Leaderboard

Someday, something more than stories would do wonders to bolster your assertions. More than 9K of the same posting, too.

If Dr. Hart does join the conversation he needs to be aware that sample 26 that Bart Cutino had tested, that turned up black bear, is not the same sample 26 that Dr. Ketchum tested because her sample had a completely different haplotype. The source of sample 26 was the same person, Justin Smeja, but the sample he gave Cutino was not the same as what Dr. Ketchum tested. There are conspiracy theories surrounding that, that Smeja was fearful of being prosecuted for murder if it turned out to be human and that he sabotaged it. As far as some of the samples turning out to be known animals, Dr. Ketchum did preliminary tests on lots of samples that were matched to GenBank to see if they were known animals before preceding with more in depth testing. According to her study, the three entire genomes that were sequenced are from an unknown hominin species. For those interested here is a break down of sample 26. http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/p/ketchum-dna-study-sample-26.html

^^^^Not a 100% factual statement. Do you know if the hairs tested were cut or shed? The hairs being a clump on a branch there is a good possibility that some where pulled out and would include roots. Although nuclear DNA cannot be isolated from the hair shaft since it is mostly absent as a result of the aforementioned cornification, nuclear DNA can successfully be extracted from the hair root. The hair root contains keratinocytes, cells which are ideal for the extraction of nuclear DNA. This is not to say that cut or naturally shed hairs are entirely unsuitable for hair analysis of nuclear DNA. In a tiny number of analyses using cut or shed hairs, forensic scientists are in fact able to extract nuclear DNA. The presence of some nucleated corneocytes (biologically dead cells or keratinocytes in their last stage of differentiation) may make it possible to extract a DNA profile derived from nuclear DNA. The existence of nucleated corneocytes is known to be due to an incomplete or absent step during the process of cornification which would normally result in the degradation or destruction of the cell nucleus and DNA. Why these nuclear remnants occur is not fully understood but the phenomenon may occur in some individual’s hair. from http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2013/04/challenges-dna-testing-and-forensic-analysis-hair-samples

No, she did a complete genome on three of them, but they did mt & nu on all of them.

Argh. There was no sabotage and minimal contamination. There was deliberate lying by Ketchum. The people in her "camp" were under NDA but information was leaking. She told different lies to different people to see which ones became public as a means to identify and plug the leaks. It worked, however, it had farther reaching consequences than she planned for when the lies took on lives of their own rather than ending when she corked the leaks. "oops." The handling of the samples was good. Cleanup was effective. There was no contamination to speak of. What there was was sample degradation. Many of the samples were older and had been exposed to the environment for extended periods of time causing them to break down. There was also a flaw in the extraction / replication / sequencing methodology chosen. Taken together, those produced comparatively short DNA segments that had to be reassembled (by computer) for comparison ... this was done badly. This is where the apparent weird DNA popped up. It was not real, it was computer-generated during sequencing because the assumptions made in the "next gen" sequencing process were too optimistic. There were plenty of red flags for a careful researcher willing to see them. Melba reported 109 of 109 samples testing positive for bigfoot. Not possible since a hunk of Justin's bear was included. That's why she asked him to soak it in bleach to destroy the rest ... confirmation of what it really was contradicted the claims she was making. I do, however, believe there were real bigfoot samples within the pool that was tested. Melba was trying to force the data to support a pre-determined conclusion rather than letting the data lead and following where it went. Plain and simple in hindsight. Ya'll ought to know this if you've read the Ketchum threads, followed the analysis, and listened to the youtube vids. I'm kind of disappointed that you've gone this far into the conversation without paying attention to what has already been shown. MIB