Guest Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) I will answer the following questions that were asked by first stating the question and then my answer.1. Did Dr Sykes ever find those samples that he "LOST"? I have no idea, his study is not my business other than the reference to our study and his totally uniformed statement concerning his belief that our study was contaminated. I addressed this below but will re-post here: If you read our manuscript, you will find that our samples were extracted by 2 forensic laboratories, one extracted manually and one extracted robotically. As experts in the field of forensics, our laboratories not only are experts in dealing with contamination but also experts in dealing with degradation. We used two different mitochondrial loci for species identification, 12S and HV1 using universal primers that amplify all mammals. We had 100% human results on hair that was morphologically identical and definitely not human morphologically. We had probably close to 100 samples that were various varieties of other animals, we didn't put them in the study. We had deer, horse, cow, bear, dog, cat, coyote, etc. Almost all of them were screened out by forensic hair analysis prior to DNA testing. There were four samples that were not hair, but were common animals when we tested for 12S and HV1 and those animals were removed from the study leaving only the samples that are listed in the study. Everyone also forgets that four other university labs got the same identical human results we did on some of the same samples we tested prior to our study. So it is not the 12 labs we used saying the results are human but four university labs prior to our study also. All 16 laboratories can't be wrong. And by the way, 12S and HV1 will show a superimposed electropherogram if there is more than one species present. Also, HV1 will show two separate band lengths on yield gels and if it is degraded it will smear. In other words the DNA was clean and there was no contamination or degradation. It is absolutely assured that our samples were NOT contaminated.2. Does GenBank still require SIGNATURES from the Sasquatch for which you submitted DNA? Did they ever get back to you after avoiding you? Yes, they claim HIPPA and no, they will not respond to us.3. Why did the magazine elect to not publish the peer accepted paper THE LAST MINUTE? They were told by their attorney that if they did, it would not only ruin the journal but could also ruin their professional reputations if they published anything on Bigfoot. The next day they emailed another excuse having to with the business surrounding the journal to soften the blow but that was what I was told five minutes before we went live.4. Why are so many people opposed to your study results- why such a PASSION AND EFFORT to discredit you? For example, Igor Beersi above just created an account just to try to discredit you? Your guess is as good as mine. I was naive and didn't see all of the attacks coming. I thought good science was all that would be needed to prove/disprove the existence of Sasquatch. I was sadly mistaken.5. Why is there such an effort to say that Sasquatch is NOT HUMAN and speaks a language(s), but rather a dumb ape or Gigantipithicus (for which 111 data points showed that it isn't)? A lot of people make money taking people out for an "experience in the woods". Since they are a type of human, this would not be allowed if widely accepted. Same with all of the TV monster drama, it's for ratings, no other reason. It's just so wrong on so many levels. Also, if they can make people disbelieve the study, then they hope to become rich and famous by being the first ones to "prove it" by killing one. They don't want our team to get any credit for being the first to prove their existence.6. Do you think that the past is the key to the future in regards to the virtually provable and always repetetive and mysterious COVERUP? There are a lot of people claiming coverup. I have had people with knowledge that I believe is credible as well as a couple of government people say things that support this. I have no personal knowledge of a coverup though.7. Why is there no government acknowledgment, discussion, or funding of Sasquatch research? I don't think the government wants the proof for a lot of reasons that I can't go into. I will say that the push for habitat (even though it's not needed) would upset the timber companies (think spotted owl) and that if there was widespread acceptance, it might frighten people to the extent that they don't visit National Parks are a couple of obvious reasons.8. Do you think that Dr. Sykes will only report what he is "ALLOWED"? I have been told that by some people from Great Britain but have no personal knowledge of it. Well, I'm surprised that there is a chance Dr. Sykes may have had to avoid "discovering" genuine Sasquatch DNA. What do you guys and gals think? Edited July 4, 2014 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) I sincerely believe that only a body will make the public believe. Edited July 4, 2014 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/ More info on the DNA project, this is a news conference that I had not seen, and it is very interesting. Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I think the results on mtDNA on 99% of the samples in Ketchums' study is likely very accurate. As for the nuDNA, I think there is more work to be done there. As for Sykes, it doesn't look like he wanted to get too deep into it........just enough to identify some of the samples. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 That is a great point southernyahoo. Plus 1 to you from me:) What do you think Sykes does want out of his participation in this project? It makes me sad that nothing has really changed even with all of this info:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I think Sykes wanted to make a showing that Science wasn't ignoring cryptozoologists anymore and his paper was to be testament to that. He wanted to silence the cryptozoologists. He did seem encouraging to bigfooters that they should keep trying, so maybe he will be open to testing more samples, but it will still likely be in a publicized way. We should ask him if and when he does if he can get both maternal and paternal lineages on hair samples that test human. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I agree with Susiq. More great posts from southernyahoo. (Your posts always make me feel better, southernyahoo.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I wonder if Sykes is positioning himself for discovery, already has the goods, and knows it. The basic assumption that bigfoot is not human would result in discarding any samples that test human as contaminated. So he could very well have all the samples he needs, but simply screened them out in is first go. So he's "legitimized" himself by discovering bear after weeding out all that pesky human mitochondrial DNA. He could follow up with a second study, taking a closer look, pinpointing and identifying the unknown archaic hominid in the nuclear DNA would be more dramatic and surpass Ketchum's work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I will answer the following questions that were asked by first stating the question and then my answer. SusiQ, Your opening post of questions and answers sounds like Melba is answering the questions. Is that right? If so, can you provide a link? I am curious about who is asking the questions. Thanks! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I am curious about who is asking the questions. this ^^ for starters..... if its an attempt by the ketchum camp to breath life into that debacle again ( not saying it is, just if ) then no thanks . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 (edited) SusiQ, Your opening post of questions and answers sounds like Melba is answering the questions. Is that right? If so, can you provide a link? I am curious about who is asking the questions. Thanks! http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/ This is a news conference and I really enjoyed listening to it. I learned a lot from it, and I sincerely think that the other participants and Dr. Ketchum truly hoped to make this species safer by doing this conference with well known and respected authorities within the Sasquatch research community. The videos alone were worth the time I spent listening and watching the event. Please do take the time to watch the news conference. I certainly learned a lot and really enjoyed listening to it:) I wonder if Sykes is positioning himself for discovery, already has the goods, and knows it. The basic assumption that bigfoot is not human would result in discarding any samples that test human as contaminated. So he could very well have all the samples he needs, but simply screened them out in is first go. So he's "legitimized" himself by discovering bear after weeding out all that pesky human mitochondrial DNA. He could follow up with a second study, taking a closer look, pinpointing and identifying the unknown archaic hominid in the nuclear DNA would be more dramatic and surpass Ketchum's work. JDL, I would love for Sykes to have the proof that would reveal that this species really does exist both for human protection and BF protection. Edited July 5, 2014 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Why anyone today would regard Ketchum with any kind of legitimacy is beyond me. There is no conspiracy or cover up. There is no bigfoot DNA because there is no bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david75090 Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 What if, Big Foot is some sort of human? When the DNA is checked, it comes back as human. Who's fault is that? Who takes the blame for human DNA checking out as human DNA? Would Dr. Ketchum have any legitimacy in that case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 ^ 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 Human DNA means human right? Where does human DNA equal a 800 lb 8 ft tall hair covered ape? Ketchum has no credibility except to those who need to validate a flawed belief system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts