Jump to content

The Sasquatch Genome Project: A Failed DNA Study


Recommended Posts

gigantor

The Sasquatch Genome Project: A Failed DNA Study

by @hvhart (Author), Jeff Meldrum (Foreword)

 

Because of the extraordinary claims in "Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies" (Ketchum et al., 2013) the Bigfoot Community has been debating it ever since. 

 

This book is the result of research over seven years (more than the original study) in understanding the Sasquatch Genome Project and its published paper.  Dr. Haskell Hart tells the story of his increasing involvement and understanding of the paper as he presents his own results and conclusions, which are at odds with the Ketchum et al. paper.  

 

He first explains the structure and function of DNA as background. With 45 figures and 29 tables of data (more than in the original paper), all carefully explained to the layman, this extensive scientific critique of the paper is the only one of its kind.

 

hvhart.jpg

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

In the eBook at location 1842 there was quoted:

 

“• The nuDNA did not contain the human TYR gene. This gene is associated with skin and skin pigmentation in humans.

 

• The nuDNA did not contain the human HAR1 gene. This gene is a “human accelerated region” that is associated with human neurological development.”

Hart, Haskell. The Sasquatch Genome Project: A Failed DNA Study . Kindle Direct Publishing. Kindle Edition.

 

My question is: What genes WERE detected? specifically, were any NOTCH2NL Human or Great Ape gene variations, associated with brain development, detected in the nuDNA. Or perhaps the Opsin gene (indicating the presence oif a tapetum lucidum for night vision? Or did the SGP team even think to look?

Link to post
Share on other sites
hvhart

The SGP paper and website indicate the genes that were sequenced.  They do not include the two you mentioned, neither of which is on Chromosome 11, the only one (partially) sequenced.  Given the black bear and dog results for samples 26 and 140, these samples are no longer relevant to your questions anyway.  It will probably take a full genome sequence to answer your questions, although with specific primers one might be able to  sequence these genes, which are on Chromosomes 1 and X respectively. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hvhart
Just now, Outkast said:

I see the paperback is now available and I've placed my order...

Thank you, Outkast.  I hope you enjoy it.  Please use this topic to ask questions or challenge any points.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

I very much liked the fact that, along with your fine research into HOW the SGP failed in its approach to proving Sasquatch existence, you included some very positive points for future Sasquatch DNA efforts. At about 2/3 into the book you discussed rare mutations which I was unable to paraphrase accurately so I hope you don't mind if I directly quote those key passages (my underlining):

 

*Note* "S"= Sample

 

"Could S24, S28, S29, and S138 actually be sasquatch samples with a vestige of nonhuman primate mutations, either through parallel or reverse evolution? The random occurrence of three rare mutations (7852A, 9083C, and 13209T) in all of these samples is a statistically improbable coincidence."

 

"Even more remarkable are the identical sequences of S29 and S138, which have in addition to these mutations three additional rare heteroplasmic mutations (C3626Y, C6571Y, and C9195Y) in common. Sequencing errors would not likely be at the same three positions in two independent samples. Both of these samples are from British Columbia and were collected by the same people....whose mtDNA was found not to be in these samples, according to Ketchum et al. These two samples may be from a single sasquatch or two closely related individuals.
 

Obviously, more DNA samples, especially from the regions of OK, CA, NM, and BC, are required to answer these questions."

 

Interesting, AND positive and is why I've been focusing my e-DNA research in especially the PacNW region with regards to locating a facility that will test suspected Sasquatch samples should they be gathered. :)

 

Since I have finished the book I will have more comments, but you get high marks for your open and understandable approach in presenting a rather complex scientific refutation of the SGP/Ketchum et al. results and interpretations. Thank you Dr. Hart!!  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
NCBFr
On 8/23/2020 at 2:15 AM, gigantor said:

The Sasquatch Genome Project: A Failed DNA Study

by @hvhart (Author), Jeff Meldrum (Foreword)

 

Because of the extraordinary claims in "Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies" (Ketchum et al., 2013) the Bigfoot Community has been debating it ever since. 

 

This book is the result of research over seven years (more than the original study) in understanding the Sasquatch Genome Project and its published paper.  Dr. Haskell Hart tells the story of his increasing involvement and understanding of the paper as he presents his own results and conclusions, which are at odds with the Ketchum et al. paper.  

 

He first explains the structure and function of DNA as background. With 45 figures and 29 tables of data (more than in the original paper), all carefully explained to the layman, this extensive scientific critique of the paper is the only one of its kind.

 

hvhart.jpg

 

Gig - Posted Sunday at 2;15 AM?  You come home from a late night party and decide to get in to BF DNA?  Very impressed with your dedication. 

 

Thanks for the tip.  Soft copy will be delivered to me on 9/4.  Look forward to the discussion.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
On 8/27/2020 at 6:53 PM, NCBFr said:

Gig - Posted Sunday at 2;15 AM?

 

Infrastructure maintenance = night work. It sucks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

I finished Dr. Hart's missive (Kindle edition) tonight. I come away a little more informed about the whole DNA subject. I'm thankful for that.

 

I previously had a dubious opinion of Melba Ketchum, and regret that impression was not improved in reading her interactions with Dr. Hart. He gave her every opportunity to reconsider many of her (and her publishing group's) conclusions, and she generally resorted to ad hominem replies. She comes off (at least as related by Dr. Hart) as the lesser person.

 

I wonder whether BFF might facilitate another conversation between the two, and hopefully encourage a public, more cordial interaction between them. Is this something BFF members would find interesting, and worthy?

 

Edit: And would Dr. Hart be a willing participant, if such a conversation could be created? @hvhart

Edited by Incorrigible1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

I support that suggestion. Maybe if we can provide a welcoming atmosphere to both, without criticism or animosity, we could possibly ask Dr. Ketchum some of our own questions directly? I would want to ask if there are any samples left preserved from the study. And also possibly urge the two of them to pursue further what I quoted in my last post here regarding those curious gene mutations.

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
24 minutes ago, hiflier said:

I support that suggestion. Maybe if we can provide a welcoming atmosphere to both, without criticism or animosity, we could possibly ask Dr. Ketchum some of our own questions directly? I would want to ask if there are any samples left preserved from the study. And also possibly urge the two of them to pursue further what I quoted in my last post here regarding those curious gene mutations.

I question whether she could accept questions that aren't 100% backing her views. She's quick to cast the victim card.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

This wouldn't be about her "views"......just the science. Dr. Hart found the alignment of genetic mutations across different sample sources interesting, and do I. Out of the entire SGP study that is the curiosity that is the most intriguing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
hvhart

You could invite her to comment on my book, however she has stated numerous times that she does not engage in Internet debates.  She prefers her own FB page where she controls the narrative and various sensational radio shows where sympathetic hosts feed her softball questions for her to seemingly hit them out of the park, without any chance of rebuttal.  See my Appendix D for the only exception on Die Tiefe.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Thanks for responding on this idea. On the science side of you're own book, do you have any info on what proteins those genetic mutations express and perhaps the phenotypes they may represent? Or maybe just what the original genes are responsible for that the mutation originated from? I'm just trying to get a feel for which direction the mutations went and maybe why the mutations may have occurred. Maybe they were a slight adaptation to PacNW environmental conditions? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...