Olympic Peninsula Nesting Area Update

[hiflier]

There has been a ton of criticism in the past regarding Human "contamination" of samples. Samples that were processed under known and accepted cleaning techniques and yet still come back Human. The result was a lot of finger pointing and calls for mishandling in spite of documented procedures that showed otherwise. What I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with what's going on in that photo. It's not a sterile lab and isn't meant to be one and doesn't need to be one at this stage of the game. If a Human hair drops onto the nest it will match Human perfectly all the way through the genome. If it's Sasquatch it will not show Human all the way. The nuclear DNA will turn out like previous samples have turned out. Human and something else. The mitochondrial will be ALL Human though.

 

What I'm getting at is that folks will eventually come around to the point that Sasquatch is MOSTLY Human. But the element in the nuclear DNA that isn't will be present. But since there's no genome to match it against  it will get tossed as being contaminated by Humans. Even though the tests will show a Human maternal lineage and a not quite 100% Human paternal lineage. The techniques used in washing the sample means I could pick up a Sasquatch hair with my fingers and it wouldn't matter. The nuclear DNA in the hair should still show something not quite Human. The problem people have is with the Human part of this equation. They throw the test out as soon as they read Human even though there are elements that say NOT Human. Not talking porcupine or bear hair or any other known animal here either. Talking about that tiny part of the nuclear DNA that is not of those things, nor is it Human even though most of the nuclear DNA IS Human. In other words, it shows an odd daddy somewhere in the history of the nuclear DNA lineage.  

Edited August 8, 2017 by hiflier

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Melba Ketchum claimed she tested the nDNA, but her study turned out to be a scam in which she contaminated samples on purpose

 

From what I can tell, Sasquatch nDNA has never been legitimately tested, but that shouldn't be a surprise given how pricey and challenging it can be compared to mDNA. Not even Sykes was willing to do it. The general consensus is that the testing of mDNA on its own should provide enough of the right data for species identification. The problem is that mDNA is not enough for identifying certain physiological differences that resulted from non-evolutionary changes

 

Based on what I now know, if we were to successfully test the nDNA, I think there's a good possibility that we won't be able to tell from the results that the DNA sample originates from a sasquatch

 

Anyway, mDNA provides a key clue, but without having a type-specimen, the problem can become very complex under special circumstances, just like how it is now

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by OntarioSquatch

[JustCurious]

Ah, so they are attempting to use eDNA testing methods to determine what was in the nests.  There is more information here.    Since they've only raised half the money they wanted, I wonder if they'll proceed with testing half of what they've found or if they won't do it at all.  Dr. Disotell has agreed already to do the testing.  This is something that seems worth throwing some money at.

[TritonTr196]

Sometimes, it's just the difference between a paper bag and a plastic bag. I've collected numerous things such as hair over the years. I've never had anything tested because I don't know what testing places are trustworthy to send anything too. And if there was a reputable place, What exactly do you tell them you're looking for without mentioning the words Bigfoot or Sasquatch?

[WSA]

Plus that Hiflier. My working hypothesis too. At present, assuming past tests are not results of contamination, this is what fits the evidence the best. Plus that OntarioSquatch as well. mDNA without nDNA is like reading half the book.

[Yuchi1]

It would be enlightening to see the evidence where Ketchum deliberately contaminated the samples as OS postulated.

[Twist]

1 hour ago, WSA said:

Plus that Hiflier. My working hypothesis too. At present, assuming past tests are not results of contamination, this is what fits the evidence the best. Plus that OntarioSquatch as well. mDNA without nDNA is like reading half the book.

 

 

So so we are dealing with an unknown cryptid and it's DNA is expected by some to show human DNA.   

 

Why then would every precaution possible not be taken to prevent real known humane DNA from contaminating a BF sample?  

 

If they pull viable samples from these nests and they are legit, and they do show humane DNA, I'm guessing these pics are going to be grounds to throw out those results or at least make other scientist raise an eyebrow to the results.

