The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[southernyahoo]

Do you think if the samples were from known animals, that an outside lab like SeqRight should have trouble sequencing nuclear DNA when the gels showed good target DNA?

They should know their business. But MK does report in the paper several times that things either failed to amplify or gave different sized product. And if the labs were told the samples were human (directly or implied), they may have had some problems with primer choices. I have never worked with this lab and don't know the scope of project that MK had employed them to do.

I think SeqRight was using universal primers and some of their own proprietary primers. Not sure what they were told but the universal primers should have pointed to what specific primers to use. What could they tell a lab that would be the truth if you already knew you were getting human DNA from samples that shouldn't be?

I think the source was witheld, but suppose they could say we think we have human contamination that we can't get rid of, and the donor of these samples is being stubborn as hell in the amelogenin locus.

[Guest]

Never put any words in your mouth Melissa. Just a general surmise on my part, as that what seems to be the trend and precedent on the board towards those who have info and refuse to release it to the members. Just reread the past 15 pages of posts. No wonder witnesses are hesitant to come forth on the forum.

You are preaching to the choir when it comes to why witnesses don't want to talk. But, that has nothing to do with a conversation about DNA and the alleged "peer reviewed" article published by Melba Ketchum. We are not discussing whether bigfoot is real - we are discussing the work and results Melba released.

I would think witnesses would be happy that researchers who have not been formally trained in something as complex as DNA - are taking an interest and attempting to learn everything they can. Maybe you see this as a negative discussion - I do not. I see this as a healthy and educated discussion. I'm also willing to bet the scientific community is saying far worse than anything posted here.

[southernyahoo]

Y chromosome DNA is nuclear and from the male progenitor only, and TP could have spoken in reference to it, but if the mtDNA had come back part human and part unknown , then that would have been a red flag to anyone because it doesn't recombine. Unknown or sufficiently diverged from other great apes but closest to those would be perfect, yet doesn't happen.

Did Ketchum's findings mention the Y-chromosome at all? I don't recall seeing it her paper.

Yes Ketchums paper has amelogenin results simply listed as XX XY Y and null with emphasis on amel X drop out. There's not any speculation as to why the X drop out occurs but recombination seems plausable and potentially could stump a primer. The paper and press releases have both indicated a novel male progenitor which would specificly be tied to the Y chromosome. It should be pure Squatch in other words.

[Guest maelsquatch]

Thank you ms. In other words, any "novel/new" nDNA, from the paternal contributor, can be stated as such, a new species, as long as the mtDNA is 100% human? Or, how would a "novel/new nDNA otherwise be declared by geneticists?

No. All I'm saying is that because all the mtDNA samples came back 100% human can Dr. Ketchum conclude that the female progenitor was human. Nothing else can be inferred from the mtDNA in relation to the nuDNA.

Y chromosome DNA is nuclear and from the male progenitor only, and TP could have spoken in reference to it, but if the mtDNA had come back part human and part unknown , then that would have been a red flag to anyone because it doesn't recombine. Unknown or sufficiently diverged from other great apes but closest to those would be perfect, yet doesn't happen.

I should have said the mtDNA samples instead of just mtDNA. As in some of the samples were human and some unknown. Yeah, if the actual mtDNA of one sample was part human and part unknown, then that would have been a red flag.

[Guest]

Maelsquatch said:

All I'm saying is that because all the mtDNA samples came back 100% human can Dr. Ketchum conclude that the female progenitor was human.

I am sorry if this sounds like a really stupid question, but I am going to ask it anyway.

Okay, if the mtDNA samples came back 100% human -- is there a process to rule out possible contamination other than asking submitters for their own DNA? Is there a reason why she could be so certain that this is Human DNA - and not be contamination? This says contamination to me (but I am not a DNA scientist) but I guess I am willing to play devils advocate and ask for another reason...

Hope that made sense. If you have answered this, I apologize now..

[Guest thermalman]

Never put any words in your mouth Melissa. Just a general surmise on my part, as that what seems to be the trend and precedent on the board towards those who have info and refuse to release it to the members. Just reread the past 15 pages of posts. No wonder witnesses are hesitant to come forth on the forum.

You are preaching to the choir when it comes to why witnesses don't want to talk. But, that has nothing to do with a conversation about DNA and the alleged "peer reviewed" article published by Melba Ketchum. We are not discussing whether bigfoot is real - we are discussing the work and results Melba released.

