That doesn’t seem to be the case. Cryptomundo just posted a video with a New Zealand biologist describing what Ketchum’s data actually looks like, and it seems that Ketchum’s result isn’t from an actual species, but rather an artifact produced by the sequencing technology. Basically, the why the technology works, it copies the little bits of DNA from the sample and then tries to stitch it together, like trying to paste back together a shredded document, by matching up overlapping sequences. To speed this process along, sometimes a template is used, like looking at the picture on a jigsaw puzzle. Ketchum apparently used human chromosome 11 as a template, and the technology forced all the bits and pieces of DNA to fit into that template.

Ketchum, in her C2C radio interview, said the machines themselves have ways to double check the reliability of the results, but the proof is in the data. The stitched-together DNA has traces from a variety of different species, including dog and bear, along with the reported human component. A real animal just wouldn’t look like that.

There were supposedly three whole genome sequences completed by Ketchum, so it’s possible that it’s just this one that’s turned up bad (and it may be Smeja’s sample), but Ketchum should have recognized it as bad data, or at least recruited a biologist who could have performed the necessary analysis. It’s not really a case of the sample being contaminated, it’s a case of there being no real sample there at all, it’s all contamination.

A reviewer must have asked the question somewhere along the line, “how is cognatus related to the other hominins?” But Ketchum didn’t provide an answer, only that the non-human ancestor was a mystery. To me, the problem here is that Ketchum was either unfamiliar with, or wholly unconcerned with, how different species are related to each other; how evolution works.

The answers to all three of those questions, can be found in ancient texts, if they are looked at objectively, instead of with prejudice, as myths, because they do not fit the belief systems of “modern” humans. Those ancient stories tell us that humans are hybrids, genetically engineered by an alien species, with their DNA, and that of a primitive humanoid that lived on Earth. While trying to perfect their hybrid species, they engineered several other hybrids, most of which did not survive. Once the hybrid was perfected, as far as being able to perform the labor it was engineered to do, it was sterile, as all hybrids are. Their own females acted as surrogate mothers, to create the first generations of sterile humans, until their genetic engineers overcame the sterility problem, and humans were able to reproduce themselves. That story has been handed down to us in the familiar Adam and Eve story in the Bible, a condensed and edited version. The “knowledge” in the Bible story was the sexual knowing that involved the ability to reproduce. They engineered humans so well, that they became attracted to them, and began mating with them, adding more of their genes to the pool. There is also evidence that the new humans mated with the primitive humanoids they were engineered from. I believe we must consider that Bigfoot is a primitive humanoid, related to to the primitive humanoids we were engineered from.

When these ancient texts were unearthed, translated, and read, by the scholars of the times, they were unaware of the technology we have today. Today, we are very close to being able to duplicate the genetic engineering in the ancient stories. If it is within the realm of possibility for us now, why not then? And we are capable of limited space travel now. Why couldn’t there be space travelers that were more capable than us then, who were also more advanced in all other sciences, such as genetics? Are our egos too inflated to allow us to consider the truth? That we were created by beings more advanced than us? And that our ancient relatives may still be around? Both on Earth, and in space?

Speaking only for myself, I’m willing to admit that I depend on the assessment of ‘trusted authorities’ every day. I rely on teachers, physicians, mechanics, emergency response, IT specialists, law enforcement and any number of other ‘authorities’ every time I step foot outside my door. I don’t trust them blindly, but to dismiss them out of hand simply because they’re managed to become an authority would be foolish. Much as I’d like the convenience of consulting the mailman for my upper respiratory infection, I’m probably going to defer to a physician.

In the case of Dr. Ketchum’s data, it’s been interesting to see the difference in how the opinions of two equitable professionals – one a biochemist and one a microbiologist – have been either embraced or dismissed here depending on whether they appeared to support or doubt the beliefs of the reader.

If I am lucky enough to witness Sasquatch for myself, am I going to be most comfortable discussing the encounter and the evidence with Meldrum and Coleman, or Erickson and Moneymaker?

It’s true that there have been many cases of individuals not being given due credit because they weren’t an accepted member of their establishment. It’s tempting to be idealistic and assume that all differences of opinion will be resolved upon further assessment of the data, but we know this is probably untrue…there’s already far too much emotionally invested in the subject. We’re at the point in which seeking to work hand-in-hand with logic – including the ‘common sense’ that tells us something is not quite right here – is being openly maligned to the same degree that Dr. Ketchum is.

Not only that but this dubious video is thrown in that doesn’t prove her case at all-it doesn’t even help because it’s so vague (I’m being generous here).

Bottom line: until her data and research can be verified it’s not worth anything.

Actually, asecretcountry clearly underlines your points in his response, with “your 100% clueless how science works”, explaining the very ‘works’ just seconds before: “…self published piece of dubious lineage with a video of what looks like a wet dog supporting it”.

So this is how sceince works – problems with a DNA study are:
“self publishing” – not academia
“dubious lineage” – not academia
“video not good enough” -!? – completely irrelevant to the finding

All your points, see?
You explained it, he demonstated it. Well, that’s knowledge now.

Dufusyte responds: February 25th, 2013 at 10:47 am
“..and it makes me think the reviewer is not a clear thinker….

Read what Mr Joshua wrote for clarity.!
And you then spoilt your own idea by claiming this..

“If there is any justice, Melba will get the Nobel.

An “IG” was missing before the Nobel wasnt it.?

For god sake..its a self published piece of dubious lineage with a video of what looks like a wet dog supporting it..and you still think thats ok.? .

If you had any shred of integrity or common sense you and x3419a would just stop proving your 100% clueless how science works.

DR K can obviously say anything or do anything..and backs to the wall..in denial..you guys will never get it..you have been conned..stay silent..stop shooting yourself and the whole field in the foot each time you struggle on the keyboard.

One journal declined publication because the matter “needed to be submitted by a zoologist.” As we can see, these folk are so blinded by the dogmatic structures of academia that they are unable to honestly evaluate research on its own merits.

Rather, they evaluate data based on its source: does the source have the proper degree, has the source been on TV, is the source seen as an icon in their field…

Essentially: is the source a Trusted Authority.

This, my friends, is the clear sign of someone believing on Authority. Small minded folk, unable to evaluate data on its own merits, trust rather in the authority of their trusted authorities. They are believers, rather than thinkers.

So typical of skeptics, who are likewise feeble minds, unable to evaluate data per se, relying instead on their trusted authorities (“Why hasn’t this been on TV? What degree does this person have? What does the herd think of this?”).

Skeptics are the greatest believers; they firmly believe their Trusted Authorities, and they are nary incapable of thinking in their own right, and far too timid to defy their trusted authorities and hold to a position which has not yet been duly Authorized.

And thus, the paper was rejected because the source was not an accredited authority. The great minds behind these journals being unable to weight the research on its own merits, relying rather on the credentials of the one submitting the data…

Alas, in the Information Age, so many have obtained great expertise without a degree, and anyone can go public without needing a publisher. It’s getting harder to live the skeptic’s life, relying solely on the old academic authorities. There is so much good research coming from outsiders. It’s requiring us to evaluate data on its own merits and do some actual thinking.

“O bother…” said Pooh.

Unfortunately, I suspect that
(1) such a request is unlikely,
(2) if it did come, we would probably hear about how “the lawyers” were preventing it, and
(3) if the request were made, the samples provided, and the results mundane, many Cryptomundians would dismiss the mundane results as part of some vast conspiracy.