Jump to content

The Ketchum Report (Continued)


Guest Admin

Recommended Posts

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.

I think the long novel insertions might be the most difficult to explain in terms of what's common in mammals I guess. I didn't have the technical knowledge to critically question every aspect, particularly in assembly of the sequences. I did occasionally wonder how deep the coverage was where traditional PCR methods were used. The inversions didn't alarm me because this is known in the differences between human and chimp from what I've read or heard watching genetics presentations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the long novel insertions might be the most difficult to explain in terms of what's common in mammals I guess. I didn't have the technical knowledge to critically question every aspect, particularly in assembly of the sequences. I did occasionally wonder how deep the coverage was where traditional PCR methods were used. The inversions didn't alarm me because this is known in the differences between human and chimp from what I've read or heard watching genetics presentations.

Some insertions and inversions are definitely possible, as are some unique sequences specific to a species. There just seems to be a bit too much in this sequence. I guess what I was getting at was if you could give an indication of how self critical MK was of her data?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, she often would relate how strange the nuDNA was. I had the feeling she was accepting some of it at face value due to it's repeating results. I think she want's or wanted to develope a test to ID the species which would depend on a unique and consistent novelty somewhere in the genome. In that way I think she was critical in looking for the proof. Also of note, there was one mito sample that previously was tested to have an unusual SNP in the cytochrome b locus. She said she debunked it by sequencing about 120 bases flanking the annomally and re-BlASTing it. This was reportedly due to a reaction to a primer. I take it the annomalies can sometimes occur at the ends of a sequenced segment.

I think Melba would have loved to have a unigue mito eve in her study, so she was critical in that particular case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

I'm still waiting for my logger buddies to comment on the sticks, the 4-H club to comment on the horse braids, a literary historian to comment on the Gilgamesh angle(too bad Sitchin wasn't around...He would've made a good co-author), and a clown to comment on the April Fools paper. None, of course, can be proven to have anything to do with BF, but she threw them in there as proof of BF, nonetheless.

I still don't understand why this doesn't affect her paper in a negative way to proponents. We don't have the data, so this is what we have to judge it by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest J Sasq Doe

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.

Dr. Anna Nekaris, is an editorial board member on Meldrum's Relict Hominoid Inquiry. She is in bigfootery, so that conflict rules her out. It would appear that she is clearly in Meldrum's camp.

David Winter was in the youtube clip with Bug Gurl and the 5 Fly Guys broadcasting on webcams from their dorm rooms or some such place, all the while yukking it up about something or other.

Dr. Leonid Kruglyak's position is that "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."

With less than 1% of the data being released by Ketchum, it would appear that once again, the need is for more data, so that Kruglyak and others, might offer a more comprehensive critique, instead of arriving at conclusions without all of the relevant data.

I would be very interested to hear Kryglyak's conclusions once all of the data is released and he gets access to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question...

How many scientists publish papers - even peer reviewed - with only 1% of the data (data being the actual science)? How many would admit they only published 1% of the data (again the data being the actual science)?

Do they do this, then in a few months, release a little more? Or is it more like an primetime tv show? A weekly installment of information for a few months - then a long vacation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With less than 1% of the data being released by Ketchum, it would appear that once again, the need is for more data, so that Kruglyak and others, might offer a more comprehensive critique, instead of arriving at conclusions without all of the relevant data.

SasqD

Why are you giving Melba a pass for her conclusions? Her paper must stand on the data that is included in it. If Melba is allowed to reach a conclusion based on the contents of her paper than anyone else is permitted to as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest OntarioSquatch

I see that Janice Carter and Mary Green have about 20 confirmed samples in the study. Doesn't that raise a red flag or two?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This entire saga has been depressing to say the least. I've had to somewhat curb my bigfoot obsession these last few weeks, and it looks like not one thing has changed with this paper over that time...

So she really is just not going to release the data, is that exactly where we stand? How could this possibly be the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she releases the data, then it will be debunked and no more capital will be generated, the protection effort will become more futile than it already is, no more hype, no more t-shirts, no more professional credibility, no more follower fluffing, no more interviews, etc. Someone would seem to like the drama and attention who won't give up the one key to proving anything either way. Disotell has already said he will look over it and tell everyone what it is.(Whether or not he is a skeptic is moot) She is withholding it for a deliberate purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

He predicted exactly what was going to happen and how it was going to go down to the letter. Plenty of people on this forum blasted Disotell before her paper came out. They are sure quiet now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He predicted exactly what was going to happen and how it was going to go down to the letter. Plenty of people on this forum blasted Disotell before her paper came out. They are sure quiet now.

I agree and the deeper we dig the more a quasi shift of epic proportions begins to deteriorate perceptions as to whats real and whats for sale.

Edited by KeepingTheBlade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question...How many scientists publish papers - even peer reviewed - with only 1% of the data (data being the actual science)? How many would admit they only published 1% of the data (again the data being the actual science)? Do they do this, then in a few months, release a little more? Or is it more like an primetime tv show? A weekly installment of information for a few months - then a long vacation?

It depends.........how many "scientists" are too busy trying to launch a line of trademarked, logo branded outdoor clothing based on their scientific discoveries?

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go put on my 'Sasquatch Wildwear' brand sweatshirt. It has a sagittal crest on the hood, and a Lemur tail hanging from the back. :sarcastichand:

Edited by Irish73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This entire saga has been depressing to say the least. I've had to somewhat curb my bigfoot obsession these last few weeks, and it looks like not one thing has changed with this paper over that time...

So she really is just not going to release the data, is that exactly where we stand? How could this possibly be the case?

yeah - it appears that way. How could this possibly be the case? I used to hang around waiting for scrapes about this promised study, now I hang around for scraps to explain how this inglorious end could possibly be the case.

It may take a while, but too many have hung around too long to just shrug it off and I imagine we will eventually find out just exactly how this was possible...

BTW... Meldrum was interviewed recently by TT

part 2 of those youtubes, toward the end maybe minute 20, reveals some of his thoughts about this study ... http://afterhourswit...r.blogspot.com/ ...hummm......

did notice he has shifted from Gigantopithicus to P.bosie lol in response to the "ape" question...... and justifies that now with Hobbit - he can see even without fossil record migration can occur to such remote locations...so now perhaps it is easier to see migrating far from Africa w/o fossil record..making Gigantico not the only choice... :) He really doesn't like H. erectus does he?

But, it gives hope to my idea that even without obvious fossil record of soft visual systems...that a Tapetium Lucidium is not so remote in our genetic coding...

I also saw an anon comment under this story...in which a person claimed that the genome/protection website was just taking off...and so on, and that eventually the world would see MK has it right..... now that could be a spoof comment, but it had some desperate feel of wanting this to be true..... have heard the the Oxford study is not expected to publish before the end of year at the earliest....so, well..... ? Her spokes person posted she would not be answering questions for any BF type individual or group! So, wadda ya know.

It is overdue, uploading.

on the 501© stuff....and her Protection Business cloaked as non-profit in verbage on the website....and requiring a personal contact to donate.....again, I think Wally gave her an unrealistic view of the money devoted to BF research....?

I think I have actually been a bit depressed about all this looking back over the last few weeks....and looking forward. Doesn't it make you want to be even more altruistic/honest/sharing/caring to solve this?

Edited by apehuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...