bigfoot phenomena before they became mainstream conversations--mainstream among bigfooters anyway. While not everybody "bought" into these topics we still discuss them; topics like infrasound, cover-ups, habituation and yes, even Bigfoot DNA. Thom Powell is no hack when it comes to the topic, he has given a lot of thought to it and clearly has made his own conclusions. 

Thom and I talked about the topic of his recent post, "Bigfoot DNA Evidence Redux" a full week before he posted it. We didn't agree much over the phone, but if I'm honest, his blog post affords him greater ability to make his points. Points of which I still disagree with, but I do have some favorite parts. I loved his synopsis.
OK, so here it is in a nutshell: 109 samples were obtained from all over North America.
(Obviously, the sasquatch phenomenon is more widespread than most people realize.) Most samples were hair, but not all. Blood, saliva, and even a tissue sample was analyzed. Not all of the work was done by a single lab. Some of it was farmed out to university labs that were not initially given any background about the samples they were asked to examine.

The findings were remarkably consistent: mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA), which is indicative of the female component of the genome, came back as human! The nDNA (nuclear DNA from the male progenitor) was found to be ‘novel’, which is geneticist code for “doesn’t match anything previously extracted.”  Also, large sections of the DNA strands appeared as single strand molecules (haploid), as opposed to the uniformly double-stranded DNA of all human DNA that is not found in sex cells (gametes). This might indicate that the DNA being sequenced was highly degraded DNA, but degraded DNA is found to contain lots of bacteria, and no bacteria was found in conjunction with the DNA that showed single strand configuration.  It was not degraded, but it was single strand DNA in about half of the segments that were sequenced. Multiple labs observed this anomaly, an[d] dutifully reported it to Ketchum.
It is the last sentence that I find troublesome. Does it matter that Ketchum was dutiful?

In another paragraph from his post, Thom and I absolutely agree that Ketchum's study can be vindicated if she allowed other scientist to replicate her work.
I suggested to Dr. Ketchum that vindication of her work will only happen when it is replicated by another study, maybe even more than one. She wholeheartedly agreed. We are told that Dr. Bryan Sykes at Cambridge is already on it. Meanwhile, Ketchum has complete confidence that her methodology and her result will withstand the test of time and scientific scrutiny, if scientists will just look objectively at her work.
There are a few parts where the post seems like a Valentine to Ketchum, but I have been known to fawn over personalities myself; namely Cliff Barackman, Sharon Hill and Thom Powell himself. My biggest concern regarding Thom Powell's post is that people will miss his reference to Chapter 10: “No Stone Left Unturned.” of The Locals.

This is where Thom impresses (and inspires) me most, with his own studies and thoughts compiled from many sources.
There is one final doozy of a stone that is still unturned.  It’s sort of the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room that nobody wants to talk about...

I’m referring to the other half of the sasquatch genome that the Ketchum study identified; the part that isn’t human. The sasquatch genome, according to the Ketchum’s work, is human DNA that interspersed with DNA that is absolutely unknown.  It is neither ape, nor human, not lemur.  Ketchum has no idea what it is, nor does anyone else, but the ‘novel’, single strand, haploid DNA is there for anyone to find who knows how to sequence it. Is it some evolutionary offshoot of humanity that we have yet to identify in the fossil record?  Maybe. But the mysterious sequences are single strand, that is haploid DNA, and all terrestrial DNA in somatic cells (blood, hair, tissue, bone) is diploid unless it is in gametes (sex cells).

OK, so what is the origin of this truly novel DNA that Melba Ketchum found in the sasquatch genome? For one possible answer, check out The Locals, Chapter 10: “No Stone Left Unturned.”  What gave me a chill when I read the Ketchum study is the possibility that I may have written down an answer ten years before I even asked this question.

Read Thom's complete post regarding his thoughts on the Ketchum Study at ThomSquatch. While you are there buy his Bigfoot Books too.

Stay tuned. Tomorrow I will publish a thoughtful letter sent to us from a Ketchum advocate!


  1. His post has caused quite a stir...like there needed to be more stirring. Thom is generally well liked but the warring factions between the Ketchum and Cutino camps will likely reach a resounding crescendo now.

    Fun stuff! I don't think any of it will ever get resolved.

