Let me preface this article by saying that it is heavily credited to anonymous sources. All of them supplied screenshot evidence to substantiate their claims, although not all of them allowed the publication of the screenshots. All of the screenshots are from direct conversations with Dr. Melba Ketchum, so they aren’t speculation or hearsay. I will paraphrase the content from the screenshots I did not have permission to publish to protect the identity of the sources.
The Biggest Contradiction:
“We have not said that it has angel DNA . That was not said by anyone on our team, but someone else on the outside. That is very much a false rumor.”
Some even defended it by saying Angel DNA was an old term used to refer to unknown DNA.
But then I read this: Conversations with Dr. Ketchum - PDF version
I’m not going to bash someone’s beliefs. As a religious person myself, a lot of these theories have often crossed my mind. The problem is that if this is her belief, why the denial? If this really is what you believe them to be, why run away from it? And does the belief matchup with the science?
And because someone will bring up legal issues, the above conversation came from someone who never signed a non-disclosure agreement.
They share a 3% homology to human (which is closer to the ~80% homology of Lemur than the ~90% homology of apes) which is explained in an interesting theory by Dr. Ketchum. She said she believes after the initial hybridization, they stopped breeding with humans and interbred the human out of them. At time of hybridization they would be 50% human. How much time would it take to remove 47% of the homology?
I am openly asking any geneticists and biologists to comment on the possibility of the above, given the timeline. Would it be possible for a hybridization to take place, and then remove said hybridization from only the nuDNA leaving the mtDNA completely intact?
Can you even claim something with only 3% homology to human is human? The claims of 100% human mtDNA makes it interesting, but Dr. Ketchum knew this. She specifically said the mtDNA would have to be made more important. The statement didn’t go deeper, but it leaves a list of endless possibilities. Was the mtDNA 100% human as claimed, or was it just presented that way? The absence of the full sequences as well as full DNA reports leaves the possibility of wrong-doing on the table. I am in no way accusing Dr. Ketchum of doing so, but this magnifies the problems of not having everything included in the paper. When you express the need for something to be made more important, it invites questions and scrutiny. Science should dictate what is seen by those reviewing the data. Not the author.
This also explains the recent jump to the samples from Peru. Dr. Ketchum said she believes they might be the paternal donor. For more information on the Peru aspect of the studies, you can read the OTLS! blog.
I still invite Dr. Ketchum to come forward and discuss this now that it’s on the table. There’s no more denying. It’s out and I think you’ll find that there’s a lot of people that will agree with those theories. The problem is proving those theories. Even the 3% homology isn’t explained or proven. The paper claims they are a human/unknown hybrid without any explanation at all about the reverse evolution back to the 3%. The missing steps need to be explained and show data. This isn’t just about a hybridization hypothesis anymore. Why was that entire de-evolution to a previous form never even mentioned in the paper?
If this can all be proven, I’m all ears.