Guest njjohn Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 Those listed in the paper have all replied that hey did zero analysis. nijohn, what did Family tree report that they did? Did they report to Ketchum that they had sequenced human DNA, or did Ketchum have to interpret that on her own? They didn't reply. But since they did the mtDNA history and the mtDNA was said to be 100% human, I don't think tracing back the haplotypes was ever under contention or questioned. I was about to inquire about the T2b situation brought up by A. John Marsh, but only 4 samples fell under that Haplotype and none of them were the genomes, and then I read the same newer entries by him that said it was all a mistake due to testing techniques. I personally don't think the mtDNA would do much to prove anything, because even if the hybridization happened 100 years ago or 15k years ago, the maternal line would trace back to the same beginnings as yourself if you were tested and had the same haplotype. If we're relying on science to prove the existence of Bigfoot, it will have to come from the nuDNA and the male's half of that DNA.
Guest Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 Looks like Thom Powell nailed it. Yep ... He nailed it ... The only thing he did not mention, but is covered by "groupthink", is " talking points" ..... Loved the way he built the case for the many personal attacks. The bait and switch..... Attack the person not the argument.... BTW ... Check my dang spelling PLEASE.... If that is your thingy....
southernyahoo Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 ]Those listed in the paper have all replied that hey did zero analysis[/b]. nijohn, what did Family tree report that they did? Did they report to Ketchum that they had sequenced human DNA, or did Ketchum have to interpret that on her own? They didn't reply. But since they did the mtDNA history and the mtDNA was said to be 100% human, I don't think tracing back the haplotypes was ever under contention or questioned. I was about to inquire about the T2b situation brought up by A. John Marsh, but only 4 samples fell under that Haplotype and none of them were the genomes, and then I read the same newer entries by him that said it was all a mistake due to testing techniques. I personally don't think the mtDNA would do much to prove anything, because even if the hybridization happened 100 years ago or 15k years ago, the maternal line would trace back to the same beginnings as yourself if you were tested and had the same haplotype. If we're relying on science to prove the existence of Bigfoot, it will have to come from the nuDNA and the male's half of that DNA. Sounds like one of the listed labs "did" do analysis of the DNA. Was it directly from biological samples or a derived solution cantaining DNA? My sample was one of the T2b samples and reportedly produced the entire mitochondria. One of the 20 reported by Ketchum. All that data, has to be somewhere, and would prove something, when it can be directly associated with morphology and circumstances of collection. It's a shame they won't reply, because the assertions of mistakes in testing methods could be addressed. Other than that, yes, still looking for a good read on the male progenitor from male samples.
Guest thermalman Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 Plussed you SC. Absolutely agree! And for those who are asking questions to other posters here, about their thinking on the article, maybe it would be smarter if you directed your questions to the author of the blog Thomsquatch for real answers instead of hypothetical ones from those here?
Guest Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 Southernyahoo - didn't Melba provide you with the specific data in reference to your particular sample? Or was it agreed early on that she would not provide the submitters with that kind of detail about their samples?
Guest maelsquatch Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 Thank you, I know what the composition of cells are and all that! I just couldn't wrap my mind around how the cellular terms were being used to describe DNA. That didn't make sense to me. Sorry if I sounded condescending, that was not my intent. I was just trying to show how the terms are used. I shoulda left off that part about high schoolers! From thomsquatch.com: The findings were remarkably consistent: mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA), which is indicative of the female component of the genome, came back as human! The nDNA (nuclear DNA from the male progenitor) was found to be ‘novel’, which is geneticist code for “doesn’t match anything previously extracted.†Also, large sections of the DNA strands appeared as single strand molecules (haploid), as opposed to the uniformly double-stranded DNA of all human DNA that is not found in sex cells (gametes). This might indicate that the DNA being sequenced was highly degraded DNA, but degraded DNA is found to contain lots of bacteria, and no bacteria was found in conjunction with the DNA that showed single strand configuration. It was not degraded, but it was single strand DNA in about half of the segments that were sequenced. Multiple labs observed this anomaly, an dutifully reported it to Ketchum. This paragraph is very confusing to me. mtDNA is inherited wholly from the mother, and does not tell us anything about the nuDNA inherited from the mother. nuDNA is inherited from both parents, not just the male as it is implied. And while DNA can be degraded by bacteria, not all degradation is caused by bacteria. Repeated freezing and thawing of samples, UV radiation, and pH can all cause degradation. Also, even DNA found in gamete cells is double-stranded; the gamete cells just contain 1/2 the number of chromosomes. Overall, I think Mr. Powell is asserting that the single-strand portions of the DNA are from the father (non-human) while the double-stranded portions are from the mother (human). I don't know for sure, but that's what it seems like. Looking back over Mr. Powell's post, especially the next to last paragraph, I also think he is implying that the single-strand DNA found by Dr. Ketchum is evidence of an extra-terrestrial origin for that part of the DNA, hence the use of "terrestrial" when describing somatic cells.
