The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

'this is exacerbated by the fact that, with the possible exception of bonobos (Pan paniscus), all the great ape species harbour far more sequence diversity than humans." (Comparative Primate Genomics. Annu. Rev. Genome. Hum. Genet. 5, 351378 (2004))

but I think I misunderstood what Sykes said now...according to Wikipedia the mtDNA for both Neanderthal and Denisova do show differences from us.......and Sykes point was this does not show up in our 1million on file......although nDNA markers do show up........ so i got that wrong, in that, relict humans do show a difference in their mtDNA...(and the issue of cross breeding goes to seeing some of their ancient markers in our nDNA, but none in the mtDNA ...ah I see....and the rate of mutation in mtDNA vs that of Y ...)

..

Ok, yeah, with that view then MK probably did not get the mtDNA results correct...as it would mean BFs are modern humans......when compared to both Neanderthal and Denisova...which did not fit in our known h. sapiens mtDNA haplotypes. And her assertion of the hybrid pop-up just is not within normal genomics...or evolutionary theories....

I live with this possible correct/partial view until someone chimes in...!! I didn't think I would really need to understand the nuances of DNA and genomics.... I really did expect some answer...hahah..... and so it is more likely too that Sykes will produce some radically different mtDNA results....well it will seem like a long wait now.

Ridge Runner i will read carefully your serious look at the data uploaded, and I expect your take will be valued by all.

Edited March 17, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

or like the body they DID RECOVER in CT a stone's throw from PA, they said it came from out west, OK, tell me another one LOL.

Yeah because they actually took the cat's DNA and it matched with a population from Black Hills, South Dakota. They also found that the same individual left DNA in Wisconsin. So yeah, I'm taking professional biologists over smug people on the internet.

[Guest]

I need to look over the mtDNA data again - I keep looking at it then get frustrated with the real lack of data, and supplement data 2 is difficult to interpret without any figure legend.

But while there may be something there, it is odd, as I have pointed out before, that 111 of 111 samples came back as human. Even with the prescreening based on hair morphology, it is unlikely that they are all BF sequences and equally unlikely that they are all contaminated. So what do we have? Even a mixture of some being BF and some being human, there still should have been the odd negative sample.

If the full mtDNA sequences are made available, perhaps it can be sorted out. But the closer BF is to us, the more difficult it will be to prove it is not simply us. Perhaps some of the non-next-gen-sequencing of the nuDNA could help sort out the samples - if the sequences are made available....why do I find myself keep saying this over and over???

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

it is unlikely that they are all BF sequences and equally unlikely that they are all contaminated.

I think that is probably the case with many of the samples in the study.

[Guest]

Yeah because they actually took the cat's DNA and it matched with a population from Black Hills, South Dakota. They also found that the same individual left DNA in Wisconsin. So yeah, I'm taking professional biologists over smug people on the internet.

And I'll believe what my my eyes seen, my friend sitting next to me seen, a doctor I know , a veterinarian I know ,etc... And smart enough to know there is corruption though most of our state and government programs.

Edited March 17, 2013 by zigoapex

[southernyahoo]

If I had the raw data RR I'd certainly share it with you. My sample is mtDNA haplotype T2b and Ketchum should have the entire mito on it. The morphology and circumstances of it's collection did not suggest human other than how fine the hair looked to the eye and the wave in them. It would seem to me that since the mito sequencing was outsourced to labs like Family Tree and that these could be defined down to haplotype there's not likely a mistake in determining them human. Ketchum was adamant that they could find no anomalies in them to suggest a novel maternal lineage.

I'm not sure all 111 samples included in the study had DNA. Some may not have had roots and the shafts are reportedly very stubborn. Some were suitable for mtDNA extraction and those with more roots were selected for nuDNA.

[Guest]

But she said in Ketchum et al,

" All 111 screened samples revealed 100% human cytochrome b and hypervariable region 1 sequences with no heteroplasmic bases that would indicate contamination or a mixture. These samples were then sent out to another laboratory for mitochondrial whole genome sequencing."

So they must have been able to get at least the mtDNA to determine the above.

again from Ketchum et al

"All 16 haplotypes from 20 completed whole mitochondrial sequences and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes have indicated 100% homology with human mitochondrial sequences without any significant deviation."

I am curious what the insignificant deviations were.

So much yet to know...

Edited March 17, 2013 by BigGinger
To remove quoted post directly above

[Guest]

OTLS has posted a some comments from Matt Knapp on some conversations he had with Ketchum.

http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/texas-dna-specialist-writes-that-sasquatch-is-a-modern-human-being/

[Guest]

RR you still need more data even with the mtDNA results, I see.... thank you though for response

Edited March 17, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

And I'll believe what my my eyes seen, my friend sitting next to me seen, a doctor I know , a veterinarian I know ,etc...

In other words, you have nothing.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

OTLS has posted a some comments from Matt Knapp on some conversations he had with Ketchum.

http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/texas-dna-specialist-writes-that-sasquatch-is-a-modern-human-being/

That's some pretty shocking stuff right there. Especially this quote:

"The most telling of all the things she told me was that Bigfoot had been psychically communicating with others, and that they (Bigfoot) had chosen her to do this study and prove their existence to the world so that she could lead the campaign in protecting them."

Edited March 18, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest]

^^^yes this is at least the second person to come out publicly claiming Ketchum has told them she believes sasquatch mind speak to her and others in her group.

Edited March 18, 2013 by squatting squatch

[Guest]

All I can say is that, when I ate my crow, as a skeptic, as so many said I would have to when her results would be released, it tasted...............wait.

I didn't actually have to eat any crow. My bad.

Just as I predicted, based on the lack of evidence, there would be no eating of crow. One would suspect, after 50+ years of proponents claiming the next Biscardi, RD or FB/FB etc had the real deal...I will never need to know what crow actually tastes like.

So where are the apologies? Where are the proponents relating their own respective crow-eating recipes to each other to be found? Or is crow-eating just, as usual, a one way demand?

Really. I want to know. Where are the proponents crow eating recipes?

Edited March 18, 2013 by WTB1

[Bonehead74]

That's some pretty shocking stuff right there. Especially this quote:

"The most telling of all the things she told me was that Bigfoot had been psychically communicating with others, and that they (Bigfoot) had chosen her to do this study and prove their existence to the world so that she could lead the campaign in protecting them."

I would love to hear the Blogsquatcher's thoughts on this.

[southernyahoo]

But she said in Ketchum et al,

" All 111 screened samples revealed 100% human cytochrome b and hypervariable region 1 sequences with no heteroplasmic bases that would indicate contamination or a mixture. These samples were then sent out to another laboratory for mitochondrial whole genome sequencing."

I would gather then that she has at least partial mtDNA on all those. I know Derek Randels said he had sent in over 200 hair samples himself, so some of those must be negative or no DNA.

So they must have been able to get at least the mtDNA to determine the above.

again from Ketchum et al

"All 16 haplotypes from 20 completed whole mitochondrial sequences and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes have indicated 100% homology with human mitochondrial sequences without any significant deviation."

I am curious what the insignificant deviations were.

So much yet to know...

Well there you have it. From my conversations with her, there was no sequence in the mitochondria that they could not match to human in genbank.

Edited March 18, 2013 by southernyahoo