Researchers vs. Labs vs. Results

[hiflier]

Hi everyone. Is it time to call the kettle black yet? Is it time to realize and seriously discuss the stonewalling at the scientific level? Have the tough talk and debate the big zero as far as labs are concerned when it comes to testing Bigfoot samples? Is it a big zero? There are lies apparent in the inconsistencies regarding HOW the heads of these labs issue their statements vs. the protocols in the chain of what gets tested and what doesn't. This thread is to go thorough things as best as we can in order to determine if there is a clamp down in the scientific community and if so what do researchers do and where do they go in order to not have their various samples funneled into the same direction and people who seem to block the results? Not only the researchers themselves who submit samples for testing but to the media and, by extension the public, as well.

 

The pat answer of course is "science needs a body. The truth is, they shouldn't hesitate to go out and get one themselves if the truth about what the DNA has been saying hasn't been prohibited from official sanction or even to be looked at. And even the very idea that samples are looked at breaks down the usual scientific protocols that determine testing.  Does the contention hold that results of DNA testing are and have been withheld? If it has then the proof will lie in the contradictions within science itself and it's own testing criteria, labs, and the people in charge of them. The floor is open   

[MIB]

If we are calling kettles black, I'd have to say I'm getting tired of your idiotic nonsense.   Is that black enough for you?    I'm getting tired of your entitled attitude.  You're not doing anything to resolve the problem, you're trying to manipulate others into doing the hard work, taking the risks, and taking on the expenses while you sit on the sidelines and get your itch scratched at their expense.   We had a retired union organizer here for a while trying to do the same thing.  I knew him from another forum where he tried that there.   Now you're doing the same thing.  

 

The simple fact is if I had evidence of adequate quality to warrant the expense of testing, I wouldn't have any trouble getting it tested.  

 

Do your homework.   Get out of your mommy's basement and off the couch.   If you want it done, do it yourself.

 

MIB

[norseman]

MIB,

 

This is what Hiflier is referring to......first video.

 

 

I still say Ketchum is crazy. But the Kryder claim that her sample is scientifically listed in zoo bank is true.

[hiflier]

That is exactly what I was referring to Norseman. And since Dr. Ketchum sent out the samples to 12 other labs and didn't do the testing herself then it doesn't matter how crazy people think she is. She's out of the loop as far as I'm concerned for this thread which means her craziness or non-craziness has nothing to do with the results that those labs came up with. So let's drop Dr. Ketchum from this discussion shall we? Mr. Kryder also didn't do any testing but what he experienced, or claims, is the same hard ceiling toward the BF subject that Dr. Ketchum has claimed. In her case there were blind samples sent out where the labs didn't know what those samples came from.

 

It seems though that in Kryder's case the source of the samples were known. What he claims happened to those samples or to any results was that the results were not forthcoming. That is to say that evidently the Sykes lab pre-determines something a hair sample by first presenting it to experts who look at the sample to determine whether or not a hair sample came from a known animal. If it did come from a known animal then there's no reason for a lab to do a DNA test BECAUSE the sample came from a known species. The fact that Dr. Syke's lab DID do a DNA test therefore says that preliminary protocol MUST have concluded that the hair sample DID NOT come from a known animal in which case a DNA test was performed.

 

That to me has very large implications. This thread isn't about getting someone else to do the work. It's to pursue the work that has already been done. It's to ask WHY the DNA test was even ordered in the first place. If the hair sample had been predetermined to be from a known animal then it never would have gone on to have its DNA tested. This is the line of thinking this thread is all about. The title says it all. Mr. Kryder's sample should have never made it to the DNA lab if the sample was from a known animal. Period. The fact that it made it to the DNA lab is telling. The fact that if it is known that the sample involves Bigfoot or the name Bigfoot is attached to a sample then samples do not get tested. Or if they do get tested the results are held up.

