The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

So it has been previously established that ther Q30 scores were not valid for assessing whether there was contamination or not.

however, I am interested in some other numbers for evaluation of the work

In working my way through CLC literature (CLC is the software MK identifies as being used). Anyway CLC identifies 3 statistics or numbers that should be used in evaluating how accurate the "reassembly " of the genome was. Thats important because that (reassembly) is the most likely source of error, and would result in long "chains" of nonsense DNA.

so CLC identifies the N50, the RR, HR & ER% as being numbers that are important in evaluating how accurate the "reassembly " is. Any paper using this system should have stated those numbers as part of the data analysis discussion.

I can find no mention of any of those numbers in this paper. Am I missing something here?

[Guest]

I actually don't disbelieve the claims of having been involved in court cases, but her claim of having worked on the 911 tragedy is very suspect to me.

It's possible that she served as an expert in a few cases, but it can't have been more than two or three or she'd show up on Lexis's expert list. I'm also guessing it wasn't very recent - the 2009 patent suit and the BF project would be huge red flags for an attorney.

[Guest]

***MOD ACTION***

THREAD LOCKED FOR COOLING OFF PERIOD AND CLEAN UP!!

ENOUGH!

[chelefoot]

Ok - This thread is reopened.

Several posts have been removed that have been found to be personal in nature, off topic or disruptive to the discussion.

Remember the Rule and Guidelines state:

- Attack the argument - not the arguer. Do not make things personal

- Respect each others opinions

- Use the report button to report a post that is not in keeping with the rules or guidelines -

DO NOT address the offending post yourself

Thank you to those of you who have ignored these posts and continued to discuss the topic.

Carry on!

chelefoot

[Guest]

So, where were we?

[Guest]

You were pulling the feathers off the study one by one.

[Guest]

Texas does seem to allow for a tax exempt "non profit organization" without incorporating ...with accompanying rules i did not read.

This additional unfinished website is numbing. I saw a forums page that had discussion groups broken into 15 or more regions, still not operating. These are big plans.

I think Wally gave MK an unrealistic view of the wealth/tolerance/interest of potential Bigfoot research patrons.

Edited March 14, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

I'm just curious....Who takes two weeks off in the middle of one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all-time? At what point will she prioritize her projects? Seems if she actually completed one task before moving on to another it could help her business ethics, and her BBB ratings.

Does anybody know what the hold-up is, or if she's given a reason that she will not prove what she claims? She's making an absolute mockery of science, and BF research. Can any proponent of her work explain why she put those pics of sticks and horses in a scientific paper that isn't about horses, or windfall?

Well, I guess everyone will be on pins and needles while waiting for her beautifully amazing angelic sequences, but until then, I'm working on my paper, 'The NephiLemur Paradox' for my own journal.

Edited March 14, 2013 by PacNWSquatcher

[Guest]

I'm not sure if everyone has already seen this, but here is a pretty lengthy interview on Dec 6th with Todd Disotell about Ketchums paper. Sorry for re-hashing:)

http://fb.me/2gMmHgMLA

Edited March 14, 2013 by PacNWSquatcher

[southernyahoo]

I'm just curious....Who takes two weeks off in the middle of one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all-time? At what point will she prioritize her projects? Seems if she actually completed one task before moving on to another it could help her business ethics, and her BBB ratings.

One might ask the same about Sykes, but who knows? Maybe it's just that time of year for geneticists?

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

Meanwhile, back to discussion of Dr. Ketchum's actual study.

Has there been an accredited scientist/geneticist/dna expert, outside of bigfootery, that has critiqued this study, pro or con, using a factual basis drawn from the study itself, since it was released?

[southernyahoo]

So, where were we?

I think we were discussing the need for homologous nuDNA with humans that is in the range of 90%. I recall having a conversation with Melba in which this number came up, We were discussing how similar or dis-similar it was to human at the time. There was mention of single stranded segments, inverted segments and insertions that were completely novel "not of this earth" etc.......One stretch of DNA was most similar to a dog, but not knowing it's function I chose not to assume contamination or misinterpretation, but rather concluded it could have been a relatively conserved strand that had a few mutations that skewed towards a dog. This may have spawned the dogman DNA rumor that went viral on Lindsays blog for a while. I didn't leak it, but other folks in the know could have.

[Guest]

I'm not sure if everyone has already seen this, but here is a pretty lengthy interview on Dec 6th with Todd Disotell about Ketchums paper. Sorry for re-hashing:)

Thank you for posting this link - I had not heard this interview with Todd Disotell. But, now I understand why people completely wigged out over the lemur info. Other than it just being wierd.

[Guest]

Meanwhile, back to discussion of Dr. Ketchum's actual study.

Has there been an accredited scientist/geneticist/dna expert, outside of bigfootery, that has critiqued this study, pro or con, using a factual basis drawn from the study itself, since it was released?

Yes. As mentioned earlier in the thread, there have been at least three. Dr. Leonid Kruglyak of Princeton University, Dr. David Winters (not sure of his affiliation), and Dr. Anna Nekaris of Oxford Brookes University. None of them have been impressed.

Texas does seem to allow for a tax exempt "non profit organization" without incorporating ...with accompanying rules i did not read.

The thing is, though, that the Ketchum "Foundation" isn't registered as a non-profit organization. Whether it's a corporation or not is irrelevant - it's registered as "General business," which means it's a for-profit entity. Moreover, regardless of its state status, donations are not tax deductible without 501©(3) status.

Edited March 14, 2013 by leisureclass

[Guest]

I think we were discussing the need for homologous nuDNA with humans that is in the range of 90%. I recall having a conversation with Melba in which this number came up, We were discussing how similar or dis-similar it was to human at the time. There was mention of single stranded segments, inverted segments and insertions that were completely novel "not of this earth" etc.......One stretch of DNA was most similar to a dog, but not knowing it's function I chose not to assume contamination or misinterpretation, but rather concluded it could have been a relatively conserved strand that had a few mutations that skewed towards a dog. This may have spawned the dogman DNA rumor that went viral on Lindsays blog for a while. I didn't leak it, but other folks in the know could have.

SY,

I think you are spot on with the "dog" sequence - mammals are just so highly conserved, especially in protein coding regions, that this is quite possible. And most similar to, does not mean "and not similar to" anything else. There are other explanations too.

Did MK ever mention in your conversation any issues with the insertions or inversions, or in how accurate her assembly was? Insertions and inversions sound like possible assembly errors.