The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

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.

Perhaps you misunderstood. I said that the co-authors signed on to the paper, and that they do not need to reaffirm their involvement, etc., just because some anti-Ketchum person asks them to do so "every few days". How you got from what I said to what you wrote is unfathomable to me.

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.

If I recall correctly, Ketchum said she sent some samples out for blind testing. Afterwards, one of the labs found out the samples were allegedly Sasquatch. At that point he did not want his lab associated publicly with her study. Perhaps you should keep yourself abreast of such news, as that is common knowledge by now.

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

No idea what you are referring to here. If it's in reference to your first paragraph above, then it's a scenario you devised and not anything I have written.

[Guest]

J Sasq Doe:

No one is asking about these contributors reaffirming their involvement - what I am discussing is the fact that they have said nothing publicly.. At all. Which is not common when it comes to scientists involved in new ground breaking discoveries. Unless of course these are scientists who really do not care about being "published" or on the ground floor of a major scientific breakthrough... Never know I guess.

If I recall correctly, Ketchum said she sent some samples out for blind testing. Afterwards, one of the labs found out the samples were allegedly Sasquatch. At that point he did not want his lab associated publicly with her study. Perhaps you should keep yourself abreast of such news, as that is common knowledge by now.

Yes that is basically what I said. If this lab did not already know the sample was from a "Bigfoot" how would they have gotten that information - if not from Ketchum herself? From what I gather everyone around her (maybe even her dog) is under an NDA of some kind.. So, it had to be Ketchum that informed this lab of what she thought the results meant. And that information exchange must have happened AFTER the lab finished with their blind study.. If that lab did not come to the same conclusions as Ketchum - I could fully understand why they did not want to be involved especially if that lab did not agree with the way Ketchum interpreted their results.

*Above paragraph edited for clarity*

I am fully abreast of this news and information.. Maybe you are not understanding my comments and points.

No idea what you are referring to here. If it's in reference to your first paragraph above, then it's a scenario you devised and not anything I have written.

I have the sneaking suspicion you're not reading my comments fully. I asked if you could provide a link to any articles or interviews by co-authors or contributors of Melba's paper. Maybe my question was not clear?

Edited March 12, 2013 by Melissa

[Guest spurfoot]

Even the paranoid sometimes have enemies. And, many of their enemies do not even know they are their enemies.

[Guest]

Tyler H

"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":

This is in reference to the other study ? if it is, this was on a different sample than the sample referenced in this thread, this report should be posted in the thread pertaining to the sample on the other study. posting here is off topic, since it was a different study on a different sample and not the sample the was sequenced in this study.

Edited March 12, 2013 by zigoapex

[Guest Tyler H]

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.

I am familiar with the same information. Not one single cited person has come out in favour of her conclusions. One said some ambiguous things about novel and perplexing nature of the study results. That was the closest there was to support. However, a few HAVE come out saying they didn't realize their name was on the paper, and/or that all they did was a technicians role, and had no input on the conclusions.

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..

Yes, that definitely does happen - it depends what they were contracted and paid for.

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?

Again, some didn't even know their names were on it, and some only processed things as requested and had no input on the conclusions. It's not the data that is suspect, so much as the interpretations of the data.

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.

Yes, it IS common for established PUBLISHERS to charge for their work - that is their role. It is NOT common for scientists to charge for people to read their paper - especially one that has not passed peer review.

[Guest thermalman]

With NDA's in place, it's not likely we're going to find out any info about who was involved. Lawsuits would be pending. So for those who keep on asking about other participants or scientists to be named........the answers can not be provided as demanded. Simple as that. Nothing to hide.......a totally legal perspective.

Edited March 12, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

Tyler said;

Yes, that definitely does happen - it depends what they were contracted and paid for.

