david75090 Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 She addressed that on her Facebook page not long ago, commenting it was one of the false accusations circulating about her, namely that she believed BF was an ape/human hybrid. She believes they are a hybrid species of Homo sapien and some other hominid, not ape. Was there not a similar finding with Denisova? Homo sapiens and other hominid?
Doc Holliday Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Can't she be both? The two aren't mutually exclusive. yes, she could be.......... but that's assuming there is a truth to be hidden, especially regarding dog men and werewolf shamans. in this case it seems as if the BF thing didn't fly for her so lets throw something else at the wall to see if it sticks.
southernyahoo Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Dr. Ketchum just posted this to her Facebook page to prove the samples she tested were not contaminated, which a primary criticism by some skeptics of her analysis, claiming they must have been contaminated due to the results of known human mixed with unknown DNA. Perhaps hvhart or southernyahoo can review her methods and explain if there is a problem with this phase of her testing. I doubt hvhart has any experience in detecting contamination prior to sequencing or actually processing samples. I think Ketchum had the experience to get a clean read from my sample, and if she did , then my sample is still squatchy. 1
jayjeti Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Was there not a similar finding with Denisova? Homo sapiens and other hominid? Yes, it's along the same line. Ketchum has stated that the results are what you would expect to find if BF is a relict hominid. Homo sapiens, Neanderthal, and Denisovans share mostly the same DNA, with Homo sapiens also having genes that have come from both Neanderthal and Denisovan Man, meaning Homo sapiens interbred with those spieces. That's what she means by BF being a hybrid. According to her, the mtDNA is identical to Homo sapiens, but the nuDNA has some unknown DNA that she believes comes from some unknown hominin. This would make sasquatch a species of man.
Guest Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 southern yahoo, I don't evaluate samples prior to sequencing. Sequencing speaks for itself. For example in the recent Ketchum Youtube video you promoted above, at 30.01 min there is a sequence which Ketchum says is cytochrome b. After searching GenBank I found that it is in the HV-1 and control regions, fully 461 base pairs from cyt b. She apparently never even checked this against a standard human sequence such as r-CRS. This indicates mispriming due to degradation, a fact she vigorously denies for all her samples. Exactly which sample is yours? (Ketchum Sample number, please). Further, the example she shows of contamination is for two dogs. If the contaminant is a different species, it might not show up in the electropherogram, depending on primers used and amplification conditions. Or worse, it might show up instead of the main organism in the sample. This is why I think human mtDNA was discovered in the samples 26 (bear) and 140 (dog). These were uncontrolled environmental samples which were contaminated and degraded.
Guest Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Here's Melba latest claim. So, in her opinion as a scientist, the sample is possibly a Shaman taking on a wolf appearance. Its just a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude! I doubt hvhart has any experience in detecting contamination prior to sequencing or actually processing samples. I think Ketchum had the experience to get a clean read from my sample, and if she did , then my sample is still squatchy. Squatchy in that she still has no idea what it is.
southernyahoo Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Exactly which sample is yours? (Ketchum Sample number, please). Further, the example she shows of contamination is for two dogs. If the contaminant is a different species, it might not show up in the electropherogram, depending on primers used and amplification conditions. Or worse, it might show up instead of the main organism in the sample. This is why I think human mtDNA was discovered in the samples 26 (bear) and 140 (dog). These were uncontrolled environmental samples which were contaminated and degraded. # 1.............I think if we stuck to your arguments we wouldn't really know the sequence of any organism. Yet we seem to know when we choose to that there is contamination, inspite of the fact that all other indicators are contrary to that. You can say it might this, and it might, that but if Ketchum can't really know the human DNA is from the hair donor then you can't know it's not.
WSA Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 She addressed that on her Facebook page not long ago, commenting it was one of the false accusations circulating about her, namely that she believed BF was an ape/human hybrid. She believes they are a hybrid species of Homo sapien and some other hominid, not ape. Thanks for that confirmation...of course, even if her sequencing is valid, it would be just a guess what the nuDNA truly is, don't you think? Does she say WHAT in the sequence makes her conclude it is homind, and not ape? With my limited knowledge of genetics, I understand there is unlikely to be a marker or sequence that determines this distinction with any certainty. You are absolutely correct though, there is a tertiary choice between human vs. ape, and some unclassified variety of pure hominid is it.
Guest Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 She addressed that on her Facebook page not long ago, commenting it was one of the false accusations circulating about her, namely that she believed BF was an ape/human hybrid. She believes they are a hybrid species of Homo sapien and some other hominid, not ape. She has been saying that for a while now. Human and angel or space alien, remember? Well, just human and totally unknown undocumented (angel) DNA.
WSA Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Why are we still talking about Ketchum? Me-my-own-personal-self? Only to point out that her results can only be understood, or not, in light of future outcomes... as with all fields of scientific inquiry, if they are done correctly. Dr. Ketchum as a "personality" is not interesting to me in the least.
Guest Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 considering the past, i'd wager her "facts "are largely determined by what might get attention and make a fast $ from any suckers willing to contribute to her "cause". attempting to label her as a convenient screw up that helps hide the truth sounds more like wishful thinking , imo. if played right there is $ to be had from "crypto-studies "and iirc Dr. K has played this game before , but it 's not surprising that many in BFery are willing to bend over for it yet again.. .... nor does it surprise some of us that not long ago "dogman" became a buzzword here after some of dr K's associates showed up and breathed life into it and now the good Dr just so happens to present a wolf man shaman theory....amazing. I have had *nothing* to do with Melba for a long time, I don't remember the last contact I had with her, plus I have no plans for any future contact. Just Saying' If she thinks to drag me or any other rational person in with Dogman DNA, it will not work.
Guest Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Better donate if you want anything else to talk about on this thread. http://www.gofundme.com/khqst8
Guest Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) That would be fine by me:) I am not donating anything else to this project. I never gave any money I think, just my time and support, yet I just cannot trust her anymore. Edited January 23, 2015 by SweetSusiq
southernyahoo Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Me-my-own-personal-self? Only to point out that her results can only be understood, or not, in light of future outcomes... I think you're right for atleast some of her results..........
Recommended Posts