 

He tried to confine the testing to a lab or labs within the U.S. but the sample got sent to Dr. Sykes anyway which was against what Mr. Kryder was trying to not do. This thread is for that part of the equation as well. I'm hoping these points can be discussed more in depth. Does anyone think there is something not quite right with the labs and/or the people that run them or have access to them? For myself I'm saying that yes, there is something not quite right with the DNA submission process.     

[BigTreeWalker]

I relistened to the Kryder video I posted. He talks about the Sykes testing @ 18 to 20 min. What he said was the sample were supposed to go through a preliminary ID process. But it seems that didn't happen because Sykes came up with some known animals that should have been eliminated but weren't. Kryder's sample was a good viable sample, which he verified to come from the subject species within less than a minute of passing, wasn't tested. He was informed much later the sample was sent to Switzerland to be tested at a later date. 

 

At 34 min. Kryder addresses the issue of having sent more samples to Dr Meldrum later to get tested locally. Again finding out later that they had been sent to Sykes, even after agreeing otherwise to stay local. The whole point off his discussion was an integrity issue. They aren't doing what they say they will or claim to be doing. 

 

Hiflier I also noticed that after I asked my questions in the video thread, you started this thread here. Just to share them I will repost them here. Because I still believe those issues need to be addressed. 

I have real difficulties with DNA studies. I'm constantly seeing information about getting DNA of some obscure animal or human from fossil finds and yet it seems we can't get a DNA test from a supposed extant creature. Whether we can compare it with anything or not is not the point. We should be able to test it as an unknown at least. I have to wonder how much that testing of the obscure fossil finds costs and how accurate it really is. In a lot of those tests we don't have a comparison sample on hand if the subject is extinct. It does make a person wonder what is going on. Contamination is also another bigfoot go to. I have to ask how a sample found in the ground after thousands or even millions of years hasn't seen some kind of contamination or degradation? If there is anyone knowledgeable here about these points please feel free to set me straight. Because they are reasonable questions that deserve an answer. 

[hiflier]

Agreed. Those questions do indeed deserve an answer. I know dialogue has gone round and round regarding the Human contamination element of what are believed to be Sasquatch samples. Nearly every time there is a Human sequence found then the sample is deemed contaminated. So, does that occur also when a sample comes back opossum? Or bear? Or cow? Are those samples contaminated with Human DNA also? Why would that then not disqualify the sample? Well, it wouldn't because there is DNA of a known creature mixed in. But that is the crux of the issue. If a sample comes back Human does it imply that it's entirely Human? Or simply Human DNA contamination found in "something else"?

 

I would thing that NO ONE says that a sample that tests as opossum that has Human DNA contamination would say anything else but "opossum with Human DNA contamination". No one is going to suggest a Human/opossum hybrid- EVER. But if there is Human DNA in a sample that comes back unknown then it's a big deal? No one knows what pure Sasquatch DNA is anyhow so how can anyone say Human contamination? I find it hard to think that the opossum, bear, fox, raccoon, and the rest of the sample results DO NOT have Human contamination in them over the 5 years or so that samples were submitted. But when something comes back with a result that has nuclear DNA as well as mitochondrial NA of "something" but it also contains Human DNA it gets tossed and rejected as contaminated.

 

So that's a general take on things. As far as Mr. Kryder goes? How ling does it take to throw a second BETTER sample under the glass to see if it came from a known animal? Obviously with Mr. Sykes the so-called Yeti hair was deemed unusual enough in preliminary evaluations to make it to DNA testing? And so what if it came back as a once thought extinct polar bear. That polar bear is wandering around and folks have called it a YETI. Just because it doesn't apparently look like Patty doesn't change what folks have been calling it. To the indigenous people in the mountains it IS a yeti. I thing the Abominable Snowman thing is only a western construct anyway. That polar bear is the Yeti for those folks. But I digress....

 

I still do not understand the second sample from Mr. Kryder being held up in Lucerne to be tested at a later date. Dr. Sykes MUST know how important this is. How can he not? Especially after the Ketchum study that came from the results of a dozen labs. I'll say it again for clarity, I don't care what anyone thinks of Dr. Ketchum. She didn't run the tests so the issue is with the labs and in some cases the silence of those labs. And in Mr. Kryder's case the silence of some of his former colleagues. Is the whole Sasquatch subject simply suffering from a chronic case of bad timing coupled with bad luck? A sort of complex Super Murphy's Law where nothing goes right? EVER? Add those questions to yours and it is just not looking too good here on all fronts- scientific and otherwise.

Edited February 27, 2017 by hiflier

[MIB]

No .. you're asking good questions.   I'm not a DNA expert but I used to beat them up on college biology class tests.    

 

Kryder made an incredibly good point regarding the Ketchum study.   I'm not a Ketchum fan "but", and the but is this: she, probably with Erickson's money, did indeed buy the De Novo journal, which looks pretty bad, but as I understand it, the paper had already passed their peer review prior to the purchases, it was just a way to get past the lawyers that blocked publication.   That doesn't change the fact that the data she releases is less than 10% of what is necessary to substantiate her claims.    The balance between those two bears further contemplation.

 

One of the interesting things in the Sykes study was that he was able to have material tested at the US F&W Forensics Lab in Ashland, Oregon.   That lab refuses to look at anything not related to a wildlife crime .. so why the exception?   Some older, BFF 1.0, folks here may remember past (banned) member Ace! who went to the lab to find out about sample testing and what he was told.    This should raise red flags.

 

I don't think we should jump to any conclusions based on this .. yet .. but it is worthy of some carefully and deliberately raised eyebrows .. and patience, maybe years of patience.

 

I remain confident that I could get samples tested if I had good enough samples I was willing to pay for the testing out of pocket, but I'm not going to say how I'd do that and have someone start plugging the leaks.   If there really is someone out there interfering, my silence in that regard means they have a lot more expense and a lot more guesswork trying to head me off.   

 

MIB

Edited February 27, 2017 by MIB

[MIB]

hiflier -

 

It's not "lucerne" .. that's a brand of yogurt and other milk products.   It's Lausanne ... the full, real name of what we refer to as the Sykes study is the Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project.  That is University of Oxford in England where Bryan Sykes used to be faculty and University of Lausanne in Switzerland.  

 

I'm not saying there is or there is not, but frankly, if there is some kind of cover up, Sykes is one of the keystones.   Your whole question of "doesn't he know" is entirely naive.  

 

MIB

[hiflier]

Thank you MIB. I for one hope you succeed in not only getting your samples but and also seeing the fruits of you hard work come to light. And yes, I got Lausanne wrong. But to clarify Lucerne IS a city in Switzerland also. It's on Lake Lucerne. Also though my dialogue may sound naïve I have my reasons for it. One is, as you know I tend to ramble, logically I hope, but ramble nonetheless. The naivete comes from the fact that I honestly do not wish to directly attack Dr. Sykes as a "keystone" that stalls disclosure although I would like to. I think it important to first state my case and lay out my questions and arguments in order to build and support that case. I see, and have seen, a real problem when it comes to breaking open this mystery at the molecular level, i.e., DNA. I see people's character attacked. Reputations undermined- and in such public ways.

 

I've seen us slam Dr. Mathew Johnson for his portal Bigfoot promotions. I've seen Dr. Ketchum slammed for talking about angels and Dogmen. But even though that goes on I've ALWAYS looked at what has been coming back from the labs themselves. THAT is what is important to me. I've seen labs that won't touch Bigfoot. I've seen top DNA people and other so called Bigfoot heavies drag their feet and give excuses for holding up the process of discovery. I've been slammed myself here on more than one occasion for digging deeper into these issues. IDK, maybe I should backoff on my suspicions but when logical thinking sees discrepancies in how things get conducted and sees doors close that need to stay open to further the process getting at the truth of this creature then someone needs to keep the points of argument fresh.

 

That way 6 months from now these issues can be built upon instead of cropping up as something newly noticed. It happens a lot. where a subject or an idea disappears down the page only to have someone bring the same subject up later as if for the first time. So. The researchers, the labs, and their DNA results are what's on the table along with how that process is and is not working......and why.       