I would think witnesses would be happy that researchers who have not been formally trained in something as complex as DNA - are taking an interest and attempting to learn everything they can. Maybe you see this as a negative discussion - I do not. I see this as a healthy and educated discussion. I'm also willing to bet the scientific community is saying far worse than anything posted here.

Just relaying the feelings of many, who have PM'd me about the gang bang mentality towards MK's reputation. As I mentioned in my previous post, reread the previous 15 pages Melissa. You can see it anyway you want, but it's easy to beat on someone's reputation if they're not around to defend themselves. Simply said, and a shame it has to happen, but it's definitely human nature.

[Guest thermalman]

Thank you ms. In other words, any "novel/new" nDNA, from the paternal contributor, can be stated as such, a new species, as long as the mtDNA is 100% human? Or, how would a "novel/new nDNA otherwise be declared by geneticists?

No. All I'm saying is that because all the mtDNA samples came back 100% human can Dr. Ketchum conclude that the female progenitor was human. Nothing else can be inferred from the mtDNA in relation to the nuDNA.

I should have said the mtDNA samples instead of just mtDNA. As in some of the samples were human and some unknown. Yeah, if the actual mtDNA of one sample was part human and part unknown, then that would have been a red flag.

What is then required, in a DNA analysis, to constitute the revelation of a "novel/new" DNA species in the DNA bank?

[Guest]

Y chromosome DNA is nuclear and from the male progenitor only, and TP could have spoken in reference to it, but if the mtDNA had come back part human and part unknown , then that would have been a red flag to anyone because it doesn't recombine. Unknown or sufficiently diverged from other great apes but closest to those would be perfect, yet doesn't happen.

Did Ketchum's findings mention the Y-chromosome at all? I don't recall seeing it her paper.

Yes Ketchums paper has amelogenin results simply listed as XX XY Y and null with emphasis on amel X drop out. There's not any speculation as to why the X drop out occurs but recombination seems plausable and potentially could stump a primer. The paper and press releases have both indicated a novel male progenitor which would specificly be tied to the Y chromosome. It should be pure Squatch in other words.

You are correct, sir. After going back and rereading it, it's a fairly brief section of the paper, especially given how she's talking up the hybridization theory. It seems like she skipped a few steps between "weird amel Y" and "proof of unknown species."

[Guest]

Never put any words in your mouth Melissa. Just a general surmise on my part, as that what seems to be the trend and precedent on the board towards those who have info and refuse to release it to the members. Just reread the past 15 pages of posts. No wonder witnesses are hesitant to come forth on the forum.

You are preaching to the choir when it comes to why witnesses don't want to talk. But, that has nothing to do with a conversation about DNA and the alleged "peer reviewed" article published by Melba Ketchum. We are not discussing whether bigfoot is real - we are discussing the work and results Melba released.

I would think witnesses would be happy that researchers who have not been formally trained in something as complex as DNA - are taking an interest and attempting to learn everything they can. Maybe you see this as a negative discussion - I do not. I see this as a healthy and educated discussion. I'm also willing to bet the scientific community is saying far worse than anything posted here.

Just relaying the feelings of many, who have PM'd me about the gang bang mentality towards MK's reputation. As I mentioned in my previous post, reread the previous 15 pages Melissa. You can see it anyway you want, but it's easy to beat on someone's reputation if they're not around to defend themselves. Simply said, and a shame it has to happen, but it's definitely human nature.

I can see where they might feel that way. But, this is the process - and this is the process everyone wanted to happen. I guess I don't know what her supporters thought would happen? Did they all think Melba's paper would simply be accepted and not discussed or questioned within the scientific community? People tried to caution everyone before she published - by saying - simply because she publishes that does not mean there will be no questions at all from the scientific community or even the average person who has no idea about these things.

When we don't understand something, we ask questions. You may see it as negative - others do not.

I'm not even going to touch the issue of Melba not being here to defend herself.

[Guest thermalman]

@ Melissa

"Did they all think Melba's paper would simply be accepted and not discussed or questioned within the scientific community?"

That would be totally acceptable, but since when has the BFF thread on her report become the scientific community to evaluate her work? The thread is more akin to a playground.

