Jump to content
Guest Admin

The Ketchum Report (Part 3)

Recommended Posts

Oonjerah

@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 by Oonjerah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thanks! I should have recommended you as a reviewer for the journal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^^^ 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

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.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
georgerm

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt Pruitt

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...