Edited February 27, 2017 by hiflier

[hiflier]

An interesting side to this is that there has been quite a stir involving DNA testing both by the Ketchum Genome Project and the Sykes Yeti project in the media since back in 2012. Other than the published results of the lab tests, and a couple of books out by Dr. Sykes, there has been nothing affirming, denying, or supporting, coming from any of the governments of the UK, US, or Canada. Not their anthropology departments, not their forestry, wildlife, or environmental agencies or anything of note that I have seen or read.  It has all been private sector stuff along with private sector opinion. Is it because Sasquatch exists? Is it because it doesn't exist? I'm only mentioning this as a sort of an umbrella beneath all of what has been going on with this subject kind of lives. 

 

Do any of these entities really have the first and last say in what gets done or tested when it comes to Bigfoot samples? Would any results confirming the creature actually make it to science, namely anthropology, and the public-at-large? We've got people out in the field who have secured samples under strict scientific protocol. People who have sent these samples off to those who have the authority to tell a lab to test those samples. And some of the precautions that were taken to try and make sure that some labs didn't even know what they were testing for (blind test). All done with private money. And still what came back has either been not accepted, hotly debated, rejected outright, and been refused peer review. I truly find it hard to think that the stigma of Sasquatch is so big and so powerful that no one in science will touch it. That to me is unfathomable that something like that is so abhorred, and so dangerous to a reputation that it gets that kind of treatment- across the board. Extending even into the media and all of academia.

 

Are people really THAT much afraid of this?!? I mean c'mon, put it in perspective. It's only a mythological North American Primate for pity sakes. If it isn't real then why not test anything and everything and take the poor sucker's money who is paying for the DNA test and be done with it. What's all the fuss about? It's a myth so what is the big deal that it's turned out to be with all of the DNA cat and mouse. Let's get real. Let the labs test, let the results be reviewed and when everything is found out to be something already known by the anthropologists, the biologists, the zoologists and everyone else then we can all say OK and go home. Why all the cloak and dagger? If it's a myth then there should be no harm whatsoever in taking samples to labs and paying those labs to see nothing but bear. RIGHT? HUH? YA THINK?

 

I'm laying this out as simply as I know how, folks. That's why it sounds naïve and dumb. So dumb that academia down to fifth grade can even understand it. So what is all the fuss about. It makes no sense whatsoever to have such upheaval over something that supposedly doesn't exist.   

Edited February 27, 2017 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Is there a way to break through the barriers? The labs are private so FOIA's are of no use obviously. So is there another way? One thing is that the closest people to this experience are the researchers themselves. Between Dr. Ketchum and Mr. Kryder who IMO are the two most prominent figures there are marked differences. Dr. Ketchum organized a study by collecting samples from researchers and Mr. Kryder is a researcher who sent samples to a lab. A very respected lab that is under the guidance of Dr. Sykes. Buth Ketchum and Sykes accepted samples over a number of years. One set aimed at the discovery of a North American hominid and the other set pretty much devoted to the discovery of the Himalaya Yeti. And yet there were samples sent from North America to Dr. Sykes as well.

 

Those North American samples, i.e. Mr. Kryder's, apparently were not sent to Dr. Ketchum. I don't think we need to go into any dialogue or speculation as to why that was. One could say that it was because her study was incompetently handled. One could say that her beliefs tainted her interpretation of the data. One thing is certain though. Anyone, or any other lab was welcome to test the same samples as the labs she commissioned. But Mr. Kryder for reasons of his own went elsewhere. Perhaps because of Dr. Sykes reputation and the fact that his study seemed to be more accepted by the scientific community? That point in and of itself is interesting. I don't remember him getting slammed for it or his study's results.

 

Be that as it may, I think what Mr. Kryder is alluding to is the idea if not the accusation that there is essentially a move of some kind to block information not only to the public but academia as well. One has to wonder (at least I do, of course  ) whether or not the University of New Mexico Gallup has communicated anything to other departments at other institutions. Or if the department at UNM Gallup is seeing for the first time that there are serious questions afoot regarding the handling of the Sasquatch subject and the way dissemination of information or the lack of it is presented to the public. If that is the case then anyone at UNM with a brain would understand the scope and expense such a block of this kind of information would carry. Would that then wake up a movement to demand the truth? Or would the knowledge of such a block create apprehension in doing anything about it?