[Sunflower]

This thread is an excellent example that shows that "mentality" of beating up someone (who they don't even know). I see no problem with her not coming here to defend herself.....it's a bigfoot forum for crying out loud. This is not the Max Planck Institute where brainiacs discuss the next big discovery, so it's acceptable to me, anyway.

Still, people are not grasping how earth shattering this discovery is and how it relates to every single fact or unfact known to us at this point. The rewriting of history books may have already commenced, I don't know, but it should start IMO.

This is, however, the way humans have treated each other for eons and that must be something in our dna????

Thermalman,

I was typing as you were typing.......lol

Edited March 27, 2013 by Sunflower

[Guest]

@ Melissa

"Did they all think Melba's paper would simply be accepted and not discussed or questioned within the scientific community?"

That would be totally acceptable, but since when has the BFF thread on her report become the scientific community to evaluate her work? The thread is more akin to a playground.

Really, cause I think she has made her feeling towards the scientific community pretty clear too and she doesn't like them anymore than she does the Bigfoot Community. What were the various reasons being thrown about by those in the Ketchum camp for why her article was not published or peer reviewed prior to DeNovo?

Call this thread what you want - but I have learned a lot from those who are posting (and have the necessary credentials).

Melba can blame the Bigfoot Community all she likes. We have no control over her work, her journal, paper or the opinions expressed by people in the Scientific community.

Sunflower said:

I see no problem with her not coming here to defend herself.....it's a bigfoot forum for crying out loud. This is not the Max Planck Institute where brainiacs discuss the next big discovery, so it's acceptable to me, anyway.

I don't remember saying she should come here and defend anything. I honestly don't care what she does. She is a big girl and can make her own decision. But lets not forget - this community was good enough when she needed samples. This community got her name out and the info about her work. Without this community - she wouldn't have had one sample to test - by her own admission she says she was never interested prior. When I say the "Community" I am not just talking about the Bigfoot Forums - I am talking about the entire community.

While this community is not filled with Max Plank Institute folks - we are not all drooling idiots either. Many have shown they can hold their own and learn from very complex conversations like this one. I am not so willing to write off the community and the combined brain power.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Melissa

[Guest thermalman]

@ Melissa

"Call this thread what you want - but I have learned a lot from those who are posting (and have the necessary credentials)."

I must have missed the post, but I have not seen any credentials, as you state. Have you? For what little I know about DNA (grade 12 Bio), these experts could be leading us on a wild venture?

I'm calling this thread as it is, not as I want. This is not a scientific forum whatsoever. Just a place where any joeblow can jump into a thread and express his/her ideas. (as far out as they may be)

@Melissa

"Really, cause I think she has made her feeling towards the scientific community pretty clear too and she doesn't like them anymore than she does the Bigfoot Community"

That's not true. Melba has had other labs and scientists verify her findings. She is not going at it alone on her own virtues.

Edited March 27, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

Yes I have - and if those people want to discuss their CV that is their business. You forget Thermalman - it is up to Melba to prove her science is sound --- that is not the responsibility of anyone on this forum or anywhere else.

I wonder why Melba's CV is not easily accessible? Is it on her website and I just missed it?

That's not true. Melba has had other labs and scientists verify her findings. She is not going at it alone on her own virtues.

So, the idea that Melba's paper wasn't published because she is a woman -- that was just speculation from those close to her?

Melba has had other labs and scientists verify her findings.

Do you mean the scientists that wont talk about the work they did - and outright deny they did anything other than run tests? Those people? You used the "past tense" so I just wanted to make sure you are talking about the people she named as contributors and co-authors to her paper and not some new people.

This is not a scientific forum whatsoever. Just a place where any joeblow can jump into a thread and express his/her ideas. (as far out as they may be)

Never said it was.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Melissa

[Guest thermalman]

@ Melissa

"Yes I have - and if those people want to discuss their CV that is their business."

"Do you mean the scientists that wont talk about the work they did - and outright deny they did anything other than run tests? Those people? You used the "past tense" so I just wanted to make sure you are talking about the people she named as contributors and co-authors to her paper and not some new people."

The ones that TP referred to and that Melba has no influence in what they say, just like your first statement about your people and their CV, "It's their business". Why is it ok for them not to reveal their CV or ID's, and not ok for those working with MK? Seems one-sided to me? Demand, yet don't put up, seems to be the norm on this thread?

Edited March 27, 2013 by thermalman