Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 It directly has everything to do with them, because when you say it's incorrect, you are saying all the samples were also wrong, you can't say just her work is flawed but everybody else's work was ok, sorry that is not going to work. if your saying the study is no good then you are saying EVERYBODY involded with the work were wrong also, that's the other labs, universities, etc... if they all had completely different results maybe, but they were the same as hers so, they can't be right and her the only one wrong. You cannot claim the 'other labs, universities, etc.' were wrong. They provided their analysis of the samples, reporting them as human. Ketchum takes this to mean bigfoot has to have human mDNA. The 3 samples where nuDNA was sequenced there seem to be no analysis done by anyone except Ketchum, so again the sequencing may have been outsourced, but analysis and conclusions are all on Ketchum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 And who are these top-level scientists, Melba? Are they also reviewing the amazing HD footage that never appeared? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) ^^^ back to square one would be great but it's back to square -5. This is the Titanic with no life boats carrying 100+ of "the best" bigfoot DNA samples known to man. Edited February 16, 2013 by Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TwilightZone Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Awesome clip, Cervelo... I knew that phrase rang a bell somehow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 MK latest FB post I have independent analysis of our data going on. Just let the armchair skeptical scientists talk. If the outcome of what we are doing supports our analysis, then we are home free. If not, then I will announce that also. It involves top level scientists that have volunteered after I released the paper. If their findings are the same, they will go public. So, please be patient. Ok! I'm sitting in my armchair watching the previews... when is showtime for the HD video? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Yeah, Ketchum's being real open and honest with her study alright. Still super secret squatch squad, only privileged scientists that took the sacred oath can view this most holy of data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 The sleeping Matilda was the HD video that she promised. All the other ones belong to Mr. Erickson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 That little video clip is a joke. Here you are trying to get the attention of the scientific communtity and you submit that?lol. Between this paper, that video clip, the shady journal and 5 years of super secretive testing. WOW! Just WOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) @ Cervelo ... "Indiana Jones, Raiders of the Lost Ark" @ squatting squatch: WOW! Just WOW Yeah ... I just love waiting for this much WOW! Maybe I'll quit waiting. Edited February 16, 2013 by Oonjerah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted February 16, 2013 Moderator Share Posted February 16, 2013 Thinkin' out loud, mostly to myself. I've seen a lot out there, experienced a lot out there, over 35+ years. Melba's interpretation of her data falls dead in line with the only non-paranormal explanation available. If she's wrong, if it's wrong, I have to get out my tinfoil hat to deal with what I know to be fact. This is not a real comfortable situation for a life-long science guy to be in. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I see it like this. The bigfoot steak people heard from Melba that DNA confirmed bigfoot. So the Trent submission was supposed to be a slam dunk. Trent came back bear. Followed by righteous indignation and general confusion because they already "knew" that it was bigfoot per Ketchum. Now word on the street is that it could have been bear all along. Martin- no offense but not sure what “street†you’re living on? I’d definitely recommend going back through the Forensics thread here started after we released Trent report and even further back, I believe, in this thread, to get a full understanding of the facts and read our own words (Tyler as well), expressed caution etc.. as you couldn’t be further away from reality in your description… from “our†perspective. Justin had been told from almost immediately after submitting the sample that the circumstantial tissue was in fact a bigfoot. “He†was led to believe this until Ketchum called him out of the blue in January 2012. He also believed he was being contacted by Ketchum to get firsthand good news that maybe… finally…a date was set for the paper release. Thankfully, because he falsely anticipated good news, unknowingly to Dr. Ketchum, 3 other people/witnesses were on the call listening in on speaker phone. Any day (could even be Sunday or Monday) you’ll hear in Justin’s own words what was said, insinuated and requested by Dr. Ketchum and it wasn’t good news…it was shocking and not at all anticipated by him. The content of that call made him question Ketchum, her intentions and if the circumstantial tissue was what he really thought it was (but never claimed it was)…by circumstances found. He immediately notified me very rattled and this subsequently created both mistrust (Justin already had some suspicious about her, I had seen multiple red flags and zero checks and balances, in addition to not being confidant the recovered tissue was associated with subject purportedly shot…because of both circumstances and “timeâ€) and a very real sense of urgency to vet his sample with indep labs ASAP and at least run it against all NA mammalian candidates. Matter of fact, he pushed for testing since that night. I was already on board as you’ll understand why I took that conversation very personally from an ethical standpoint and with respect to every decent person associated with this subject and Wally, who’s one of my closest friend’s and financed her in good faith. Tyler had previously been in contact with Justin since the beginning and was always promised a sample to test. This is where we partnered together with parallel objectives of truth at any cost and transparency, to start vetting labs and get it done. All three of us, specifically Tyler and I, were not very confident in the sample for a myriad of reasons, including and especially… it was highly “circumstantial†in nature, but we wanted confirmation and hoped for the best, hence ….the results we got from both labs (my second report will be out by next week) were not a major revelation to either of us. They were disappointing nonetheless, but more so because of some false hope during the lengthy testing process and communications with Trent. The suggestion that any of us felt the Trent submission was “a slam dunk,†the sample was believed by us to be a “bigfoot†on behalf of Ketchum’s mere word (LOL) is grossly inaccurate and as much as I’ve detested her since knowing what she tried to do, it’s a bit insulting personally. There was no “general confusionâ€, the plan was to vet the sample and if our suspicions were confirmed publicly, notify everybody, as was our responsibility and expectations “we†set in advance …period. I have my circle of trusted friend’s in this field that sit on both sides of the aisle (many who participate here) and one person participating in this thread who can verify every word I just said from my perspective, is Melissa, whom has been a close, trusted friend for many years and who I kept in the loop in real time over the last 15 or so months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Dr. Ketchum posted on her Facebook page that the scientists came to her after an outspoken skeptic contacted them. They are someone everyone will listen to. She had heard of them but did not know them prior to them contacting her. She will make public their findings no matter what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Orygun Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Martin- no offense but not sure what “street†you’re living on? I’d definitely recommend going back through the Forensics thread here started after we released Trent report and even further back, I believe, in this thread, to get a full understanding of the facts and read our own words (Tyler as well), expressed caution etc.. as you couldn’t be further away from reality in your description… from “our†perspective. Justin had been told from almost immediately after submitting the sample that the circumstantial tissue was in fact a bigfoot. “He†was led to believe this until Ketchum called him out of the blue in January 2012. He also believed he was being contacted by Ketchum to get firsthand good news that maybe… finally…a date was set for the paper release. Thankfully, because he falsely anticipated good news, unknowingly to Dr. Ketchum, 3 other people/witnesses were on the call listening in on speaker phone. Any day (could even be Sunday or Monday) you’ll hear in Justin’s own words what was said, insinuated and requested by Dr. Ketchum and it wasn’t good news…it was shocking and not at all anticipated by him. The content of that call made him question Ketchum, her intentions and if the circumstantial tissue was what he really thought it was (but never claimed it was)…by circumstances found. He immediately notified me very rattled and this subsequently created both mistrust (Justin already had some suspicious about her, I had seen multiple red flags and zero checks and balances, in addition to not being confidant the recovered tissue was associated with subject purportedly shot…because of both circumstances and “timeâ€) and a very real sense of urgency to vet his sample with indep labs ASAP and at least run it against all NA mammalian candidates. Matter of fact, he pushed for testing since that night. I was already on board as you’ll understand why I took that conversation very personally from an ethical standpoint and with respect to every decent person associated with this subject and Wally, who’s one of my closest friend’s and financed her in good faith. Tyler had previously been in contact with Justin since the beginning and was always promised a sample to test. This is where we partnered together with parallel objectives of truth at any cost and transparency, to start vetting labs and get it done. All three of us, specifically Tyler and I, were not very confident in the sample for a myriad of reasons, including and especially… it was highly “circumstantial†in nature, but we wanted confirmation and hoped for the best, hence ….the results we got from both labs (my second report will be out by next week) were not a major revelation to either of us. They were disappointing nonetheless, but more so because of some false hope during the lengthy testing process and communications with Trent. The suggestion that any of us felt the Trent submission was “a slam dunk,†the sample was believed by us to be a “bigfoot†on behalf of Ketchum’s mere word (LOL) is grossly inaccurate and as much as I’ve detested her since knowing what she tried to do, it’s a bit insulting personally. There was no “general confusionâ€, the plan was to vet the sample and if our suspicions were confirmed publicly, notify everybody, as was our responsibility and expectations “we†set in advance …period. I have my circle of trusted friend’s in this field that sit on both sides of the aisle (many who participate here) and one person participating in this thread who can verify every word I just said from my perspective, is Melissa, whom has been a close, trusted friend for many years and who I kept in the loop in real time over the last 15 or so months. Short answer... bear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Dr. Ketchum posted on her Facebook page that the scientists came to her after an outspoken skeptic contacted them. They are someone everyone will listen to. She had heard of them but did not know them prior to them contacting her. She will make public their findings no matter what they are. Why doesn't she just upload the data to genbank instead of more secrecy? Want to take a guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION, As reported in the PRweb in Seattle WA atwww.seattlepi.com, “The team, led by Dr. Melba S. Ketchum, DVM, of DNA Diagnostics in Nacogdoches, TX, sequenced the three whole nuclear genomes using the next-generation Illumina HiSeq 2000 platform at University of Texas, Southwestern from a tissue sample, a saliva sample, and a blood sample. The three genomes all attained Q30 quality scores above 88 on the Illumina platform, significantly higher than the platform average of 85, indicating highly-purified, single-source DNA with no contamination for each sample. The three Sasquatch genomes align well with one-another and show substantial homology to primate sequences. NOTE: The Three Q30 Scores of the three Genomes,with over 90 Gb of Raw seqence for each sample (Comprising greater than 30x coverage) were 88.6, 88.4 and 88.7 respectively. The Q30 is the percent of reads that have the statistical probability greaer than 1:1000 of being correctly sequenced (According to Illumina, a pure single source sample would have a Q30 score of 80 or greater with an average of 85). Therefore, not only were the 3 sequences submitted from a single source, but the quality of the sequences were FAR ABOVE the average 85 Score on genomes sequenced using the Illumina Next Generation Sequencing Platform AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS Southwestern in Dallas, Texasâ€. A Further comment was: “The high quality of the Genomes can be attributed to the STRINGENT EXTRACTION PROCEDURES UTILIZED WHEREBY THE DNA WAS REPEATEDLY PURIFIEDâ€. PLEASE NOTE: It would appear that the University of Texas Southwestern is rather sure that these are good Genomes, and that they tested to be of very high quality. How could you ask for more than that? It is time for the Skeptics to admit that they were WRONG! It is a new Species. You will not be able to find a Geneticist who can argue with the results produced by the UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. NOT WITH THOSE HIGH Q30 scores. New species have been accepted by Science with as little as 16 KB. Just a small number of base pairs. The sample size here was 90 Gb for each of three samples. See the Supplementary Data 7-10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts