Posted by: Craig Woolheater on January 24th, 2014
And vice versa!
Posted on Melba Ketchum’s Facebook wall:
I sent an email to Bryan Sykes of Oxford Ancestors and this is the reply I got (feeling disappointed) …
Thanks for your email. I am well aware of Dr Ketchum’s claims.
However, her work has not been published in a peer-reviewed
journal, her materials are not available nor has her data been
made public so that others can replicate what she claims to have
done. This is not science. My concern is that so many people seem
to think it is.
Professor of Human Genetics
Wolfson College, Oxford,OX2 6UDBryan Sykes
In response to Sykes’ lack of knowledge about our project:
1. It was peer reviewed and passed. I told the story about that many times. Nature’s peer reviews were biased as they didn’t read the manuscript asking for things already in the paper and other huge flaws. It was passed by a newer journal in a blind peer reviews. When the journal backed out of publishing at the last minute thanks to the advise of their attorney, we acquired the journal and Wally paid to have the website re-done with a new name. None of us had ANYTHING to do with the peer reviews. They were allegedly from genomics people but they were blind so I do not know the identities of the reviewers. By the way they were written, I have no doubts this is true. These reviews are online here.
2. I asked several labs to re-test samples, nobody will do it (but they were already re-tested within the study by other labs. There two labs extracting, 10 labs testing and all labs got the same resutls. Sykes certainly didn’t ask to re-test anything I did. Not that I would trust him after the letter below. Plus all he would get is human since he has a mtDNA lab. He would have to test the nuDNA to get the novel sequence.
3. The data is public, including the sequences on chromosome 11 we used in the manuscript. Since Gen-Bank wouldn’t take them (we’re still trying to get the whole genomes in), the whole genomes are not available yet but all of the data we used in the paper is. In a scientific paper, you must make public what you use. We did that in all of the supplemental tables and files for download along with the paper. The millions of bases we aligned are right there for download. Anybody can see it. They are in two forms. 1. mutation tables for the mtDNA All of this can be downloaded open access at www.sasquatchgenomeproject.org. We even have added some supporting raw data straight from the machines on the website. It also is not required to publish. I have nothing to hide. The data is sound and repeatable. Some of the samples were not even in my hands since the raw samples were extracted and tested elsewhere. How can I not have real data when the same samples are extracted and tested elsewhere with the same results that the same samples gave in my hands and outsourced to other labs.? I did the science, but science just doesn’t want to accept it. That is their problem. We did the work, our team proved it and I feel there is obviously a concerted effort to suppress it and destroy the study through disinformation.Melba Ketchum
One more thing, it is not my claim, but that of a number of very good scientists from both academia and the private and government sectors. After the attacks started coming, I told my co-authors to let me take the heat and just refer back to me. They have families to feed and I didn’t want them losing their jobs. My career ended in forensics as soon as they got me on the stand and started spouting all of the lies from various hater blogs to discredit me so it was too late for me to salvage that part of my career and I didn’t want the same to happen to my co-authors.Melba Ketchum
And there is the unsolicited peer review from Dr. David Swenson and others that would not allow me to post them publicly for fear of the stigma attached to Bigfoot. Dr. Swenson is imminently qualified to assess the manuscript since he was the first person to assemble the staph aureus genome for Upjohn among other accolades. Dr. Swenson worked with our sequences and came to the same conclusion as follows:
Interested parties. I went over the manuscript by Melba Ketchum on Bigfoot genomics. My desktop had difficulty with a blast analysis of the consensus sequences. It helped me understand more about the project. This collaborative venture has done a huge project that taxes me to fully grasp. I see interesting homology with a standard human sequence with 99% match for mitochondria. From my abbreviated study, the nuclear genome seems to have human and nonhuman sequences. My opinion of the creature is that it is a hybrid of a human mother and an unknown hominid male, Just as reported. For all practical purposes, it should be treated as human and protected under law. Sasquatch is real, as proven by genetic analysis.
I NEVER would have done this again. I was very naive, I though that enough cutting edge science was the answer so we overkilled and overkilled the testing, to the tune of 500,000 dollars to make sure it passed peer review with the best science that money could buy thanks to Wally Hersom and Adrian Erickson. We used duplicate labs and blind studies. There is no credible critique of the science out there. Just a lot of complaints about the results and results that were generated by major universities. It cost me my ability to testify in court which I loved. No, never would have done it if I had to do it over.
I didn’t have a choice about the journal. I had sent it to many journals. PLOS One wouldn’t even send it out for review nor would Cell. They wouldn’t even give it a chance.
When this happens, you have to do whatever it takes to get the peer reviews. I had no choice.Melba Ketchum
Don’t care what Sykes or anyone else has to say. It is what it is. Not even trying to prove it anymore. People either believe the study or don’t. I will defend it to allegations like is made below though. BTW, Sykes wrote me one time and wanted to meet with me. I said sure and even offered to take him to where he could see a Sasquatch, but he backed out. He could have accessed all of my data and samples, but chose not to do so. The window for that opportunity is now closed.
Instead went to the Pacific NW to meet with that group. I would have much rather, as a scientist, had access to the overwhelming data set we have AND had the chance to see one.
I had not spoken of this before, wasn’t anyone’s business, but if he is going to cast the first stone after turning down the opportunity I gave him. I have no choice.Melba Ketchum
Craig Woolheater – has written 2364 posts on this site.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster.