Guest J Sasq Doe Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Below is a March 1st video teleconference with several geneticist, and they pretty much debunk the Ketchum paper. Pretty interesting. http://www.cryptomun...atch-dna-study/ Ah yes, Bug_Gurl and the 5 Fly Guys, broadcasting on webcams from their dorm rooms. Bug_Gurl's video, introduced by someone from Meldrum's camp. All that's missing was for one of the Fly Guys to wear a bright red wig and a huge red rubber nose. Isn't this uncomfortably close to how you accuse others of treating Dr Ketchum? I have no idea what you're referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Uh oh Melba .. http://www.rom.on.ca/en/blog/dna-reveals-possible-presence-of-sasquatch-in-northern-ontario Why do I feel an April Fools joke coming on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silent Sam Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 http://www.rom.on.ca/en/blog/dna-reveals-possible-presence-of-sasquatch-in-northern-ontario I have no doubt this will be cited in her next paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 That's pretty quick to get results back, huh? If this is an April Fools joke, it's pretty lame, IMO. And as far as MK's 111 samples go, did any of them come back, bear, elk, moose, etc, or were they all human? Seems weird that so much random human hair would be found in the woods, as opposed to the most likely culprits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Regarding the article: "More information will be provided this afternoon." I'm guessing AFJ myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 (edited) Uh oh Melba .. http://www.rom.on.ca/en/blog/dna-reveals-possible-presence-of-sasquatch-in-northern-ontario Why do I feel an April Fools joke coming on? Quite likely as an April fools joke, as students are involved. Edited April 1, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Regarding the article: "More information will be provided this afternoon." I'm guessing AFJ myself. The lead scientist is Alfred R. Wallace, maybe the last name is a clue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 ^Alfred Russel Wallace, OM, FRS (8 January 1823 – 7 November 1913) was a British naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist and biologist. He is best known for independently conceiving the theory of evolution through natural selection, which prompted Charles Darwin to publish his own ideas in On the Origin of Species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 I don't think this was posted yet, apologize if it was. From DMK's FB page on Saturday. "We have more support from PhDs coming in all the time as well as some good and honest reviews. We are collecting them for a new press release and will release their names at that time. Maybe the world will start to acknowledge our terrific paper and our Nobel worthy discovery at that time!" http://www.facebook.com/#!/melba.ketchum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silent Sam Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 The lead scientist is Alfred R. Wallace, maybe the last name is a clue? You do know the editor of Ketchum's paper is listed as a Dr. Rayford Wallace don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 I hadn't noticed that, but thanks for the heads up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 (edited) The below info can be found at. http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.ca/p/dna-study-ans.html Some other names for those who want them but are not energetic enough to look them up: To paraphrase what the critics are saying, all 110 samples are contaminated with human DNA. In their opinions this is the only way to explain these "odd" results. Dr. Ketchum contracted the following laboratories to run BLIND test on the samples. All these labs duplicated the "odd" results. Remember some of these labs are forensic labs used by law enforcement. People are in jail because of the work of these labs. So the assertion by the critics is these labs contaminated the samples. If so there are many people in jail that need to be let go because these laboratories can not be trusted to process the evidence. Family Tree DNA Genomics Research Center, 1445 North Loop West, Suite 820, Houston, TX 77008 SeqWright, Inc., 2575 W. Bellfort St. Suite 2001, Houston, TX 77054 University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center 6000 Harry Hines Blvd. NA7.116, Dallas, TX 75235-9093 USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center 1441 Eastlake Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90033 Texas A&M University, Microscopy & Imaging Center, Department of Biology and Department of Biochemistry & Biophysics, College Station, TX 77843-2257 Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843 Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences 2355 North Stemmons Fwy., Dallas, TX 75207 This assertion of contamination and that "no data has been presented to support these claims" calls into question the integrity of the following Universities: Texas A&M Microscopy and Imaging Center (Performed the structural analysis using electron microscopy) Genomics Core Laboratory at the University of Southern California (Los Angeles, CA) (Performed the Whole Human Genome SNP analysis) University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas - (Performed - Whole Genome Sequencing) The critics are also calling into question the submitters and their samples. I KNOW I handled my samples correctly, following EXTREMELY strict protocols to avoid contamination. I have documented this in more than one video. The DNA Study also went to great lengths to make sure to avoid contamination. Serveral of the submitters hold Doctorates, below is the list: Dr. J. Robert Alley, Dr. Igor Burtsev, Dr. Angelo Capparella, Dr. Henner Fahrenbach Dr. Al Guinn, and Dr. Samuel “Webb†Sentell. I would think these gentlemen would know how to correctly handle DNA samples. Not to mention well respected researchers to include Derek Randles. So the assertion is we all mishandled our samples, I do not think so! The study had great detail on how the samples were handled to avoid contamination. The study has a complete subsection on the handling of the samples to avoid contamination: Prevention of DNA Contamination by Forensic Methodologies. Also remember many of the samples were not hair but blood, saliva, and a piece of flesh. The flesh was "cored" and a sample taken from the center of the flesh. This would make it completely sterile. The only way this could be contaminated is by processors inside the study or one of the University facilities mentioned above. It is clear to me that the critics are not reading the paper or worse reading the paper and ignoring the documentation because of a personal bias. When the independent review is complete we will have our answers, until then I say again, and for the last time READ THE PAPER, provide POINT by POINT, DOCUMENTED, AND REFERENCED criticism. Lets take a look at a just a few of the experts that are on the DNA Study team: Dr. Andreas Holzenburg Director, Professor, Department of Biology, Professor, Biochemistry and Biophysics Microscopy and Imaging Center Texas A&M University Published over 30 Papers Click Here For Dr HolzenBurg's Web Site Fan Zhang, Ph.D. Bioinformatician in the Academic and Institutional Resources and Technology (AIRT) at the University of North Texas Health Science Center. Click Here For Dr Zhang's Website Dr. Pat Wojtkiewicz Director of the Shreveport Laboratory of the North Louisiana Crime Lab System and the Technical Leader of the DNA section. He has been employed at the crime lab since 1977. Click Here for Full Bio Dr. Thomas M. Prychitko of Wayne State University in Michigan Molecular biologist with a background that also includes evolutionary biology, microbiology and biochemistry. Click Here for Full Bio The rest of the team: Ms. Aliece Watts of Integrated Forensic Laboratories in Euless, TX; Mr. David Spence, Trace Evidence Supervisor at Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences; Dr. Douglas G. Toler of Huguley Pathology Consultants in Fort Worth, TX; ; Sarah Bollinger, Ray Shoulders, and Ryan Smith of DNA Diagnostics. Bios of the above can be found at the Sasquatch Genome Project Website The DNA Sample Submitters The individuals who actually submitted the DNA samples of hair, blood, tissue, etc were also a select group that consisted of honest people from all walks of life including professionals and six Doctors! The Bios of the submitters can be reviewed at the Sasquatch Genome Project Website - Groups and Submitters. Handling of Samples The samples from the study were FORENSICALLY processed. They were processed in accordance with criminal case handling of evidence and beyond! Below is an excert from the DNA paper's "Materials and Methods S1" Supplement. Hair Analysis: Hair samples were sent to the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences (Dallas, TX) for analysis. The samples were evaluated visually, stereoscopically, and by light microscopy to determine human or animal origin. Hairs that were classified as potential novel hominid were also evaluated for DNA typing potential by examining for root material. Only hairs that were not human in appearance and could not be identified as any other species were utilized in this study..... DNA Isolation Since the presence of normal human DNA contamination of submitted samples was a primary concern throughout this study, all samples were thoroughly cleaned in a manner consistent with forensic testing procedures. In order to further rule out contamination from human personnel and lab workers, samples from submitters and scientists working with the samples were collected for comparison with the results obtained in the various DNA tests. Dr. Ketchum used the following for hire laboratories in a BLIND STUDY of the DNA: "The following laboratories provided sequencing and analysis of samples in the study on a work for hire basis and were not initially told the origin of the samples being tested until after the samples were tested:" Family Tree DNA Genomics Research Center, 1445 North Loop West, Suite 820, Houston, TX 77008 SeqWright, Inc., 2575 W. Bellfort St. Suite 2001, Houston, TX 77054 UT Southwestern Medical Center 6000 Harry Hines Blvd. NA7.116, Dallas, TX 75235-9093 USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center 1441 Eastlake Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90033 Texas A&M University, Microscopy & Imaging Center, Department of Biology and Department of Biochemistry & Biophysics, College Station, TX 77843-2257 Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843 Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences 2355 North Stemmons Fwy., Dallas, TX 75207 The authors that contributed to the paper and what area they helped in: Dr. Ketchum, Dr. Pat Wojtkiecicz, David Spence, Dr. Andreas K. Holzenburg, Sarah Bollinger, Ray Shoulders, and Ryan Smith. performed experiments. Dr. Ketchum and Dr. Fan Zhang analyzed the genetic data. Dr. Ketchum., Aliece Watts, and Dr. Pat Wojtkiecicz wrote and edited the manuscript. Dr. Andreas K. Holzenburg analyzed and wrote the EM portion of the manuscript. David Spence analyzed and wrote the hair analysis portion of the manuscript. Dr. Douglas G. Toler analyzed and wrote the histopathology portion of the manuscript. Aliece Watts. also researched pertinent additions to the manuscript and helped with data collection. Dr. Ketchum distributed samples, collected and combined data from the blind studies. This study is complicated and it will take days or even weeks to read and absorb. I do not see how the critics have even had a chance to look at the let alone understand its complexity or grasp the concepts laid forth in this paper. Dr. Ketchum has referenced this study and sighted multiple sources ad nauseam . Blind reference labs were used and DOCUMENTED. Even the editor of the paper was not Dr. Ketchum but Dr. Rayford Wallace. The paper was a group effort and written by many experts in different scientific disciplines. Many are FORENSIC experts which makes them perfectly suited for this type of study. Edited April 1, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silent Sam Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 (edited) To paraphrase what the critics are saying, all 110 samples are contaminated with human DNA. In their opinions this is the only way to explain these "odd" results. Incorrect. Some of the samples could simply be from humans, which would seem to be the simplest answer. Ketchum states the morphology does not match human but provides only one hair example to back this up. All these labs duplicated the "odd" results. Remember some of these labs are forensic labs used by law enforcement. People are in jail because of the work of these labs. So the assertion by the critics is these labs contaminated the samples. If so there are many people in jail that need to be let go because these laboratories can not be trusted to process the evidence. In the case of Family Tree they only provided mtDNA testing (you can read back in the thread to see my quotes from corresponding with them). According to Ketchum's paper none of the mtDNA produced novel sequences. All mtDNA tests came back 100% modern human with no "odd" results. I'm also not aware of Family Tree conducting any work related to criminal cases. If you have a reference I'd be interested to see it. USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center1441 Eastlake Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90033 I corresponded with USC but they had no idea what I was talking about or who's work I was referencing. Not a very ringing endorsement, especially considering they have the opportunity to attach their name to a "Nobel worthy" paper. This assertion of contamination and that "no data has been presented to support these claims" calls into question the integrity of the following Universities: The only people responsible for omissions of data are Ketchum and anyone else who helped to author the paper. If a claim is made in the paper and there is no data in the paper to back it up that responsibility rests solely on Ketchum. The critics are also calling into question the submitters and their samples. I speak for only myself but I am certainly not doing this. If anything I've stated publicly my opinion that those submitters who provided samples in good faith are the true victims here. I KNOW I handled my samples correctly, following EXTREMELY strict protocols to avoid contamination. I have documented this in more than one video. So you are one of the sample providers? Have you considered uploading your videos or providing additional information regarding your sample and the circumstances under which it was collected? The study had great detail on how the samples were handled to avoid contamination. The study has a complete subsection on the handling of the samples to avoid contamination: Prevention of DNA Contamination by Forensic Methodologies. Family Tree directly refuted this claim by stating that none of the samples provided to them had any chain of custody. If you go back in the thread you can see this documented in some of my previous posts as well. If chain of custody was broken with the Family Tree samples where else might it have been broken? The only way this could be contaminated is by processors inside the study or one of the University facilities mentioned above. Wink wink. Nudge nudge. Say no more say no more. The DNA Sample SubmittersThe individuals who actually submitted the DNA samples of hair, blood, tissue, etc were also a select group that consisted of honest people from all walks of life including professionals and six Doctors! And also including at least one known hoaxer, Janice Carter Coy, who provided multiple samples that were included in the study. Handling of SamplesThe samples from the study were FORENSICALLY processed. They were processed in accordance with criminal case handling of evidence and beyond! The moment chain of custody was broken, as in the case with Family Tree, this became untrue. Criminal and forensic standards begin and end with maintaining rigorous chain of custody. ETA - Rereading your post and the referenced blog the portion regarding the video sample is made by the blog author (which I'm assuming isn't you Tman), in which case my question regarding that sample is moot. Edited April 1, 2013 by Silent Sam 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 And also including at least one known hoaxer, Janice Carter Coy, who provided multiple samples that were included in the study. And Mary Green. Together they have almost 20 samples in the study Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 (edited) Tell it to the writer SS. I only supplied the names from his blog for those here, who wanted to know names. If you want to pursue them, have at it! Edited April 1, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts