The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest Tyler H]

RR and SY, I don't want to derail your discussion - please continue.

But in the meantime, I had said I would work on a layman's description of what I see going on in the pdf by my "top-secret" "supreme ruler of the galaxy":

The first page of the pdf identifies the sequences at the top of the page as “sample 26†(Justin’s sample). In that sequence as a whole (the entire string of colors), a biologist has outlined for us that the blue sequences are an unspecified “primate†(human, ape, etc), and the red sequences are ‘bear’. These two contributors then, are the dominant presences.

Green, Orange, Fuchsia and Black are also present in small amounts, and represent “artifacts†and “unknownâ€. These are present in only very small amounts.

The next little table shows what Genbank has to say, when this ‘string of sequences’ is “BLASTed“(ie, when this set of sequences is presented to Genbank as a single species, and Genbank is asked to predict which species most closely align with the data presented to it... In other words, when Genbank is asked to “identify†the species represented by the sequence(s).) You can see that Otolemur and Homo Sapiens are both listed as potential matches. Now again, that is Genbank working with a sequence that includes primate and bear and artifacts and unknowns.

One way to tell that it is not a sequence from one contributor, is that when you separate the sections (individual contributors) of that initial ‘string’ (as per the colors), and blast them separately, your results change quite a bit:

• We here see in the next attempt that when just the areas that are identified as “primate†(blue), and “artifact†(green) are blasted, Otolemur is dropped from Genbank’s suggested potential matches, and only Human (HSS) is suggested as a likely match.
  
• When you blast just the red sections of the original string, you see that the results now match “Bear†ONE HUNDRED percent… bear ONLY. That makes it tough to question that that sequence is bear, and not just part of some other animal’s genome.
  

Likely conclusions:

When the “bear†or “human†sections of the original string of sequences are blasted by themselves, Genbank readily identifies them as such. This seems to corroborate the opinion that the original sequence in fact represents more than one contributor and should not be viewed as originating from one animal. (This then is a third “test†which gets the same results that my lab, and Bart’s lab got on this tissue sample – “Bear and human DNA†- Melba's own data aligns with this same conclusion). When those same bear sequences from the original string are blasted while intertwined with human and artifacts, Genbank can’t identify them, and thinks that Otolemur or human is the closest match.

So, we have fairly definitive matching by Genbank which says that the blue areas are Human, and the red areas are Bear...But that when you present them to Genbank as a mixed sample (Frankenstein DNA) Genbank ceases to recognize them as “bear†and “human†and instead says “hmmm this seems kinda like Otolemur DNA.†Another reason to doubt that potential suggested match, is that the amount of homology is low enough to make anyone question that the DNA is actually from any single species on this planet, since we have more homology with nearly every other living thing that moves.

edited to add:

Please correct and improve this interpretation as you see fit, Genes, RR, Theagenes, etc.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Tyler H

[Guest]

I found this in an interview with Paulides:

" People need to understand that the

results of the DNA are not Dr. Ketchum's

interpretation or the product of her

independent work, they are the

cumulative effort of many organizations

and institutions who contributed their

intellect to the results. Great discoveries

sometimes take years of success and

failure before enlightenment occurs. The

results of this study will change the way

the world views the biped."

I have yet to hear any of the co-authors come foreword and defend the paper, so did these co-authors actually participate in the interpretation of the results or did they just run the genomes and left the interpretation and writing to Ketchum?

http://www.examiner.com/article/interview-with-david-paulides-on-native-bigfoot-perspectives-and-dna-revelations

Edited March 12, 2013 by squatting squatch

[Guest]

No, that has been one of the issues cited with the paper. None of the coauthors have issued any statements in support of it.

Someone on JREF contacted two coauthors and reported that they said they never even saw a copy of the paper.

The woman who did that recent radio interview with Dr. K said that she contacted the second author, who declined comment, citing concerns that her interpretations will damage his lab's credibility.

Granted, both of these reports are technically hear-say.

[Guest TwilightZone]

Thanks for that interpretation, Tyler. And also thank the SROTG!

[Guest]

Shboom2 in GA said:

The woman who did that recent radio interview with Dr. K said that she contacted the second author, who declined comment, citing concerns that her interpretations will damage his lab's credibility.

