The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

Perhaps the red flags were not red enough when they needed to be read for their true colors. 

 

 

I think this was true for many people. I also think many of us were were ... and some still are ... color blind.

[Guest guillaume]

Ars Technica posted an interesting article on Ketchum's DNA work here:

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/an-honest-attempt-to-understand-the-bigfoot-genome-and-the-woman-who-created-it/

 

[bipedalist]

Great article and thanks for the post up.

 

On a related note, on patenting genomic dna:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/supreme-court-blocks-patenting-of-genomic-dna/

 

The gene is not patentable only the processes and techniques that bring out natural products. 

Edited July 7, 2013 by bipedalist

[southernyahoo]

Ars Technica posted an interesting article on Ketchum's DNA work here:

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/an-honest-attempt-to-understand-the-bigfoot-genome-and-the-woman-who-created-it/

 

Yep, that article actually told the story just as well as if you talked to her directly yourself. She did know that much of the results were too strange to be all that correct. I still doubt that degraded samples would give a complete mitochondrial genome and agree with her that careful cleansing of the hair samples would have removed loose contaminant cells.

[HOLDMYBEER]

So SY, your last sentence......would you expound on that? Where is the contamination coming from?

[Guest]

So Ketchum basically ignored or rationalized all the warning signs that her samples were contaminated because she "knew" Bigfoot existed.   That explains a lot. 

[southernyahoo]

So SY, your last sentence......would you expound on that? Where is the contamination coming from?

 

I wouldn't say all the samples were contaminated. Some could have been. The mito results came from an outsourced lab. She says the hair samples didn't match human criteria, which I agree with for my sample, and if the DNA results are repeatable then that's what I have, which I think is cogent with other evidence prospectively from bigfoot. 

 

Logicly I just don't think that all 113 samples could be contaminated and go un-noticed. If Family Tree found any they would have had confusing results and they would know it . They certainly would have had trouble getting a complete human mitochondria from a Llama or bear right? 

[Guest Tyler H]

Ars Technica posted an interesting article on Ketchum's DNA work here:

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/an-honest-attempt-to-understand-the-bigfoot-genome-and-the-woman-who-created-it/

 

I signed in today, for the first time in months - just to post this link. Just got back from holidays last night.

But I see we have diligent, rational people already making sure this sort of objective information is posted.

I gave you a point vote, guillaume, and am posting the link again.

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/an-honest-attempt-to-understand-the-bigfoot-genome-and-the-woman-who-created-it/

 

 

I still question ALL of Ketchum's sincerity, but do feel that many aspects of her efforts were sincere. However, there are a few glaring areas were is seems almost inescapable that there was some hoodwinking going on at the material expense of Wally Hersom and the mental and emotional expense of the general public.

[Guest]

So SY, your last sentence......would you expound on that? Where is the contamination coming from?

 

I wouldn't say all the samples were contaminated. Some could have been. The mito results came from an outsourced lab. She says the hair samples didn't match human criteria, which I agree with for my sample, and if the DNA results are repeatable then that's what I have, which I think is cogent with other evidence prospectively from bigfoot. 

 

Logicly I just don't think that all 113 samples could be contaminated and go un-noticed. If Family Tree found any they would have had confusing results and they would know it . They certainly would have had trouble getting a complete human mitochondria from a Llama or bear right?

Help me understand one point, sa. Your hair sample did not match human criteria but were human, i.e., your hair sample morphology was not apparently human, while genetically it was human (mitro). What morphological attributes did the hair possess that rule out human? And why do you think the contradiction between morphological and genetic identities supports belief in Bigfoot rather than some other conclusion?

[southernyahoo]

 

 

Jerrywayne, my sample has a medulla that is not consistent with human morphology to the best I can determine. There is a point along the shaft of these hairs where it is not amorphous and 1/3 the shaft diameter, it is closer to half the width of the hair with straight uniform margins. That is it's major difference from human hairs that I can tell. Wider medulla's like this are more common with animal hairs. Other human or ape features would be the even distribution of pigmentation in the cortex. Animal hairs generally have  greater pigmentation concentrations near the medulla and lighter towards the cortex. The width (diameter) of the hairs are also very close to human for my sample.

 

You might remember Ketchum stating on Coast to Coast that the hairs have human and animal characteristics. The Medulla and root structure was also mentioned as primary diagnostic features in her paper.

Edited July 8, 2013 by southernyahoo

[HOLDMYBEER]

If I understand this correctly, you have personally observed the sample morphology described above. What is your basis of knowledge as to the mitochondrial results? You indicate the testing was outsourced. Have you personally received the data and formed your own opinion as to human criteria ? or is it the interpretation of others?

[southernyahoo]

Yes see page 148 post 2948 and 2951.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/36891-the-ketchum-report-continued/page-148

 

Here's another photo.

 

 

The DNA is trusted to be correct from Family Tree who has admitted to doing the whole mito sequencing.

Edited July 9, 2013 by southernyahoo

[HOLDMYBEER]

So the DNA results were, according to Ketchum, done by Family Tree and is believed to be correct. Have you any other assurance the DNA results are in fact the results from your particular sample? Any direct communication with Family Tree or paperwork?  Sorry to sound a bit pedantic.

[Guest Urkelbot]

Has anyone tried to do a proteonmic analysis of some of these Bigfoot hairs like in this study?

http://www.mcponline.org/content/5/5/789.full

The proteome from the Bigfoot hair could be compared against the proteomes of human and other primate hair.

[southernyahoo]

So the DNA results were, according to Ketchum, done by Family Tree and is believed to be correct. Have you any other assurance the DNA results are in fact the results from your particular sample? Any direct communication with Family Tree or paperwork?  Sorry to sound a bit pedantic.

 

No I don't have any other assurance it's human. I was hoping Sykes might be interested but I had also given the fact that it was reportedly positive as being hominin from Ketchum, so he might have opted to not test it since I had an answer or wanted to stay away from any potential conflict between the two studies, I don't know.

 

I would expect that Family tree might not give out any info on my sample, even to me, since the testing was contracted by Ketchum and results sent back to her. I would expect confidentiality issues.