 |
| The HiSeq2000 - Used to prove Bigoot's Existence |
First let me explain the "Q30" scores that just zoomed over our collective heads. This is the key, this is why the critics are afraid, VERY afraid. Dr. Ketchum extracted and purified three samples (26, 31 and 140) with large amounts of high quality DNA. (Note that sample 26 came from the alleged killing of two Bigfoot by Justin Smeja aka "The Sierra Kills"). She then sent these samples off to the University of Texas, Southwestern laboratory for sequencing. The UT laboratory used a widely accepted and proven process known as "the next generation Illumina platform". The machine that processes the samples is known as a HiSeq 2000 next generation sequencer. Here is an excerpt from the DNA study that explains what a "Q30" score is and what it means.
"the HiSeq 2000 next generation sequencer provides scores, Q30, for run quality78. Q30 can also be used to determine if there was any contamination (or mixture) found in the samples sequenced. According to Illumina, a pure, single source sample would have an Q30 score of 80 or greater with an average of 85. However, if there was contamination present in the sample sequenced, the divergent sequences would compete against one another prior to sequencing causing a contaminated sample to have a Q30 score of 40 to 50. The Q30 scores for the three genomes sequenced had Q30 scores of 88.6, 88.4 and 88.7 respectively for samples 26, 31 and 140. The Q30 is the percent of the reads that have the statistical probability greater than 1:1000 of being correctly sequenced. Therefore, not only were the sequences from a single source, but the quality of the sequences were far above the average genome sequenced using the Illumina next generation sequencing platform. The high quality of the genomes can be attributed to the stringent extraction procedures utilized whereby the DNA was repeatedly purified. This ultra-purified DNA also allowed for greater than 30X coverage of the three genomes. The summary and of the next generation sequencing generated by the HiSeq 2000 Illumina sequencer is furnished as Supplementary Data 7-10."
The "Q30" is a score that tells us how pure DNA is. The manufacture states that anything at or above a score of 80 is pure and NOT contaminated! Again let me repeat the scores were 88.6, 88.4, and 88.7 respectively.
In other words the DNA is:
1. NOT Contaminated
2. All from 3 individuals (Bigfoot) not a mixture or contaminated
3. The results are repeatable
4. The SAME results were returned on 3 different samples from 3 different individuals, collected from 3 different locations, and at 3 different times.
5. The lab that ran the data is well respected, accredited, and independent
6. The results are rock solid and indisputable
Now imagine you are Dr. Ketchum, you know what you have, indisputable scientific proof Bigfoot exist. A major journal (Nature) has delayed you repeatedly with frivolous request and leaked your results to others (Sykes). You know mainstream science is trying to make an end run on you via the Sykes study. Sykes has the political power and financial backing to publish quickly. The collective scientific community has done everything they can to keep you from publishing your findings.
Also remember that Wally Hersom and Adrian Erickson have funded the study to the tune of over $300,000! Your professional reputation is ruined, and you just spent 5 years of your life on this project. You have the DNA, you have the solid proof and GenBank will not allow you to upload your sequences leaving the door open for Sykes or another scientist to zoom in and get the credit! Armed with this knowledge and these circumstances what do you do?
Would you tell Justin Smeja to contaminate his remaining samples so no one else like Sykes could use his political connections and power to beat you and claim discovery for what you already have? Would you have preemptive press releases before your study is published? Would you purchase a journal that has passed your paper only to back out at the last moment due to political pressure in order to preserve the peer reviews and editorial independence?
Though you may not agree with everything she has done, Dr. Ketchum had good reason. She was up against a "like minded" conspiracy. Main stream science knew then and know now what she has. They know it is rock solid and can not be refuted. Their only recourse was to destroy her personally in hopes of discrediting the results. They are AFRAID, afraid of the truth. What is this truth? A unknown, Veterinarian WOMAN from the SOUTH no less with the help of common everyday people have made one of the greatest scientific discoveries of our generation. This is a fact, a truth their belief system just can not tolerate. The religion of Darwinism demands this can not be true and not be allowed to stand.
This is why GenBank cannot allow the Genomes to be uploaded. To allow this is an admission of the truth and they know it. The "well respected scientist" doing the independent review of the DNA Study are promising that they will make sure GenBank accepts the Genomes, I hope they can deliver.
