Mod+ Melba Ketchum - Sasquatch DNA Sequencing on Coast to Coast

#1
Dr. Melba Ketchum was on Coast to Coast discussing her research findings that Sasquatch DNA sequences show the Sasquatch species began as a hybrid between a human female and an unknown hominin. Dr. Ketchum is an expert at forensic DNA analysis and analysis of the sequence data rules out contamination as an explanation of these results.



I posted about this research in the old forum
http://forum.mind-energy.net/forum/...of-three-whole-genomes-and-associated-studies
DeNovo| accelerating Science
Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies

Ketchum, M. S., Wojtkiewicz, P. W., Watts, A. B., Spence, D. W., Holzenburg, A. K., Toler, D. G., Prychitko, T. M., Zhang, F., Bollinger, S., Shoulders, R., Smith, R. (2013)

One hundred eleven samples of blood, tissue, hair, and other types of specimens were studied, characterized and hypothesized to be obtained from elusive hominins in North America commonly referred to as Sasquatch. DNA was extracted and purified from a subset of these samples that survived rigorous screening for wildlife species identification. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequencing, specific genetic loci sequencing, forensic short tandem repeat (STR) testing, whole genome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) bead array analysis, and next generation whole genome sequencing were conducted on purported Sasquatch DNA samples gathered from various locations in North America. Additionally, histopathologic and electron microscopic examination were performed on a large tissue sample. vel non-human DNA.
...


DeNovo Scientific Journal, Vol. No. 1
Dr. Ketchum’s “Novel North American Hominins” (Sasquatch DNA) Paper To Be Published This Week

In the paper, Ketchum relates that after “extensive forensic controls to prevent contanimation, mtDNA testing of the Sasquatch samples yielded fully modern human profiles.” But the other results showed unique findings. The paper states the group’s finding that “the Sasquatch nuDNA results were a mosaic of novel primate and human sequence.”

Ketchum is further quoted as stating, “While the three Sasquatch nuclear genomes aligned well with one another and showed significant homology to human chromosome 11 which is highly conserved in primates, the Sasquatch genomes were novel and fell well outside of known ancient hominin as well as ape sequences. Because some of the mtDNA haplogroups found in our Sasquatch samples originated as late as 13,000 years ago, we are hypothesizing that the Sasquatch are human hybrids, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens.

UPDATE 2/25/2013:

I'm following the story and I may post new developments but I don't plan on covering the back and forth with the critics.

My view is that you should demand the same standard of proof from critics as you do from people making claims of paranormal phenomena so I don't automatically believe every criticism or claim of fraud, I try to look for the rebuttal before I make up my mind.

For those who are interested, the critics are rebutted here

Dr. Melba Ketchum | Facebook

and here:

The Bigfoot Field Journal
More here: http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/09/sasquatch-are-people.html
 
Last edited:
#2
Dr. Ketchum's next project is in the works. Genomic sequencing is relatively inexpensive (a few thousand dollars per genome). It is rather sad that the US government is willing to spend huge amounts of money on speculative research while DNA sequencing is known technology that will provide definitive answers to important questions, yet this project is funded by private donations.

http://www.gofundme.com/b1f5ak
We have been doing genetic studies on the origin of various ancient and extant hominins including the cone heads of Peru, Sasquatch, and the red headed giants of North America that are famous in Native American legends.

We already have DNA extracted from several museum specimens but need to have whole genome next generation sequencing to unravel the mystery of the red headed giants. Are they a Native American Tribe, an unknown hominin or are they Sasquatch? Next generation sequencing is the way to find out, but it is expensive so we are looking for funding for this venture.
Dr Ketchum also has a book about the Sasquatch people: Mystic Forest: Wishes. It is based the information she and Sasquatch habituators who donated samples to her research have amassed over the years. The book is written as fiction to minimize further controversy because their experiences have been ... uh ... unorthodox.
 
#3
Relic hominids are a difficult subject. On the one hand they have no right to exist in areas that cannot reasonably sustain such a population, on the other, trained observers and backwoodsmen see creatures its difficult to interpret in any other way. I'm not sure if they are zooform in nature (a kind of apparition) or flesh and blood primates, but I'm in no doubt they are really seen.
 
#4
Relic hominids are a difficult subject. On the one hand they have no right to exist in areas that cannot reasonably sustain such a population,...
What facts do you base this statement on? Where do you think Sasquatch live and why do you think it can't sustain their population?