[MIB]

1 hour ago, Yuchi1 said:

It would be enlightening to see the evidence where Ketchum deliberately contaminated the samples as OS postulated.

 

While not precisely contamination, consider her attempt to get Justin Smeja to destroy the rest of the "steak" with bleach so it could not be tested to refute her claim it was sasquatch.   Instead, with a little help, he had it tested by Trent University where it was conclusively shown to be black bear.    This demonstrates Ketchum's fraud.  

 

MIB

[Guest kjaaleks]

12 hours ago, hiflier said:

 The nuclear DNA will turn out like previous samples have turned out. Human and something else. The mitochondrial will be ALL Human though.

 

Can you tell me what studies or tests this nuclear DNA data has come from exactly?

 

I am attempting to learn the ins and outs of this DNA stuff and am looking for clarity here. I want to make sure I understand.

 

Thank you.

[WSA]

Twist, for me at least, "expected" is too strong a word. I'm just trying to bracket some probabilities with a working hypothesis, until something better comes along. Right or wrong, each future result that shows some human nDNA in a sample strengthens that hypothesis and puts it closer to a conclusion. Without a type specimen, that is probably as far as it could ever go, and that will be short of a satisfying conclusion to many, granted.

 

The points made about contamination are valid to the extent it has been pointed out the protocols of collection are far less of a concern that the actual cleanliness of the sequencing, and the cleaning of the samples, as far as I know. It is contamination in the samples after cleaning that have been repeatedly thrown at scientists who come up with any result that contains a smidgen of human DNA. My point is: After how many of those results do you start to question whether they might actually NOT be contaminated? I don't know the answer to that one, but it does bear keeping in mind. Now, I suppose you could adopt squeaky clean protocols in the actual collection of samples, but I think that is not only unnecessary if your sequencing is done properly, but probably an impossibility in a field study environment. The "nest" in question is a good example? How many critters might have crawled, slithered, touched or voided on or around that assemblage? Then you have the DNA of the plant matter to contend with also. To my way of thinking, a stray human beard hair or shed skin cell, which can be easily identified as such is not a big deal.

 

I'd be interested to know what others think who have actual lab experience in cleaning and sequencing DNA samples. My conclusions are only that of somebody who has read on the subject, and have no hands-on experience.

[Yuchi1]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

While not precisely contamination, consider her attempt to get Justin Smeja to destroy the rest of the "steak" with bleach so it could not be tested to refute her claim it was sasquatch.   Instead, with a little help, he had it tested by Trent University where it was conclusively shown to be black bear.    This demonstrates Ketchum's fraud.  

 

MIB

 

Where would one find the evidence of her communication with Justin Smeja regarding this attempted cover-up?

[Twist]

53 minutes ago, WSA said:

Twist, for me at least, "expected" is too strong a word. I'm just trying to bracket some probabilities with a working hypothesis, until something better comes along. Right or wrong, each future result that shows some human nDNA in a sample strengthens that hypothesis and puts it closer to a conclusion. Without a type specimen, that is probably as far as it could ever go, and that will be short of a satisfying conclusion to many, granted.

 

The points made about contamination are valid to the extent it has been pointed out the protocols of collection are far less of a concern that the actual cleanliness of the sequencing, and the cleaning of the samples, as far as I know. It is contamination in the samples after cleaning that have been repeatedly thrown at scientists who come up with any result that contains a smidgen of human DNA. My point is: After how many of those results do you start to question whether they might actually NOT be contaminated? I don't know the answer to that one, but it does bear keeping in mind. Now, I suppose you could adopt squeaky clean protocols in the actual collection of samples, but I think that is not only unnecessary if your sequencing is done properly, but probably an impossibility in a field study environment. The "nest" in question is a good example? How many critters might have crawled, slithered, touched or voided on or around that assemblage? Then you have the DNA of the plant matter to contend with also. To my way of thinking, a stray human beard hair or shed skin cell, which can be easily identified as such is not a big deal.