  2. When is Derek Randles going to make a stand one way or the other regarding this report? Has anyone asked him?

    1. I'm guessing that due to his association with the Olympic Project, and through it to Ketchum, that 'officially' he may feel obligated to support it. As to his private thoughts, who knows? Whatever his opinion, there has been and continues to be too much bloody secrecy involved in this pursuit. Anybody ever hear of "transparency" . . ? Cheers!

  3. I try to remember that scientists wait,no party until someone can replicate the results. You can't count your chickens no matter how much you really want a buttload of eggs. I'm willing to give Ketchum kudos, she's trying. But remember this will be HUGE, if true. Do we want to act in a calm and reasonable manner so other scientists will try to replicate results and next thing you know Ketchum will be accepting a Nobel Prize? Or do we want to act all crazy and "I don't know this looks good to me, how dare anyone question this?" and scientists run away from this as fast as they can? I say, let's behave rationally and let science, and trust science, to tell us what Ketchum's results really mean. Good or bad, science doesn't exist to cover up Bigfoot, science exists to prove what is true. If the results are too degraded or a mess, all the wishing in the world can't make it proof of Bigfoot. Do I hope the results can be replicated? yes? If nothing the donated specimens makes me feel funny. No one sent in a fake bit of DNA from their dog? No one sent in a deer or other animal they mistook? Better collection methods and better science will be hopefully the next study. Not holding my breath for this one! But, for putting herself out there for what she believes, Ketchum gets a pat on the back from me.


  4. This is what I found so far PART II: First you MUST read the manuscript as I did AND before making statements for or against it period.....otherwise your just another person with a unfounded opinion an armchair scientest or something less...... (fill in the blanks).

    When the word "novel" is used in the Abstract it states the nuclear DNA is of unknown origin.....why should you be surprised, this is a undocumented hominin.... it's still not of record scientifically.... however the Melba Ketchum Abstract "IS THE PROOF" the proof is in the DNA and IT HAS BEEN DUPLICATED again and again....READ the paper cover to cover including the supplemental material (this includes the Professionals out there.)

    Once Genbank accepts the data any one with the proper equipment can duplicate the results and compair the DNA for matches to what has been submitted by the MK Abstract. Otherwise all DNA results will be inconclusive because you have NOTHING to compair your results to...until NOW.

    Further more the document contains information on Species Identification, Human DNA Identification, Forensic Analysis, Electron Microscopy data, Mitochondrial DNA analysis, DNA quality, Morphological, Histopatholohic examination, materials, methods, processes, classification of samples, data used, how many in the sampels collection, what type of samples, pictures, charts, cameras used, equipment used, Isolation & Prevention from contamination methodologies, screening methods of samples, sequencing results, STR results, alignment of related samples, successful SPNs using human Bead Array Testing, Sequence Anomalies, migrations of amplicons, electron micrographs, double-stranded DNA, indicators pointing to Y-branch, drill down analysis of Global Blast n sequence, Conclusions from data, references & Acknowledgements, For Hire Laboratories Used in Blind Studies, Supplemental Data.... it's all in there... read it first people.

    1. > When the word "novel" is used in the Abstract it states the nuclear DNA is of unknown origin.....why should you be surprised, this is a undocumented hominin...

      That's rather circular reasoning. Because we don't know the entity, we've proven the existence of the entity?

      I've never tasted unicorn meat. If my host serves me a steak that doesn't taste familiar, therefore it's from a unicorn?

      (Chupacabra-kebab is delicious, by the way.)

    2. No its not "circular reasoning". If you isolated DNA that is not in the Genbank from one specimen. Then later recieve another specimen collected at a diffierent location at a different time and the DNA lines up with the first then you have a "Novel" or unknown. The fact the there were 3 COMPLETE genomes that fit this criteria seems to be ignored. Also what no one talks about is the detailed testing done by Dr. Ketchum to rule out that the DNA was human.

      Test were done for the TYR gene, which is associated with skin pigmentation, and the HAR1 gene, which is a “human accelerated region” associated with human neurological development. The human skin color gene TYR and human brain gene HAR1 were not found in Bigfoot nuDNA.ALL HUMANS have these genes! The 3 complete genomes Dr Ketchum had did not. So by process of elimination it was demonstrated that a new hominin existed.

      Also the paper is under an independent scientific review. The scientist working on the are confirming her findings below is a statement from Dr. Ketchum:

      "We just heard from some mtDNA geneticists and they have found uniqueness in our mtDNA findings that prove that 1. The data is real and couldn't have been hoaxed 2. That it shows relatedness amongst a large percentage of the samples 3. Supports our hybridization theory 4. Supports our timeline. I am estatic. We are asking permission to make these findings public. As soon as we have it, we will post them.