Bold mine.

I bet that is the problem right there. Someone else brought this up earlier - I believe they asked if the other labs ran the tests, but maybe Melba did the interpretations of the tests. Apparently there is one lab that did not agree with her interpretation of their results. I gotta wonder if this happened more than once.

Melba discussed this herself in an interview..No, this would be a second lab... But, Melba only said there was one gentleman that was very angry with her when she told him what she thought the sample was. I believe she said he was so irate she didn't use his work in her study.. So, maybe it happened more than twice??

Would a DNA lab simply run a sequence and not tell the person who provided the sample - what they thought the sample was? Even if it was a blind study - I would think the lab that ran the tests would know if the sample provided was Human or not..

[Guest]

^^^from what I have heard the documents from the labs that did the testing are not in the paper. They are one of many documentations she's been withholding from public view, along with the GenBank denial and the supposed bias from other journals.

[Guest]

Okay, that is interesting Squatting Squatch.. I know Melba said this was a "blind study" and was very happy to tell people - that means the labs had no idea what the results might be or where the samples came from.

So - I wonder how many labs came back saying the same thing Trent and the Oklahoma lab said -- and Melba then emailed or called and told them what "it really was" -- and then they flipped out.. I can understand why. If they were getting results that said "Human" and Melba told them, "Sure - but I sent you Bigfoot Samples - so clearly Bigfoot is human" -- I can see why these labs would freak out.

I bet all that documentation she is withholding - would make for a very interesting read.

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

I have yet to hear any of the co-authors come foreword and defend the paper

No, that has been one of the issues cited with the paper. None of the coauthors have issued any statements in support of it.

The authors names are on the paper, therefore they support it. Why would they need to perpetually repeat that support every few days because some anti-Ketchum type tries to plant a seed of imaginary dissent?

[Guest]

J Sasq Doe said:

Why would they need to perpetually repeat that support every few days because some anti-Ketchum type tries to plant a seed of imaginary dissent?

Every other day? I don't think any of the labs or co-authors of that paper have said a word publicly.. Have they? Can someone point me to an interview?

Edited March 12, 2013 by Melissa

[Guest]

Ladies and gentlemen it is now safe to unfasten your "seatbelts".

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

Every other day?

I said "every few days". Just thought I would correct this right at the start before it ends up being exaggerated down the line as my having said every couple of seconds.

[Guest]

J Sasq Doe,

Oh my bad. And you're right - that change makes all the difference. Problem being - I can't find one interview by those involved with either the testing or co-authorship of the paper saying anything publicly every other day or every few days or ever.. Ketchum herself talked about the dissent with one of the "blind study participants" - and according to her he was so upset she left his work out of the paper.

Can you provide a link to an interview with one of these people?

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

It is quite common for journals to charge folks to read a paper. I checked a handful of journals, namely Science, Nature, and Genome Research. Science and Genome Research will ding you US$20 to access the article for ONE day. Nature will let you purchase an article in PDF format for $8.

I couldn't tell you if that is their standard pricing for all articles. And not sure if you need to have a subscription to be able to access them otherwise. If you did then Science charges $50 to $310, Nature charges $99 to $199, and Genome Research charges $625 to $3820+.

In light of this, then it would seem to me that $30 for Ketchum's paper, is quite inexpensive, and more than fair.

[Martin]

............

I don't think any of the labs or co-authors of that paper have said a word publicly.. Have they? Can someone point me to an interview?

............

That is a great question Melissa. I have searched and searched but i have been unable to find anything.

[Guest]

I think many would argue - $30.00 is a lot of money for a "scientific paper" that has no "science" in it. In fact, many in the scientific community have said exactly that.

Edited to add:

Martin, I have searched and searched for the last few days myself and can find nothing other than what Melba has said herself - and the comments about the JREF posters who have spoken to one or two of the contributors... But, why wouldn't these people be talking publicly about the awesome paper that reveals this incredible new science? Last I checked, publication or co-authorship was the goal of most in science.

So, Melba found the few that don't care to be published?

Edited March 12, 2013 by Melissa