The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

there could be many reasons why she didn't release the data,but only assumptions can be made, until she comments on her reasons.

Well, I think we have more than assumptions at this stage, but I will say this, I won't take her reasons at face value anymore. So, yeah in that, if we want to put a stake in the heart of this study, or see it collaborated, does depend on her willingness to share the raw data or her reasons for not.

Many feel it is already "dead" and yet...we in Bigfootery know that's not true....as evidenced by the several here who hang tightly to this study's "validity" as resting in the future still (or the fringe websites that proclaim proof arrived!) and their willingness to wait.......and you can...not for me to judge for you.....except to say..I am frigging disappointed...not just with the study, but with MKs public behavior..and the Genome website..and Protection fund not organized with bylaws,.and incomplete/dead pages..etc...

It's a bummer b/c I love the art. and some of the info from BFers........I just hate seeing so much talent tied up so haphazardly...after so long, with so much unnecessary divisiveness.......arrrggg argggg arggg......

so I need to move on!!!

Edited March 11, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest thermalman]

Thermalman - you can probably blame Ketchum for the "angel claims" - as she is the one who first brought up and used the word, "Angel". Also, Ketchum keeps referring back to this data that she didn't release in her paper - talk about a secret reference.. No one knows what that raw data looks like, but Melba. Who are these, "scientists whose names we would all know if she said them," that she said stepped forward to help her, once her paper was released? Are they still working with her? Have they come up with anything? Talk about secret.

Did you ask her if she will be releasing the raw data in her paper? If she won't could you find out why? That raw data seems to be very important.

Lol Melissa. I just like using the term angel. Not so derogatory. I've asked TH to provide his source of MK coining the phrase " angel DNA" but he refuses to state any names, like it threatens national security or something. I had pointed out that it was the media that coined the phrase. I concur that the raw data is important, but I too, do not know the reasons why she has not released it. I'm also, not in a position to ask MK why she didn't. Sorry, I can't be of help with your request, as I too would like to see it released.

there could be many reasons why she didn't release the data,but only assumptions can be made, until she comments on her reasons.

Why can't others grasp that?

Edited March 11, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

Well, first of all, TH is not in the position of "having to prove anything" that's on Melba. He is choosing to relay his conversations with others (which I personally appreciate). I would think if he were totally off the mark (or the quotes he is posting) someone with the knowledge would speak up and point it out. But, I am not interested in this "back and forth" thing you have going on with others.

I have to wonder why you wouldn't want to ask Melba why she didn't release the raw data. That is not a silly question - and as someone who is interested in the outcome - as you clearly are - I would think this would be a question you and everyone would like an answer to. I know I would like an answer - but she has refused to discuss it and has moved on to other things. Which makes me curious as to whether these other "scientists" really have stepped forward to help her as she claimed.

You're right the raw data is important - but until she releases that the only conversation we can STILL have is all speculation, even your defense of her work...... All we have ever had from Melba is speculation. I don't mind pointing out her "paper" was supposed to end all the speculation. She only created more - and I have to wonder if she didn't do that intentionally. Sorry, but that's how it looks.

Why can't others grasp that?

We do "grasp that". That does not mean the ongoing conversations are worthless. If Melba did not want only speculation and assumptions - then maybe she should have published the raw data. She set herself up for this - she has the power to turn this around - she chooses not to. That's on her.

[Guest thermalman]

@ Melissa "You're right the raw data is important - but until she releases that the only conversation we can STILL have is all speculation, even your defense of her work...... All we have ever had from Melba is speculation. I don't mind pointing out her "paper" was supposed to end all the speculation. She only created more - and I have to wonder if she didn't do that intentionally. Sorry, but that's how it looks."

Exactly. It's on her and her time. But it does not constitute character assassination of a member of this forum. BTW, have you ever considered asking MK for the releasing of her data, yourself?

As far as TH goes, his claims are his and he's no different than MK if he is not prepared to release his requested info. He pretty much forgoes any further demands or discussions of MK, if he wants to wear her shoes in secrecy.

