Olympic Peninsula Nesting Area Update

[hiflier]

Thank you for those links, Martin. I appreciate very much that info to look through. I've probably already seen what's in the links but will go through them again as it has been a while. In the meantime, you certainly don't have to read through all of this but if you could take a look through it a bit you will see that there was a BLAST comparison performed. It was issued as a supplemental to the manuscript proper:

 

http://www.sasquatchgenomeproject.org/sasquatch_genome_project_003.htm

 

A point to remember that gets often forgotten it that the morphology of some of the hair samples was definitely NOT Human in how they appeared both in diameter and texture. However they tested Human nonetheless. This is the wall that many people hit and them automatically state 'contaminated' and accuse Ketchum and her team of shoddy work. I agree it's difficult to rectify a hair that physically is outside a Human norm and yet tests Human. But then look at the creature we are dealing with. Not a gorilla, not a Human which is something we all kind of expected and discussed for years. And even when confronted with the facts we still deny the possibilities.

 

OOPS! I see that Yuchi1 just posted my link. Thank you Yuchi. 

Edited August 10, 2017 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Martin, I did read the article you linked. And I followed most of what the author was talking about but there is quite a bit of probably, if, might, and other terms regarding non definitive certainty. Something I've also noticed in other articles opposing the study. I will say this though, the author does treat the project with respect even though there are misgivings and that says a lot. Some procedures Mr. Timmer agreed with and some he didn't. I did not see however an out and out slam of th project and much to his credit he did not attack Dr. Ketchum but honestly put forth his interpretation of the data- very commendable in tone I have to say. Thank you for the link, it's on my desktop as I wish to go through it several times. In it he does say that BLAST tests were done by her team as well. Good article  

[wiiawiwb]

20 hours ago, hiflier said:

A point to remember that gets often forgotten it that the morphology of some of the hair samples was definitely NOT Human in how they appeared both in diameter and texture. However they tested Human nonetheless. This is the wall that many people hit and them automatically state 'contaminated' and accuse Ketchum and her team of shoddy work. I agree it's difficult to rectify a hair that physically is outside a Human norm and yet tests Human. But then look at the creature we are dealing with. Not a gorilla, not a Human which is something we all kind of expected and discussed for years. And even when confronted with the facts we still deny the possibilities.

 

This is the part that confuses me. My assumption is that hair morphology can't be physically "changed" from Human to non-Human in order to trick someone. If that is the case, then what do scientists say about the hair morphology results?  The hair doesn't test Human nor dog, cat, bear, wolf, deer, etc.

 

Doesn't that alone tell us we're dealing with something undiscovered and thus scientifically unmapped? Why isn't hair morphology alone good enough?

[hiflier]

I really do not know the answer to that one, my friend. I wish I did. And I'll bet a lot of folks did too. If a hair sample is judged to not be Human because of its diameter and texture and also doesn't test Human? I think most of the time it DOES come back as bear, horse, deer, dog, wolf etc.

 

But if the hair is outside the norm for being from a Human and yet still tests Human- well that's the rub. That's when most people come out with the accusations of the sample being contaminated by a Human's DNA. But if the procedure for prepping the hair for a DNA test is confirmed to be done in a way known to thoroughly cleanse that hair sample for testing and it still comes back Human well that's were the problem lies. A hair sample that definitely isn't of Human origin should NOT test as being Human. But some of these samples DID test as being Human. And not by just one lab, and not just by Dr. Ketchum's team. So where does that leave things? And where should the whole thing go from here? Again, I do not have those answers.

 

But as long as there are those that condemn and slam the results of the DNA testing, which began even before people read the manuscript and its supplemental then I have to wonder what their agenda is and who's behind it.  

[MIB]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

If a hair sample is judged to not be Human because of its diameter and texture

 

It's more than that.   Microscopically, hair is typically "banded" with bands of slightly varying color, generally there are tell-tale microscopic inclusions within the hair visible, and so on.    Have you read Henner Fahrenbach's paper on bigfoot hair?    I think the easiest place to find it is on BFRO's web site but BigfootEncounters might also have it.    So far, his description of the characteristics of bigfoot hair has stood the test of time.

 

This, in turn, raises questions about Sykes.   He claimed that all of the samples submitted were DNA tested.   They should have been screened for proper morphology first.   Those samples that came back coyote were structurally coyote, physically identifiably coyote, same for bear, etc. had someone done the screening.  This is a pretty extreme deviation from normal lab procedures and should require an explanation.   None has been offered.    Unexplained deviation from best practices raises red flags.

 

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

But some of these samples DID test as being Human. And not by just one lab, and not just by Dr. Ketchum's team. So where does that leave things? And where should the whole thing go from here? Again, I do not have those answers

 

I would not be too confident about that.   Remember that everything we know about the other labs' results **come to us via Ketchum**.   No matter who the source is, if you backtrack to where they got it, eventually all paths for that information lead through Ketchum.   In other words, you're allowing her to self-validate.  

 

That, too, should raise huge red flags.

 

Something stinks and it's not just old fish.  

 

MIB

 

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

I would not be too confident about that.   Remember that everything we know about the other labs' results **come to us via Ketchum**.   No matter who the source is, if you backtrack to where they got it, eventually all paths for that information lead through Ketchum.   In other words, you're allowing her to self-validate.  

 

That, too, should raise huge red flags.

 

Something stinks and it's not just old fish.  

 

 

Agreed, MIB, and good point. However the results have been consistent in other labs as well before Ketchum's Project. Almost as if she gained confidence to go through with it because of what other labs had found. In a way the reverse is true- she validated those other findings instead of the other way round. But of course she was the most vocal so the spotlight was turned onto the Sasquatch Genome Project. IMHO the 12 independent labs that were the targets of the double blind test self-validated. Ketchum did not invent those results. If a hair is deemed not Human but comes back from a DNA test with a result that is nothing else but Human then what is to be said?  The morphology of the sample is STILL outside the range of Human, right?

 

To say that every sample across the board that tests this way is contaminated makes no sense whatsoever because other labs have seen the same results with their samples too. But Dr. Ketchum was practically the only one who had the guts to place her neck on the chopping block all the way through the nuDNA  procedure for five years with twelve labs backing her up along with the experts on her own team. She would have never done this had she not been convinced of the creatures existence. A creature she never even believed in or gave a thought to before the study. 

 

And Yes, I have read Fahrenbach's work. But I also understand what you are saying in your post too. As far as Sykes goes there's a lot fishy about things not being SOP but I had thought there was some preliminary morphology on samples performed, however, ICBW about that.

Edited August 11, 2017 by hiflier

[hiflier]

So taking all of this to the nesting site investigations? If someone finds hair and it has a morphology like Fahrenback's samples, Ketchum's samples, and others, then can we expect that the DNA test- even if only at the mtDNA test phase like others reached-  will come back Human? That's the question I have. And if the nest samples do come back Human then does it exonerate Dr. Ketchum? Would anyone be satisfied at that point? And if so then can it be immediately determined that Dr. Ketchum did everything right as claimed? IMHO it would seem so.

 

The alternative would open up an entire dialogue that Ketchum, Fahrenbach, Sykes, Ericson, and everybody else are all liars and the whole thing is one big collusive sham. That's where the hard line skeptics will take it no doubt. But if any of the nest samples are of hair outside the Human norm and the morphology of those hairs doesn't line up with any known creature but the DNA comes back Human then we will KNOW that there is a creature out there that is part Human, part..........something else. And that the nuDNA from previous testing has been telling the truth should those samples be deemed good enough to test that far including bioinformatics. For me? I hope they find that sample.

Edited August 11, 2017 by hiflier

[norseman]

On 8/8/2017 at 10:32 PM, hiflier said:

OK. Are these folks competent geneticists and if not, why not?

 

Dr. Patrick Wojkiewicz- Director of the Shreveport Laboratory of the North Louisiana Crime Lab System and the Technical Leader of the DNA section.

 

Aliece Watts- BS, MS, MT(ASCP), PBT(ASCP), F-ABC is a founding partner and the Quality Director for Integrated Forensic Laboratories, Inc., alumna of the University of Texas at Arlington where she also taught Introduction to Forensic Science Laboratory, Forensic Biology (DNA) and Methods in Forensic Biology Laboratory

 

David W. Spence- trace evidence supervisor with the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, Criminal Investigations Laboratory, at Dallas County, Texas.

 

Dr. Andreas Holzenburg- professor of biology and director of the Microscopy & Imaging Center at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas.

 

Dr. Douglas G. Toler, MD- clinical pathologist at Huguley Memorial Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas, for the past 30 years. His specialty also includes anatomical pathology.

 

Dr. Tom Prychitko- molecular biologist with a background that also includes evolutionary biology, microbiology and biochemistry.

 

Dr. Fan Zhang- Bioinformatician at the Department of Academic and Institutional Resources and Technology, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas. Next Generation Sequencing, Genome-wide association studies, Proteomics, Pathway Analysis and Functional Analysis, Cancer Epidemiology, Molecular and Genetic Epidemiology.

 

 

And what do you think Sasquatch looks like?

 

 

Ummmm not looks like.....IS! Matilda is Chewbacca! Same exact mask! Including huge canines....

 

And how about a genetics lab that specializes in new species of primates? And is not associated with Ketchum in anyway? 

 

I cannot believe Hiflier that your still drinking Ketchum kook aid!

[Yuchi1]

There are lots of people drinking lots of things, some of which is based upon desperately trying to back into/validate their own foregone conclusions, all those trees be darned!

 

Several are trying to speak from a position as if they actually knew what was really going on before, during and after the process however, it's coming across as bloviation and/or fabrication.

 

What we're observing is the symptomatic malady that has beset Sasquatchery since almost day one after the PG film.

[hiflier]

22 minutes ago, norseman said:

I cannot believe Hiflier that your still drinking Ketchum kook aid!

 

Please do not accuse me of that in that tone or reference. I've done my home work and ask the right questions and present the right arguments in logic as well as what science is requiring. Yes, of course Matitlda is Chewbacca what does that have to do with the other witness' descriptive use of Chewbacca as a reference.

 

And you don't need a lab that specializes in new primate species. You only need a sample from an alleged new species and just about any lab can confirm it. Look there are experts everywhere in this field of DNA and hair microscopy. That science has been around for a long time and sotoday and even ten years ago isn't and wasn't cutting edge. This is dated July of 2000: https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric1.htm ANY lab can do a BLAST test against the GenBank. Any lab can do hair microscopy. For the people like who was on Ketchum's team it would be like falling off of a log. They could have done it in their sleep. People need to stop thinking any of this is specialized beyond being able to have the equipment and computers available in good labs, which is most universities and thousands of private institutions- never mine the labs that law enforcement have. Hair morphology is a no brainer, Norse, but when non- Human hair comes back Human and a bunch of labs get that result even though proper procedures are followed then there's something out there that science continues to ignore if in fact they are ignoring it.

Edited August 11, 2017 by hiflier

[Yuchi1]

Went over to the Project Grendel website last week and discovered there were apparently zero posts on it. Reckon no one is drinking any of that Kool aid?

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

So taking all of this to the nesting site investigations? If someone finds hair and it has a morphology like Fahrenback's samples, Ketchum's samples, and others, then can we expect that the DNA test- even if only at the mtDNA test phase like others reached-  will come back Human? That's the question I have. And if the nest samples do come back Human then does it exonerate Dr. Ketchum? Would anyone be satisfied at that point? And if so then can it be immediately determined that Dr. Ketchum did everything right as claimed? IMHO it would seem so.

 

 

Bears repeating. Anyone care to answer a few questions? I ended with my own opinion. Anyone have their own? The floor is open. This is directly aimed at the topic of this thread, i.e. if the sample is found and it doesn't match Human in microscopy but tests Human in it DNA then would it mean that there IS a creature in the woods that many or all of the reports of the last 100+ years describe? Any of the other questions of course are open to opinion as well  

Edited August 11, 2017 by hiflier

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The sequence that Melba provided with her paper was from a mix of very different known animals. She did have multiple labs perform testing for her, but there was never any novel DNA presented. For we all know, all of the labs received the same heavily contaminated DNA

 

She was also taking in samples from hoaxers like Mary Green, and claiming that the results showed they're from sasquatch

 

Ketchum herself knew what she was doing, but was hoping her followers didn't. In the end, her plan worked; she didn't get sued, and still has a few followers.

[hiflier]

21 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

For we all know, all of the labs received the same heavily contaminated DNA

 

For all we know?? OntarioSquatch, how deeply have you honestly read about this study and how it was handled? Unsupported statements like that started almost immediately once word got out- BEFORE the manuscript was ever made public f you had read the history you would know that. And knowing that you just might find yourself questioning how or why an agenda like that ever got started when results of the study had yet to be published. A biased black mark was created before there was anything to pass any scientific judgment on! And the worst folks are the non-scientist so-called proponents. With no expertise themselves in the field of genetics all they can do is puppet what others say and have said.

 

Now I am not a scientist. I am therefore not a geneticist. I cannot read DNA results as I do not know how to read what the sequences in a DNA scan or histogram are showing me. And I freely admit all of that. All I can do is present what others have accomplished. I can however use some logic at a certain level to argue things for or against. In the case of the either the alleged Sasquatch nesting site and its investigation OR the Sasquatch Genome Project it might be best to keep things as simple as possible for the sake of discussion. Mitochondrial DNA is pretty easy stuff for laboratories to sequence. Basically because in a single cell there's a LOT of it. Nuclear DNA? not so much so its much more difficult. Basically because nuclear DNA lies in the nucleus of a cell. Mitochondria on the other hand lies in the cytoplasm within\ the cell but it's in the material outside the cell nucleus in the area between the nucleus and the cell wall. So lets look at just that.

 

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is the easiest stuff to sequence and match to something. It also happens to be all female oriented so there isn't anything about it that is male.in origin. So lets say someone is sequencing that mitochondrial and the results come back as being 100% Human female. There are no issues with that. The issues arise when that mtDNA is sampled from a hair that has been determined through microscopy to be NOT Human. In fact the hair doesn't match anything in the reference bank of mammals which includes every kind of animal known to science- including Human hair of all types, bear hair of all types and so on through the whole spectrum of known creatures. Oh boy, NOW WHAT?

 

One doesn't need nuclear DNA to ask this question or to get the Human mtDNA/non-Human hair conundrum. Visually inspect the hair's morphology under a microscope at 40-400x and match it to a known animal. Should be simple unless it turns out that it doesn't match anything. So then run the comparatively easy mtDNA test and it comes back Human- 100% Human. Never mind the nuclearDNA hoop to jump through. One can see there is already a mystery without it. If this occurs with the Sasquatch nest investigations and testing of whatever it is they find if anything then there's going to be yet another uproar regarding contaminated samples- guaranteed. Just saying all of this so that everyone is prepared for the worst.

Edited August 11, 2017 by hiflier

[norseman]

5 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Please do not accuse me of that in that tone or reference. I've done my home work and ask the right questions and present the right arguments in logic as well as what science is requiring. Yes, of course Matitlda is Chewbacca what does that have to do with the other witness' descriptive use of Chewbacca as a reference.

 

And you don't need a lab that specializes in new primate species. You only need a sample from an alleged new species and just about any lab can confirm it. Look there are experts everywhere in this field of DNA and hair microscopy. That science has been around for a long time and sotoday and even ten years ago isn't and wasn't cutting edge. This is dated July of 2000: https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric1.htm ANY lab can do a BLAST test against the GenBank. Any lab can do hair microscopy. For the people like who was on Ketchum's team it would be like falling off of a log. They could have done it in their sleep. People need to stop thinking any of this is specialized beyond being able to have the equipment and computers available in good labs, which is most universities and thousands of private institutions- never mine the labs that law enforcement have. Hair morphology is a no brainer, Norse, but when non- Human hair comes back Human and a bunch of labs get that result even though proper procedures are followed then there's something out there that science continues to ignore if in fact they are ignoring it.

 

You are so off base right now I don't really know what else to call it.

 

Her results came back not just of human DNA but of various animal DNA as well. Which means it flies in the face of evolutionary biology. 

 

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/the_ketchum_project_what_to_believe_about_bigfoot_dna_science

5 hours ago, Yuchi1 said:

Went over to the Project Grendel website last week and discovered there were apparently zero posts on it. Reckon no one is drinking any of that Kool aid?

 

What kool aid? How does this have any correlation to Melba Ketchum's shoddy DNA work?