|Sketch of a DNA Donor Bigfoot|
"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, ere simply not a result of contamination in any way, shape or form. Critics really need to get over the contamination BS."
The part of Robert Lindsay's post that peaked my curiosity was the following:
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.
If I am reading this correctly the "peer-reviewers" only wanted "positive results". I asked myself why? The conclusion I came up with is that having the "negative" results in the paper prove that the DNA is NOT from a known ANIMAL and NOT from a HUMAN. This is the point of the study! If the samples are not from a known animal and not from a human then WE HAVE A NEW PREVIOUSLY UNDISCOVERED SPECIES. Since the samples were collected in areas were Bigfoot/Sasquatch were witnessed and/or filmed the the logical conclusion is this new "SPECIES" IS A BIGFOOT. Apparently this is a reality that the "peer reviewers" could not accept due to personal/professional bias. So they requested Dr. Ketchum remove the negative results from her study.
Folks the scientific community, the Team Tazer clowns, and those who insist Bigfoot is an APE are using the general public's ignorance of DNA testing and the Scientific Protocols to misinform and LIE about the Ketchum DNA Study. I know the DNA results are difficult to interpret and I so wish Dr. Ketchum would have published plan language abstract of the paper for us layman, but she did not. I would encourage you to do your own home work and do not take the word of these so called "experts". We all have an agenda, at least I am up front about mine, I support the study and the work done by Dr. Ketchum and the DNA study team, These critics of the study appear to have a large stake in discrediting , I have to wonder why?