      We just received permission to post. There will most likely be a new paper come from this so we will not post the new findings but you will see enough of the proof to validate the paper. I am SO excited!!!!!"

      So bottom line, read the study and get the FACTS

  5. A lot of big words covering for bad science, trying to fool the gullible.

  6. I have yet to have anyone show me "the bad science"...what page...which paragraph, what don't you agree with or is this just a catch phrase that appeals to you when in doubt. There is two terabyes of data in the Manuscript. Is this another opinion supported by "someone said, or someone in the know stated or it's just the way you think it should be or do you have facts to back that up this is bad science"......Lets start with did you read the Manuscript? Do you even know what data is provided? I'm not attempting to fool anyone not even you, I'm saying to read the Manuscript first...or do you have a preconceived conclusion / biased slant on the subject... if so don't bother and have a nice day! Myself I'm just after the truth let the data stand on it's own, I totaly agree with Thom Powell on this....keep an open mind or you just might be the gullible one.
    P.S. I'm not posting on this again...your entitled to your opinion whatever that might be.

    1. > I have yet to have anyone show me "the bad science"...what page...which paragraph, what don't you agree with

      Didn't Ketchum cite an April Fools article?

  7. The problem I have with a "set" species mutating when they are bottlenecked into an area is this: Extant species like the platypus and enchidas have been living in prime mutation/evolution areas (austrailia, i.e. bottlenecked) and their fossils have remained unchanged for 130Myrs (yeah, that's right. look it up). The only chimp fossils (teeth) have been unchanged for 500Kyrs ( and they are still in a bottleneck). Why can't we just agree that Heidelbergensis (7-8ft tall) or Meganthropus (8-9ft tall) came across the 2.5Myold Bering land bridge with all of the other "prey-species" and finally resided here during the many glacial recessions during this last iceage? Where are the bones you ask? Well, in the 1900's, we excavated many bones describing this exact thing; and, the federal government passed a law prohibiting the excavation of burial mounds. Cynthia Wormington also found 250Ky (some dates put it at 750Kya) pre-sapien tools and her findings were rejected because she was a woman and that the time-frame didn't "jive" with accepted, published "science" from the "man" (Melba can attest to this). It is absurd to think that Pre-Sapiens didn't travel the bridge and follow all the yummy tasting treats that predated Chomosonal Y-HaplogroupX migrations.
    Now, some of these H.Heidel/H.Mega would have indeed taken many beautiful, small HaplogroupX (Native American if you didn't know) women and mated. Alas, if they really are "pre-human" they should be able to produce viable offspring right science? Another thing to understand is that their only predator for 2Myrs in N.Americas has been only residing here for a few hundred years (Indians left them alone and called their burial mounds "sacred"). The 40% of unsurveyed N.American land (U.S. & CA) is plenty of space to share. Since forest doesn't make fossils (extremely rare), the only place to look would be the mounds; which by the way, the excavated skeletons describe large eyes, browridges, sloping foreheads, triangular ribcages and 7-10ft height. (It also describes two rows of teeth, alas, why wouldn't our "adult teeth" microevolve to come out sooner in life to utilize all of the raw food consumption because you came across the bridge before learning "fire" to cook your meat?--more calories needed, more teeth needed)--It's simple science and logical thought. --JasonJStillwaterOK

  8. Perhaps some people do, indeed, know exactly where that "unknown" DNA comes from but to speak of it or even suggest it is to meet with greater ridicule than Dr. Ketchum met from both the scientific community AND the Bigfoot community. The truth of the whole thing will eventually be revealed and we will see who the "experts" really are.

    1. Correct and when the smoke clears all these experts are going to be eating a little crow. I'm quickly trying to find a recipe as I have never had the honor myself, preferring to hold my mouth as the evidence rolls in and then making a decision. Of course again, I'm not selling "ancient ape" books or guiding people to the latest B.F. site for only a "modest" fee. Btw, I have no axe to ground, just really and thoughtfully investigated the evidence, the people who supplied it, but most of all the scientific methods that were used. Nothing out of the norm there, just plain old investigative work done the same old way; and it will yield the same thing as Ketcham's work has.


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.