norseman

Ketchum DNA report revisited

207 posts in this topic

^ Right, there should have been some toejam from something beside bigfoot in the mix.   Somebody is picking their feet in Poughkeepsie believing in this Ketchum bull. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MIB, as far as I can tell you're missing the point. The hair wasn't Human but came back Human- something you stepped around in your response. And if memory serves me well out of the 110 samples tested only three went as far as nuDNA sequencing.

 

And to BP, there was plenty of toejam in the mix. Much in the way of other animal DNA came back. And again the hair samples went through a preliminary morphology routine testing process and, again, there was hair that wasn't Human but tested as Human even after what MIB said regarding:

9 hours ago, MIB said:

It is claimed she followed standard forensic procedures in cleaning samples to remove contaminants.   So ... what's left?

 

And that's the point what is left? What is left is hair that was coarser than horse hair but still blind tested as being Human. I don't have to be a DNA expert to put those two things against each other and I am not off base to use that as an argument FOR at least questioning WHY the samples that passed the initial morphology process went on to DNA testing. Sykes does it that way and so does everyone else because it's SOP.

 

A point I would like to make which is tantamount to closing the barn doors after the horses have left is this: One catches more flies with honey. If the venom against Ketchum could have been delayed then the right questions could have been asked of her while she was open to discussion of the results. Why do I say this? Because I have been pursuing her to get a question answered and of course because of the hate toward her she has stopped communicating. The question I want to know is during the DNA testing did the results show an opsine gene. Why an opsine gene? Because if anyone cared to really discover anything about the DNA results instead of damning her they would have done some research and found out that the opsine gene is the gene that says there is a tapetum lucidum-  the nocturnal trait for animals with eye shine.

 

So Hair that isn't Human, tests Human, and has the presence of the opsine gene would say a lot, yes? Is this why she said 'lemur? Well folks, you're never going to know now......are you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The hair samples were not Human but they tested Human.

 

Yes you should keep this in mind, and it's something I observed for myself under the microscope before I sent my sample to her. This did have to do with the medulla inside the hair being wider with more uniform margins than what you typically see in human hairs and it was more in line with other animals guard hairs. Other than that the hairs were found as individual strands deposited on a tree and not as a clump like with other animals which have a fur undercoat. This is consistent with great ape and human hairs and to the naked eye you might assume they were human hairs without knowledge of how and where they were deposited.

 

Also keep in mind that only samples with substantial tissue attached could be tested for nuDNA. It required more than the few roots attached to the hairs I sent in.

Still, It should be enough to exclude a sample as being human as long as it's not.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So Hair that isn't Human, tests Human, and has the presence of the opsine gene would say a lot, yes? Is this why she said 'lemur? Well folks, you're never going to know now......are you.

 

From what I can gather on a quick search here.

 

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/9/7/629.full

 

An opsin gene is present in both humans and other old world apes. So it would boil down to mutations within that gene which affect Trichromatic Color Vision. I don't think the sequence study of any of the nuclear and X chromosome DNA reached this level.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hiflier said:

MIB, as far as I can tell you're missing the point. The hair wasn't Human but came back Human

 

No, YOU have missed the point.   You're also getting things all messed up.    Sykes was the one with 100% hair samples.   Ketchum had a variety of sources: hair, blood, saliva, a fingernail.    Apple.  Bagel.   Drain pipe / downspout.   Is any of this ringing any bells yet?   She also did not say it was human.   Do  you know enough science to know the difference between human and human hybrid?   Ketchum said human hybrid, a cross between human and a different unknown ancestor.    Ring any bells yet?  

 

I really think before you continue spewing more misinformation, you should take the time to go back and re-read the Ketchum threads and just about everything else here on BFF of the same time period because just as today, conversations drifted and went off-topic.   Some of that info wasn't relevant to the topic it was posted on but it was very relevant to Ketchum's work. 

   

MIB 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sasfooty had samples in the study, knows a lot of particulars most people will never know about Melba's work, and supports that work. Southernyahoo had samples in the study, understands the science involved, and again, supports the work.

 

That is good enough for me.

 

Having said that, I will also say that nothing is ever simple, especially people. People most definitely are not simple, one-dimensional, mindless automatons that always do things the right way.  All people have egos and fears, and struggle with those things. 

 

But if we continue to judge people and berate them and pillory them because they're human, and not gods -- when we demand of them that they be the paragons of virtue we are not -- we crush the spirits of everyone around us, rob ourselves of important pieces of learning, and make it very difficult, if not impossible, for anyone else to take up the torch and move forward with the work.  

 

There is every reason to revisit this, hiflier, and I'm so excited you're doing it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll second that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, southernyahoo said:

An opsin gene is present in both humans and other old world apes. So it would boil down to mutations within that gene which affect Trichromatic Color Vision. I don't think the sequence study of any of the nuclear and X chromosome DNA reached this level.

 

 

That is correct. I stated in an earlier thread somewhere that it was the relaxation of the opsin gene that was involved in nocturnal vision and the mutations you spoke of involved the extent of that relaxation and in which frequency- short or medium. I wanted to know the answers to that a year ago. Didn't happen.

 

10 hours ago, LeafTalker said:

There is every reason to revisit this, hiflier, and I'm so excited you're doing it.

 

Agreed. And thanks for the encouragement. What is interesting is that info is scattered around which gets tiresome as there is so much repeated on so many websites. Also there is data mining to do that is outside Dr. Ketchum's paper- something I have read through about four times in the last three weeks (Sorry, MIB, bit ahead of you on that one ;) ) because now that I know more things are making more sense as opposed to a couple of years back.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

That is correct. I stated in an earlier thread somewhere that it was the relaxation of the opsin gene that was involved in nocturnal vision and the mutations you spoke of involved the extent of that relaxation and in which frequency- short or medium. I wanted to know the answers to that a year ago. Didn't happen.