 

I'd be interested to know what others think who have actual lab experience in cleaning and sequencing DNA samples. My conclusions are only that of somebody who has read on the subject, and have no hands-on experience.

 

I agree with you, I just think with a case like the nests, it holds more possible impact then say a hair caught on a barbed wire fence.  Results confirming BF will be impactful with any source however in a scenario like the nests it would peak a lot more interest to other scientist.  I'd like to see every step possible taken to lessen  any claims of contamination.  Maybe I'm to picky lol.

[MIB]

36 minutes ago, Yuchi1 said:

Where would one find the evidence of her communication with Justin Smeja regarding this attempted cover-up?

 

"One" could review the discussion here on BFF in the Ketchum threads.   "One" **might** be able to locate interviews and "testimony" via vids on youtube.   

 

I don't expect you to make the effort, I expect you to attempt to manipulate me into doing your due diligence for you, then dismiss it because it's not what you want to hear, so I'm going to .. up front .. tell you not to waste my time, either find it yourself or don't.  

 

MIB

[hiflier]

Yes, if anyone wishes to review the discussion then please do so but read this first before you do. Read the article from beginning to end- do not skim over, please read every word. here is a small excerpt:

 

http://www.thomsquatch.com/2013/03/bigfoot-dna-evidence-redux.html

 

"Bear in mind too, that by this point, Justin Smeja had submitted to and passed a lie detector test in which he insisted that he did indeed shoot at least one bigfoot creature. When the samples came back as human, it had to be a terrifying realization for Smeja, and one that would certainly provide more than enough motivation to put a different spin his story, and maybe even get busy and submit a second sample for testing that would show a more confusing, contaminated result.  Meanwhile, Justin Smeja, or somebody else using his name begins circulating a new story on Facebook group pages: that he was told by Ketchum to destroy his remaining samples. Ketchum calls this a pure fabrication.

If Justin Smeja actually shot and killed one, and maybe two, sasquatches, is Justin Smeja really guilty of a capital crime? I really don't think so.  His defense would simply be that he was completely unaware that these hair-covered human-hybrid creatures even existed. He thought it was a bear. And as long as our trusted government continues to keep the public in the dark about the existence of these sasquatch creatures, neither Justin Smeja nor anyone else, can be prosecuted for shooting such a human variant that doesn’t officially exist.  This is precisely why the focus of Ketchum’s current effort is to gain official recognition of the creatures’ existence before uninformed hunters shoot any more of them!"

 

 

[Yuchi1]

Hiflier,

 

IMO, you basically laid out the story as I understood it from not only the original source but others with access to the facts and circumstances as well. In looking through several threads found here the majority of published "evidence" against Ketchum comes from Skeptic/Skofftic sources and/or blogspots that aren't usually good anecdotal information, even on a good day with hyperbole being accepted as a form of evidence, not a good format.

 

This excerpt speaks volumes: ..."Truth is, once again, the ossified groupthink in bigfootville does not allow the researcher tribe to consider the possibility that bigfoot is not the ape that John Green, Peter Byrne, and Rene Dahinden always said it was. I believe it was Rene Dahinden’s quotation that lives in infamy, “It’s nothing but a ****, dirty ape!” Sadly that phrase still echoes in the halls of bigfootville and it has done lasting damage to the intellectual integrity with which the competing hypotheses have been considered by bigfoot researchers to this day"...

 

BTW, am not a card-carrying Ketchum defender as IMO, she succumbed to the profit motive partially driven by financial stresses however, am aware that some of her work was of the quality to stand on it's own but the cultish ambience so endemic in both the academic community as well as Sasquatchery, went to war on her almost from the get-go. Yep, those dam n trees always seem to be getting in the way.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by Yuchi1
typo