Tuesday, November 22, 2011

From Robert Lindsay Blog - Preliminary Data Results! (UPDATE)



Update From Robert Lindsay Blog - Preliminary Data Results!

  (DISCLAIMER THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY ROBERT LINDSAY DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THOSE OF THIS PAGE OR THE CRYPTO HUNTERS.)

Bigfoot News November 21, 2011

Nuclear DNA: As I promised in an earlier post, we can now release preliminary data on Bigfoot nuclear DNA from Dr. Melba Ketchum’s DNA study. Three samples were tested for nuclear DNA, and we have results from all three. Testing subsequently concluded that all three samples tested positive for Bigfoot on DNA. I believe at least one of the samples was Larry Jenkins’ Bigfoot toenail.
We have results for a single gene, the MC1R gene. According to Wikipedia, MC1R is one of the key proteins involved in regulating mammalian skin and hair color. In fact, in this study it was considered the “hair color” gene for practical purposes. The default Bigfoot hair color, which was the same in all three copies, is “red.” That could mean “auburn.”


All humans have a distinctive marker on this gene. In Neandertals, one polymorphism is different. Caucasians can have 10 varying coding genes for MC1R, and Blacks can have five different coding genes for MC1R, but they all share a single polymorphism that differentiates them as humans from apes and even primitive hominids like Neandertal.

The results from the MC1R gene tests were very confusing, and I do not understand the results well, but I will throw them out and let you try to make sense out of them.

Sources told me that the MC1R gene in the three Bigfoots was exactly the same in each one, a shocking finding. The results were “within the human range, but just barely.”
The results were not in GenBank, nor were there any human results even remotely close to be found in GenBank. It is barely possible that such a bizarre finding could show up in one random modern human. That it would show up by chance in three separate random humans is for all intents and purposes statistically impossible. That is, the odds are against it are so extreme that we can be reasonably sure that these were not three random humans.

The problem is the same as with the MtDNA. We are still stuck with human DNA, even though it is so bizarre it is nearly completely outside of the modern human range.
But here is where the problem comes in. Out of the ~1000 polymorphisms in this gene, all three Bigfoot samples were concordant for a single polymorphism. That polymorphism was “100% non-human,” as my source put it. In other words, it is like the Neandertal copy of this gene that also differs by a single a non-human polymorphism.
Now the question is, can humans have non-human genes, non-human markers on their genes, or non-human polymorphisms? I would say no. If you find a non-human area in something’s genetics, my position is that the genetic sample is simply non-human. Humans can’t have non-human genes or even parts of genes. But I’m not a geneticist.

I would assume that this single non-human polymorphism is what made the Ketchum Study conclude that we were dealing with something non-human in terms of the nuclear DNA.
We also have the 4-letter DNA alphabetic code for that polymorphism, but I am not going to print it as I do not want to upset Ketchum’s findings. For now, let us call it XXXX where each X is an alphabetic letter in the genetic code. There are concerns that this revelation will jeopardize Ketchum’s study. Because we are not publishing the four letter code itself, we do not believe there is any risk of that.
Numerous questions arise from this finding.
First of all, how can the gene be “within the human range, but only barely,” and also have a 100% non-human polymorphism similar to Neandertal’s? This makes no sense to me.
If the default color gene in Bigfoots is “red,” then why do we find dark brown, brown, white and grey colored Bigfoots? I have no answer to that question.
The nuclear DNA findings above are extremely tentative and are based on conversations with sources over a period of months. I tried to check back with my sources today before I wrote the piece, but I could not get in touch with them. I have had this nuclear DNA information for months now but have been unable to release it because it was given to me off the record. I just now got the go ahead to run it. These findings are subject to revision in the future.
My understanding of the final results of the nuclear DNA is that it is quite a bit aways from human. How far away is uncertain.
From three different sources, we heard “1/3 of the way from a human to a chimp.”
However, another source said it is closer. Two different sources referred to Neandertal and Denisova. “Whether it is closer to Neandertal or Denisova, I am not sure,” one said. Another referenced late Erectus trending into archaic Sapiens. An example would be “Heidelberg Man.”
If the nuclear side is 1/3 of the way from a human to a chimp, the split between Bigfoot and man took place 2.2 million YBP (years before present). If it is instead closer to Neandertal – Denisova – Heidelberg Man, we are looking at a Bigfoot – human split of 750,000 YBP.
At the moment, we don’t know how far away the nuclear side is from humans. All we have is conjecture.

Ketchum’s peer reviewed study. The study has been out for peer review for about 9 months now – February 2011 to November 2011. Websites are quoting me as saying that Ketchum is unwilling to make the changes that the peer reviewers want. That’s a misquote. My sources are simply speculating that, based on her “bullheaded” personality, Ketchum may be unwilling to make the changes the peer reviewers request.
Truth is we have no knowledge whatsoever of how the peer review is going, but it does seem to be taking awhile. This implies a long and drawn out process.
We are also not certain of Ketchum giving a May 2012 publication date. That date is simply being thrown about because Ketchum will be appearing at a Bigfoot conference in the Pacific Northwest on Homo sapiens hirsutti on that date.

“Human DNA means humans.” This is one of the charges against Ketchum’s DNA findings that is being bandied about on skeptic sites. The allegation is familiar: all of the samples have been contaminated with human DNA. However, sources have informed me that if there is one thing that is not going on in Ketchum’s findings, it human contamination.
Ketchum has gone to extreme lengths to guard against human contamination of her samples. If findings are coming back “human” on MtDNA, it either means that Bigfoot MtDNA is human, or it means that the samples are of Homo sapiens sapiens. The notion that the samples are contaminated can be completely ruled out.
That the samples are actually of humans cannot be ruled out on MtDNA basis alone, but the implications if this is true are staggering. It means, for one thing, that Justin Smeja’s Bigfoot steak is actually a slice of human being!