@ Melissa "We do "grasp that". That does not mean the ongoing conversations are worthles."

I disagree. It has deteriorated to speculation, gossip, and the backbiting of a member.

Edited March 11, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

In order for any hybrid to exist as a separate group, there must be two factors:

1. The two parent species must be able to breed.

2. The offspring of the two parent species must then be isolated from both parent's species.

From what I have read, neither one of the above seems plausible.

I'm not sure that #2 is a requirement if there is continued interbreeding between the two species, such that new hybrid lines are constantly being created. Like labradoodles.

[Guest]

Exactly. It's on her and her time. But it does not constitute character assassination of a member of this forum. BTW, have you ever considered asking MK for the releasing of her data, yourself?

As far as TH goes, his claims are his and he's no different than MK if he is not prepared to release his requested info. He pretty much forgoes any further demands or discussions of MK, if he wants to wear her shoes in secrecy.

I would argue - her time was the publication of the paper. Period. She had her chance right out of the gate. Opened her own online journal - then did not release the raw data which proves her point. I have not asked Melba for anything - she had her chance - and clearly she has no intention of releasing anything else. IF she does - I will read what she says with great interest, but I will also read what is said by others with a scientific background - with great interest. Melba should not get a pass from this community simply because she did the work.

Again, I am not interested in your back and forth with other members. I and others are able to read what is posted and make our own decisions on how we feel about this situation.

@ Melissa "We do "grasp that". That does not mean the ongoing conversations are worthles."

I disagree. It has deteriorated to speculation, gossip, and the backbiting of a member.

What you read as "backbiting" I see as educated debate for the most part. Like I have said - what is "backbiting" I do not give much time to - and really don't want to get involved. Some of us are able to read what is posted and simply take away the necessary information. But, I do not call the critical thinking skills being applied to Melba's paper as,"backbiting," by ridgerunner, GenesRus, Theagenes or even Tyler H. You may not like what they have to say - but the comments and criticism are worthy of consideration - as they are about the work Melba published.. Maybe she could release the raw data so the speculation goes away? But, at this point she has not, and I must agree - it does not look good for Melba. Sorry. Frankly I feel like possibly good samples and 5 years have gone down the drain, along with the hopes of many in this community.

Yeah, people are angry - but I can understand why.

[Guest thermalman]

As I've stated before, we'll have to wait and see then.

[Guest Tyler H]

I have read this thread, but there has been precious little on the matter of Dr. Ketchum's study. A bunch of folks have gone all TMZ on Ketchum, and have muddied the waters a bit.

Impossible to do without the data being released. Perhaps your interpretation of their postings is incorrect.

Ah, well, so it's not just your neighbour Bob, with a dog-eared copy of DNA For Dummies. You have a cadre of top secret people researching this for you...but not willing to put their names on it. That tells you right there what it's worth. For the purposes of future identification in here, we can refer to them collectively as Dr. Vinny Boombatz.

I don't believe you. You have not supplied any factual basis for refuting any of Dr. Ketchum's claims in her study, yet you continue to wage your anti-Ketchum campaign. And now you have Dr. Vinny Boombatz in your corner. Wow, that'll impress 'em, for sure, eh?

Put the name and credentials behind your pdf. Without that it's meaningless.

The questions were, who were the unanimous folks in here, and who was your Phd (Vinny Boombatz?), but leisureclass went off on a tangent and gave some names off the net. At least you read the question and understood it. That's what I was counting on.

So anyways, who is your Dr. Vinny Boombatz?

By ANY measure that you want to name, Doe-eyed deer, I have supplied to the public, more data and transparancy and credible science than Melba has, and more than you have (which is easy, since you have contributed nothing.) It doesn't matter if my PhD behind the pdf is anonymous - refute the science put forth. I know you can't do that, and I know you won't do that.

It's time for you to put up (some credible arguments) or put a sock in it.

When I critiqued Melba it was because I was able to put my money where my mouth was - I had hard data, and credible critique. Once you have that, come back to play.

Bah-bye

As I've stated before, we'll have to wait and see then.

Put some criterian on it T-man, give a reasonable timeline, and amount of evidence we should expect. Goals are great, but if they aren't measurable they are pie-in-the-sky.

And don't use the PGF thing again - they put ALL their cards onthe Table, they didn't say they were holding back their more compelling data.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Tyler H

[Guest thermalman]

I live in a free country and have access to free speech, so I'll use whatever references I need to. By not releasing politely requested info yourself, your Ketchum criticism is mute and hypocritcal at best.

Some people need to read here and get the full story about MK's business and work history.

Edited March 11, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

T-Man. By the same rules you just created would you say that Ketchum's claims are mute and invalid as well since she has refused to release her data?

[Guest thermalman]

Not mute, just not enough info. Invalid was not a term I used, sorry can't answer that one my dear.

[Guest]

Thermalman -- Melba is the one NOT releasing requested information - that is critical to proving her paper... I would say you just made the argument that Melba's work is mute. It's her paper - her work to defend. She is responsible for proving it - no one else. She won't do that. Why?

It would all be so easy, if she would simply release the raw data. She won't do that. Which is confusing at best. That raw data is her "beautiful science".. Is it so "beautiful" no one else but Melba can understand it?

As I've stated before, we'll have to wait and see then.

Well, you can "wait and see" but I want to hear from those who have the education that can tell me what is in her paper to date. I have the feeling Melba is again asking us to "hold our breath".. Sorry, but I value oxygen too much and I want to live.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Melissa

[Guest]

It was the contigs which can be directly blasted. It's basically the un-raw data. It could have easily been (but time-consumingly annoying) just typed out randomly. I don't think that's what happened, but it's possible. It allows the DNA sequences in those contigs to be analyzed. That analysis hasn't come close to proving the claims of the paper.

The poster that asked for a peer-reviewed study refuting her claims... they're all waiting. They need the full raw data in order to see what they have to refute. If I told you I'm typing this out on a pink keyboard. My only proof that I supplied were pictures of the keys that I had removed from said keyboard, but they're black with white lettering. Two other posters searched through every keyboard database known and came back with a grey keyboard both times. I then come out and say, well prove my keyboard isn't pink.

It's something that can't be proven. Just like her report can't be completely refuted without her released raw data. I don't know if that's intentional or not, but it leads to doubt all around. But science doesn't rely on that. It can see if even that 1% makes sense in comparison to her claims and so far, every analysis has said no.

I love the keyboard analogy. However, I disagree that we cannot refute Ketchum's paper with what has been released. We have enough data to know that: a) Ketchum was either dishonest or incompetent with regards to what Q30 stands for, which calls her entire methodology into doubt; FAZE is not a legitimate organization - if it was, it would be organized as a 501©(3) in the States, not as a for-profit entity in the Bahamas; c) the released samples are contaminated bear, not a new species; and d) Ketchum's theory of BF's paternal ancestor being a nephilemur is nonsensical.

[TimB]

No. It is meaningful.

We don't need the alleged data to be released, they clearly have contaminated human DNA, and made a leap to label it as Bigfoot.

Please don't give out anyone's identity, it is not necessary.

It's necessary if you want to verify the validity of information given. If you don't care about the validity- just about the product, then you don't care who wrote the eval. It could be the king of the universe for all you know...

[Guest]

Let us remember that MK herself is calling into question the claims of people questioning her data. I would like for our resident experts (Genes^2 and Ridge) to specifically address what she is saying below.

Her FB post:

With a novel species, random sequence will sometimes be obtained with primers meant to amplify a certain locus in a known species (since that locus may not have the same flanking sequences in the novel species). This can either yield "junk DNA" or a coding sequence elsewhere in the unknown species' genome. When you then BLAST this novel sequence, it can BLAST as similar to some known species, especially if what you have ended up amplifying is not a coding region. This is also true when it comes to human whole genomes. If you just take a random sequence from the raw sequences obtained by next generation sequencing, that very well may be "junk DNA" rather than a coding region and you can get all kinds of other species coming up in the BLAST. Folks should learn their genomics prior to criticizing.