Bonehead74 Posted September 22, 2015 Posted September 22, 2015 I don't think there was a control sample. I agree. So what do we then make of the quote from Mr Carpenter's blog? If there is no actual "Bigfoot control sample", then he is either mistaken, has been deceived by the Ketchum camp, or is not being truthful via semantic monkey business. Whatever the reason, it doesn't inspire much confidence in what else he has to day.
ShadowBorn Posted September 22, 2015 Moderator Posted September 22, 2015 I am not sure here , but do you all think that if there was a control sample that this whole mess would have been solved. It be in the genbank data base and all sample that came from this creature would be matching .
southernyahoo Posted September 22, 2015 Posted September 22, 2015 I think there is a misunderstanding on Carpenters part, though some of the samples that started this study may have been treated as a control or standard to compare the rest to, like the samples from the Erickson project or some from Paulides. You may remember statements from Richard Stubsted (sic) that seem to echo Mr. Harts statements on the rare mutations and otherwise human results. I think this part of the study was acurate, and it went south when the bear hair morphology found it's way to inclusion. It's actually sad that everyone is focused on sample 26 and the other two whole genomes. More progress would likely be made by ironing out the morphology of the rest of the samples and repeating mito results. Something must be in the works if both Dr. Ketchum and Mr. Hart both have knowledge of another study, with Ketchum claiming affirmation of her results and Mr. Hart making preemptive denials of any validation. That would depend on who's samples are in it and their provenance, which neither of them would likely know.
MIB Posted September 22, 2015 Moderator Posted September 22, 2015 (edited) From a procedural standpoint, Ketchum's study can't be validated. She skipped steps. You start with a hypothesis, devise a test, explain how/why the test will validate or invalidate the hypothesis, perform the experiment or test, present the results, interpret them, and draw a conclusion based on the results and your interpretation. There was a fundamental disconnect in the Ketchum study between the results presented and the conclusions drawn: the interpretation was wrong. The results do NOT show what the conclusion claims they show. You can only argue otherwise from a position of ignorance about the subject. If there is in fact a valid, logical connection (interpretation), Ketchum has to explain it because REAL experts in the field (those who did the peer review and rejected the paper over and over and over) could not find it. Doubt me? Go back and read the peer reviews for yourself. MIB Edited September 22, 2015 by MIB 1
southernyahoo Posted September 22, 2015 Posted September 22, 2015 Actually parts of it can be validated. The procedure is always the same. Collect samples and observe morphology, extract DNA and compare results. The trick ofcoarse is knowing when you have enough divergence in both to claim a new species. It may not be there in the end. 2
JDL Posted September 22, 2015 Posted September 22, 2015 I suppose if you have an untainted sample with provenance that supplies a high degree of confidence, it could be used as a comparative baseline against other samples to establish that a widespread population of the same unidentified species exists, but you couldn't rightly call it a control sample. At least not with the current state of resistance. 2
indiefoot Posted September 22, 2015 Posted September 22, 2015 Dr. Fahrenbach has described what he has concluded to be a "typical" sasquatch hair. Could he be the source for a supposed control specimen?
ShadowBorn Posted September 23, 2015 Moderator Posted September 23, 2015 So he finds hairs that he believes that might be from Bigfoot ,has it tested and whoa la it now becomes a controlled sample. That still cannot be since that would have settled the issue we are having now and Bigfoot would have been proven by him. He would have had the honors of the peer review and been famous. No for this creature to be real it has to be done on it's own merit with none of this business of a control sample being pushed around. It needs to get real here and there needs to be no mistakes. If there is another lab that might have proof then they must stay leak proof like they are doing right now. When the proper time comes to announce the truth no matter how long it takes well then that how it will be. This is true why should we stay focused on only a few samples when there is still samples out there that can still be tested. There is still a data base that is loaded with DNA that blood or hair can be matched up too, or until a body is brought in and then the real DNA can be entered into the data base. A data base that is always being updated with new species. In my case I already know that they are real so DNA is really not that important to me. But for the sanity of those who have never seen one DNA would go a long way for them. Being able to have a body that can match with the DNA would go much further of proof and would leave a lot of people eat crow. You do not know how badly I would love to see that. Imagine that we can have a cow eating contest and see who can eat it the fastest. Yea a big beer bash with crow pie's. Yum yum a little red hot sauce and some beer you all go a long way with that crow. so lets hope it comes out to be bear which might happen. So a body will be needed to match the DNA and contamination is all ways going to be a problem.
southernyahoo Posted September 23, 2015 Posted September 23, 2015 I suppose if you have an untainted sample with provenance that supplies a high degree of confidence, it could be used as a comparative baseline against other samples to establish that a widespread population of the same unidentified species exists, but you couldn't rightly call it a control sample. At least not with the current state of resistance. Right, you might find some samples that exhibit outliers in both morphology and DNA along with some provenance to support the hypothesis of some other extant hominin. Those would then serve as a tentative standard to compare others to. The problem was with this study, the mito DNA was too human, and the hair morphology wasn't enough. Ketchum needed nuclear results to find the needed divergence. The hair samples could provide very limited amounts of it in the tiny hair folicles. She needed blood and or larger amounts of tissue. The DNA was all human, up until the samples arrived that went to whole Genome sequencing. We could say, two of those weren't vetted well enough.
Guest Posted September 23, 2015 Posted September 23, 2015 Yes, Sample 26 is one of the purported complete genomes in the Ketchum paper and the same sample analyzed by three independent labs (Cutino, Huggins, and Sykes reports), all of which matched it to a black bear and two with human contamination matching Justin Smeja. Of course people will debate whether all four samples came from the same original sample collected by Smeja under two feet of snow five weeks after the alleged shooting. As for complete genomes, the sequences published by Ketchum for samples 26, 31, and 140, respectively, are 2.7, 0.5, and 2.1 million bases long, only less than 0.1% of the complete human genome of 3.5 billion bases. So what happened to the other 99.9% of these genomes? Ask Melba. Maybe Washington University of St. Louis McDonnell Genome Institute will give us answers, as she intimates. But I don't think so. S26 is a black bear. Another point is that Ketchum used a human chromosome 11 reference sequence to assemble her "genomes. This is inappropriate for an unknown species and biases the results. Only conserved (similar between sample and reference) genes will be so mapped. She should have used a de novo assembly which does not use a reference sequence. I found that the S26 sequence matched human 94-95%, but black bear 99-100%. Ketchum jumped on the former, but wasn't smart enough to look further or had the result she wanted. You decide which. I apologize for insinuating that Jayjeti may be Scott Carpenter. He doesn't deserve such an insult. Haskell Hart
LeafTalker Posted September 23, 2015 Posted September 23, 2015 I apologize for insinuating that Jayjeti may be Scott Carpenter. He doesn't deserve such an insult. Haskell Hart Your view is a bit narrow, in my opinion. Nobody deserves an insult of any kind. Nobody.
Guest Posted September 23, 2015 Posted September 23, 2015 Southernyahoo, Identification by hair morphology is not reliable. It has been thrown out in courts as it should be. The reasons are that there is large intraspecies variation compared to interspecies variation. Ketchum's pictures of only one human hair and one S26 hair prove nothing. In 2013 I suggested that she make many measurements of medulla and cuticle diameters for S26 hairs and compare them to a database of human hairs, or build one. Then a standard statistical test would show whether the human and S26 samples came from the same population and with what degree of certainty. In retrospect I should have asked her to include a bunch of bear hairs as well. Anything less is pure fantasy or intentional fraud. Your Sample 1 tested as very human by mtDNA, with little variation, one of the very best in her collection. The visual appearance of this one hair does not make a case for a sasquatch. Don't believe me? Pull one from your scrotum and one from your arm and compare them under a microscope. They won't resemble each other. Yes, the FBI has a lot of stuff out there on hair morphology and species identification, but it's based on many specimens, and it's only suggestive. And there is no "reference sample" for bigfoot, not hair, not DNA, not anything. It's an unproven species without a holotype specimen. Scott Carpenter throws words around that he doesn't understand.
southernyahoo Posted September 23, 2015 Posted September 23, 2015 (edited) I don't think anyone has made the claim that BF can be identified by hair morphology alone. What we can say is that if bigfoot is out there, it is most likely a great ape, and the hair morphology is likely to follow those common characteristics. These can be identified, and narrow down the right samples to target with DNA extraction. We simply get a human result from the effort at best even when a very small amount of mtDNA can identify most any species these days. If BF were anything as diverged as a chimp is from human, all we need is 1500 base pairs to prove it. So make a big deal about lacking a couple billion bases from the genome, most of it is not what makes the difference. Edited September 23, 2015 by southernyahoo 1
Popular Post JDL Posted September 23, 2015 Popular Post Posted September 23, 2015 Agree with all of the above, and though you've each said it in context, the biggest potential obstacle is this: If bigfoot is in fact a hybrid, then the assumption that any human DNA appearing in samples is just contamination is fundamentally wrong and results in discarded evidence. The only safeguard against this is to publish proper sample collection procedures to the community and to carefully collect DNA samples from every person in the chain of custody. If the samples show human DNA that corresponds to that of anyone in the chain of custody, then it is obviously contaminated. If it shows human DNA that does not correspond to anyone in the chain of custody, and the sample itself is clearly not of human origin, then the sample must be analyzed under the assumption that a hybrid origin is possible. 5
Recommended Posts