The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

If GenesRus and Theagenes come in here now and say - what you just said ridgerunner -- I think I am going to be sick.. Is there nothing that can be salvaged - at all?

Here's my take....an armchair one at that.....I haven't been here long (post count good verification) but from what I see. Many expected "X" to happen, as this is the way they "EXPECTED" it too be. No consideration was given that "Y" might happen.

Now that "x" is out, and "Y" is still not shown.....but I bet is in play. Everyone wants to jump ship. It is human nature to be negative about someone, then it is to have a positive outlook on them. MK could have a very logical reason for the way things have thus unfolded just to post the paper....and I have no problem with the $30 for it.

I suspect that given another month, more details via MK, or others "outside" this forum who have the background ...read that education in DNA studies...life long studies will chime in on new information. MK at this point (betting she has more data) is going to protect that data till she is sure she will get "lead" credit for it.

...so people. you all need to chill out, quit being so negative. Those that have, how much more negative can you get. Is it enjoyable to get the pepto out or Xanax just to make yourself suffer.

[Guest]

There may very well be something to salvage - I actually think there is likely BF nuDNA sequence in there somewhere. And I don't have much problem with the mtDNA or or hair analysis. I believe there has been a problem with the processing of the raw data. I think the eureka moment for science is yet to come... but the immediate roller coaster ride is over, imo. We are into round two (or three or four, depending on how you want to think). Please don't be sick... Personally, I am past the disbelief, anger, sorrow, and now acceptance of what it is.

While I have been very disappointed - in the 5 year wait for this - I was still holding out some hope.. But, it is what it is - and as you said - on to the next round(s) ..

Treadstone said:

Is it enjoyable to get the pepto out or Xanax just to make yourself suffer.

Chocolate. Chocolate is the ticket - trust me. I have been in more - near - chocolate induced comas than anyone I know.. Chocolate makes everything better !!

Edited February 21, 2013 by Melissa

[Oonjerah]

@apehuman plus 1, @cotter

I abandoned her. To be polite about it, she's always made a bad impression on me.

I haven't read the report ... the interpretation part that lay people can understand,

only what's been posted of it in here. Her theory didn't & doesn't make sense to me.

I too held onto a glimmer of hope: She does know genetics, it's her expetise. She said

they had sequenced 3 whole genomes, 3 whole maps of 3 individuals. And if the nuDNA

in those came out true for an unknown species ... that's been my glimmer of hope.

Reading the commentary in the Bigfoot Field Journal (Scott's?), I'd love for it to be right

about her findings, and wrong about the establishment conspiracy paranoia.

[Guest]

not all have abandoned her, and I don't think we would be getting real numbers on those voices yet as the skeptic, dissapointment roar so loud..,but it will die down and eventually we will get some "official' review or replication....so

: http://bf-field-jour...chum-has-3.html

for those that know BFs are real and also trust many of the submissions we expect there to be DNA of BFs in this mix of data MK has produced and the idea those three genomes are enough to catapult this into recognition still remains a hope for many, and I don't know that isn't justified, seems we can hang on a few more...days, weeks? Or until Sykes I guess. Or someone.

.

Nice link, thanks.

[Guest Cervelo]

Based on Bills comments in the Matilda thread I'd say...,stick a fork in it!

[Guest]

While I have been very disappointed - in the 5 year wait for this - I was still holding out some hope.. But, it is what it is - and as you said - on to the next round(s) ..

Treadstone said:

Chocolate. Chocolate is the ticket - trust me. I have been in more - near - chocolate induced comas than anyone I know.. Chocolate makes everything better !!

I eat chocolate for rheumatoid arthritis...it keeps my nerves down, which when up-causes me to have a RA flair up.

[Rockape]

Well, I never expected this study to be the be all, end all of BF research anyway. There have been a lot of red flags along the way and due to them it has turned out much like I expected. However, perhaps it will give others the impetus to attempt the same, and obtain solid results. If that is the case then it will have been worthwhile.

[Oonjerah]

"You've got to separate the wheat from the chaffe." We were told back in the day.

There was extra chaffe with this delivery. Let's focus on the germ of science fact.

But for that, we have to trust those who can read the raw DNA data.

Speak, O DNA Readers!

[Guest]

I eat chocolate for rheumatoid arthritis...it keeps my nerves down, which when up-causes me to have a RA flair up.

I'm sorry to hear that If I had that, I wouldn't know.. I swear I have chocolate flowing through my veins. But, I don't want to get this conversation off track (boy - could I).. LOL.

Ridgerunner said:

I actually think there is likely BF nuDNA sequence in there somewhere. And I don't have much problem with the mtDNA or or hair analysis.

Would you mind elaborating? Question - what if - she is simply wrong about the human portion of the sequencing.. Does that completely end her work? Or can the sequences be gone over and still come up with something that puts Bigfoot back in play? Or - when it's over, it's over?

Edited February 22, 2013 by Melissa

[Sasfooty]

not all have abandoned her,

for those that know BFs are real and also trust many of the submissions we expect there to be DNA of BFs in this mix of data MK has produced

No, not all have abandoned her, including me. I haven't said much because arguing amid the "skeptics' roar" gets tiresome, but I remain a loyal bleever.

My son & I saw the bigfoot at the tree where we found the sample that I sent her, so I have no problem believing that her findings were factual. Hopefully, she will eventually get the recognition & credit that she deserves for a job well done.

[Guest]

I'm sorry to hear that If I had that, I wouldn't know.. I swear I have chocolate flowing through my veins. But, I don't want to get this conversation off track (boy - could I).. LOL.

Ridgerunner said:

Would you mind elaborating? Question - what if - she is simply wrong about the human portion of the sequencing.. Does that completely end her work? Or can the sequences be gone over and still come up with something that puts Bigfoot back in play? Or - when it's over, it's over?

What I think is that the "human" like sequences are BF - or could be human contamination (if they are the same, hard to rule one or the other out). MY problem is with the non-human like sequences - they should be much more human like. Blast gorilla DNA and it has a high degree of homology to human - over the entire region. I was taking 15,000 bp chunks of sequence from the paper and when I blast it, it comes back 100bp human - 200bp unknown - 150bp human - 250bp unknown - etc. This is the oddity for me. And when I take two of the nuDNA samples (from sup fig 4 and 6) and align them, they again come in these 150-250bp chunks, then gaps. (see below I hope) If they are of the same species, they should be no gaps (or minor ones along with other slight nucleotide differences).

My gut feeling is that this was assembled incorrectly. From reading the paper, I even am not certain the they attempted to recreate the genomic structure, but just stuck things together to do their tree analysis (which I think is flawed because of the low degree of homology). What the other sequences in there are - I don't know. They keep on going on about their Q30 scores stating that their DNA was pure, but I am leery of those results because of the questions I arose about their identical looking sup fig 7-8 (if I recall correctly).

If we could just get out the human like sequences, then do assembly on those reads, it might come out as something. That would be my hope.

[Guest]

So, stupid question coming from a non - DNA person... Could Bigfoot be closer to non-human primate then? Maybe even less close to humans than say a Gorilla? Or, is that totally crazy?

[Guest]

They keep on going on about their Q30 scores stating that their DNA was pure, but I am leery of those results because of the questions I arose about their identical looking sup fig 7-8 (if I recall correctly).

It appears that sample 26 was represented twice while 140 was omitted, so there are two summaries instead of three.

Edited February 22, 2013 by HODS

[Guest]

So, stupid question coming from a non - DNA person... Could Bigfoot be closer to non-human primate then? Maybe even less close to humans than say a Gorilla? Or, is that totally crazy?

When I blast these two sequence above (I have only done the first 30,000 bp so far), the most "hits" or sequences that have homology, comes back as ~30-35 hits for human, 7-18 hits mouse, and 2-7 pongo for sample 26. Sample 140 comes in at 27-41 hits human, 2-23 hits wild boar, and 4 hits pongo. The range in the number depends on which blast algorithm I use (highly similar, more dissimilar, somewhat similar). I am not sure which algorithm would be more applicable, so I did them all. Now, I believe the number of hits may depend on length of homology, for example blast of gorilla come in with 74 hits for human, 14 for pan, and 1 for gorilla. But the gorilla is 100% homologous to gorilla, so it is just one long hit. The number of hits also depends on how many sequences there are to match it up with - as there is a lot more human sequence in the data base (I was using the nucleotide collection (nr/nt)) this will increase the number of human hits. This in turn can (I believe) bias their phylogenetic tree.

So is it possible it is closer to another primate than human - I don't know. When I look at the blast results there is a huge mix of things picked up - human, mouse, pongo, dog, cat, etc. Again more hits are human, but there is more human sequence in the data base. And the top hits are not always human. At best 20% of the sequences in the contigs is homologous to anything. Take that gorilla sequence, and it is 98% homologous to humans. From that I would conclude gorilla is closer to human than BF is to human, on the data presented so far. Makes you think!

It appears that sample 26 was represented twice while 140 was omitted, so there are two summaries instead of three.

That is what it looks like. But I am still confused by their Q score histogram in the top right corner. I don't know why the distribution should be the same between the plot of 26(140) and 31? They look identical to my eye. Maybe that is normal, I don't know.

Edited February 22, 2013 by ridgerunner

[southernyahoo]

@ridgerunner, very interesting work!.... and much appreciated. Keep it coming.