Jump to content
Bigfoot Gumbo

Where is the original PGF?

Recommended Posts

hiflier

Then maybe you, or someone else, should look over the raw data and come up with an interpretation of the data that everyone can live with? Because as I've always said, it isn't Ketchum, it's only the data and how it was acquired that matters.

 

i.e., zero in on the data because the data will not change no matter who interprets it. So it's all about the science, not the people. Why BF aficionados EVER allow Humans to get in the way of data results is beyond me. All that does is create reasons for ignoring the science. There is twelve labs, double-blind studies, and results. And yet too many folks trash the entire thing because they allowed Ketchum to take center stage? In a way this doesn't surprise me, but it's extremely worrisome when it happens. If anyone is truly interested in science and what science procures then one MUST check their attitudes at the front door, back up, look at the data, and forget the people.

 

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
17 minutes ago, hiflier said:

There is twelve labs, double-blind studies, and results.

 

PURPORTED results.   As claimed by Ketchum.   I do not believe there is any independent verification of those results thus no validation of her claims.   I don't believe she allowed anyone that level of access.

 

18 minutes ago, hiflier said:

And yet too many folks trash the entire thing because they allowed Ketchum to take center stage?

 

Ketchum was not "allowed" to take center stage.    She was the stage manager, owner, coordinator.   She seemingly had complete cooperation, and still does, of the person who paid the bills.    The only person in any position to "allow" Ketchum anything was Ketchum herself.  

 

In the end, it is all about Ketchum.   There is no separating her from the work, from the results, from the outcome.  

 

MIB

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
17 minutes ago, MIB said:

Ketchum was not "allowed" to take center stage.    She was the stage manager, owner, coordinator.   She seemingly had complete cooperation, and still does, of the person who paid the bills.    The only person in any position to "allow" Ketchum anything was Ketchum herself.  

 

In the end, it is all about Ketchum.   There is no separating her from the work, from the results, from the outcome.  

 

MIB

 

One flaw, the results are not hers, they came from the 12 labs. and that's the point. Why folks think otherwise boggles the mind. She owns the interpretation which is where everything fell apart.

 

I have derailed things enough here and so need to quit.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

The problem is the data itself.....it’s snake oil.

 

And Melba is the snake oil salesman that tried to swindle the masses.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
3 minutes ago, hiflier said:

One flaw, the results are not hers, they came from the 12 labs.

 

No, not really.    Everything we think we know about those results came to us via Ketchum with Ketchum's spin on them.   We do NOT know what the results were, only what they were purported to be .. spun for the purpose of supporting whatever story she wanted to tell.     **We do not have independent verification of what Ketchum said those labs' results were.**

 

MIB

Edited by MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Data is data. Period

So, let's just throw out the elephant because the owner called it a zebra?

 

Here's the thing, since no one has a Sasquatch genome to compare to, how the hell would anyone know what to change in the data to make it reflect a Sasquatch? This is why arguments against the data fail. 

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
6 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

No, not really.    Everything we think we know about those results came to us via Ketchum with Ketchum's spin on them.   We do NOT know what the results were, only what they were purported to be .. spun for the purpose of supporting whatever story she wanted to tell.     **We do not have independent verification of what Ketchum said those labs' results were.**

 

MIB

 

Yes we do.

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bigfoot-dna-test-results_n_3541431

 

It came back manbearpig.

8 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Data is data. Period

So, let's just throw out the elephant because the owner called it a zebra?  

 

Thats the problem. The data supports manbearpig. So it’s not a result of something evolution has produced. It’s a result of Ketchum’s sloppy DNA practices. Cross contamination of various samples than make it look like some sort of Dr. Moreau experiment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

You have Huffpost, which for me only links to AOL current news and weather. But at least I clicked on it. I have this: http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/sasquatch_genome_project_003.htm

 

So maybe you can show me exactly where a supposed incompetent geneticist fudged the data and turned it into manbearpig? How do 12 different labs cross contaminate samples when even the most basic of DNA lab techniques are meant to prevent such things? So again where exactly did the evil Ketchum stick her witch's broom stick into the cauldron and stir the nuDNA pot?

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
10 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

You're missing the point.    sasquatchgenomeproject.org is Melba Ketchum.    There is no verification of Ketchum's work which does not lead back to Ketchum as the original source for verification.   

 

38 minutes ago, hiflier said:

So again where exactly did the evil Ketchum stick her witch's broom stick into the cauldron and stir the nuDNA pot?

 

If you follow the backtrail of each purported verification, they all eventually lead back to Ketchum reporting Ketchum's findings, there is no independent source.  None.  Those 12 labs' purported results do not come to us directly from them, all we know about them is what Ketchum has told us they say and she did so in the way of making excuses for not delivering what she promised.  

 

MIB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

So then. All of the raw a-c-g-t sequence strings was completely fabricated? And all of Dr. Watts correspondences to GenBank were lies and fabrication? And 130 submitted samples were all contaminated and there wasn't one single professional in the group that countered the summary? That she took the raw data and somehow mushed it up in a way that three genomes pointed to an nuDNA result of unknown hominid? Is she really that brilliant? And finally, that everyone went along with this big shakedown of the public?

 

So this looks like the way things stand: Dr. Gemmel will always be associated with Loch Ness (no monster), Dr. Sykes with the Yeti (no monster), and Ketchum with Sasquatch. With the only one taking a fall being the one that came out with positive results for a cryptid- Ketchum. So there's obviously something wrong with only the SGP? Seems more than bit off to me. Seems more like big money is at work here. It's one thing to go out and hoax an encounter or a footprint. It's entirely another to hoax a 5 year study that includes reputable people and institutions. But of course, me being me, I'm the only one who thinks so.

 

I'm also the only one keeping the Sasquatch nest subject alive and just to drive the point home, I will bring up Claudia Ackley, whose San Bernardino Sasquatch lawsuit we have also heard little or nothing about. But I don't see anyone here apparently interested in any of it enough to see if any of it still matters. For everyone but myself, I don't think it really does. Ah well.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
4 minutes ago, hiflier said:

So then. All of the raw a-c-g-t sequence strings was completely fabricated? And all of Dr. Watts correspondences to GenBank were lies and fabrication? And 130 submitted samples were all contaminated and there wasn't one single professional in the group that countered the summary? That she took the raw data and somehow mushed it up in a way that three genomes pointed to an nuDNA result of unknown hominid? Is she really that brilliant? And finally, that everyone went along with this big shakedown of the public?

 

Potentially yes, potentially no.    You are looking for certainty where there is none.   

 

The 3 genomes is a red flag.    What she presented, claiming it is 3 full genomes, is nowhere near enough data.   From what I could find out, it requires several terabytes of data for a single full genome, so we should expect something 10 terabyte ballpark at least for 3 full genomes.     What she presented, if I recall correctly, was in the 100G range, so about 1/100th enough data.    When confronted with the discrepancy, she dismissed her critics, who were subject matter experts (which is why they saw problems with the amount of data), with "well, you're just not educated enough on the topic to question me / my level of expertise."  (See any narcissism?)  

 

What it boils down to is this: she used an inappropriate process for extracting the DNA ... too harsh, so it broke the DNA segments into pieces too short.   Then the "next generation" matching used overlaps too short when reconstructing the presumed original DNA.    Between the two, we come up with Norse's "manbearpig" DNA, the lemur DNA, chicken, snake, and several others.   When Melba saw that, she referred to "angel DNA" which matched everything.    It wasn't "angel", it was experimental flaw, first in the laboratory procedures that broke the DNA down too far .. essentially degraded it after it had been cleaned for contamination reintroducing a new kind of contamination, and then an over-optimistic matching process which reassembled the data incorrectly.       What she should have seen, as a professional, was not angel DNA, it was contamination, but she was too invested in proving biblical creation by proving bigfoot is nephilim .. her real agenda.   

 

Remember that one of her source samples was Justin Smeja's bear "steak".   She reported it as bigfoot, remember?   109 out of 109 positive for bigfoot?    And when he questioned her, she urged him most strongly to destroy the remaining sample with bleach to break down the DNA too far for further testing.    Does this not raise red flags for you?    So, with help from Bart Cutino and Tyler Huggins, he sent more sample off to Trent University for testing and it came back bear ... correctly.    In a criminal case, this would be fraud, then attempted witness tampering to cover the fraud.

 

I'm .. rather flabbergasted that you have to be reminded of this.   Sorry, man, but it has to be said:  you pose a someone conversant but you're falling flat.  

 

MIB

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Back in Kechum's day there were NO full genomes of any mammal. In fact There were no full genomes of any mammal in the GenBank even by 2017. But the term Whole Genome Sequencing was still used.  I'll leave it to you to look into that a bit more for yourself? I mean the term whole genome makes people think of WHOLE GENOMES when in fact that isn't what was meant back then or even today. But science calls it that. Don't ask me why. Most of the DNA sequencing that I was aware of is what is called SNP which is mostly mitochondrial chasing of ancestry, haplotype, and species ID. It is nowhere near the full sequencing of the entire DNA strand.

 

So when you say terabytes of data you are correct but the fact of the matter was there weren't terabytes of data that could even BE sequenced. So the SGP not only didn't produce terabytes of data, but then no scientist anywhere else did either. I'm just saying all of this because to many, whole genomes mean....well.....whole genomes, but the term actually doesn't mean what people think it means, or should mean.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Why has this become a thread about Ketchem? Her mess has nothing to do with the PGF, much less the OP.

 

I, for one, would appreciate it if we could try to keep threads at least somehow connected to the specific topic.

 

Thanks

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Agreed. My apologies, Bill.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...