Agreed. But, a question. Wouldn't you send out for 'blind studies" to verify your results in a situation like this.. Right? Ketchum said in one interview - the "results kept coming back the same".. Anyone know what she meant by that? Was it simply the DNA sequencing that came "back the same", or was the lab conducting the blind study asked to provide their interpretation of what the samples were - and those kept coming back the same?

I wonder if these "contributors" or labs are under some sort of NDA.

Thermalman said:

With NDA's in place, it's not likely we're going to find out any info about who was involved.

Oh, you just answered part of my question. So, there are NDA's with these contributors and labs. I could be wrong - but aren't those involved (contributors and co-authors and labs) listed in the paper?

Edited March 12, 2013 by Melissa

[Guest]

Bart Cutino

Alright best quote of the day by yours truly:

I told Justin, "You see I told you I'd take care of everything, I got you off murder charges and I've made these suckers still believe these things could be apes"

March 1 at 2:14pm

Posted on Team Tazer's FB page on march 1st.....

pretty much a nail in the coffin of the ''bear sample'' theory.

[Guest thermalman]

I wonder if these "contributors" or labs are under some sort of NDA.

If it were my lab Melissa, yes they would have been. It's highly likely that all participants were under the NDA umbrella.

[Guest]

But, the paper has been released - according to Ketchum - so why the NDA? Why wouldn't Ketchum want them out there helping her defend the science in the paper?

[Guest craichead]

I used to work in research labs as a tecnician when I was younger -- DNA analysis and immunology. I just wanted to chime in and say that it's common practice to put people on a research paper as authors simply for lending their technical abilities.

I know my name has gone on several, though all I ever did was perform lab tests and often at the time it was just an assignment and I didn't even know why I was doing it.

So what I'm getting at is that these folks probably aren't saying anything because they likely have nothing to say since all they did was analyze samples. Any of the wild theories that came about from their analysis they more than likely had nothing whatsoever to do with.

[Guest thermalman]

That's a question you'd have to ask her Melissa. But the NDA enforcement would explain all the "hidden" answers people are trying to get. Many of the questions posted on this thread can only be answered by MK or her camp, and if they choose not to, then one cannot expect correct answers on this forum from the diversity of different posters.

Edited March 12, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

Craichead said:

So what I'm getting at is that these folks probably aren't saying anything because they likely have nothing to say since all they did was analyze samples. Any of the wild theories that came about from their analysis they more than likely had nothing whatsoever to do with.

For some of those involved in the testing - I could totally buy that as a rational reason to not discuss what they did. But, the one lab owner Melba discussed was very upset - so upset she said he completely went off in emails or phone calls to her - in fact Melba said she did not use his work because he was so irate. Why such anger for something he was simply blind testing?

I for one would love to know the name of that person.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Melissa

[southernyahoo]

Agreed. But, a question. Wouldn't you send out for 'blind studies" to verify your results in a situation like this.. Right? Ketchum said in one interview - the "results kept coming back the same".. Anyone know what she meant by that?

I think one lab was doing the human mito sequencing. Ketchum was sending them samples and telling them they were human (I guess) then they sequenced human mtDNA from the samples which had been screened to eliminate samples conforming to human morphology. So if the outside lab did due diligence in cleansing and purifying the DNA, thats a repeating result "coming back the same".

Another lab was doing the nuDNA targeted genes. This lab had to know the origin of the samples was questioned, because proprietary primers were developed to do the sequencing. Universal primers were also mentioned. Novelty found here could also be "coming back the same"

[Guest]

southernyahoo said:

Another lab was doing the nuDNA targeted genes. This lab had to know the origin of the samples was questioned, because proprietary primers were developed to do the sequencing. Universal primers were also mentioned. Novelty found here could also be "coming back the same"

Are you talking about the primers developed by Ketchum?

So, Melba figures out in the lab the nuDNA was novel - and develops a primer. She sends the sample with the new primer to an outside source for independent testing? Would this be correct or am I off the mark here?

Edited March 12, 2013 by Melissa