Jump to content
Guest Admin

The Ketchum Report (Part 3)

Recommended Posts

Guest

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

Ah, but which primers? If you use the wrong ones you get garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Sadly, that will never happen as long as she "sees" BF in her backyard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

hvhart, what? What will never happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

hvhart, what? What will never happen?

Ketchum revising her paper to reflect the work of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

I didn't think that's how science works. Maybe write another paper after doing more studies, or whatever, but each scientist has to publish their own work, not someone else's. Would you be interested in an independent study of one of the samples? How would you do it, starting from scratch with raw evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

I'm more interested in a scientist's work being analyzed and conclusively debunked than in someone revising her paper to reflect either the knowledge or the ignorance of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

How could all of this be wrong that Melba, an expert, completed? She had valid DNA from a habitation site! Melba has helped identify the victims of the World Trade center. Melba knows her business.

She had valid DNA.

Why do you think she is wrong, and exactly where is the problem with her DNA?


I agree it would be tough to prove fully human with small amounts of mtDNA. Though what we see as BF would have to have differences somewhere in it's DNA. It may not be in the targets in the genome we use for species ID. Sykes is familiar with the targets in nuDNA that could be responsible for it. I'm just not sure he has the samples to find it.

My concern is that this species is **Half** human, half totally unknown to science and has never been proved to exist. Some people called it "angel" DNA which is silly and I have no clue why anyone would call *unknown * DNA as coming from Angels.


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.

Is it all of her DNA, or just some samples? Please, I support her, I trust her, and I know that she has worked hard on this project, plus she has a habitation site. How could her DNA be wrong?

 

Edited by See-Te-Cah NC
To remove double post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Susie,

Please read my paper (attached several posts up).  The DNA is not "wrong."  It is what it is.  It's Ketchum's interpretations of the nuclear sequences from Samples 26, 31, and 140 that are wrong.  Her paper does not report the kind of detailed search results required to support her conclusions.  Mine does.  She should have included an anthropologist/geneticist among her coauthors.  The ones I have talked to agree with my conclusions, not hers.

 

Haskell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hvhart, Thank you so much for finding this report and for letting me know where to locate it. :giverose:Plus 1 for you from me.

 

I have been distressed about this issue for a couple of years, especially after I witnessed a Dogman type of Sasquatch.

 

How in the world could that "THING" be human?

 

How could a DNA expert, such as Dr. Ketchum, be so mistaken, or so wrong as I kept hearing from her skeptics, and detractors?

 

I do have enough education to understand how difficult DNA analysis can be, and usually is when documenting any new to science species.

 

I believe that when trying to document an unknown, unrecognized, and indeed, a truly  impossible to believe new species, that much more work was needed and should have done by other labs. 

 

Truly, a body is needed to make the world of science and skeptics to believe.


Again, Hvhart, Thank you so much for finding this report and for letting me know where to locate it.

 

:giverose:Plus 1 for you from me.

Edited by SweetSusiq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo
My concern is that this species is **Half** human, half totally unknown to science and has never been proved to exist. Some people called it "angel" DNA which is silly and I have no clue why anyone would call *unknown * DNA as coming from Angels.

 

 

It might be more comforting to think that the nuDNA just needed a redo with different samples. I still think samples can be cleaned enough to get a clean pure result for mtDNA identification and whole genome in the mtDNA. I think that much occured in Ketchum's study. I also can see for myself that the sample I sent did not conform to human criteria on every data point. So that checks out with me.  Her conclusion of a hybrid origin for Sasquatch could still be accurate without any of the nuDNA results, because we are, most of us, human Neanderthal or human Denisovan hybrids.

 

There has to be a reason we see differences in Sasquatch and in the hairs while also finding modern human mtDNA in them. With this repeating 100+ times, the contamination hypothesis surely becomes a weak explanation of the results and others emerge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

SY -

 

Yes, agreed.   Historically there have been too many DNA tests saying "human contamination" without any proof it was truly contamination.   Ketchum's paper aside, where there's smoke, there's fire.  Hybrid?  Really close cousin?   Don't know.   It is statistically possible to be dealt four aces ... can't absolutely ignore the possibility that ALL of those results were wrong, but it is almost vanishingly unlikely.  

 

We shouldn't forget that some labs contacted Ketchum because of really weird results and pulled out because they didn't want anything to do with her answer.   So far as I know, that's not data she sent them to assemble, that's their lab results that she hadn't received yet.   (I think you're in a position to correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo
We shouldn't forget that some labs contacted Ketchum because of really weird results and pulled out because they didn't want anything to do with her answer.   So far as I know, that's not data she sent them to assemble, that's their lab results that she hadn't received yet.   (I think you're in a position to correct me if I'm wrong.)

 

 

I think you have that somewhat right. .A lab or two did pull out because they didn't want to be in a blind study, but one did ask if she had discovered a new species based on their data, that lab didn't pull out, it was SeqWright doing some nuDNA sequencing on the amelogenin locus I think. That locus has the X and Y chromosomes in it and Ketchum was trying to get a bead on the male lineage. Some novel sequence was collected I think and they weren't from the three whole genome samples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

Thanks.  I appreciate the clarification.   :)

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

southernyahoo and hvhart: I, from the bottom of my heart, sincerely thank you for explaining what this DNA means, and how some mistakes and issues can arise rather quickly when dealing with unique unknown DNA from various sources that could be something besides BF. 

 

 

 

 

 

Hugs, hearts, and flowers to both of you from me for your thoughtfulness and kindness....Susi 

Thankfully I had points to award to both of you:)

Edited by SweetSusiq

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...