Source Comes Forward

Steven Streufert has released a statement from the source of the conversation in my previous article "Did Bigfoot Once Have Wings?"

It can be found here:

Here is the statement in full: 

A statement from Rhettman Mullis re. the revelations re. Ketchum today: 

I sent Melba a sample through Tim Olson. I was first told it was viable. 

Then I began conversations with Sykes and Nekaris to do this DNA project in January of 2012. By March it was going public early. At the same time I invited Melba to work with Sykes as the projects need to have replication anyway 

That summer before (2011) I had invited Melba and Sally to become a part of Bigfootology and they both, understandably declined for the moment. 

Melba did not really answer me about working with Sykes...ignored me about it if I recall correctly. 

It was soon after that I had this conversation with Melba on March 12th, 2012, and frankly after the conversation I was wondering if I had done the right thing. 

It was a little while later that the project with Sykes became a go and Melba continued to ignore me about it. It was also at that time when our sample was no longer viable, and then later we were told that we never submitted a sample. 

My conversation with Melba was a friendly conversation that had a great deal to do with theology as in addition to being a behavior scientist, I am an ordained pastor and I found her conclusions highly questionable and from a psychologist point of view I found her persona highly concerning. 

Afterwards, frankly, I was okay with her not wanting to work with us because I did not want to deal with that since I work with clients like that weekly and I like working with healthy-persona people outside of work. 

But I am about the science first, and I thought it would be a good collaboration between her and Sykes if the science and methodology is sound. 

I am not qualified to determine the authenticity of genetic science and that is why I turned her paper over to Sykes and Nekaris and both did not respond favorably to the science in the paper. Genetics is not my area of expertise. 

So the conversation evolved and that is what is public now. I am under no NDA or sample contract. 

This was my attempt to push science forward and bring key-players together, which is what I do, I am a bridge-person, always bringing peace and people together, and some have seen me do this firsthand. 

Even publicly, on Coast to Coast AM when I gave my updates I continued to publicly encourage Melba to do the right thing... 

I have never attacked her privately or publicly. I just want her to maintain scientific integrity. I have always told people that I do not care who gets credit for the discovery, just that it is done properly. So no one can question the integrity of the finding and that is what has happened in Melba's project. Everything is now questionable. 

Statement regarding the release of the relevant parts of the conversation: 

For over two years I have encouraged Melba to maintain the integrity of her project and hoped for the best for her and her potentially-historic project. I withdrew that support last summer when multiple situations came forth and I began to see questionable actions and practices by Melba in her project. I maintained my silence and publicly continued to encourage her to do the right thing, but the situation has continued to decline. I am okay to stand on the sidelines for the purpose of keeping the peace and letting someone make their own bed of self-sabotage. In this case, however, it has become a larger problem when innocent people get attacked because they are being honest and I continue to say nothing while holding the evidence of her own words. Because I hold the evidence of her own words and I stand by and not let the truth be known then I become duplicitous in that attacking of honest people and that goes against the grain of who I am as a scientist and as a pastor. By releasing this I am not attacking Melba as that is never my intent, I am merely letting her own words show her for what she really thinks and what she is really doing in order to protect the many others who have been ruthlessly attacked and accused of being liars when it is not the case. 

Rhettman A. Mullis, Jr., MS, MHP

Did Bigfoot Once Have Wings?

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:

Remember when the Angel/Alien DNA rumors were flying around? Robin Lynne denied them as can be read at http://bizarrezoology.blogspot.com/2012/11/claims-of-hominin-hybrids-living-today.html.

“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. 

The Science: 

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.