Steve Kulls weighs in on Dr. Melba Ketchum

Definitions

 •Nuclear DNA, nuclear deoxyribonucleic acid (nDNA)  In mammals and vertebrates, nuclear DNA encodes more of the genome than the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and is composed of information inherited from two parents, one male, and one female, rather than matrilineally. Nuclear DNA is the most common DNA used in forensic examinations.
 •Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited from the mother (maternally inherited) and there is usually no change in mtDNA from parent to offspring. Because of this mtDNA is a powerful tool for tracking ancestry through females (matrilineage) and has been used in this role to track the ancestry of many species back hundreds of generation, It also permits an examination of the relatedness of populations.
 •Hominini is the tribe of Homininae that comprises Homo, and other members of the human clade after the split from the tribe Panini (chimpanzees). Members of the tribe are called hominins (cf. Hominidae, "hominids"). Some earlier classification schemes include the genus Pan (chimpanzees) within the Hominini, but this classification is now rarely followed.

                                          Making Sence of the breakdownIN A SHOCKING TURN OF EVENTS... All political motivations aside, finally an official statement from the camp of Dr. Melba Ketchum has been issued regarding the Sasquatch DNA study we have since longed for some answers.
 The process and timeliness of the release of the statement, is moot for the sake of  true science, and we all know science is a race to see who is first. It was in the case of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) between the Center for Disease Control (CDC) as depicted in the TV movie, “And the Band Played On.”

 The statement can be read here in its entirety.
 But what does it all mean? What connections can we relate to it if it is true?

First let’s dispel a rumor I heard that there was no peer review done on the study.
 The statement says no such thing, in fact it does say, “The study was conducted by a team of experts in genetics, forensics, imaging and pathology...”

 So it appears that perhaps the peer review has been completed, without spelling it out directly.
 The study according to the report has shown that the samples collected were the result of a hybridization, between humans and an unknown type of species not yet catalogued.

 The statement indicates, “(The) ...data indicates that the North American Sasquatch is a hybrid species, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens....The male progenitor that contributed the unknown sequence to this hybrid is unique as its DNA is more distantly removed from humans than other recently discovered hominins..Sasquatch nuclear DNA is incredibly novel and not at all what we had expected. While it has human nuclear DNA within its genome, there are also distinctly non-human, non-archaic hominin, and non-ape sequences. We describe it as a mosaic of human and novel non-human sequence.”
 When I first read this on Friday, I needed time

to  digest what this actually meant.  If true, it means today’s Sasquatch is a cross between a human and probably the “original Sasquatch.”
 Now some folks out there are a bit biased, for whatever reasons, but is this plausible?

I mean, if true, gone are the possible connections between the Sasquatch and the Gigantopithicus. One I believed as a strong possibility. It’s a hard pill to swallow being wrong, but in impartial investigation and science demand this. So let’s look at what we do know.
 We know anthropologically, that Native Americans have always spoken of a group of creatures running off with women in the night. This has been documented over and over again. Could there be some truth to it? All myths have some basis in reality. Could this explain the Albert Ostman kidnapping, if true, as a more recent example of such?

Or could it be science fitted to a theory rather than a theory fitted to science?

Right now there are many questions. The first being will the science of the Ketchum Study stand up to the rest of the world’s science.
 Now we run into the argument, is it human? How will it effect laws?

The argument, is one I feel at least a little qualified to answer. It is not human. At least half of it is not, so therefore it can not be as a whole human.
 Remember the pan troglodyte (chimpanzee) is made up of similarly human 94.6% DNA.  To be human  the law would only recognize something as being 100% human.

Only time will tell how the study sorts itself. 


http://squatchdetective.com/ketchum1.html

Posted by Steve Kulls


 

 

 

Scott Marlowe Steve, your point about the peer revew is partially correct, as I understand the chain of events. The first time the report was submitted, it was rejected by the peer review. This is a second, rewritten, report apparently submitted to a second journal. That said, and despite all the protestations I've heard to the contrary, this "Peer Review" amounts to an editorial review and NOT a scientific peer review. In other words, the material in the report is checked for validity and reliability only so far as the procedures described and conclusions drawn from them follow expected conventions and knowledge. The next thing to occur would be examination of the "facts" by the scientific community to verify that the results achieved can be repeated by other -- third party -- scientists and that the "findings" are not an anomaly. ONLY then would the report be taken very seriously by the scientific community at large.