Jump to content

The Ketchum Report (Part 3)


Guest Admin

Recommended Posts

  • 3 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

^^^ hvhart,

 

Interesting work.  Seems to demonstrate the wasted effort in using the entire nuDNA genome for species differentiation -- an uninformed Rambo-type approach.  Also seems to demonstrate an absence of evidence of a novel primate species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Barcoding with mtDNA is much quicker, but a whole nuDNA genome is also valuable for other genetic studies. Recall however that the Ketchum sequences were much shorter: Mbp not Gbp of a full genome. Ketchum did try specific locii analysis which failed for human which should have told her to try other species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ketchum used the amelogenin locus on the nuDNA side prior to full genome attempts, universal primers and independent labs on both nuDNA and mtDNA.. Cytochrome b analyses had already identified the human mtDNA before moving on to nuDNA. This is why she trusted that the nuDNA results, while not accordant with the mtDNA , was likely correct. There were a number of novel short mutations found in the amelogenin results, but potentially a result of not using the correct primer for the target sequence for that sample.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barcoding with mtDNA is much quicker, but a whole nuDNA genome is also valuable for other genetic studies. Recall however that the Ketchum sequences were much shorter: Mbp not Gbp of a full genome. Ketchum did try specific loci analysis which failed for human which should have told her to try other species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your paper is amazing.

 

Did your results definitely uncover BF DNA?

 

Is Ketchum trying to refine her paper?  Does she have enough material to finally make it clear that she has BF DNA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barcoding with mtDNA is much quicker, but a whole nuDNA genome is also valuable for other genetic studies. Recall however that the Ketchum sequences were much shorter: Mbp not Gbp of a full genome. Ketchum did try specific loci analysis which failed for human which should have told her to try other species.

 

That's what the universal primers were for in the mtDNA screening. It should have found all the non-primate samples. I do wish other samples could have provided nuDNA results. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hart's paper shows that Ketchum never had BF DNA; she was misidentifying the DNA of known species as being novel. If she were to refine her paper responsibly, she'd have to reflect that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zenmonkey

Hart's paper shows that Ketchum never had BF DNA; she was misidentifying the DNA of known species as being novel. If she were to refine her paper responsibly, she'd have to reflect that.

Agreed, I used to think she meant the best but just didn't understand what she was trying to do. Now I safely say she is just a hoaxer and is no better than Standing or Dyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet with a contingent of loyal, if misled, followers/defenders, baited breath on any pronouncement she might make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your paper is amazing.

 

Did your results definitely uncover BF DNA?

 

Is Ketchum trying to refine her paper?  Does she have enough material to finally make it clear that she has BF DNA?

My conclusions state that no bigfoot DNA was found in the Samples 26, 31 and 140. She is so certain that her experts were right that she will never listen to reason. I've tried numerous times to convince her that her conclusions are unsupported by her data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...