Did a Squatch do this?

[Doug]

Those aliens just have to put their hands into everything. 

[Darby Orcutt]

On 1/13/2023 at 1:14 PM, hiflier said:

it was DR. Hart's study- I'm simply running with his results.

Hey, good to see you on here again. I've been absent for quite a while.

 

I do want to caution you on "running" with Haskell Hart's hypothesis, as you're going far further than he would with it. Kudos to him for finding something potentially salvageable in the Ketchum, et al, data - BUT there are (as he himself says) a number of possible explanations for how those mutations could all have shown up in that study's data, including explanations that have nothing to do with Sasquatch. His point, and it is an excellent one, is that it is worth looking for these mutations in future studies because they MIGHT be related to Sasquatch. I plan to look for these same markers in my upcoming study. I think that Haskell Hart raises a great question, but until there is more data from another source than the Ketchum, et al study, it is simply a worthy question to investigate, not a conclusion to assume is correct. (I've discussed with Haskell and this is also how he saw it.)

 

[hiflier]

That's fine. And it's good to see you here as well. But I think I have to respectfully disagree with you and Dr. Hart regarding the data in the chart. To "explain" those mutations in a fashion other than what the data is clearly showing would be even more speculative than what is there on Table 22. Example: Where and how would any of the mutations grouped together like that be present in two genomes that are geographically separate? How do mutations that are NOT in the Genbank or phylotree show up in the a couple of the samples. How does one mutation that's rare in Humans get found with two other different ones, each also rare in Humans, in a single genome? And more so, that genome's mutations are identical to the mutations in another genome? When three mutations together, never mind two, was virtually non-existent across 20,000 Human genomes in the GenBank but are commonly found in other primates? How does one fashion other possible explanations for that?

 

Human DNA was filtered out of the equation before testing. What does that leave? It leaves "common in other primates" (and monkeys) in North America. And I do say all of this respectfully, Darby, because you and Dr. Hart are the experts here and I should (and I normally do) defer to most experts in their field. But in this case, I cannot bring myself to do so. I wish you luck in your search.

 

[Darby Orcutt]

11 hours ago, hiflier said:

That's fine. And it's good to see you here as well. But I think I have to respectfully disagree with you and Dr. Hart regarding the data in the chart. To "explain" those mutations in a fashion other than what the data is clearly showing would be even more speculative than what is there on Table 22. Example: Where and how would any of the mutations grouped together like that be present in two genomes that are geographically separate? How do mutations that are NOT in the Genbank or phylotree show up in the a couple of the samples. How does one mutation that's rare in Humans get found with two other different ones, each also rare in Humans, in a single genome? And more so, that genome's mutations are identical to the mutations in another genome? When three mutations together, never mind two, was virtually non-existent across 20,000 Human genomes in the GenBank but are commonly found in other primates? How does one fashion other possible explanations for that?

 

Human DNA was filtered out of the equation before testing. What does that leave? It leaves "common in other primates" (and monkeys) in North America. And I do say all of this respectfully, Darby, because you and Dr. Hart are the experts here and I should (and I normally do) defer to most experts in their field. But in this case, I cannot bring myself to do so. I wish you luck in your search.

 

You have to back up and consider all of the assumptions that you've made here. Yes, Ketchum assumed that their cleaning techniques were adequate to remove any human contamination - but as should be clear from Dr. Hart's analysis, that assumption is simply not true (and if it were, her team would be perhaps the only one ever in the history of genetics research to 100% filter out non-target DNA prior to analysis). You're also assuming that these mutations came from the same genome; they may not have at all. As Hart notes on p.37 of his book, the study's supposedly "whole genomes" alleged to be of the same species had wildly different numbers of bases (one of the nuclear sequences was nearly 5 times another!) Contamination from a common source (e.g., a human or even multiple humans working on the project) is certainly possible. I saw elsewhere where you distinguish between "Ketchum's interpretation" and "Ketchum's DNA." Fair enough to an extent. Her interpretation has been proven to be wrong. Her raw sequences, however, are certainly suspect - and seem to show obvious signs (both to Haskell and to me) of not having been produced in the ways that she claims they were (for example, the study doesn't mention how each sample was primed; her later claim that only universal primers were used doesn't seem to match up with the data or the typical protocols of the external labs that were used). Lastly, while these mutations may be rare right now in Genbank, we have to consider Genbank's limitations. There is a current effort (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jan/29/the-human-genome-needs-updating-but-how-do-we-make-it-fair) to get data in from populations that are woefully underrepresented; it may be that these mutations (nor their co-incidence) are that rare at all in a certain human population. The above are just a few reasons why the jury must still be out on any special significance that Haskell's observation might have. Again, I agree with him that it is a fantastic question to investigate, but it cannot even begin to be answered without more (and more trustworthy) data.

[hiflier]

I have made my "assumptions" on evidence gleaned by Dr. Hart after assessing the raw data from the 12 independent labs. Being a double blind study there was no bias in the sample results. And whether or not the samples were insufficiently cleaned the mutations in Table 22 presented them selves anyway. So sure, it's possible that a mutation could have come from a Human source. Any ONE of those mutations could have. The point of Table 22 was to show that the likelihood of one of those mutations being in a Human sample was extremely rare. Two mutation, highly improbable, to the point that the GenBank's library didn't have a Human genome presenting two mutations in the same genome, never mind all three.

 

And even though that was stated, ALL of the mutations were common in other primates including some monkeys. How does one get monkey mutations in a Human genome even if the genome isn't from a single source. Mutations are mutations. And those mutations, grouped as they were, in a single sample, TWICE OVER, from two different locations is simply coincidence or happenstance? I think not. Unless incompetence across the board was rampant, which I also think was not the case. I can see you point of underrepresented Human groups being a possible factor in the outcomes in Table 22, but I also argue that even under represented groups would not present mutations in their genomes numbering two or more where those mutations would be common in other primates and monkeys. That to me would be more of a stretch than attributing the mutations to the Sasquatch.

 

I assure you, this is not confirmation bias, Darby, We've talked before and you know I only go where the science leads. This is science and it's saying something incredibly remarkable if, as you say the mutations could all come from Humans. As individual mutations I could agree with you. But I cannot agree when looking at the diminishing rarity of one, then two, then three of these in North America- even if NOT from a single genome. But I'm not and will not underestimate the data in Table 22- it speaks for itself. Of course, for me, all of this is predicated on whether I trust Dr. Hart's work or not....I do in fact trust- and understand- his work. Otherwise I would be very nervous to evidently be the only one convinced of what his work is showing. I'm and very happy that you will be looking for those very same mutations in your own work. But it also tells me that there is something highly unusual and very important about what you're seeing in the data as well.

 

[Darby Orcutt]

We are definitely in agreement that this is worth looking at. My issue is not at all with a lack of trust in Haskell's work, it is in part the trepidation I share with Haskell on the validity of the underlying data that his observations are based on (i.e., the foundational data is NOT his own work and looks to be problematic), as well as that, while it certainly looks odd, there are still other possible explanations. 

I don't disagree that it *could* be correct, just that this is far from a proven or sure thing at this stage.

I know you are well-read and thoughtful on these things, and hopefully we'll have more data in the future so that you and I can be on the same page on this point as we are on many others!

[hiflier]

That is something I would greatly look forward to, sir.  And I couldn't be more in agreement that the data "could" be correct, and I am indeed inclined to think that it is. But I also agree that, since Dr. Hart is not the source of the data, it can present a limiting level of scientific confidence. I thank you for your patience with me and I will wait to see if your and Dr. Hart's work can further support Table 22 in the future. If it can be, then hopefully, with so much riding on the outcome, it will be accepted by professional and citizen scientists alike- whether they be Sasquatch proponents or not.

 

I also think it was important for the Forum and its members to see this discussion and, for that reason, I am grateful our your dialogue. It's all good.