Sasquatch habitat has been well characterized suggesting that there are particular habitat requirements necessary for their sustenance:

Wood Ape Sightings: Correlations to Annual Rainfall Totals, Waterways, Human Population Densities and Black Bear Habitat Zones:
http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/67-ecological-patterns
...on the other, trained observers and backwoodsmen see creatures its difficult to interpret in any other way.
Yes.
I'm not sure if they are zooform in nature (a kind of apparition) or flesh and blood primates, but I'm in no doubt they are really seen.
There are many cases of paranormal phenomenon accompanying Sasquatch sightings and I think those phenomenon are important for understanding Sasquatch, but tissue samples, blood samples, hair samples, and DNA sequence data derived from those samples are incontrovertible proof that Sasquatch are beings of flesh and blood.
 
Last edited:
#5
What facts do you base this statement on?
Hairy ape-men are seen in regions that could not possibly sustain them, like the UK. They are also seen in areas where their likelihood is remote, such as the United States, as well as places where their existence is conceivable, like the Caucasus or Borneo. To survive in colonies without encountering modern humans on a regular basis in the US, would be a remarkable feat. The country is crossed by road and rail, and has been for over a century, without a single Bigfoot being killed by a motor vehicle or train. The US has around 43,000 road deaths a year and not a Sasquatch body in their number. Even if they were secretive and isolated, they would appear on infra red helicopter cameras looking for felons. Whatever Bigfoot is, I find it impossible to believe it's a pure bred relic hominid that has avoided interaction for a few thousand years of what we call civilisation.

If it is not a proto-human, that opens things up to what it might be, and raises the chances of it, whatever "it" is, existing.
 
#6
Hairy ape-men are seen in regions that could not possibly sustain them, like the UK. They are also seen in areas where their likelihood is remote, such as the United States, as well as places where their existence is conceivable, like the Caucasus or Borneo.
In order to assert the habitat can't support a population you have to have some numbers on the carrying capacity of the land, and the size of the population of individuals. So far you haven't offered any evidence to support your assertion. There are also reports of Sasquatch sorting through garbage cans where their territory overlaps with human habitation. I posted evidence that in most cases Sasquatch live in the same habitat that can support black bears, most sightings are near water, etc. Do you dispute that? Maybe your belief is based on outlying data points - an occasional Sasquatch straying from its normal habitat. For example, there are a total of 7 Sasquatch sightings in the UK, 18 in all of Europe.
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=202211744039834802089.0004b58849df889c1e0c0&dg=feature
To survive in colonies without encountering modern humans on a regular basis in the US, would be a remarkable feat.
There are plenty of encounters between Sasquatch and humans. How could we be having this discussion if there weren't?
The country is crossed by road and rail, and has been for over a century, without a single Bigfoot being killed by a motor vehicle or train. The US has around 43,000 road deaths a year and not a Sasquatch body in their number.
43,000 road deaths is mostly people in automobiles and out of about 200 million drivers. Sasquatch don't drive. What is the population of Sasquatch? Sasquatch don't walk along roads because they don't want to be seen so the probability of one being hit is small. Most pedestrian accidents occur in heavily populated areas. Compare apples to apples. How many people who live in the wilderness are killed crossing the street? Would their family leave their bodies lying in the road? Sasquatch are people, not animals, they understand what the sound and lights coming down the road at them mean and they get out of the way like any person would. They also don't jump into the middle of the road like rutting deer but carefully check any clearing before they leave cover of the woods. They also bury their dead and keep track of each other's location and know when one of their members is missing.
Even if they were secretive and isolated, they would appear on infra red helicopter cameras looking for felons.
When did people looking for an escaped felon ever use infrared cameras to survey Sasquatch habitat? If this is not just a hypothetical argument please back it up with facts. How long did they use the equipment and how much territory did they cover? Sasquatch sightings are relatively rare. What is the probability that a Sasquatch would be in the area at the time they are searching for a felon? And, how would infra-red distinguish them from bears or deer? You have to get close to them first to make a distinction.
Whatever Bigfoot is, I find it impossible to believe it's a pure bred relic hominid that has avoided interaction for a few thousand years of what we call civilisation.

If it is not a proto-human, that opens things up to what it might be, and raises the chances of it, whatever "it" is, existing.
I understand there is a lot of paranormal activity coincident with Sasquatch sightings but the tissue, blood, hair and DNA evidence proves they are flesh and blood beings genetically similar to humans. I am not ruling out Sasquatch moving around by unconventional means but if there is a good reason to dispute that many of them live off the land in the US, you haven't made the case. I believe the experience of habituators, people who interact with Sasquatch on a regular basis - often enough to provide samples for DNA analysis - rather than unsupported hypothetical theoretical arguments.
 
Last edited:
#7
So far you haven't offered any evidence to support your assertion
I haven't made any assertions, except the possibility of zooform creatures as an explanation for Bigfoot sightings. If there's sufficient evidence for relic hominids, it will surface. Right now there isn't a body. Without one I prefer to remain open minded on the possibility of such creatures existing.
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#9
I'm not familiar with this area at all. But reading through this thread I'm just kind of wondering whether something existing in a parallel reality, interacting with "our" own, would necessarily preclude hard, physical evidence. Kind of like the same thing with UFOs: perhaps interdimensional, but once "appearing" in "this reality", they might be as "real" as anything else, and leaving physical traces and evidence. Just a thought.
 
#10
Do you adopt the same approach towards leprechauns?
I'm not sure this comment is really coherent. Everything Gabriel mentioned seemed to be sufficiently skeptical considering the substantial lack of evidence.

At least you're showing your true colors of distaste towards open-mindedness. About time you came out and said it. :)
 
Last edited:
#12
That's fair enough. It seems if you're open minded enough to consider the existence of Sasquatch (albeit with a skeptical eye) you've got to leave yourself open to some 'truth' behind any folklore.
You'd also have to define folklore. One definition could be any narrative woven around a cultural paradigm, like dark matter, or multiverses for example. Some phenomena are harder to place evidentially. In the case of phantom black dogs, which people continue to see* (including those who've never heard of such an entity), Sasquatch and lake monsters, the balance between credible witness sightings and unlikely topography is an uneasy one which should not lead us to easy solutions. Such creatures are sighted by specialists with a scientific background as well as homespun observers. I posit them lightly as zooform phenomena, but ones which exhibit material cues of appearance, texture, smell, movement, displacement of surroundings, etc. Many people would call those solid creatures. I don't know.

*http://www.roadghosts.com/Cases - Other.htm#Bell Lane Enfield
 
#14
I'm a casual observer of cryptozoology with no flesh in the game, so take my observations with whatever dose of salt you believe appropriate. I do have an understanding of the way stories play out, and Bigfoot and its counterparts follow a familiar narrative arc of disinformation, belief and permanently delayed closure. A human hybrid, while utterly mind-boggling, does at least represent what people claim to see. A trained hunter who could bag the ultimate prize puts his rifle down because the face looking back at him is so human. A skeptic would say it was a feral human, but people do not habitually mistake their own species. Of course it still raises many questions, like the odds of such creatures living together and surviving as a community, and whether they are still being produced as first generation sterile hybrids. Like UFOs, commitment to a particular interpretation of Sasquatch provides some people with an identity, and ups the noise to signal ratio to indecipherable levels.
 
#15
Wrote up the whole sordid tale with the skeptics a while ago.
http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/...t-dna-real-science-and-a-skeptical-nightmare/

I'm glad to hear that she's on Coast to Coast. She really got shafted.
Craig I would like nothing more than Ketchum or any one to show conclusive proof of such a primate, but I don't think she has.

She likely got the shaft not from skeptics bashing before the fact, but being tasked from her own mistakes which called into serious question her claims. Here's what I believe to be an accurate accounting of what happened. Take note what Dr. Jeff Meldrum had to say. Also this Ketchum controversy reminds me of the Raelian sect announcing worldwide on tv they had cloned a human sometime in the early 2000's or late 1990's and would have proof forth coming. They never did provide any proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clonaid
The Ketchum Project: What to Believe about Bigfoot DNA ‘Science’
Sharon Hill
The study was said to include sequences of twenty whole mitochondrial genomes. “Next generation sequencing” was used to obtain three whole nuclear genomes from “purported Sasquatch samples.” The mitochondrial DNA was identical to modern Homo sapiens, but the nuclear DNA was described as “a novel, unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primate species.” Thus, the researchers concluded from this DNA data that not only does the North American Sasquatch exist but that it is a hybrid species, “the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens.”