 

IS there a policy or policies on the Sasquatch subject that are active in keeping information from the public in the first place? Thoughts? One that I still have is that disclosure of the creature as being real would be a very important endeavor. The implications of such a disclosure is its own discussion entirely but holding onto Mr. Kryder's second sample for testing at some time at a later date is something I absolutely do not understand considering the enormity of the possibility of the creature's actual existence. The size of the business side of Sasquatch is pretty large. Does money talk when it comes to placing Mr. Kryder's second sample at the head of the queue? Is there money KEEPING it from the head of the queue?   

[MIB]

On 2/25/2017 at 5:57 PM, norseman said:

I still say Ketchum is crazy. But the Kryder claim that her sample is scientifically listed in zoo bank is true.

 

Thanks for the link ... took a while to find a break to listen to it.  (I also listened to 1-2 others he did ... hopefully I'm not mixing up which is which.   Kryder brings up some good points.   I'm not sure all his assumptions / assertions are correct nor are all the things he interprets from them correct, however, there's a possibility he is correct so they're worth considering seriously, then considering the implications.   

 

Ultimately, we remain without clear, supportable answers.

 

MIB

 

Edited February 28, 2017 by MIB

[hiflier]

Right as rain, MIB. One has to wonder how much wasn't said in those videos. Even an apparently open researcher such as Mr. Kryder might have information held back for security reasons. I don't know if you remember the thread I ran a while back:

where that sample of a supposed Meganthropus tooth was sent by a Mr. Mike Ruggs of the Bigfoot Discovery Museum to Dr. Sykes? He sent it to Dr. Ketchum first who asked for a second sample but with only one tooth in which to get pulp for testing he thought Dr. Brian Sykes might be a better choice.

 

The story from Mr. Ruggs goes on to say that it was found out afterwards that Dr. Sykes doesn't test anything but hair. All requests for the partial tooth sample's return though have resulted in the sample not being returned to Mr. Ruggs as of the writing of that thread. I have not done any follow up to see if the sample had since been returned to Mike Ruggs yet. What was left of the tooth that was still in his possession was evidently stolen/misplaced from the Museum. The sample that was sent to Dr. Ketchum was destroyed during DNA testing which is normal procedure and so the ONLY SAMPLE/EVIDENCE LEFT of the tooth is (or was?) in Dr. Sykes' possession. Even a request for it's return sent by Dr. Jeffery Meldrum failed to get the sample returned to Mr. Ruggs.

Edited February 28, 2017 by hiflier

[hiflier]

I would think this would tie in nicely with other threads but more directly with the recent "Can We Solve This Before October 20, 2017" thread. Known "Honey Holes" should be peppered with scat, hair, and other samples that knowers frequent and claim interaction to whatever degree. Sounds like plenty of opportunities for possible DNA sample collection. And yet.....nothing? Or at least no desire to pursue that avenue?

 

So here's the thing: Why bother coming to the Forum and claiming encounters in some kind of personal "hot spot" that only certain members know about? What's the point? Is it to demonstrate that BF is truly out there and everyone simply has to take your word for it? That's no different than the "you decide" videos everyone is subjected to. Surely there is more maturity than that among this group. Why conduct discussion about such a serious matter as Sasquatch and at the same time maintain the kind of engagement that is anything but productive?

 

These are good to the point questions IMO but at the same time I expect the usual dancing around that keeps those carrots uneaten. Odd way to stroke an ego if you ask me.  

[BigTreeWalker]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Odd way to stroke an ego if you ask me.  

 

 

Yes it seems you sure are. 

 

I thought these forums were a place to share experience, useful knowledge and discuss bigfoot, not a place to provide proof for those that have to have it. I could phrase your question in a different way too... What is your data base doing for you?