 

 

I still doubt Ketchum was able to get a clear sequence in the region of the Genome you were after. She might have some sequence data from the X chromosome in some of the samples which might be relevant. She was trying to target ancestry information in the samples from the amelogenin locus containing X and Y chromosomes. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can accept that SY. I'm still on the road and have little time to do research beyond just thinking deeply about the whole matter mostly while driving. As said, there are pieces of this everywhere but one nagging thought has been running around my brain for over a week now. It's the whole idea of that samples were contaminated. My first response seems to continually be, "ALL of the samples?". I wrote in an earlier post that everyone who came in contact with the samples, from the submitters all the way down to the lab personnel- basically anyone who handled the samples, had their DNA tested. This was so that when a Human sequence appeared it could be matched against the data and therefore be filtered from the sample or samples' results.

 

My thoughts on this are where it gets interesting. If everyone's DNA was sequenced then it would be a simple matter, when a sample which wasn't a Human hair came back came back as being Human, to match the Human-ness of the sample to the data and see who the DNA from a contaminated sample belonged to. Apparently, from what I gather, the alleged 'Human contaminated' elements didn't match anyone who had handled the samples. Because if they did, then the filters would kick in and the known Human DNA would have been filtered out, leaving the results more or less pure? These people and their labs worked on this project for five years and many of the heads of the various labs were extremely skilled and well versed in cleaning samples as was Dr. Ketchum's own team. Finding, identifying, and matching DNA to known people is routine, especially for the criminologists. It would have been easy for then to match a supposed contaminated sample to the person who contaminated it since ALL of the Humans involved had their DNA tested just for that reason.

 

IDK, being behind the wheel for hours just gets my thinking into free fall and thoughts like this pop out. My apologies to everyone for taking so long in doing this. It's been almost a month now and I still may not have a good long block of time to invest for at least three more weeks. But I look forward to when that time comes. I hope in the meantime that you will at least turn approaches like the above over a few times and see if what I'm saying makes any sense at all. Thanks.

 

hiflier          

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laughing.  I already know the answer.   You've been told before.  It is the one thing you seem unable to accept.   The one thing you can't seem to even seriously consider.    'til you do, you'll never get it right.   's ok.   You have a right to stay wrong.

 

MIB

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MIB said:

You have a right to stay wrong

 

So do you, my friend  ;) 

I say that because I do not see you presenting any factual counters. But, since I only presented my thoughts, you can too :) 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Melba only ever provided sequences of one sample, and this one sample was heavily contaminated and degraded. It didn't contain the DNA of a novel primate like she claimed it would. She knows how to analyze DNA, therefore, it seems very unlikely that this was an honest mistake on her part.

 

From what I can tell, the purpose of this paper was to fool the individuals that supported the study, and avoid getting sued. These people don't have the knowledge they need to understand what's been going on; her excuses in defence of her paper are more believable for them

 

There's also this, from Salley Ramey (Melba Ketchums's ex-publicist): http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.ca/2013/09/ex-publicist-sally-ramey-opens-up.html

 

from Bart Cutino:

Quote

I think what's most telling, and most of you arent aware of this, is the contract with respect to the tissue she examined , that was collected by Justin and driver almost 5 weeks after purported shooting event she definitively claimed was a bigfoot (before supposed illumina testing took place mind you) gave her the rights to examine and own the results... Not keep the rest of sample. Derek and Wally own the sample and both requested she return the leftover tissue "she" admitted via email (Tyler has the exchange) she still had. Its been 6 months and she has not done so after claiming she'd return it to Wally, just like she initially agreed to third party testing (her own words via email and "she" initiated contact with us concerned about releasing our results) to show our labs contracted were supposedly wrong but made every excuse in the book not to let that happen. I told Wally she wouldnt return it because a) if she returns it and it matches what our labs got (ursus americanus) it would show she lied and or was wrong and the labs we contracted had it right (meaning Scott Carpenter falsely accused Justin and myself of intentionally sending our labs bear for whatever reason) if she manipulates it and it doesnt match she looks like a fraud and c) if she doesnt send it all it looks bad but hopes it slips under radar and no one notices as what has happened.

Bottom line, Theres been zero substantiation other than her word from any third party and no co-authors have backed her when contacted by multiple parties. There were no lab receipts, service breakdowns and or substantiation of work included as appendices in her paper either. Roughly one percent of the data has been released and she told Wally thats all she would release...period.

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: ABOVE Post,   a suspected baby BF skull was tested by Melba K or her lab. for Tom Burnette, (a former forum member) and he requested his sample be returned (despite it being a deer skull that had been sawed in half and left somewhere---probably poachers but who knows).   He requested the remainder of the sample be returned, and a protracted attempt to get it back lasted a year or more IIRC.  It is these kinds of historical repetitions that poison the well for me, despite the sample coming back to him eventually with much threatening short of litigation. 

 

Not defending that sample whatsoever having seen a partial DNA report of her findings in that regard from the researcher it was clear--- as pages were withheld (documented on old forum) I was given when I asked to see the results---- that the sample and report were of absolutely no significance. .

 

Lesson to be learned too is never dispossess your entire sample and ever expect to see it again (at least on YOUR timeline)..  

Edited by bipedalist
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Melba only ever provided sequences of one sample, and this one sample was heavily contaminated and degraded. It didn't contain the DNA of a novel primate like she claimed it would. She knows how to analyze DNA, therefore, it seems very unlikely that this was an honest mistake on her part.

 

Exactly, but hiflier has chosen not to hear the truth when it is spoken, instead he is clinging to her less than honest mistake.  

 

MIB

Edited by MIB
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites