The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[southernyahoo]

I can be on board with tihs mindset SY - if not fully for myself, then I can at least understand someone in your situation having that mindset.

I just think that it stems from more "just wait, it's going to get better" propaganda from MK. I wonder how many years that song will be played before no one is willing to wait any longer.

I will say this: "watch for some evidence to come out shortly, which indicates even MK realized her current claims do not make sense in light of the genetic results obtained"

No, she never said it was going to get better. When I said "we" wait, I wasn't talking about Dr. Ketchum redoing anything or processing more samples, I'm talking about other studies.

[chelefoot]

Would a Princeton University geneticist be qualified enough to judge to accurateness of MK claims?

From this link: http://blog.chron.co...comment-page-1/ There are actually a few more opinions on this site as well.

Next is the view from Leonid Kruglyak, a Princeton University geneticist:

“To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid. Instead, analyses either come back as 100% human, or fail in ways that suggest technical artifacts. They make the bizarre claim that the failures might be caused by novel, nonstandard structure of the DNA (“Electron micrographs of the DNA revealed unusual double strand – single strand – double strand transitions which may have contributed to the failure to amplify during PCR.”) which would mean this DNA was different from DNA in all other known species. There’s also the strange statement they couldn’t deposit sequences in GenBank because it’s a new/unknown taxon — GenBank does that no problem.”

“The tree in Fig 16 is inconsistent with known primate phylogeny and generally makes no sense.”

[bipedalist]

....Oh BTW, it's now been over three weeks since she was asked to return the rest of the Sierras piece she tested to it's rightful owner (in violation per her research agreement) and last I heard that hasn't happened yet. Wonder what the hold up is J Sasq Doe? If the owner decides to test it she can prove our labs are incompetent (I'd be thrilled) or our labs (and Wally) were purposely given bear. I'm sure it's on its way soon right...

This will be important follow-up Bart seeing how I know of one other (Tom Burnette) having submitted samples to her had to beg to have them returned after getting the approval that they would.

Finally, they were (maybe after a year of badgering as I recall). Granted, he never even got results in writing only verbally for his efforts (or at least that was his side of the story)...... obviously the sample probably wasn't taken too seriously.

To most (and I examined it and photographed it) it appeared to be a sawn deer skull component and not baby BF skull so the drama continued on to another Canadian lab with that one too. He never released the fully paged lab studies from the Canadian lab (Paleo or Ancient DNA or something like that) when results came back.... omitting p. 3 on the old forum when he gave permission to have them posted up.

[TimB]

I'm just curious how past transgressions, frequency of inadequate work, financial mismanagement, preposterous claims, etc, have no bearing on what one may expect from someone? So, by that logic, someone with a 500 credit score should be able to finance a 400k house, as long as their income is within the accepted parameters for a loan that large, correct? It's pretty unfair that just because someone never pays back any debt, that they aren't trusted to receive a loan, right?

Everything MK has shown us so far is relative to this study, unfortunately. It's not a character assassination....It's re-hashing what she has done, or hasn't done. Has nothing to do with the pack mentality. It just so happens a lot of people disbelieve her claims based on what she's done in the past, or lack of what she's done in the present.

That's a very level response that I appreciate you posting. The other side of that is everything you listed has nothing to do with the paper, and there's nothing definitive either way from any known qualified scientist. I don't need to go searching for extraneous information.

Tim B.

Edited April 14, 2013 by TimB

[Guest Tomocvar]

Two posts after one forum member posted a review of the Ketchum paper by a Princeton University geneticist, another forum member writes " there's nothing definitive either way from any known qualified scientist ". If a Princeton University geneticist doesn't qualify as a "known qualified scientist", who does?

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

Would a Princeton University geneticist be qualified enough to judge to accurateness of MK claims?

From this link: http://blog.chron.co...comment-page-1/ There are actually a few more opinions on this site as well.

Next is the view from Leonid Kruglyak, a Princeton University geneticist:

“To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid. Instead, analyses either come back as 100% human, or fail in ways that suggest technical artifacts. They make the bizarre claim that the failures might be caused by novel, nonstandard structure of the DNA (“Electron micrographs of the DNA revealed unusual double strand – single strand – double strand transitions which may have contributed to the failure to amplify during PCR.â€) which would mean this DNA was different from DNA in all other known species. There’s also the strange statement they couldn’t deposit sequences in GenBank because it’s a new/unknown taxon — GenBank does that no problem.â€

“The tree in Fig 16 is inconsistent with known primate phylogeny and generally makes no sense.â€

I have mentioned before that Kruglyak appears to be the only unbiased (outside bigfootery) qualified and credentialed person, to date, to wade in with his opinion. But without all of the data being released, his opinion is not as informed as some might want to lead us to believe.

Edited April 14, 2013 by J Sasq Doe

[Guest]

I'm just curious how past transgressions, frequency of inadequate work, financial mismanagement, preposterous claims, etc, have no bearing on what one may expect from someone? So, by that logic, someone with a 500 credit score should be able to finance a 400k house, as long as their income is within the accepted parameters for a loan that large, correct? It's pretty unfair that just because someone never pays back any debt, that they aren't trusted to receive a loan, right?

Everything MK has shown us so far is relative to this study, unfortunately. It's not a character assassination....It's re-hashing what she has done, or hasn't done. Has nothing to do with the pack mentality. It just so happens a lot of people disbelieve her claims based on what she's done in the past, or lack of what she's done in the present.

Plussed.

[chelefoot]

Would a Princeton University geneticist be qualified enough to judge to accurateness of MK claims?

From this link: http://blog.chron.co...comment-page-1/ There are actually a few more opinions on this site as well.

Next is the view from Leonid Kruglyak, a Princeton University geneticist:

“To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid. Instead, analyses either come back as 100% human, or fail in ways that suggest technical artifacts. They make the bizarre claim that the failures might be caused by novel, nonstandard structure of the DNA (“Electron micrographs of the DNA revealed unusual double strand – single strand – double strand transitions which may have contributed to the failure to amplify during PCR.”) which would mean this DNA was different from DNA in all other known species. There’s also the strange statement they couldn’t deposit sequences in GenBank because it’s a new/unknown taxon — GenBank does that no problem.”

“The tree in Fig 16 is inconsistent with known primate phylogeny and generally makes no sense.”

I have mentioned before that Kruglyak appears to be the only unbiased (outside bigfootery) qualified and credentialed person, to date, to wade in with his opinion. But without all of the data being released, his opinion is not as informed as some might want to lead us to believe.

And see that's the part I don't understand. Why would Melba publish a paper or even expect peer reviewers to pass a paper, when the finished paper does not have all of the information necessary to make an informed opinion?

You have to admit, that is NOT how a scientific paper that is attempting to prove the existance of a new species should be presented! If there wasn't enough data in the paper to make an informed opinion, no wonder the paper didn't pass peer review and no wonder Melba had to purchase a journal in order to publish!

If this person, Leonid Kruglyak, cannot make an infomed opinion, how can you expect anyone to??

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

Sincerely - how can you say "just waiting for a qualified, credentialed expert (unbiased, ergo outside of bigfootery) to look over her data, and prove/disprove her results."? It's been gone over by multiple credentialed people who actually accept the existence of this animal....and you have rejected their conclusions. Yet, you say when 'someone else' who DOESN"T believe in the animal, rejects Melba's claims, THEN you are going to believe it? It's been done. It's happened. I think you really need to analyze what specific criteria are missing for you, so that you don't just reject any other forthcoming reviews of the data, creating new excuses about the source each time.

Why would rejection of MK's claims, by someone who DOESN'T believe in BF, be more compelling to you than the rejections by people who ARE OPEN to this animal's existence?

Who said anything about waiting on someone that doesn't believe in bigfoot? I don't understand where you got that from.

Trent U bear fiasco stuff snipped. Totally irrelevant to this subject

Yeah, none of that is important.......

So true.

let's get back to the "study and data".....

Finally. That would be a welcome change from you.

speaking of which, any idea J Sasq Doe where the rest of the data is and why it's not being made available so rigorous scientific review can take place?

I would suspect that Ketchum has it. I have no idea about where or why. I would suggest that you contact her with your questions.

Any idea why not one co-author and or qualified expert has come out in support of the paper?

Their names are on the paper. Are they supposed to reaffirm their participation every 2nd day, or just whenever you ask them to?

My lord, do you suspect it has anything to do with the top secret nature of ..... you know...... the "angel/alien" DNA?

There you go, off on a tangent again.

And how about you providing an embarrassing justification or two for zero evidence to substantiate the so-called "successful" peer review and no lab reports provided with the manuscript to help substantiate the work?

I was not part of the study, nor was I privy to it. Apparently the same as you. I would suggest to you that rather than directing these questions to a persona on an internet chat forum, that you actually ask Dr. Ketchum.

I would hope that anyone interested in the truth would ask Ketchum.

[Guest BartloJays]

Their names are on the paper. Are they supposed to reaffirm their participation every 2nd day, or just whenever you ask them to?

Actually, no....but how about just ONCE reaffirming their participation and association when someone with a PHD designation contacts them and inquires (which many have unsuccessfully, except for one name and he was puzzled he was on the paper). If you don't think being contacted is the norm, than try talking to someone in a parallel field or profession who's done an actual paper on a "recognized" species.

I was not part of the study, nor was I privy to it. Apparently the same as you. I would suggest to you that rather than directing these questions to a persona on an internet chat forum, that you actually ask Dr. Ketchum.

I would hope that anyone interested in the truth would ask Ketchum.

Thank you for the advice...but based on what I knew and predicted before she even released the paper, followed by what was actually presented and how it was received professionally, has left me (and apparently many others) without questions .......except maybe one....."Dr. Ketchum, are you surprised sucker scientist shopping is so challenging?" Come to think of it, "landscape architects" with an interest in genetics are a lesser premium these days.

I would hope that anyone interested in the truth would ask Ketchum

If history and character mean anything, I would contend that anyone interested in "the truth" ask anyone BUT Dr. Ketchum.... right after they take the time to do their own due diligence and think for themselves

Oh and the the rest of your comments were just gibberish so I didn't waste time responding

[TimB]

Thank you for the advice...but based on what I knew and predicted before she even released the paper,

Anything following this just goes to re-enforce the bias evidenced in this argument. This is personal and it predates the release of the paper. It's hard not to disregard what comes after.

[Guest]

That's like saying that mathematical equations have a bias.

[Guest]

Ketchum doesn't answer serious questions....She deletes them, then blocks you from the page. She doesn't want the lemmings knowing they are heading towards a cliff.

[Guest]

[Guest Tyler H]

I'm just curious how past transgressions, frequency of inadequate work, financial mismanagement, preposterous claims, etc, have no bearing on what one may expect from someone? So, by that logic, someone with a 500 credit score should be able to finance a 400k house, as long as their income is within the accepted parameters for a loan that large, correct? It's pretty unfair that just because someone never pays back any debt, that they aren't trusted to receive a loan, right?

Everything MK has shown us so far is relative to this study, unfortunately. It's not a character assassination....It's re-hashing what she has done, or hasn't done. Has nothing to do with the pack mentality. It just so happens a lot of people disbelieve her claims based on what she's done in the past, or lack of what she's done in the present.

That's a very level response that I appreciate you posting. The other side of that is everything you listed has nothing to do with the paper, and there's nothing definitive either way from any known qualified scientist. I don't need to go searching for extraneous information.

Tim B.

Then I guess past history of crime should have no bearing on a defendant, past history of hoaxes should have no bearing on your opoinon of claimed BF footage, and past history of embezzlement should have no bearing on your choice of investment banker.

Character is always a factor, Tim B. in nearly every single facet of life, character is one of the factors that we judge a situation or a claim by.