This announcement enthralled the press but annoyed many cryptozoology and science observers because it came with no published paper and no data, only a long and shady history of partnerships, projects, and promises. Ketchum promised the paper would soon follow. When it finally did appear, nearly three months later, it was less than impressive, made no sense evolutionarily, and sparked new controversies about her personal responsibility, the ethics of publishing, and what was going on behind the scenes with this project.

Science by press release is an unprofessional form and often is a bust upon peer review. (The classic example is cold fusion.) Melba Ketchum asked the public directly to buy into an extraordinary claim: that she has categorized Bigfoot DNA and understands its origin, proposing not one but two unknowns—Sasquatch and an unknown ancestor of Sasquatch. What evidence is there that this is true? We have only her word on the samples and just one paper that, as we will see, has had a difficult history, but there are no corresponding, converging lines of evidence. No other reliable physical evidence, traces, fossil record, historic record, or an undisputed clear picture or video of a Sasquatch exists. Moreover, environmental factors have not been shown to reasonably support the existence of a number of large primates reproducing in the wild often reportedly visiting human-inhabited areas. Even besides these obvious hurdles to acceptance, we have many reasons to be suspicious.

The Ketchum DNA project spans more than five years. Drama, propelled by occasional leaks that fueled speculation and hype, played out on the Internet via social media and blogs. Many inside Bigfootery had been following Dr. Ketchum’s progress closely for more than a year prior to the official announcement. Hints of the findings were long discussed in Internet forums and on websites. It is extremely difficult to parse what is factual and what is unfounded, and sometimes ludicrous, speculation. I have attempted to chronicle the story with the help of those who have been watching it more closely than I and, on occasion, Dr. Ketchum herself has spoken on it. Here I document the chronology and claims as best as I can, but many of the sources are secondhand. You can make up anything on the Internet and obviously some people do. However, rumor and wild speculation are a major part of this story primarily because the public was not given solid information but rather an intriguing tale.

Questions and disputes about the plausibility of Ketchum’s results and the origins of Sasquatch/Bigfoot created a schism in cryptozoological circles. The focus of the dispute is often on Ketchum herself, who has control of the entire project.

Who is Melba Ketchum? She is a veterinarian who graduated from Texas A&M veterinary school. She did not complete a PhD.2 While not an academic, she runs her own genetics lab and has been a coauthor on several published papers but never a lead author.3 With such a complicated and extraordinary claim as the discovery of Bigfoot DNA, her lack of experience in the specialized field of primate genetics hurt her credibility with the members of the scientific community who have actually expressed an interest in this project. She notes that she does have experience in forensics because she worked on DNA evidence from crime scenes, which was vital in assuring these study samples were not contaminated.4 There remains the murky area regarding the origin and history of the purported Sasquatch samples, the validity of her data, and how one can so definitively conclude “Bigfoot” from this one study prior to review by the scientific community. I found that these big ideas about Bigfoot precluded the data. Many other red flags obscure the view as well.

Back to the Beginning
The Ketchum story begins in 2008 when her lab was picked to analyze a suspected Bigfoot/yeti hair from Bhutan collected as part of Josh Gates’s adventure show, Destination Truth, which airs on the Discovery Channel in the U.S. Ketchum appeared twice on the show, in 2009 and 2010 (Season 3 numbers 9 and 12), as a forensic analyst. She then became one of the “go to” people for those who had collected DNA samples that they thought might be from a Bigfoot.5

Over the next few years, Ketchum received many additional samples and funding from various sources to conduct more analyses of these samples (mostly hair, but also blood, saliva and tissue) through her own lab, DNA Diagnostics, and other laboratories.6

Uneasiness about the project might start with Ketchum’s business dealings. She was affiliated with various corporations registered in the state of Texas, including one called Science Alive, LLC. This partnership included Robert Schmalzbach (better known as “Java Bob” who was previously an officer under Tom Biscardi’s group Searching for Bigfoot) and Richard Stubstad, an engineer who became interested in Bigfoot DNA and was a funder of Ketchum’s work. According to Stubstad, some sort of dispute occurred in the fall of 2010 as lawyers eventually managed to cut Schmalzbach and Stubstad out of this corporation venture leaving Ketchum with entire control of any media from publicizing Bigfoot DNA findings.7

This was not the first or last of legal dealings where Ketchum was involved. Ketchum had been sued and lost a claim for patent infringement that required her lab to stop using certain tests.8 In addition, the lab itself was not in good standing with the public, having an “F” rating by the Better Business Bureau due to complaints for delivering results,9 a possible problem with the state of Texas regarding payment of franchise taxes, and some lost client contracts.10

Ketchum responded to these issues by admitting she was naive regarding the people involved in Bigfootery, some of whom she described as turning out to be unethical. She did not know of their reputations but wanted them removed from the study to protect its integrity.4 This naiveté continued even after the paper hit the mainstream.

Ketchum has been associated with several other individuals and projects throughout the years of Bigfoot DNA collection and analysis, including the following: the Olympic Project—a group of researchers studying habitat and attempting to obtain trailcam photos of Bigfoot11; Tom Biscardi of Searching for Bigfoot, Inc., involved with the infamous 2008 Georgia “Bigfoot in a freezer” hoax, who collected DNA samples for her project7; Wally Hersom, a generous contributor to several Bigfoot research projects, who funded at least some of Ketchum’s work12; Adrian Erickson of Sasquatch – The Quest, who stated he has high quality pictures and video of the creatures13; and David Paulides of North American Bigfoot Survey, who is a Ketchum supporter. Paulides, an ex-police officer and author of books about missing persons and the “tribe” of Bigfoot14 has been particularly outspoken about Ketchum, placing the responsibility of the scientific study of Bigfoot DNA all on her, saying each of the samples used had its own specific story. Ketchum alone had all the data, he says,5 and deserves the praise.

Nondisclosure agreements were signed among participants of the projects so that information would not be leaked prior to the reveal. But it was anyway. The sources of these samples supposedly included a toenail obtained by Biscardi from Larry Johnson,15 blood from a smashed PVC pipe, and flesh from the remains of a Bigfoot body (see sidebar, “Sierra Kills”).16 But it is not clear that all the samples were collected properly. They also may have been exposed to contamination or to degradation.
http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/the_ketchum_project_what_to_believe_about_bigfoot_dna_science/
 
#16
I did see this article while I was doing research. I was reading pretty much everything I could get my hands on to understand the issues. Hill's sources on some significant points did not check out. It was echo chamber stuff. She asserted things because someone else asserted it and when you chased it all the way back there was no "there" there. Also, this is one of her less, uh, enthusiastically skeptical articles.

What you see here is a lot of cherry picking of facts, Wikipedia style, to mold the narrative to her point of view. An "F" rating from the BBB for example, is utterly meaningless. They only hear from the malcontents. Many of the complaints Ketchum had were from people who clearly either didn't understand what they had paid for or didn't like what the results said. One was from a person she hadn't done business with. Of course, you can make the "F" rating go away lickety split by paying dues and becoming a member of the BBB.

And it's irrelevant anyway. So including stuff like that is just doing the ole' character smear. I can understand why you might think that this is a good article but it's not neutral or particularly objective.

I should also point out that this article was published by an ideologue atheist organization whose biases are well known. But you knew that.
 
#17
I did see this article while I was doing research. I was reading pretty much everything I could get my hands on to understand the issues. Hill's sources on some significant points did not check out. It was echo chamber stuff. She asserted things because someone else asserted it and when you chased it all the way back there was no "there" there. Also, this is one of her less, uh, enthusiastically skeptical articles.

What you see here is a lot of cherry picking of facts, Wikipedia style, to mold the narrative to her point of view. An "F" rating from the BBB for example, is utterly meaningless. They only hear from the malcontents. Many of the complaints Ketchum had were from people who clearly either didn't understand what they had paid for or didn't like what the results said. One was from a person she hadn't done business with. Of course, you can make the "F" rating go away lickety split by paying dues and becoming a member of the BBB.

And it's irrelevant anyway. So including stuff like that is just doing the ole' character smear. I can understand why you might think that this is a good article but it's not neutral or particularly objective.

I should also point out that this article was published by an ideologue atheist organization whose biases are well known. But you knew that.
I'll start with this quote.
The study, which sequenced three whole Sasquatch nuclear genomes, shows that the legendary Sasquatch is extant in North America and is a human relative that arose approximately 13,000 years ago and is hypothesized to be a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with a novel primate species.
That musta been one heck of a party.
What is this novel (unknown) primate species? Why is there absolutely no biological evidence for this creature? How many matings must have occurred to produce a large enough gene pool to prevent inbreeding. These are some questions that don't get answers.

Ketchum as far as I can tell just keeps piling "stuff" on her reputation. Example. She's now involved with Lloyd Pye's work on *elongated skulls ( starchild skulls), which Pye thought were alien.



Some relevant Bigfoot links http://doubtfulnews.com/?s=bryan+sykes

*http://badarchaeology.wordpress.com...known-hominid-species-or-cranial-deformation/

P.S. Don't point the finger of ideologue at anyone. You are just as guilty of ideology as anyone I've seen.
 
#18
I'll start with this quote.
That musta been one heck of a party.
What is this novel (unknown) primate species? Why is there absolutely no biological evidence for this creature? How many matings must have occurred to produce a large enough gene pool to prevent inbreeding. These are some questions that don't get answers.

Ketchum as far as I can tell just keeps piling "stuff" on her reputation. Example. She's now involved with Lloyd Pye's work on *elongated skulls ( starchild skulls), which Pye thought were alien.



Some relevant Bigfoot links http://doubtfulnews.com/?s=bryan sykes

*http://badarchaeology.wordpress.com...known-hominid-species-or-cranial-deformation/

P.S. Don't point the finger of ideologue at anyone. You are just as guilty of ideology as anyone I've seen.
Well Scott, when you fill your head with ideologue sources, out come ideologue conclusions. Have you noticed a theme here: That it's all about why this or that thing can't be true? I've never ever seen these skeptic sources ever come to the conclusion that they lack enough data to reach a conclusion or that they might have to change their minds if new data comes in. It's all about stomping things into the ground and burying the evidence. The entire way they go about this is all wrong and unscientific.

My opinion on Bigfoot is that I want to see how this all plays out. As more samples are taken, as more people get involved, as more data comes in, we'll know more. The best we can do is not jump all over people who are trying to understand a truly weird phenomena.

Attacking someone's character does nothing to help understand anything.
 
#19
Dr. Ketchum is reporting on her facebook page that the mitochondrial DNA of an Orang Pendek from Sumatra was sequenced by a group in Copenhagen and determined to be 100% human. The Orang Pendek is much smaller than a Sasquatch. The hair was of an unknown type which should rule out the possibility it being human. She didn't say if there are plans for sequencing the nuclear DNA.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=828247097195689&id=359075637446173
******NEWS FLASH**********
There is a new French Documentary that just came out that used our press conference and website (I didn't participate even though they asked) but what is exciting is that the team from Copenhagen tested purported hair from the Orang Pendek. Their hair analyst said the hair was unknown and then the mtDNA sequencing came back ----wait for it----- 100% HUMAN!!!!! I'm vindicated!!!!!!!
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=828247947195604&id=359075637446173
Homo sapiens cognatus DNA results are supported at last. I believe the Orang Pendek to be a different variant because there are some morphological differences like the feet and the hair morphology, but the DNA doesn't lie!!!!
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=828369040516828&id=359075637446173
Name of the documentary is "On the Yeti Trail". It's well done without too many errors. It was about science and Christophe Kilian did a great job. Best doc I've seen. World renowned scientist Dr. Tom Gilbert from the University of Copenhagen sequenced the Orang Pendek hairs. He has over 125 peer reviewed publications to his credit. He recently was lead author of the paper where they whole genome sequenced the 12000 year old Native American child (Anzick-1). He is one of the best. Up there with Paabo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orang_Pendek
Orang Pendek (Indonesian for "short person") is the most common name given to a cryptid, or cryptozoological animal, that reportedly inhabits remote, mountainous forests on the island of Sumatra.

The animal has allegedly been seen and documented for at least one hundred years by forest tribes, local villagers, Dutch colonists and Western scientists and travellers. Consensus among witnesses is that the animal is a ground-dwelling, bipedal primate that is covered in short fur and stands between 80 and 150 cm (30 and 60 in) tall.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
 
Last edited:
#20
Dr. Ketchum is reporting on her facebook page that the mitochondrial DNA of an Orang Pendek from Sumatra was sequenced by a group in Copenhagen and determined to be 100% human. The Orang Pendek is much smaller than a Sasquatch. The hair was of an unknown type which should rule out the possibility it being human. She didn't say if there are plans for sequencing the nuclear DNA.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=828247097195689&id=359075637446173


https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=828247947195604&id=359075637446173


https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=828369040516828&id=359075637446173


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orang_Pendek
Unfortunately, there won't be any nuclear DNA in a hair.
We have a hair whose owner appears to have had a 100% human mum.
 
Top