How will Adrian Erickson release his video? Erickson will probably release his video upon the release of DNA findings, either Ketchum’s or the Erickson Project’s possible European study, depending on which of the two studies releases data first.
The form of release will probably be a DVD. After that, there may be negotiations with Hollywood for sale of partial rights on television.

Larry Surface’s Ohio Bigfoot video. Sources indicate that preliminary analysis by video experts on the Surface video has began. Initial findings indicate that the bipedal hominid figure in the video is “hairy.” This suggests that the figure may in fact be a Bigfoot.

Justin Smeja’s original post on Taxidermy.net. We already discussed this finding in our previous post. The original thread from Taxidermy.net is almost impossible to get. Only a few people have it, and they won’t let anyone else see it. Nevertheless, our team* got ahold of a copy.
In the post, Smeja admits to shooting the Bigfoot in the back as it was running away. In addition, Smeja repeatedly refers to the creatures as “bears,” though he says over and over that they are the strangest bears he had ever seen. He also refers to grizzly bears a few times when talking about the Bigfoot he shot, possibly due to the huge size. Nevertheless, he titled the post, “If You Saw Bigfoot, Would You Shoot It?”
Keep in mind that the thread was only one month after the Sierra Kills. Smeja did not believe in Bigfoots at all at the time of the shooting. Even after talking to several people who told him he just shot two Bigfoots, part of Smeja still cannot wrap his mind around that fact, so he keeps trying to rationalize that somehow he shot two of the weirdest bears on the face of the Earth. He theorizes that the Bigfoot he shot may have had two of its legs shot off and then learned to walk upright on only two legs.
The concept of Bigfoot is still so weird to him that his mind refuses to believe it, and he is backing up into bizarre bear explanations to make sense of the insensible.
There is a possibility that we may be able to post all of Smeja’s relevant comments from the Taxidermy.net thread in totality, word for word, sometime soon. This should add much to the debate swirling around the Sierra Kills.
*One or more persons, which may or may not include me.

Smeja’s Bigfoot steak is for sale. First of all, we do not believe that Smeja has a single small Bigfoot steak. By his own admission, we calculated that he has 7.5 pounds of steak. He gave Ketchum 1/4 of that, which was a ~2 pound slice. So he still retains ~6 pounds of steak. We recently received word from sources that Smeja has been trying to sell some or all of that steak. Asking price was reportedly ~$10,000. We believe that there were no takers.

Serious allegations about my character, personality, etc. There’s no need to go into the nature of the allegations against me that are flying around the Bigfoot blogs right now. The charges of misogyny, sexism, homophobia, and racism are old hat. However, there is a much more disturbing charge being tossed about. The origin of this charge is a charming fellow named Steve Kulls. The charge is untrue. If you are worried about this charge, please email me, and we can clear it up pronto.
Via - Robert Lindsay Blog (http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/)
Related Links

UPDATE - (This is a reply posted by Richard Stubstad to Robert lindsay )
Richard Stubstad

OK, Robert, one main thing:
You certainly do NOT piss me off one iota. I think you are doing your best, and you are certainly willing to stick you neck out where no one else dares to do so in this business.
Rather than criticize the take you have on the nuclear DNA of MC1R, I will merely state it is partly true and partly not true.

Firstly, I heard that the sequencing revealed a “red” hair color; I did not check this statement, though. It was told to me by the ever-reliable Melba Ketchum herself, and I had no reason to believe she was NOT telling the truth at the time.

A single polymorphism on the nuclear side is generally reported as follows:
X/Y, where “X” is the normal (in this case human sequence), and “Y” is the new sequence that does not appear to exist in humans, at least those represented in the GenBank database. “X” is either “A, C, G or T” and “Y” is also either “A, C, G or T”, not all four at the same time. Also, obviously, X does not equal Y. This nomenclature simply indicates a mutation has occurred in the specific creature, whether human or otherwise.

Two of the three samples exhibited the exact same polymorphic site within the MC1R gene; the third one was a different polymorphic (mutation) site. Neither of these were documented within GenBank in any known human. This doesn’t mean, though, that there are no modern humans with one of these two polymorphisms. There may be; one would have to test every living human on earth to know for sure. What is known though is that such a polymorphism (either or both of them) are VERY unusual and highly unlikely amongst modern humans. I cannot do any statistical analysis on this aspect, though, since I have no data where these polymorphisms exist, other than the purported sasquatch sequences.
Ergo, I believe (but do not know) that all three of the samples tested for MC1R are from extant sasquatch (pl.). This conclusion is based on far more information than merely the MC1R sequence. This only added more confidence to my statement that sasquatch exists as a living, extant hominid, obviously very close — but certainly not identical to — any tribe or race of extant modern humans — most likely as more than one subspecies or haplotype.

The testing of the nuclear genome simply has to be completed to know “squat” about anything more at this point. We’re working on that as we speak, sir!

Reporting the above, from both of us, is OK as far as I’m concerned, because we still have not revealed the exact polymorphic sites; I think that should be Melba who releases this information to assist her in writing and passing peer review with her paper.
Thanks, Robert.
Richard
 
 
Have you had a close encounter or witnessed something unusual?
Send us an Email

 
Help Support The Crypto Hunters

Now you can get our blog on your Kindle!

0 comments:

Post a Comment

The Crypto Crew - Submit Sighting - TCC Team
Interactive Sightings Map
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...