This is not science, this is a belief system. The critics refuse to consider the paper then call it baseless without any knowledge of what is in it. This is despicable and intellectually dishonest. It makes me wonder, what is she afraid of? If the study has been "judged" by the "community" then why not allow my response? It would pose no threat to the high and mighty or would it?? I was not debating, I was attempting to post an alternate view. Let me say that I have never refused to let anyone post a response on my blog. The only time I remove a post is if the commenter attacks me or another commenter personally or uses profanity. I guess the mainstream scientist need to get back to the important ground breaking work of studying the mating habits of the fruit fly and not bother themselves with such trivial things as a history changing novel contemporary hominin.
Below is Ms. Hill's comments:
Sorry, Scott Carpenter. This is my blog, not your platform. You have your own. So, I will not allow your long comment to be posted. This is not a debate forum. If you have a scientific finding, the community will judge. As they have.
Also, note that it does not matter how many times you announce something. That does not make it true.
Below is my post that Ms. Hill deemed not worthy of posting:
I totally and completely disagree with the conclusions that the Ketchum DNA Study is not real science and that scientifically attempting to prove a bi-pedal hominin exist shows a "bias" that invalidates the study. We have gathered mounds of data such as footprints, video, sounds, vocalizations, and eye witness reports. Knowing it would take more than this for the "scientific community" we set out to gather the "proof" and we have volumes of it. Unfortunately the Ketchum DNA Study is being ignored by the critics and these same ignorant critics make declarative statements with no basis in fact. In order to set the record straight I submit the following:
The "Novel North American Hominins, Next GenerationSequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies." is a serious, multidisciplinary study of the Sasquatch phenomenon and included the best forensic technology, mitochondrial DNA analysis, histopathology, whole genome SNP analysis, electron microscopy, and next-generation whole genome sequencing. The study was funded nearly $500,000 by private donors and we utilized the services of 13 different laboratories to analyze a total of 111 high-quality DNA extractions from unidentified samples, producing 20 whole and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes and 3 nuclear genomes. This was 5 years of rigorous science including blind studies.
The following scientist were on the team:
Dr. Melba S. Ketchum, Director
DNA Diagnostics, Nacogdoches,TX
Dr. Andreas Holzenburg
Director, Professor, Department of Biology, Professor, Biochemistry and Biophysics
Microscopy and Imaging Center
Texas A&M University
Fan Zhang, Ph.D.
Bioinformatician in the Academic and Institutional Resources and Technology (AIRT) at the University of North Texas Health Science Center.
Dr. Pat Wojtkiewicz
Director of the Shreveport Laboratory of the North Louisiana Crime Lab System and the Technical Leader of the DNA section. He has been employed at the crime lab since 1977.
Dr. Thomas M. Prychitko of Wayne State University in Michigan
Molecular biologist with a background that also includes evolutionary biology, microbiology and biochemistry.
Mr. David Spence, Trace Evidence Supervisor at Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences
Dr. Douglas G. Toler of Huguley Pathology Consultants in Fort Worth, TX
The results of the study indicate that the North American Sasquatch is a novel contemporary hominin, a hybrid between modern Homo Sapiens and a progenitor previously unknown to science. The results are controversial because they do not fit within the standard paradigm of evolutionary biology. The Team faced unbelievable prejudice and ethical violations from the journals where we submitted for publication. The paper did finally pass peer review at a small journal in January 2013, whose attorney then promptly told the editor he should refuse to publish our work. Our passing reviews were from PhDs that specialize in genomics from that journal which we ultimately acquired in order to retain those all important passing reviews. The peer reviews were leaked to various blogs over the summer by somebody in our study and you can find them here ( http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_18.html).
Serious scientist have looked at the paper to include David H. Swenson, Ph.D. who is a Biochemist and has over 39 journal publications to his credit. His statement:
I went over the manuscript by Melba Ketchum on Bigfoot genomics. My desktop had difficulty with a blast analysis of the consensus sequences. It helped me understand more about the project. This collaborative venture has done a huge project that taxes me to fully grasp. I see interesting homology with a standard human sequence with 99% match for mitochondria. From my abbreviated study, the nuclear genome seems to have human and nonhuman sequences.
My opinion of the creature is that it is a hybrid of a human mother and an unknown hominid male, Just as reported. For all practical purposes, it should be treated as human and protected under law. Sasquatch is real, as proven by genetic analysis.
The submitters of DNA samples to include hair, blood, and flesh include:
Dr. J. Robert Alley, Dr. Igor Burtsev, Dr. Angelo Capparella, Dr. Henner Fahrenbach Dr. Al Guinn, and Dr. Samuel “Webb” Sentell, along with many other dedicated researchers across the country.
I ask that you put aside your personal bias, read the paper, and review the data. Be a "real scientist" and take a look at the data with no preconceived conclusions. Critically look at the study as a whole and then make your conclusion.
Do not close your mind and refuse to accept the data. The DNA is NOVEL and yes there are mutations and missing sequences that are hard to accept because a biological entity with this DNA should not be viable. Yet there are over 110 mtDNA sequences and 3 complete genomes with Novel nuDNA. I know the "mainstream scientist" in you wants to come to the conclusion "this can't be real, this can't exist, it must be the product of contamination or flawed processing". I ask you to fight that urge and look again at the paper as a whole, the chain of custody for the samples, the mounds of documentation to show pure, single source, non-contaminated DNA samples were collected and processed. Read the study, read all the supplemental data and form a truly informed decision. I know this will be difficult, it will put you out of your comfort zone, and will likely pit you against your colleges, but I urge you to have the courage.
Below are the links to the DNA Study and supporting documentation: