Oonjerah Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) @Branco :-> Pictures of Sykes, Mullis & Ken Goddard at U.S. Wildlife Forensic Lab. article : 10 Nov 2013. http://bigfootology.com/?page_id=330 . . . ( er -- Shouldn't I make Sykes comments in the Sykes-Sartori thread? ) Edited February 10, 2014 by Oonjerah
Guest Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 All, Attached is a paper I wrote on the Ketchum nuDNA sequences. The interpretations of ridgerunner were correct. My study is much more extensive and definitive. It took eight months to complete. Comments are welcome of course! Haskell Hart May 13, 2014 H V Hart Distinguishing Related Species w Preface.pdf
Guest Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Thanks! I should have recommended you as a reviewer for the journal!
Guest Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 ^^^ 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.
Guest Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 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.
southernyahoo Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 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.
Guest Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 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.
georgerm Posted June 15, 2014 Posted June 15, 2014 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?
southernyahoo Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 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.
Matt Pruitt Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 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.
Guest zenmonkey Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 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.
Incorrigible1 Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Yet with a contingent of loyal, if misled, followers/defenders, baited breath on any pronouncement she might make.
Doc Holliday Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 agreed Inc, considering this has been beaten to death by now but the phrase often associated with PT Barnum seems to fit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_sucker_born_every_minute#Attribution_to_Barnum
Guest Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 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.
Recommended Posts