Guest Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 Looks like Thom Powell nailed it. Yep ... He nailed it ... The only thing he did not mention, but is covered by "groupthink", is " talking points" ..... Loved the way he built the case for the many personal attacks. The bait and switch..... Attack the person not the argument.... BTW ... Check my dang spelling PLEASE.... If that is your thingy.... Well, not really. Among other issues, Powell seems a bit confused by the concept of mtDNA vs nDNA. While Powell correctly indicates that mtDNA is passed down by the mother, Powell states that nDNA comes solely from the male. That is wrong. Powell is also apparently ignorant of the fact that mtDNA is haploid, instead claiming that only gametes have haploid DNA. Moreover, Powell seems to believe that only bacteria can degrade DNA, which is, quite simply, wrong. I will agree that Powell spent a lot of time attacking Dr. Ketchum's critics, rather than rebutting their criticisms; that's ironic, given that one of Powell's main complaints is that Ketchum's critics have engaged in personal attacks. At the same time, Powell spends more time attempting to boltser Dr. Ketchum's credentials by arguing that she's a good person than actually defending her findings. In fact, Powell goes so far as to falsely claim that Ketchum has a Ph.D. in genetics instead of a DVM. Finally, and this is a big red flag, Powell ends his polemic with an appeal to buy his book, which Ketchum's study just happens to support.
Guest thermalman Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 (edited) Thank you, I know what the composition of cells are and all that! I just couldn't wrap my mind around how the cellular terms were being used to describe DNA. That didn't make sense to me. Sorry if I sounded condescending, that was not my intent. I was just trying to show how the terms are used. I shoulda left off that part about high schoolers! From thomsquatch.com: The findings were remarkably consistent: mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA), which is indicative of the female component of the genome, came back as human! The nDNA (nuclear DNA from the male progenitor) was found to be ‘novel’, which is geneticist code for “doesn’t match anything previously extracted.†Also, large sections of the DNA strands appeared as single strand molecules (haploid), as opposed to the uniformly double-stranded DNA of all human DNA that is not found in sex cells (gametes). This might indicate that the DNA being sequenced was highly degraded DNA, but degraded DNA is found to contain lots of bacteria, and no bacteria was found in conjunction with the DNA that showed single strand configuration. It was not degraded, but it was single strand DNA in about half of the segments that were sequenced. Multiple labs observed this anomaly, an dutifully reported it to Ketchum. This paragraph is very confusing to me. mtDNA is inherited wholly from the mother, and does not tell us anything about the nuDNA inherited from the mother. nuDNA is inherited from both parents, not just the male as it is implied. And while DNA can be degraded by bacteria, not all degradation is caused by bacteria. Repeated freezing and thawing of samples, UV radiation, and pH can all cause degradation. Also, even DNA found in gamete cells is double-stranded; the gamete cells just contain 1/2 the number of chromosomes. Overall, I think Mr. Powell is asserting that the single-strand portions of the DNA are from the father (non-human) while the double-stranded portions are from the mother (human). I don't know for sure, but that's what it seems like. Looking back over Mr. Powell's post, especially the next to last paragraph, I also think he is implying that the single-strand DNA found by Dr. Ketchum is evidence of an extra-terrestrial origin for that part of the DNA, hence the use of "terrestrial" when describing somatic cells. Maddie, I would think that the meaning of terrestrial in this context means land living inhabitant and not an aquatic, aerial or aboreal living inhabitant, instead of the extra-terrestrial thinking of space invaders. Edited March 26, 2013 by thermalman
Guest Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 From Powells blog: OK, so what is the origin of this truly novel DNA that Melba Ketchum found in the sasquatch genome? For one possible answer, check out The Locals, Chapter 10: “No Stone Left Unturned.†What gave me a chill when I read the Ketchum study is the possibility that I may have written down an answer ten years before I even asked this question. Yes, everyone check out his book "The Locals - Chapter 10". I think it's interesting that while Melba keeps trying to get away from this kind of thing publicly - her biggest supporters keep pulling her back in.. If she is coaching - she's not doing a very good job OR she does agree with Tom Powell. Who knows.
Guest njjohn Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 SY - actually you bring up quite a few good points. First, in regards to the labs I mentioned that didn't do analysis was directly related to the nuDNA. So that was poor wording on my part. My apologies. Family Tree is listed as only doing the mtDNA, and Ketchum's paper says: 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 No where are the mutations described by Thom and now Melba brought up in the paper, (infact it's stated no significant deviation) until A. John Marsh brings it up, but then points out that it's a result of older references that changed in 2012. I would think that mutations that didn't appear in modern humans would have garnered more mention and attention previous to now. That would have been a significant deviation, right? Did she even include any of the T2b sequences in the paper? One observation about Thomsquatch's report besides the ones mentioned above... he keeps saying 109 samples, but the paper used 111 and those were just that were accepted. There were at minimum 168 submitted going by the sample list. Then when he removes the Smeja sample, he drops to 107.
southernyahoo Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 Southernyahoo - didn't Melba provide you with the specific data in reference to your particular sample? Or was it agreed early on that she would not provide the submitters with that kind of detail about their samples? She did offer me the raw data at one point, but at that time, I didn't feel I would need it as it was to be part of the paper. She still owns the data as part of the agreement, but I still think she would give it to me.
Guest maelsquatch Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 Maddie, I would think that the meaning of terrestrial in this context means land living inhabitant and not an aquatic, aerial or aboreal living inhabitant, instead of the extra-terrestrial thinking of space invaders. After a little more research, Chapter 10 of "The Locals" discusses the UFO-Bigfoot connection.
Guest Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 OTL,S is reporting that Ketchum is now testing alien dna. http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/texas-dna-specialist-writes-that-sasquatch-is-a-modern-human-being/ Its the 3/24/2013 update.
Sunflower Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 Thom Powell, Thank you, thank you and thank you!!!!!!!!!!!! 1
bipedalist Posted March 26, 2013 BFF Patron Posted March 26, 2013 Looks like Thom Powell nailed it. Yep ... He nailed it ... The only thing he did not mention, but is covered by "groupthink", is " talking points" ..... Loved the way he built the case for the many personal attacks. The bait and switch..... Attack the person not the argument.... BTW ... Check my dang spelling PLEASE.... If that is your thingy.... Well, not really. Among other issues, Powell seems a bit confused by the concept of mtDNA vs nDNA. While Powell correctly indicates that mtDNA is passed down by the mother, Powell states that nDNA comes solely from the male. That is wrong. Powell is also apparently ignorant of the fact that mtDNA is haploid, instead claiming that only gametes have haploid DNA. Moreover, Powell seems to believe that only bacteria can degrade DNA, which is, quite simply, wrong. I will agree that Powell spent a lot of time attacking Dr. Ketchum's critics, rather than rebutting their criticisms; that's ironic, given that one of Powell's main complaints is that Ketchum's critics have engaged in personal attacks. At the same time, Powell spends more time attempting to boltser Dr. Ketchum's credentials by arguing that she's a good person than actually defending her findings. In fact, Powell goes so far as to falsely claim that Ketchum has a Ph.D. in genetics instead of a DVM. Finally, and this is a big red flag, Powell ends his polemic with an appeal to buy his book, which Ketchum's study just happens to support. Duly noted and fine post, I like Thom and have his books. I think there is a counter opinion expressed and nothing more. He is an eloquent writer. However, eloquence does not always make rational exhuberance pop up all over no matter how glowing.
Recommended Posts