Sasfooty Posted September 20, 2015 Posted September 20, 2015 She talked a lot about it & told me quite a bit about nu part. I had no idea what she meant. If I didn't misunderstand, they did complete genomes on three samples, so they would have had to do nuDNA on them at least. She told me that the nuDNA was the part that was strange. I think you are mistaken Chel.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 20, 2015 Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) Hair shafts don't have any viable nuclear DNA. Edited September 20, 2015 by OntarioSquatch
Sasfooty Posted September 20, 2015 Posted September 20, 2015 I found this on The BF Field Journal in an article about the study. One of the issues that conflict scientist about the study is how unusual the Sasquatch nuDNA is. When the scientist (those that even dared to read the study) looked at the nuDNA they noticed key DNA sequences either missing or severely mutated. The scientists understand that a human with these DNA sequences would not be viable. A living, breathing, biological entity with this DNA “cannot exist†in the minds of the scientist.The fact that the DNA study has documented the collection, processing, and purity of this DNA and that this DNA did come from a living entity is a fact their minds just cannot fathom. Therefor in the scientist point of view the only acceptable answer is the samples must be contaminated, the processes in the study flawed, and the results fabricated. This conclusion is irrational and unscientific based solely on a belief system and not the facts 1
chelefoot Posted September 20, 2015 Posted September 20, 2015 She talked a lot about it & told me quite a bit about nu part. I had no idea what she meant. If I didn't misunderstand, they did complete genomes on three samples, so they would have had to do nuDNA on them at least. She told me that the nuDNA was the part that was strange. I think you are mistaken Chel. Possibly, but I thought she only did nuDNA testing on 3 tissue samples, no hair.
Sasfooty Posted September 20, 2015 Posted September 20, 2015 No, she did a complete genome on three of them, but they did mt & nu on all of them. The DNA Study also proved a new species of hominin exist by the 3 complete genomes produced using the Hi Seq 2000 DNA Sequencer. The samples that produced the genomes were pure and this was proven by the Q30 scores. It is a fact that cannot be argued. The DNA is pure and non-contaminated. When the contracted independent labs took the 3 genomes and compared them to the world’s largest depository of DNA (GenBank) for all known animals to include humans none of the three genomes matched anything in the database. This proves again that there is a new species of unknown hominin living the forest of North America. 1
JKH Posted September 20, 2015 Posted September 20, 2015 Interesting info. I've wondered what was done with the larger than human sized humerus bone that was displayed at the press release. It seemed like evidence worthy of further study.
Sasfooty Posted September 20, 2015 Posted September 20, 2015 Thanks Sassy. Have you tried sending any of the hair to other people to have it checked? I think there is a guy who specializes in hair analysis. Can't recall his name but I think he is out of Texas also and BF friendly. I'm sure SouthernYahoo would know. No, I don't have any interest in having it tested again. I was satisfied with Melba's conclusions.
David NC Posted September 20, 2015 Posted September 20, 2015 Hair shafts don't have any viable nuclear DNA. ^^^^Not a 100% factual statement. Do you know if the hairs tested were cut or shed? The hairs being a clump on a branch there is a good possibility that some where pulled out and would include roots. Although nuclear DNA cannot be isolated from the hair shaft since it is mostly absent as a result of the aforementioned cornification, nuclear DNA can successfully be extracted from the hair root. The hair root contains keratinocytes, cells which are ideal for the extraction of nuclear DNA. This is not to say that cut or naturally shed hairs are entirely unsuitable for hair analysis of nuclear DNA. In a tiny number of analyses using cut or shed hairs, forensic scientists are in fact able to extract nuclear DNA. The presence of some nucleated corneocytes (biologically dead cells or keratinocytes in their last stage of differentiation) may make it possible to extract a DNA profile derived from nuclear DNA. The existence of nucleated corneocytes is known to be due to an incomplete or absent step during the process of cornification which would normally result in the degradation or destruction of the cell nucleus and DNA. Why these nuclear remnants occur is not fully understood but the phenomenon may occur in some individual’s hair. from http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2013/04/challenges-dna-testing-and-forensic-analysis-hair-samples 1
chelefoot Posted September 20, 2015 Posted September 20, 2015 This was just posted on Facebook by Dr. Haskell Hart. I've invited him to join this conversation. Hopefully, he can drop in soon. See my latest blog on www.bigfootclaims.blogspot.com : "Sunday, September 20, 2015 "The Ketchum File IV: A Reassembly of Ketchum Raw Data: Can You Turn a Bear Sow’s Ear into a Sasquatch Silk Purse?" It's too long to repeat here, but contains news and views of the latest attempt by Melba Ketchum to revive her study by reassembling her nDNA sequences. My opinion is that it will not change my conclusions that Sample 26 is a black bear, Sample 31 is human, and Sample 140 is a dog, wolf or coyote (all genus Canis). If you hear anything official, it will come out of Washington University of St. Louis, McDonnell Genome Institute, but they wouldn't confirm (or deny) that they are involved.
ShadowBorn Posted September 20, 2015 Moderator Posted September 20, 2015 Well what I have read and when i stayed at the holiday Inn I found out. That nuDNA was difficult to get from but not for the mDNA . But I am no scienctist and is what I have read on Google and some PDF info that any one can research them selves. Is there other research yes and I really believe that this research should be on going from different Labs with out each other letting it be known. While building a Central Data Base where all these labs can log in with their results and then see how the results match on the Central Data Base. People are still researching and that has never stopped, until there is a end result. We are in for a ride a long one... The strongest part of the DNA in the mDNA is that of the Mothers side, while the strongest part in the nuDNA is that of the Fathers? Yes?
jayjeti Posted September 21, 2015 Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) This was just posted on Facebook by Dr. Haskell Hart. I've invited him to join this conversation. Hopefully, he can drop in soon. See my latest blog on www.bigfootclaims.blogspot.com : "Sunday, September 20, 2015 "The Ketchum File IV: A Reassembly of Ketchum Raw Data: Can You Turn a Bear Sow’s Ear into a Sasquatch Silk Purse?" It's too long to repeat here, but contains news and views of the latest attempt by Melba Ketchum to revive her study by reassembling her nDNA sequences. My opinion is that it will not change my conclusions that Sample 26 is a black bear, Sample 31 is human, and Sample 140 is a dog, wolf or coyote (all genus Canis). If you hear anything official, it will come out of Washington University of St. Louis, McDonnell Genome Institute, but they wouldn't confirm (or deny) that they are involved. If Dr. Hart does join the conversation he needs to be aware that sample 26 that Bart Cutino had tested, that turned up black bear, is not the same sample 26 that Dr. Ketchum tested because her sample had a completely different haplotype. The source of sample 26 was the same person, Justin Smeja, but the sample he gave Cutino was not the same as what Dr. Ketchum tested. There are conspiracy theories surrounding that, that Smeja was fearful of being prosecuted for murder if it turned out to be human and that he sabotaged it. As far as some of the samples turning out to be known animals, Dr. Ketchum did preliminary tests on lots of samples that were matched to GenBank to see if they were known animals before preceding with more in depth testing. According to her study, the three entire genomes that were sequenced are from an unknown hominin species. For those interested here is a break down of sample 26. http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/p/ketchum-dna-study-sample-26.html Edited September 21, 2015 by jayjeti 1
Branco Posted September 21, 2015 Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) jayjeti: Thank you very much for posting that link. It contained some info I've wanted for a while, but couldn't find, plus a bonus. In the summary there is a micro photo of one of the hairs in #26 that Dr. K examined. That photo was made to show the hair's cuticle. There is a micro photo of a hair from the "other" portion shown alongside her's, but it was made specifically to show the medulla of that hair. (Of course the second photo shows the blurred edges of the cuticle, but it's not definitive.) Do you know whether or not she has a photo of the medulla of a hair from her samples that she would share? Here's my reason for asking: The cuticle of the hair she examined does NOT match that of a black bear, although the medulla in the other split of #26 does in fact match that of several animals, feral and domestic, including black bear. A good micro photo of the medulla of the hair she worked with would certainly show whether it came from a bear or not. The one problem with that is if the non-bear hair is black like some BF is, and very heavily pigmented, photographing the medulla might be difficult. (There is a way to get around that but it is danged tricky process.) Of course the hair in the bulk sample she had does not look black, and should yield a very good view of the medulla. Thanks for any help that you can provide. Regards Edited September 21, 2015 by Branco
jayjeti Posted September 21, 2015 Posted September 21, 2015 Branco, I can't really help you with that. Maybe you could request that at her facebook page. But as far as the hair from sample # 26 the article I linked to made this statement: Dr. Ketchum also removed several hairs with follicles from Sample 26 and sent it to Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences (Dallas, TX) for analysis. The hair was determined not to be human or any other known animal. The hair was consistent with the Bigfoot control sample and determined to be from a Bigfoot.
chelefoot Posted September 21, 2015 Posted September 21, 2015 This was just posted on Facebook by Dr. Haskell Hart. I've invited him to join this conversation. Hopefully, he can drop in soon. See my latest blog on www.bigfootclaims.blogspot.com : "Sunday, September 20, 2015 "The Ketchum File IV: A Reassembly of Ketchum Raw Data: Can You Turn a Bear Sow’s Ear into a Sasquatch Silk Purse?" It's too long to repeat here, but contains news and views of the latest attempt by Melba Ketchum to revive her study by reassembling her nDNA sequences. My opinion is that it will not change my conclusions that Sample 26 is a black bear, Sample 31 is human, and Sample 140 is a dog, wolf or coyote (all genus Canis). If you hear anything official, it will come out of Washington University of St. Louis, McDonnell Genome Institute, but they wouldn't confirm (or deny) that they are involved. If Dr. Hart does join the conversation he needs to be aware that sample 26 that Bart Cutino had tested, that turned up black bear, is not the same sample 26 that Dr. Ketchum tested because her sample had a completely different haplotype. The source of sample 26 was the same person, Justin Smeja, but the sample he gave Cutino was not the same as what Dr. Ketchum tested. There are conspiracy theories surrounding that, that Smeja was fearful of being prosecuted for murder if it turned out to be human and that he sabotaged it. As far as some of the samples turning out to be known animals, Dr. Ketchum did preliminary tests on lots of samples that were matched to GenBank to see if they were known animals before preceding with more in depth testing. According to her study, the three entire genomes that were sequenced are from an unknown hominin species. For those interested here is a break down of sample 26. http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/p/ketchum-dna-study-sample-26.html Dr. Hart's is basing his finding from from Ketchum's sample 26, not the sample that Bart Cutino had tested. He took the information straight from Ketchum's study, iirc. because her sample had a completely different haplotype. The source of sample 26 was the same person, Justin Smeja, but the sample he gave Cutino was not the same as what Dr. Ketchum tested. There are conspiracy theories surrounding that, that Smeja was fearful of being prosecuted for murder if it turned out to be human and that he sabotaged it. Or, it was Ketchum claiming these things as part of the damage control. Either way, it doesn't matter. Dr. Hart is not referring to the sample Cutino had tested. 2
jayjeti Posted September 21, 2015 Posted September 21, 2015 Chelefoot, I wonder if you might be making a bad assumption that Dr. Hart is not referring to what Bart Cutino had tested. I read the link you provided and it stated this, "Recall that three independent labs all showed S26 to be a black bear (See my blog, November 26, 2014, “Ketchum Sample 26, The Smeja Kill: Independent Lab Reportsâ€)." He makes reference to his 2014 blog when referring to independent labs. He never addresses the defense Dr. Ketchum's team made that Dr. Ketchum's sample 26 had a different haplotype than Cutino's sample 26 and therefore are totally different. That is why I wrote previously that if Dr. Hart responds he needs to address statements that Cutino's sample 26 is not the same as the sample 26 Ketchum tested. He may believe that it was and he's linking it to the S 26 that Ketchum sent off to be tested, but the lab results Ketchum's team got back shows it was not the same sample. What Cutino sent off showed sample 26 was black bear. It's possible Dr. Hart is making reference to what Cutino had tested not realizing that sample 26 which Smeja gave Cutino might be different than the sample he gave Dr. Ketchum earlier. Moreover, what samples were used in the three entire genomes that Dr. Ketchum sequenced? There was testing done on many samples, but only three had the entire genome's sequenced. Also, reading at the link the Dr. says he's not a peer-acknowledged authority on genetics himself.
Recommended Posts