Skeptic finds 4 year Bigfoot project "intriguing"

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Magical Realist, Mar 16, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 14 of 20
  1. Daecon

    Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    I saw a bigfoot too.

    If you give me money I'll go on an expedition to find one and bring back proof.

    I can't guarantee results but trust me, I'm a professional bigfoot hunter.

    So, where's my money?
     
    Daecon, Apr 22, 2015
    #261

  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru

    Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Kittamaru, Apr 22, 2015
    #262

  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist

    Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,807
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2015
    Magical Realist, Apr 23, 2015
    #263

  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Daecon

    Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    And yet no physical evidence.
     
    Daecon, Apr 23, 2015
    #264
  8. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    And as I pointed out before, if there was a half tonne hominid that was so closely related to human beings, they would probably be the ones that dominated over their much smaller and weaker cousins. Not the other way around. I find it extraordinary that something that big became extinct less than 15,000 years ago could not have left any trace whatsoever. As someone who has actually studied archaeology, I find the thought of that virtually ridiculous.

    How is it an insult to ask if your education was theism based or not? You clearly have little understanding of biology and how genes even work, so my question is not meant to be insulting, it is to try to find out what you do know.

    So why does Ketchum's DNA show that they are 99%+ Homo sapien and she refers to them as "human"? Even the so called peer review she had declared the samples as "humans". You didn't even read her website where all the information and raw data from her study is provided for public viewing?

    Wow, do you even read what you write?

    So now giant apes kidnapped human females, enslaved them and had lots of sex with them for them to have hybrid hairy apes babies...

    Watch less king kong. Seriously. That is absolutely ridiculous.

    It's in her press release. I am not paying $30 for her study as I refuse to give her any money. Geneticists who have gone through her study have discussed it and it has already been linked in this thread. Your refusal to read those discussions is not my problem. Scroll back and read them.

    And I already linked you what she advised she was testing for. Opossum was not on the list of other animals they looked for in their labs, hence why they would not have found it. Opossum was not classified as "common" animal under her study.

    It isn't just that she wouldn't self publish. It is that she actually withdrew her study from one peer review site and after Nature asked her to do better, because her study was apparently abysmal with spelling mistakes, bizarre claims that were unfounded and not supported by her evidence, and they asked her to do further tests on the DNA samples she had provided. She refused to do so. She then created two websites and hid her connection to those sites and tried to pass them off as being legitimate scientific journals. What she did not disclose was that those two "journals" were only going to be publishing her study. They were not real sites at all. In effect, she created two fake sites to publish and charged people for being able to access them. Even bigfoot researchers were appalled and requested that she send the samples to independent labs for testing.

    When an independent lab did test her 111 samples, they found that the unknown DNA that had been sent to her by random people (that's right, she didn't go out and collect these herself, people who read about what she wanted to do sent her the samples) was actually an opossum. They also found that there appeared to be a lot of contamination with the samples she was using. She denied this was true and threw a wobbly.

    You still don't understand?

    *Sigh*

    The contamination did not happen in the lab. It would have more than likely occurred when the samples were collected in the outdoors by the random people who sent her those samples.

    It means the labs were sent contaminated samples.

    Ketchum's study was to try to find how it would have evolved. What she provided were contaminated human samples and some samples of animals which she tried to pass off as bigfoot. At no time did her labs test for opossum. They provided what they tested against, and opossum was not tested for at any of the labs they used. The mountain of proof she supposedly provided were human and not bigfoot. Which makes sense, because the people who are searching for bigfoot are so keen to prove it exists, they are faking evidence. There is no mountain of proof. There are just people roaming the countryside lying to you.
     
    Bells, Apr 23, 2015
    #265
  9. billvon

    billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,646
    Does that include the one on Mars?
    ================
    NASA Photo Shows Humanoid Figure on Mars
    Published January 23, 2008
    FoxNews.com

    Is it Bigfoot? A Tusken Raider from the first "Star Wars" movie? Or just a rock?

    British newspapers went crazy Wednesday morning about an image from Mars that appears to show a humanoid figure descending a shallow hillside.

    The "alien" is actually a blurry detail in a huge panoramic photograph snapped on the edge of Mars' Gusev crater by NASA's Spirit rover in early November, and posted on NASA's Web site on Jan. 2.
    =================
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/01/23/nasa-photo-shows-humanoid-figure-on-mars/
     
    billvon, Apr 23, 2015
    #266
  10. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Isn't that the show I linked about before where the hosts themselves were complaining that they were editing it to give the impression that horses and people pretending to be bigfoot in the forests, were actual bigfoot sightings? And they were having to correct their own shows and explain that it wasn't bigfoot but a horse and people? And they even admitted that what they are doing is actually fake..? This is the same animal planet show you are linking now?

    Hahahahhaaa!

    Is it a bad sign that the official Animal Planet press release for the show refers to the team by first name only? Lesser shows might have soberly discussed the credentials of their scientific team and perhaps even mentioned their last names. But paranormal reality shows don't roll that way so presenting the team members as characters fits right into the spirit of the thing.

    The team, Matt, Cliff, Bobo, & Ranae usually attempt to re-create a piece of Bigfoot footage or evidence each time, perhaps imagining that such pointless activity shows a scientific approach or maybe this is just another way to pad out the hour.

    Much use is made of a FLIR thermal imaging camera as the team walks around the woods at night looking for a "Squatch" (apparently the producers decided that this term is snappier than "Bigfoot" because everyone on the team uses it in an embarrassingly self-consious way).

    In a recent show, the team stumbled upon an upright figure in a field. The figured showed up very brightly on the FLIR. It was hard to make out just what it was but it looked alive.

    The team approached closer and closer and, just as it seemed we might find out what the object was, the producers clumsily cut away from the FLIR image and we are told (but not shown!) that the creature disappeared into the surrounding brush. We lost Bigfoot!

    As a viewer, this was a most frustrating experience. Why did they cut away? What was that figure?

    Matt Moneymaker explained the whole thing on the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) forums:

    "The heat blip in the meadow was a horse. I said so on camera. I talked about the horse for a good long while. I figured the producers would edit it honestly, but they didn’t. Their editing made it look as though I did not identify the figure before it ran off. I did. It was a horse. They inserted lines from other scenes where I talk about something running away before I could figure out what it was." ​

    Moneymaker, founder of the BFRO, is leader of the Finding Bigfoot team. His statements are a rare revelation from the actual makers of a paranormal show that what they are doing is cynically and completely fake.    ​

    In another show Matt is again in the woods viewing things through the FLIR and sees a figure on a hill above him. He takes off yelling and wildly running after it. We see fleeting glimpses of humanoid figure fleeing. Is it Bigfoot? Alas, the creature gets away again. Should the show really be called "Losing Bigfoot?"

    After some stilted and manufactured drama in which the team argues with Matt about how wise it is to run off alone after a potential huge hairy unknown creature, Matt ends the argument by saying, "Let's go back and look at the tape." For some reason we viewers are not shown the tape again. Why would that be?

    Moneymaker says:

    "… the thing I ran after up the hill was a human — someone who was sneaking around us in the woods trying to watch the production in progress. I said so repeatedly and vehemently at the time, for the cameras, but they edited out all of that in order to make it seem unclear what I was chasing after."​

    Other members of the team also seem to be upset with the way the show came out. In another forum, someone claiming to be Bobo wrote about the show:

    "Everything Matt said is true. We’re getting screwed. You people have no idea how much Matt and I fought with the producers to have any legitimacy on this show...Sorry to all of the squatchers that are bummed out on how they’re doing it. I assure it isn’t us." ​
     
    Bells, Apr 23, 2015
    #267
  11. Magical Realist

    Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,807
    No.. the 111 samples sent to her simply could not all be a possum. That doesn't even make sense. The 6 labs that tested them came up with human mitochrondrial DNA and unknown primate nuclear DNA. It's confirmed in the report. Read it for yourself:

    http://www.sasquatchgenomeproject.org/sasquatch_genome_project_004.htm
     
    Magical Realist, Apr 23, 2015
    #268
  12. Magical Realist

    Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,807
    What does that show have to do with those 10 Bigfoot sightings? Trying to poison the well again I see..
     
    Magical Realist, Apr 23, 2015
    #269
  13. Kristoffer

    Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    All I know is that if you crash into a bigfoot you become a serial killer.
     
    Kristoffer, Apr 23, 2015
    #270
  14. Daecon

    Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    The only thing that doesn't make sense is why you're still clinging to this idea that bigfoot is a real thing.
     
    Daecon, Apr 23, 2015
    #271
  15. spidergoat

    spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Not a real scientific report. Real science is published in reputable peer-reviews journals.
     
    spidergoat, Apr 23, 2015
    #272
  16. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    The DNA was 100% human. In the words of Leonid Kruglyak, a geneticist from Princeton:

    “To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid. Instead, analyses either come back as 100% human, or fail in ways that suggest technical artifacts. They make the bizarre claim that the failures might be caused by novel, nonstandard structure of the DNA (“Electron micrographs of the DNA revealed unusual double strand – single strand – double strand transitions which may have contributed to the failure to amplify during PCR.”) which would mean this DNA was different from DNA in all other known species. There’s also the strange statement they couldn’t deposit sequences in GenBank because it’s a new/unknown taxon — GenBank does that no problem.”​

    She was the one who claimed that 1% of the nucleus was of an unknown hominid. The samples had obviously been terribly contaminated, probably while being collected. The 1% of DNA they found in the samples they collected that they claimed had to have been from a hominid because it was "unknown" and was not supported by the common animals they were testing for, was an opossum. Since she provided a list of animals they were testing against to rule them out, did not contain opossum DNA, hence why it came back as unknown. She claimed it had to be bigfoot because it was "known" DNA and since bigfoot is supposedly "unknown", it had to be DNA of an unknown close human relative that had sex with human females.

    When the DNA that she claimed was unknown and thus had to be from an unknown hominid (bigfoot) and labs tested it and came back with opossum, it completely destroyed her study and it is why she threw a hissy fit about it.

    The DNA she collected and claimed was bigfoot DNA:

    Ketchum and co-workers found some European haplotypes from sequencing of their PCR products. They conclude, implausibly, that this is supported by the Solutrean hypothesis, an obscure idea that humans came over from Europe. The only basis for this hypothesis is that tools of the Solutrean culture, which existed in Europe between 17,000 and 20,000 years ago, seem to resemble tools from the Clovis culture, which developed in North America around 13,000 years ago. There are huge problems with this hypothesis - that Europeans came to North America around 13,000 years ago and spread tool-making to the mostly Asian-derived Native American population. Most archeaological and carbon-dating experiments emphatically do not support it. So why do Ketchum and co-workers jump to the most unlikely and assumption-laden conclusion to explain their data? Applying Occam's razor - that one should first go with and test the simplest of hypotheses when there are multiple explanations for something - would lead one to conclude that the sample was contaminated by one of the team members of European extraction.​

    It has everything to do with it. Because when even the bigfoot searchers on the show are coming out and saying what is being shown on TV is fake, it isn't poisoning the well you are trying to dig. It is to show you that not everything you read is as it seems.

    There is big money in bigfoot MR and some people will do whatever it takes to cash in. Even if it means claiming they throw rocks, beat trees with sticks and smell like wet horse.
     
    Bells, Apr 23, 2015
    #273
  17. Magical Realist

    Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,807
    Oh so now it WASN'T possum DNA but human DNA? You keep changing your story depending on which skeptic website you are quoting. Or is it a hybrid of possum and human now? They have all sorts of stories don't they? Faked results. Contaminated results. Possum results. lol! Many of the samples they checked were FUR samples that were obviously not human but had human mitochondrial DNA. When's the last time you saw someone walking around with thick fur and living in forests where patches of that fur is left on trees and branches? Like I said, the samples were double checked by labs and and confirmed. That's good enough for me. See next post.

    LOL! Uh no..a guy starring on a TV show saying the producers did something dishonest doesn't reflect on totally separate accounts of Bigfoot described by eyewitnesses years earlier. That's just insane. Did you even read the accounts? I'm thinking no. You have no intention of considering the evidence presented here without prejudice and bias. I don't think you're even capable of it. All you do is dig up dirt on people and defame them as some sort of proof bigfoot sightings are all hoaxes. They're not, and you have no evidence they are either. You just slander and belittle and mock, incapable of presenting any rational alternative reason for any of the evidence I have given in this thread. Oh except for those amazing rock throwing bears. I forgot about those. lol!
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2015
    Magical Realist, Apr 23, 2015
    #274
  18. Magical Realist

    Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,807
    "Some “genetic experts” are claiming that the DNA sequences that were extracted by Dr. Ketchum are nothing more than mis-identification of common animals because parts of the genome match common animals like possum, bear, coyote, etc. They also claim that any human results must be the result of contamination. This is disingenuous and misleading (A Lie). The “genetic experts” are relying on the general public’s ignorance of genetics to confuse and misrepresent the facts. It has become the latest tactic the critics of the Ketchum DNA Study use to attempt the discredit the study.

    The fact is many organisms on this planet share many of the same DNA sequences. The critics are only looking at select sequence of the Ketchum genome and declaring it is a “known animal”. They are not looking at the genome as a whole. Here are some interesting FACTS about the genetic similarity between humans and animals:

    ·Genome variation from one human to another is .5% or all humans are 99.5% alike.
    ·Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated. (source).
    ·Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans (source)
    ·75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)
    ·The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).
    ·About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source).

    Dr. Ketchum discovered that the Sasquatch is a hybrid. The mitochondrial DNA which comes from the mother is 100% human but the nuclear DNA which comes from the father is unique or “novel”. This means when Dr. Ketchum extracted the nuclear DNA and used an industry accepted software program that compared the Sasquatch nuclear DNA to ALL the DNA sequences in Genbank. The application is known as BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool). Genbank contains 152,599,230,112 base pairs.
    ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenBank)

    NO match was found for the nuclear DNA, I say again NO MATCH.

    When a “genetic expert” claims he has looked at the 3 complete Sasquatch genomes Dr. Ketchum published and he found sequences similar to a possum, bear, dog etc. and that this means the DNA has been “misidentified” or that Dr. Ketchum is “hoaxing her results” then he is misleading you! For all intensive purposes he is lying to you! He is using the fact that a high percentage of the DNA sequences in ALL animals/humans are similar and playing off the general public’s ignorance of this fact to lie and mislead people.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!






    The DNA Samples

    Three DNA samples were collected and completely sequenced. This means a complete genetic profile of both the Mitochondrial DNA and Nuclear DNA was produced.
    Sample 26 - A piece of flesh, hide, and hair reported to be from Bigfoot that was shot in Northern California.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Sample 31 - Blood collected from a plate that had sand paper on it to cut the tongue when the Bigfoot licked it. This was collected in Alabama by the Erickson Project under the supervision of a PhD in wildlife biology.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Sample 140 - Blood collected of a down spout that had been bitten into and punctured. (Please tell me if you know of any humans that could or would bite into an aluminum downspout and puncture it with their teeth.) This sample was collected in Illinois.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The Findings

    Dr. Ketchum was able to extract good quality DNA from these three samples. The samples were good enough to run through a machine called a HiSeq 2000. This machine will sequence the DNA and produce what is known as a DNA profile or complete Genome. Once she had her sequences she compared the Mitochondrial DNA to the Genbank and found that this DNA was 100% human in all three samples. This means it could not be from an animal or an ape. She then compared the Nuclear DNA to the Genbank and she could not find a match for any of the three samples. This means that she had a life form that had a human mother and a father that was not in the known genetic database.

    Dr. Ketchum began comparing sections of the Nuclear DNA to human DNA to find out where it was different. All humans have the TYR gene, which is associated with skin pigmentation, and the HAR1 gene, which is a “human accelerated region” associated with human neurological development. She found that the Sasquatch DNA from all three samples lacked these gene sequences. This means that the father could not be human as we know it! Dr. Ketchum and the entire DNA project team has discovered a completely new and never before seen life form or hominin. When she compared the samples to each other they were a match or better from the same family or type of hominin.

    Bottom Line

    The DNA Study collected three samples for DNA, one flesh sample and two blood samples. The samples were collected at different times in three distinct regions of the country. The Mitochondrial DNA was human in all three samples which rules out animal or ape. The Nuclear DNA from all three samples did not match any DNA in the Genbank DNA database which contains 152,599,230,112 base pairs. The Nuclear DNA of the three samples does not contain the TYR Gene or the HAR1 Gene which ALL humans have so the father is not human and the DNA sample CAN NOT be contaminated by a human source since these genes are missing. If there was contamination the HAR1 and TYR gene would be present in the sequences.

    Final Conclusion

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    There is an unknown hominin in the United States of America that is a human hybrid. The mother is of human origin and the father is a non-human of unknown origin. Since eye witnesses saw the donor of sample 26 and sample 31 and they described the donors as being hair covered, bipedal, and in general appearance looking like the cryptid known as the Sasquatch, we can logically make the conclusion that the DNA is from a Sasquatch.

    Please note: The Ketchum DNA Study contained a total of 113 DNA samples extracted from sources to include hair tags, saliva, blood, etc. The three samples mentioned above were of high enough quality for complete DNA sequencing. The complete study includes the hair morphology and other factors that show that these samples were from a unknown hominin. I chose the three samples above to demonstrate the validity of the study because they were complete genomes. Below is a statement from the DNA study itself:


    During the present five year study, approximately one hundred and thirteen separate samples of hair, blood, mucus, toenail, bark scrapings, saliva and skin with hair and subcutaneous tissue attached were submitted by dozens of individuals and groups from thirty four separate hominin collection sites around North Americ.

    Here we report the morphological and histopathologic examination, whole mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequencing and analysis, and electron microscopic studies of DNA extracted from fresh hominin tissue.
    Overall the data are suggestive of an unusual contemporary hominin with mitochondrial DNA consistent with modern humans but showing marked anomalies in the nuclear DNA. These findings suggest the existence of a novel contemporary indigenous North American hominin.

    Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies"====

    http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-ketchum-dna-study-for-dummies.html
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2015
    Magical Realist, Apr 23, 2015
    #275
  19. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Hysterical.

    Ketchum wrote it. And the man who runs the blog you just posted is closely connected to Ketchum.

    How about your provide something from a real scientific journal and not one created by Ketchum for Ketchum?

    Is that what I said? No, it isn't. So why are you twisting my words? This is why you are so often accused of intellectual dishonesty.

    I said the human DNA was 100% human. The unknown part that they attributed to hairy "hominid", they did so because they did not know what it was and it was not matching with the known samples of animals they were testing against. None of the samples they tested against was that of opossum. They listed what animals they tested against to discount them. They didn't include opossum in the list. When they saw a result that was "unknown", they determined it had to have been of a giant hominid that apparently had limited contact with human females and they claimed only had few children, which beggars belief because these offspring apparently did not mate with humans again or with their hominid father. So that alone does not make sense.

    Not to mention the fact that she is trying to claim that a hominid that looks and sounds like a gorilla, is closely related to humans enough to be able to mate with them. She advised that the hominid was closely related to humans, yet carried none of the genetic markers that would identify it as being closely related to humans and was instead, "unknown" to her. That also does not make sense.

    What she did was to label the DNA that was unknown as being hominid, because she couldn't find anything to match it. She never tested against opossum.

    And as for the teeth markings.. They do not match hominid teeth at all. Unless she is going to try to claim that bigfoot has all canine teeth, and has somehow skipped hominid and primate evolution when it comes to teeth.
     
    Bells, Apr 23, 2015
    #276
  20. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Where's the body?
     
    Bells, Apr 23, 2015
    #277
  21. Magical Realist

    Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,807
    Another lie. She didn't write it, unless she always refers to herself in the third person. lol!

    You're not making any sense. You say the DNA was 100% human, and then you claim part of it (the nuclear DNA?) was of a possum? If you had the slightest clue about what you were trying to claim, I'd take you seriously. But I don't because all you do is regurgitate what skeptic websites tell you, which turns out to be a contradictory mish mash of fraud claims, human contamination claims, and possum contamination claims. Again, the mitochondrial DNA was human, but the nuclear DNA of the SAME tissue was non-human, missing several human genes. And she compared this to the GenBank database that includes 300,000 possible species' DNA. Your claim that she didn't do this is simply a lie. Read the article I posted to educate yourself. You really need to look at the actual study instead of propagating the lies of skeptics just out to sell magazines and boost website membership.

    "The GenBank sequence database is an open access, annotated collection of all publicly available nucleotidesequences and their protein translations. This database is produced and maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) as part of the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC). TheNational Center for Biotechnology Information is a part of theNational Institutes of Health in the United States. GenBank and its collaborators receive sequences produced in laboratories throughout the world from more than 300,000 distinct organisms. In the more than 30 years since its establishment, GenBank has become the most important and most influential database for research in almost all biological fields, whose data are accessed and cited by millions of researchers around the world. GenBank continues to grow at an exponential rate, doubling every 18 months.[1][2] Release 194, produced in February 2013, contained over 150 billion nucleotide bases in more than 162 million sequences.[3] GenBank is built by direct submissions from individual laboratories, as well as from bulk submissions from large-scale sequencing centers."===http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GenBank

    Seriously? After all I've posted you STILL don't understand the distinction between the mitochondrial DNA and the nuclear DNA? Go back and read the primer I posted about this. It will clear this up for you.

    Two more lies. She never tested against opossum. A lie. And the teeth don't match hominid teeth. How did you arrive at them being all canine teeth? Are you are teeth expert now? lol!
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2015
    Magical Realist, Apr 23, 2015
    #278
  22. Magical Realist

    Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,807
    "To claim that the DNA is from a common known animal and that the DNA study is a “hoax” or a “ruse” also calls into question the integrity of the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences (Dallas, TX) and David W. Spense. He did the hair analysis and is used regularly in criminal cases as a hair expert in the state of Texas. He would risk his entire career and give many convicted criminals grounds for appeal if he “misidentified” the hair samples in the DNA study. Not to mention if he was part of a “hoax”. He was the “gate keeper”. Mr. Spense would look at each hair sample and if it was not “Sasquatch” or “unknown” compared to his vast database of animal hairs then it was discarded. DNA testing is EXPENSIVE coming in at $10,000 per test. They were not going to run DNA analysis on known hairs from a common animal!

    Also the following forensic labs were used, if there was a “hoax” then they would have been involved as well:

    ·Family Tree DNA Genomics Research Center, 1445 North Loop West, Suite 820, Houston, TX 77008
    ·SeqWright, Inc., 2575 W. Bellfort St. Suite 2001, Houston, TX 77054
    ·UT Southwestern Medical Center, 6000 Harry Hines Blvd. NA7.116, Dallas, TX 75235-9093
    ·USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1441 Eastlake Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90033
    ·Texas A&M University, Microscopy & Imaging Center, Department of Biology and Department of Biochemistry & Biophysics, College Station, TX 77843-2257
    ·Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
    ·Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, 2355 North Stemmons Fwy., Dallas, TX 75207

    During the DNA study one of the reference laboratories used for the “blind study” portion of the testing gave Dr. Ketchum issues over the results. After running the sequences the lab became curious because of the “odd nature” of the results. So they ran the DNA sequences through a BLAST search and when it did not match anything in the Genbank database they contacted Dr. Ketchum and asked her “what or where did this DNA come from?”

    When Dr. Ketchum informed them the sample was from a suspected Sasquatch the lab director became very upset and refused to provide the results of the test back to Dr. Ketchum even though they had been paid for them! Dr. Ketchum had to retain an attorney and threaten to sue the laboratory for breach of contract in order to get the results she paid for! Why would a lab refuse to give her the results and risk being sued if the DNA results had come from a common animal???

    And if you still think that these “genetic experts” are not misleading you and that the DNA study is just common animal DNA mixed with human contamination read the following statement by Robert Lindsay. Oh and by the way he is not a “fan” of Dr. Ketchum, in fact many times he is/was her harshest critic!

    Robert Lindsay (http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/)

    "No contamination in Ketchum DNA findings. There is some little-known evidence that there is no contamination in her samples: Ketchum tested the Bigfoot nuDNA for several human genes, the names of which you can find in the manuscript. MC1R (human/Neanderthal red-hair color gene) showed up in the Bigfoot nuDNA as did the human antigen gene TAP1 (most of the time) and the jaw muscle gene MYH16 (which when present showed only a human profile rather than an ape one).

    Not discussed in the manuscript are the tests Ketchum did for the TYR gene, which is associated with skin pigmentation, and the HAR1 gene, which is a “human accelerated region” associated with human neurological development. The human skin color gene TYR and human brain gene HAR1 were not found in Bigfoot nuDNA. Now that in and of itself is very interesting.

    If the samples really were just bear or coyote or bobcat smeared with human contamination, all of the human genes should show up all over the place. The peer-reviewers for Ketchum’s manuscript only wanted positive, not negative, results included for gene tests, so the TYR and HAR1 data are not discussed in the manuscript. However, you can see the remnants of it in the Supplemental Data 12 appendix. The bottom line is the Bigfoot nuDNA is missing some important human genes that should be there if the nuDNA were in fact simply contaminated with human DNA.

    Furthermore, if the samples were simply bears, coyotes or whatever with no human contamination present, the human genes listed above would not be there at all.

    The conclusion is that the “contamination” meme bandied about is simply a red herring. Ketchum’s DNA results, whatever they were and whatever they mean, they are simply not a result of contamination in an"y way, shape or form. Critics really need to get over the contamination BS."====http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-ketchum-dna-study-for-dummies.html
     
    Magical Realist, Apr 23, 2015
    #279
  23. Daecon

    Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    This train wreck has gone on for 14 pages.

    Do you honestly expect MR to back down or even think about entertaining the notion of the possibility that he might even be slightly mistaken even just a small percentage of a little bit?
     
    Daecon, Apr 23, 2015
    #280
Page 14 of 20
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page