I make a challenge to any one that has access to the BLAST application. Take the supplemental attachments in Dr. Ketchum's study that contain the raw DNA sequence data, convert those PDF files into the correct format and then compare the sequences to the GenBank database and see if there are any matches. We already know the data is good, it has been produced by the University of Texas. Have the courage to run the BLAST search and publish the results! Because you know they will show no match, that the species represented in the data is a NEW species, a NEW homo sapiens species a BIGFOOT.....
Awesome right up Scott! I have been a supporter of Melba and the entire team for over 3 years! You guys have done a fantastic job, and it is just horrible the way "mainstream science" is treating the whole team. White collar bureaucracy drives me nuts, and is embarressing as a memeber of the same species as these people. Good luck in all your unpcoming adventures and research! I know where I am, mthe activity is always hot. I just need to get out more!
ReplyDeletePaul
The high quality scores are the key to our belief in the outcomes of the Dr. Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA research. Critics must either refute the quality of the procedures or accept her results. When I say refute I mean making criticism that are acceptable to other comparable studies, not “criticism for criticism sake”
DeleteIf there are 20 more such studies they will have to meet or surpass the benchmarks of the Ketchum study. From this point further if you want to argue with Dr. Ketchum you will have to collect your samples and go through the rigors of investigation displayed by the Ketchum study. If the criticism of the Ketchum research is accepted, future researcher must adapt there procedures to avoid the same criticism.
It is important to point out that if you come to different conclusions about BF's DNA, people will not believe you either. Only repeatable findings will reinforce the conclusions of the research. You have past the torch to the science community from now on popular opinions will not dominate the question of whether BF is more man-like or other primate-like. The only meaningful arguments will come in the laboratory.
It is very predictable that it would be difficult to publish findings about Bigfoot. We should all know that the first researcher to show the existence of Bigfoot would meet tremendous resistance. What bothers me is that the Bigfoot community has shown so little respect for Dr. Ketchum's work. Remember the worst thing that Dr. Ketchum has done is to reveal to future researcher where they will be criticized. Thank you Dr. Ketchum for your fine work, you are a true pioneer.
SpinDave
Terrific! Scott, once again, you have gone to the heart of the matter. Thank you. Yes, you expressed it perfectly: a WOMAN, and a SOUTHERN woman at that, has done superb work that will set our scientific world on its ear. The people who live for public praise can't allow this.
ReplyDeleteI'm very grateful to have found your blog, where the snarlers and worshippers don't run the show. Your field work has been a treat to read about. And now you've published a whole book. AND this well-phrased synopsis of the politics of this event. Bless you! Grammy
Thanks Grammy, I appreciate the praise, encouragement, and honest opinions your share!
DeleteScott
Excellent article - it's too bad your site is not getting the traffic it deserves. The other blogs are constantly posting garbage and allowing anonymous posters to abuse everyone and anyone they wish. Thank you for your efforts.
ReplyDeleteThank You, I am going by the old saying "build it and they will come".
DeleteScott, Great write up! You have given me some clarity on the issue. I didn't realize these people are so shady. I have been a quite supporter of Dr. Ketchum for sometime; I hope all goes well and credit is given to the study as it should be.Its disappointing Nature would do something so underhanded. This community has been over ran with loud mouth attention seekers for the past couple years. Who's only job was to critisize and misinform people intentionally. I'm happy to see people like youself take a stand and not be afraid to tell it like it is. Thank you for all the hard work!
ReplyDeleteHey, be patient ... It is going to take awhile for sasquatches to transition from myth and joke to reality, if that's what happens. Other scientists are going to want to repeat the analysis, gather their own samples, etc. If they really have a sasquatch toenail and sasquatch hair, hopefully they will share some of it with others, and they can also analyze it. If other people get similar results with the nuclear DNA, their work will be regarded as legitimate.
ReplyDeleteThe nuclear DNA has single-stranded segments and this is very strange. This in itself might raise suspicion that something went wrong in their study, although Melba Ketchum did say that someone suggested to her that this might result from the hybridization.
Also there is the huge size of sasquatches, which is part of what makes them so hard to believe. A "big hairy monster" archetype. That also seems weird. There were giant hominids, but not very closely related to us, and it would have to be a close relative to interbreed successfully. I wonder if a gene that controls size was lost or inactivated in the hybridizing.
I think Melba Ketchum is trying, by publishing DNA results first and saving their video documentary for later, to get legal protection for sasquatches. They aren't going to be legally protected until there's solid evidence of their existence. If they have spectacular video of sasquatches, it would cause a sensation in the popular media. It would be EVERYWHERE. The woods would be full of people with videocams ... and guns - unless sasquatches are definitively PROTECTED.
Even her trying to add the sasquatch DNA sequence as Homo sapiens seems to me a way of trying to protect them - that she wants killing them to be murder, no less. I don't think it makes sense to regard them as Homo sapiens. They sound very different from us! And people would probably need more info than just the DNA to decide their genus and species. So calling them Homo sapiens sounds to me like an attempt to give sasquatches the best possible introduction to humanity.
She said she wants them to be left alone, just as they have been. I doubt that is going to happen, she seems to be quixotically trying to control something that is going to be so far out of her control ...
The amount of prejudice is astonishing, I blogged about the sasquatch DNA study and I was amazed by the thoughtless, crude contempt of the comments. Scientists and journals aren't free of that crude contempt, and they are afraid of being treated with that same crude contempt if they take it seriously.
I just bookmark this site and will venture back here again. This is the best write up for Ketchum that I've seen and goes along with the lines of my own thoughts about the other scientists trying to get their name ahead of Ketchum's for the discover of Bigfoot.
ReplyDeleteScott...thanks for keeping every one up to date on Dr Ketchums progress. And for going beyond that and further explaining the results so understandingly that even the average person can fully grasp the the test results , as well , this really exposes a lot of the bias in the scientific arena that Dr. Ketchum and others are facing . It's disturbing to watch when she should be respected and honoured for stepping up to the plate .Once again Scott ....excellent and thorough job on your post !
ReplyDeleteSo Bigfoot is the missing link and Darwin was wrong after all. Ha. I never subscribed to his Simeon suggestion anyway. No wonder the "scientific community" is up in arms to silence this study. Ha. That's why you should not teach theories as fact.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEmma,
DeleteSo this still does not explain the DNA results, the purity of the DNA, the single donors and the 3 separate samples. New species are being discovered almost daily, how can you make the assumption we have discovered all the human subspecies? Your only argument can be contamination yet there was none! Who Dr. Ketchum associates with and even the journal is irrelevant, your issue is the 3 complete genomes with no match in GenBank. So you are in a quandary I understand that, but as unlikely as it sounds YES there is a unknown to science hominin living in the wildness and as repulsive it is for you to admit Dr. Ketchum and her team have proved it....
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI am going to keep an open mind. I assume there was similar outrage when it was discovered that the earth was round, not flat. In medieval times, folks would be branded and burned at the stake for heresy. Hopefully we are more civilized today. Maybe not. Looks like Ketchum is a modern-day heretic who must be silenced.
ReplyDeleteDear Ms. Emma,
ReplyDelete1) Non-African humans do have other hominids in our genes. We have Neanderthal DNA, and there's also evidence of other hominids in our DNA. See http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/09/it-wasnt-just-neanderthals-ancient-humans-had-sex-other-hominids/42117/ Likely with Homo erectus and Homo habilis as well.
Melba Ketchum's work apparently indicates that sasquatches are a hybrid with a hominid, i.e. closely related to us.
Orangutans do rape human women. Apparently us primates tend to be rather ... flexible ... in our mating choices so it makes sense that hominids would have interbred somewhat.
2) Apparently interbreeding attempts between e.g. chimps and humans has never succeeded, they are too distant from us.
So if sasquatches are a hominid/human hybrid, why do they apparently not use fire? Why aren't they making spears etc.? Why only crude tools at most? According to Wikipedia, the use of fire goes back to Homo Erectus, 400,000 years ago. Are humans capable of interbreeding with a hominid more distantly related to us than Homo Erectus?
Why would a human/hominid hybrid be huge? Were there huge hominids closely enough related to us, to interbreed?
Or, does interbreeding sometimes result in creatures that aren't a mixture of their parents' characteristics? Perhaps some gene that controls body size, got lost or deactivated in the hybridization? (how long do sasquatches live?) Could sasquatches have lost some human abilities, as hybrids? i.e. they are kind of messed-up creatures? Melba Ketchum called them a "fluke" in the radio interview.
Sasquatches don't sound like Homo sapiens, I think she wanted to submit the genomes to Genbank as Homo sapiens, to protect them legally rather than for scientific reasons.
I found an html version of MK's paper that had been created by Google, it has the text but not illustrations. It's very technical genetics stuff, I have no way to assess it, but they certainly seem to have done everything they could to avoid contamination, and nail down the results scientifically.
That she would report strange results, like mitochondrial DNA that seems to be from European and Middle Eastern people, and nuclear DNA with single-strand/double strand transitions, to me speaks of their honesty.
3) I read they had submitted the paper to Nature, but I don't know the provenance of that info :) MK said that the passing peer reviews they got from the journal Advanced Multidisciplinary exploration in zoology, are confidential, you can be sued for revealing them. That had been my guess as to why she wouldn't post them.
To me how she's acted seems reasonable in an extraordinary situation - trying to manage the emergence of a supposedly mythical quasi-human as a real creature, in a way that will protect them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteA female chimpanzee is not a hominin.
DeleteI don't know what the unknown hominin is (that's a contradiction anyway).
It's certainly true that her interpretation of the DNA data, if true, raises a whole new question!
Modern women likely could hybridize with some closely related species. We have Neanderthal in our genes, and I know of no reason, if a Neanderthal were cloned or something, why that individual couldn't interbreed with us - since they did, not that long ago.
ps Homo floresiensis see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis and the "Red Deer Cave People" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Deer_Cave_people are controversial examples of other members of genus Homo, who may have survived until about 12,000 years ago.
DeleteDenisova hominins were also in genus Homo, the discovered remains date from about 40,000 years ago.
MK wrote that the sequence data indicate the unknown hominin was not Neanderthal or Denisovan.
'Emma Peel' was a charming fictional character: she gave a lot of good entertainment to some of my children, long ago. But the person signing here as Emma Peel is not entertaining. She/he has confused Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution with Gregor Mendel's pioneering work in genetics, which resulted in the Mendelian Laws of Inheritance. The Mendelian Laws do not make it possible for Emma's "zoophilia" to work. And that is precisely what is wrong with "Emma" and others who simply can't let go of their notion that Sasquatch has some ape history. Apes are animals. Hominids are human.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't believe Bryan Sykes ever said what 'Emma Peel' quoted. Grammy
Bryan Sykes did say that, http://www.livescience.com/20487-yeti-bigfoot-dna-cryptozoology.html That was back in May 2012, not in reaction to MK's paper.
ReplyDeleteUnknown, it IS a real question, whether a hominid/human hybrid could be non-fire using, non-spear making, huge? Could they be clever enough to avoid leaving physical proof of their existence yet not be technically-minded?
Lark, thank you for the link. And by the way, dear, I'm not really "Unknown"; I'm Grammy. Just don't know how to make google work right.
DeleteYour question is actually encyclopedic. People who never interacted with the hairy giants make statements about their culture. First Nations people have very old stories that are very different, describing another human culture of people who used fire, used tools, and even conducted trade. There are reliable scientific techniques that should be used to determine whether the giants are, indeed as you describe them. The "physical proof of their existence" is what was used in Dr. Ketchum's DNA studies. Their well-attested ability to avoid cameras seems technically-minded to me. Grammy
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere IS such a thing as hybrid dysfunction, i.e. a hominid/human hybrid could have behavioral dysfunctions, dysfunction in gene expression, etc. without being sterile.
ReplyDeleteFor example, hybrids between a lion and a tigress ("ligers") are much larger than either of the two progenitors, while a tigon (lioness × tiger) is smaller. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_%28biology%29
When these Bigfoot sighting videos are posted, why don't the footers routinely go back to the spot, have a footer re-enact what the Bigfoot did while someone else videotapes it in the spot where the original videotape was made?
ReplyDeleteI know the footers do their investigations on a shoestring, but doing this would be easy for many of the videos, and it would show the size of the creature, it would make the video MUCH more convincing if the creature were out of normal human height range.
I think this was done for a Russian Bigfoot video, I saw something about a reenactment. I don't see why it isn't routinely done.
Scott just did it the other day in his follow up to bigfoot or shadow. He did it when explaining a blobsquatch. Scott has done it quite a bit. oorah! Scott.
DeleteThis is such great new's. Thank you. I will have to share this if you don't mind. Knowledge is powerful! Thank you and from a Dr.Ketchum supporter, I will try to do what I can to help her out as well.
ReplyDeleteGood job Scott! Things are looking good. I have struggled with the idea that Bigfoot is part human and an unknown hominid. I have lately thought of Bigfoot as a hominid but not some freaky high-bred. I will have to wait and see on this; it would be a stretch for me to believe this. Either way things are looking good for Bigfoot and the research that Dr Ketchum has done. Also Bigfoot is real whether half human or not. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI am having an Arnsenio Hall moment "where certain thoughts, are referred to as "things that make you go hmmm"~~What if each of these researchers had found BigFoot burial sites & samples were taken. Now Bigfoot is history to study & not a current event. Do you suppose that puts a twist on things? Other researchers are doing DNA projects but their subjects are dead. Here is another thought~~What happens to the theories of Human-Chimp Split or Pan-Homo? A Living, Breathing Bigfoot would totally throw those 2 studies a curve. I can see why the scientific community will not give Dr Melba Ketchum her day in the Sun. I praise you, Dr Ketchum & NABS for your excellent work! Wikipedia definition of Scientific theory is taken From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
ReplyDeleteA scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Live Science says: A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
The FACT is Sasquatch is REAL!
Grammy says, Thank you, Missin Misty: the definitions are essential!
DeleteThe GenBank website has some essential information, too. I didn't know that GenBank is paid for with our tax dollars, via NIH. So the information they store actually belongs to us.
When GenBank asked Dr. Ketchum for a signed release for the DNA sequences from "Homo sapiens cognatus", they violated their own policy. On their website, under the PRIVACY heading: "GenBank assumes that the submitter has received any necessary informed consent authorizations required prior to submitting sequences." And they are referring to the sequences of living, identifiable, "Homo sapiens sapiens" individuals. How much more would that assumption apply to a novel hominid, hiding in the woods? Misty, I believe your questions about the Human-Chimp split are the key to this roadblock. Our entire education system is built on that sequence of illustrations showing apes metamorphosing to humans: this DNA study throws a drastic light on that presumed sequence.
Outstanding my friend! Glad to hear this great news.
ReplyDelete"The religion of Darwinism demands this can not be true and not be allowed to stand."
ReplyDeleteWhile scientists are human and therefore suffer from all sorts of character flaws such as some described in this article, the theory of evolution does not demand that anything, including sasquatch, not exist. The only thing demanded is evidence. If the evidence contradicts current theory in some way then modification to the theory occurs. Contrary to popular opinion, scientists thrive on theory modification. They would have uninteresting careers otherwise.
Hopefully the research which you participated in can be repeated by others while Ketchum and her team receive due credit.
You are overstating the importance of the Q-score. The Q-score only deals with base call errors, which are insertions, substitutions, or deletions from the DNA. These are not due to contamination at all. Let me give you an example. Say your sequence is supposed to look like this:
ReplyDeleteATCGATTGAGCTCTAGCG
TAGCTAACTCGAGATCGC
But instead it looks like this:
ATGATTGAGCTCTAGCG
TACTAACTCGAGATCGC
You'd have a base pair error in that CG was deleted from the third spot. Or you might have a sequence that looks like this:
ATACGATTGAGCTCTAGCG
TATGCTAACTCGAGATCGC
Where AT was inserted into the sequence in the third spot. Or finally, you might have a sequence that looks like this:
ATAGATTGAGCTCTAGCG
TATCTAACTCGAGATCGC
Where AT replaced CG in the third spot.
These types of errors are most likely to result from errors in the preparation of the samples. They rarely occur due to contamination.
Robert Lindsay - March 15th, 2013
DeleteNo 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, were simply not a result of contamination in any way, shape or form. Critics really need to get over the contamination BS.
Hi Scott, thanks for your important work and your dedication. If one just goes by the main stream press, Dr. Ketchum's work looks like a joke but your work, Coast to Coast and Linda Moulton Howe have proved otherwise!
ReplyDeleteI do have a question. Do you have the mDNA haplogroup of the samples taken. Are they all the same haplogroup? This would tell us, since it is human, roughly when the mixing with humans took place in terms of a maximum and would tell us what lineage it is. I my genome though the National Geographic's GENO 2.0 and my mDNA is Haplogroup H1 which is a common northern european haplogroup. It would be interesting to see if the bigfoot mDNA is Native American, Asian, European, etc..
P.S. I found out that I am 2.9% Neanderthal and 2.4% Denisovan. With the bigfoot sequencing, maybe we all have some of that too!
Thanks
David, the mtDNA results are one of the more obvious signs of contamination -- at least if one is to believe her timeline. She claims that the samples included mtDNA from haplogroup H12, which is a haplogroup originating in Western Europe. She also claims that Bigfoot was the result of interbreeding between human females and an unknown hominin approximately 15 kya. That raises the obvious question of how it got here - there were no Europeans in America 15 kya. Other samples came from Haplogroup HV2, which is southwest Asia and southeast Europe. Similarly, there were samples with Haplogroup T, which is usually found near the Baltic Sea, and less frequently in the Arabian peninsula and Horn of Africa. Again, this is not what you would expect for a North American hominin.
DeleteThe sheer diversity of haplogroups, coupled with their geographic origins, raise serious questions about whether these are the result of contamination. Ketchum glazes over this issue by saying "Q30" and claiming the results are in line with the Solutrean Hypothesis (not theory, despite what Ketchum thinks), which lacks support and has been discredited by multiple studies.
I've been bothered about the origins of the mtDNA from Western Europe, southwest Asia, southeast Europe, Baltic Sea etc...We must wait for the results to be reproduced by other studies. This wouldn't be the first time that a bunch of scientists discovered "everything you know is wrong"....bravo to Dr. Ketchum & team.
DeleteThanks so much for the info and the various mtDNA Haplogroups absolutely raise questions. However we know so little about our world today it is unlikely that our ideas of earth 15k years ago would be accurate. There is abundant evidence of world wide travel much earlier than previously thought. So I'll keep an open mind until all of the results are in.
DeleteAgree David, world wide travel was very likely and i'm NOT talking about atlantis!...I wish I knew how to post with my real name here.
Delete"claiming the results are in line with the Solutrean Hypothesis (not theory, despite what Ketchum thinks), which lacks support and has been discredited by multiple studies"
DeleteI don't understand how the scientist in rebuttal
could use these arguments, we could be a moment away
from a major discovery that totally disprroves 100 theories. I just can't understand why main steam biology is so repelled by thinking outside the box of what they believe to be "the only way"
or "the only answer". If society were to think along this lines, we'd still be in a horse and carriage. Bottom line is we have an good Idea what was happening 15,000 yrs ago but we don't know everything that happened.
Robert Lindsay - 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).
DeleteNot 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, were simply not a result of contamination in any way, shape or form. Critics really need to get over the contamination BS.
Scott, Great Work. I always look forward to your new videos, updates, and explanations of Bigfoot issues. I recently became interested in Bigfoot and believe it is real. I don't quite understand how the DNA Study worked and how to understand the results but I wanted your opinion on WHATS GONNA HAPPEN NEXT? WITH THE STUDY, WITH THE PUBLICATION, WHATS KETCHEM'S NEXT MOVE?
ReplyDeleteThank you for you dedication to this subject.
Jennifer in Arkansas
I suspect that what is next is that other groups attempt to reproduce Dr. Ketchums results. But the scientists are already falling off their chairs. Such fun!
DeleteIt's already been proven about scientists expressing greed and altered data, as demonstrated by British researchers manipulating climate change/global warming data released to national governments and public. Dr Melba has obviously done a great job in her study, and world scientists are unwilling to admit it. They all want a piece of the recognition pie, and those unable will refute the findings.
ReplyDeleteAll truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
ReplyDeleteSchopenhauer,(1788 – 1860)
So...it`s been some time now...just what is going on with this DNA evidence ?
ReplyDeleteNot much, Melba has gotten some results back from the independent review and remarked on her FB page that she wants to use the reviews for a "New" paper which sucks because that will take months if not a year. Things trickle out from time to time but not much. We are still having problems getting the scientist to actually read the paper and look at the data. They will complain there is no data there, but there is data they just do not want to accept it. They want the raw labs results which in my estimation would number close 400 or 500 with all the blind studies, etc. I wish Melba would just post it all but I understand her reluctance. It will be interesting when the Sykes study is published. If he does retrieve a full genome the we will have something to compare Melba's 3 genomes too. If they match then watch out!
Delete