The Ketchum Report (Part 3)

[Guest]

Southernyahoo- I agree, just to simple for the mass to come to any conclution even though all the study wasn't out. As for the pro-kill camp it only bulsters their stance for a body in their eyes even though only witness reports tell of an intelligence in their eyes and hunters putting down their arms when BF is in their sites. also most pro-kill have neither had a sighting, witness encounter or much else to go on than their own rationale.

What if BF was shown to be human, the trigger has already been pulled, then what?

[southernyahoo]

 

 What if BF was shown to be human, the trigger has already been pulled, then what? 

 

  

 

 

You probably wouldn't see that made public. And the body hidden away in the misty woods...............

[Guest]

What if BF was shown to be human, the trigger has already been pulled, then what?

 

You mean a guy in a suit?

[Guest]

 

Apples and oranges. Forensic DNA testing is a whole different world from sequencing novel genomes. 

 

 

Sequencing is sequencing.  Apply the primers, read the results.

There is no mystical property of dna that renders "known" samples any easier or more accurate to read than "unknown" or "novel" samples.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Mulder

[Guest]

Sequencing is sequencing.  Apply the primers, read the results.

There is no mystical property of dna that renders "known" samples any easier or more accurate to read than "unknown" or "novel" samples.

 

That post is so far off it isn't even wrong. 

[Guest Urkelbot]

That post is so far off it isn't even wrong. 

Its more or less correct at least for bacteria conserved regions of the 16s rRNA gene can be amplified for using universal primers which can than be sequenced.  The same can be done to a lesser extent with the 18s rRNA gene for Eukaryotes.  Within conserved regions there are hypervariable regions which can be used to discover phylogeny.  If your using universal or degenerate primers it doesn't necessarily matter if its known or unknown assuming you know what domain of life your dealing with.

[southernyahoo]

^ It actually is accurate, a new species would simply read something less than say 98% similar to the closest related known. This is assuming you were using primers that were universal and targeting a conserved region like the CO1 gene in the mitochondria.

[MIB]

Is there any hope of salvaging this whole thing or will it just end up in the trash like that fake dead bigfoot from Georgia?

 

IMHO, no and yes.   There is no way Melba is going to save it.   If someone proves bigfoot exists in the future, say norseman or bipto do bring back a body, and the DNA from it matches Melba's results, the results will have to be accepted.   I don't think that's real likely but like all proof of a negative, all you can truly say is "hasn't happened yet that I know of and I don't believe it will." 

 

MIB

[southernyahoo]

Is there any hope of salvaging this whole thing or will it just end up in the trash like that fake dead bigfoot from Georgia?

 

Salvaging it might mean testing some of the samples again, which I could do with mine. Are you interested Urkelbot?

[Guest]

Its more or less correct at least for bacteria conserved regions of the 16s rRNA gene can be amplified for using universal primers which can than be sequenced.  The same can be done to a lesser extent with the 18s rRNA gene for Eukaryotes.  Within conserved regions there are hypervariable regions which can be used to discover phylogeny.  If your using universal or degenerate primers it doesn't necessarily matter if its known or unknown assuming you know what domain of life your dealing with.

 

I was referring to the argument that just because someone does STR profiling, they're therefore competent to do full genome sequencing. 

[southernyahoo]

Nonhuman samples including a wookie costume.  

 

From Ketchum on that.

 

OK, the Matilda questions. Her mitochondrial DNA was tested by Disotell with human results like all of our samples. He said it had to be human contamination and threw the sample away according to Adrian Erickson. Fortunately, he kept back some of the sample. He then sent some of it to Paleo Labs where they also got human mitochondrial DNA. When we got the remainder of the sample, we got the sameresults. But, we then tested the nuclear DNA where the differences are in the Sasquatch. First, the DNA was female and we had very few females in the study. Some of the individual genes we sequenced on this sample were human while others failed even with universal mammalian primers. This sample behaved just like the rest of the samples. To add credibility and link the sample to the videos, we tested the MC1R gene for red hair color. She sequenced human for this gene and had the mutation for red hair. We ran the 2.5 million human SNP array on her sample. Even a degraded human sample will have greater than ninety five percent of the SNPs run successfully and our degraded human control sample ran 97%. Matilda's DNA was pristine but only ran at 83%. So, her DNA was obviously not completely human. I also spoke with all three members of the Erickson team and am totally convinced that the videos are legitimate. This is especially true since the DNA findings matched her sex and hair color.

[HOLDMYBEER]

From Ketchum on that.

 

............. I also spoke with all three members of the Erickson team and am totally convinced that the videos are legitimate. This is especially true since the DNA findings matched her sex and hair color.

This is coming from someone who talks about sasquatch braiding horse manes and evading cameras. Just where are the vetting documents that allow this person to claim they have determined the legitimacy of the videos? Where have all three members of the Erickson team made statements that are available for review? Where are the documents?

[southernyahoo]

^I think Ketchum has given her reasoning as to why she feels the vid is real.  I won't be answering those questions for her. I assume you saw the trailer which seemed to promote the Erickson documentary. No I don't know what happened to it, but I think the three folks you want to speak with are named in it, or at least one of them. 

 

Try here, and contact the project scientist.

 

http://www.sasquatchthequest.com/team.html

Edited July 28, 2013 by southernyahoo

[HOLDMYBEER]

I have seen this material and it goes nowhere to substantiate the videos.  Last I heard from Leila Hadj-Chikh no sasquatch DNA had been documented. (As a practical matter how can you claim any legitimacy to those videos, yet no DNA?) The members of the Erickson Project have not been forthcoming as to their methods of obtaining the films. The organization has chosen to keep the details to themselves. The vet of those films as evidence is not up the standard of being open to outside review.

 

Again, my point is Ketchum waives her vet of the films as giving credibility to the evidence.....yet nothing about the vet has been put on paper available for review. What she might have said during a radio interview or posted on her Facebook page just doesn't get it.  If Ketchum has expressed her reasoning as to why the video is real, it meant nothing to me  as a vet of evidence. Vetting evidence is something I have done for many years and I know a failed vet when I see it. I have repeatedly raised this issue as to the samples and have yet to see any vetting of the samples to a standard of probability. To say unvetted evidence contributes to the legitimacy of the DNA results is a false proposition.

 

[southernyahoo]

 Last I heard from Leila Hadj-Chikh no sasquatch DNA had been documented. 

 

Is there documentation of that somewhere? That would be interesting.