Guest Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Apehuman- All the more to get involved in research and field work. Disappointment is just another brick in the wall, but that wall can be scaled in time; nothing impotant comes easy IMO. Stay the course and join the crowd, I think we all feel your pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 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. You see, this is what I like about Melba. Not only is she willing to take on the Bigfoot Community, but the Fashion Industry as well.. Hey, do you think the back of the t-shirt will have the raw data printed on it???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 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. we have a winner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Ketchum is holding it for one reason and one only, because she has NOTHING. End of story, it will never be released Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 (edited) TY Ptangier, I am sure my pain is small compared to many. Some involved have been so for decades literally, and I know your encounter dates way back too. What I did find really interesting talking with Dr. Sykes (and I am waiting for Rhettmn to provide official updates through Bigfootology, I was an interloper/fan that drove to the BIgfoot Bookstore to meet him and just see for myself...is he doing this?!) is this GEM, I think anyway... he was hesitant to jump on board too fully with the idea of Neanderthal or Denisova interbreeding, only b/c these differences do show up in nDNA or Y-DNA and not mtDNA...and he thinks that with the one million human genomes now that at least one or two would have retained some mtDNA Neanderthal or Denisova markers....to indicate that interbreeding..although he spoke highly of those studies.... (and aside he also mentioned that about 20% of DNA run through the most stringent genome analysis shows contamination from bacteria or virus.....it's just the reality especially with nDNA... although he spoke highly of forensic techniques and also ability to scrub a single shaft and remove DNA w/o using control DNA from handlers prior to arrival in the lab). I suggested that the 15 mtDNA haplotypes of the MK study (I hope I got that right..it seemed that has been said here, she identified about 14 or so different human mtDNA types? if not I give up on myself entirely) that show up and yet she points to the differences in the nDNA and might that be an analogous situation as to the Neanderthal or Densiova mtDNA being fully human....that BFs may also be? And that if his lab results begin to trend toward human mtDNA to please reassess his lab analysis choices...?! But, it does raise to me the possibility that these are relict humans ( would A. robustus/boisie be mtDNA human.. I think not?) ...if indeed mtDNA (or the many previous test coming back vaguely human..) is human..and MK may have gotten the more standard test..the mtDNA stuff right (sans the bear SK controversy) if not the much more complicated work with the nDNA and Next Gen approach and her ultimate conclusions... I am pretty jazzed on the one hand this is happening, and Bigfootology/Rhettman will be a source of info on this as it progresses, on the other it is still months away and his choices of samples much smaller apparently than MKs...hard to judge that by numbers only...... I do not expect it to track like the MK study ....I hope anyway! Rhettman has posted some photos and updates on Bigfootology's FB page Edited March 15, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) Where is the rumor that she has legit data that won't be released coming from? If she had proof, wouldn't it have been released before her "study" went downhill? Edited March 16, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 read this fascinating paper on the genetic difference between polar bears and alaskan bears to see how proper research is done http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003345 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Where is the rumor that she has legit data that won't be released coming from? If she had proof, wouldn't it have been released before her "study" went downhill? You would think so. I've come to realize that nothing she does is conventional, or on the up and up. She seems to think she can just re-invent the scientific wheel due to baseless claims of persecution by the scientific community. I saw that the scum-bag, RL, is posting on TeamTazers FB page about the samples not being contaminated and that Bart and Tyler's samples can be proven to be different than Smeja's sample that he sent her, yet, as always, she provides nil to prove it, and relies on others to post for her. How many times have we seen laymen linked to the Ketchum camp post on here/FB/etc, and all of a sudden they have changed their whole style of writing, knowledge, formatting, etc, and sound like someone versed in science for a post or two? I wouldn't be surprised to find out down the road that she was his source all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest J Sasq Doe Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 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. I am not giving her a pass for anything at all. I doubt anyone can prove or disprove her conclusions without all of the data. Someone said that she has released less than 1% of her data with her paper so far. We do not know if it's the best, worst, or just random, data from her study. There is a lot written about Ketchum, but precious little from a factual basis about the data in her study. The data from her study is the key point as to whether her conclusions are valid. The rest (non study gossip and sniping) is pointless drivel. Why are you giving her a fail for her conclusions? Do you have all of the data that the conclusions were based upon? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) The data from her study is the key point as to whether her conclusions are valid. That is the problem isn't it? The data supplied with the study does not support or demonstrate adequately her conclusions, and most probably why it was not published by any established peer-review Journal. She has indicated there is more information in the way of raw data, to upload to Genbank, that will assist others in evaluating her work. The data provided with her paper, if taken alone, resulted in the critical comments we have seen by those interested. We have also seen them say almost unanimously there is not enough data in the paper to adequately test her conclusions...or along those lines... So? Her conclusions do appear to fail based on what she has provided. Claiming she has more that will prove it, but not release it, or discuss openly with any BF interested person sounds like a shell game at this point to me. Look back two posts or so, that is the best "flavor" I can give her work right now...with my limited knowledge of DNA analysis and taking into account what I have read here....so maybe there will be something to recover of her work..or not. That's up to her. As it stands right now it's embarrassing for BF research and Science, and I personally cannot find a valid/good reason to justify her behaviors or claims. Edited March 16, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 OTLS just posted an update on De Novo's editor - Dr. Rayford Wallace, who seems to have a D.Min., not a Ph.D. or MD or even DVM or DDS. To paraphrase Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy, he's a preacher, not a scientist. In other De Novo news, they are now offering to "peer review" and publish research papers for the low low price of $1500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) ^ouch! Too bad these bloggers are so snarky because they are doing quite a job of investigative reporting and at some point, if their darkest suggestions are true, the subject deserves the dignity of serious attention and grave response. Edited March 16, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) I saw that the scum-bag, RL, is posting on TeamTazers FB page about the samples not being contaminated and that Bart and Tyler's samples can be proven to be different than Smeja's sample that he sent her, yet, as always, she provides nil to prove it, and relies on others to post for her. How many times have we seen laymen linked to the Ketchum camp post on here/FB/etc, and all of a sudden they have changed their whole style of writing, knowledge, formatting, etc, and sound like someone versed in science for a post or two? I wouldn't be surprised to find out down the road that she was his source all along. It is beyond me why anyone would take him seriously about anything at this point. The man comes out and admits that he's trolling in his blog's title. ^ouch! Too bad these bloggers are so snarky because they are doing quite a job of investigative reporting and at some point, if their darkest suggestions are true, the subject deserves the dignity of serious attention and grave response. I'm not sure quite what you mean by "grave response," but I think the majority of bloggers who are covering this are showing admirable restraint - look at Sharon Hill, for instance. She's been more than fair to Ketchum, IMHO. OTLS has generally been pretty good at staying serious when they're doing factual reporting or muckraking about Ketchum; the snark only really comes out when they're doing commentary or analysis. Edited March 16, 2013 by leisureclass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) I'm not sure quite what you mean by "grave response," I was using the word in this manner:Definition of GRAVE as adjective 1 a obsolete : authoritative, weighty b : meriting serious consideration : important <graveproblems> c : likely to produce great harm or danger <a grave mistake> d : significantly serious : considerable, great <graveimportance> 2 : having a serious and dignified quality or demeanor <a graveand thoughtful look> ok..edit vortex again trying to cut and paste and picked up weird formatting..I agree and did note the bloggers are "doing quite a good job of investigative reporting" and your addition that the snarky only comes out when they are doing "commentary or analysis" seems to encompass their work almost entirely, a few maybe do limit their reporting to objective facts or even opinions in a grave manner. What I meant by "response" is a good question and I don't know what an appropriately grave response would be... Edited March 16, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) I doubt anyone can prove or disprove her conclusions without all of the data. Ketchum herself seems to think so as THE PAPER SHE HAS WRITTEN CLAIMS A CONCLUSION. Why are you giving her a fail for her conclusions? Do you have all of the data that the conclusions were based upon? Because her conclusion is a failure based on the data. SasqD you as others are are attempting to create a playing field where Ketchum is innocent until more data is provided. This is just not how scientific journal articles work. Here are some new rules which I think need to be realized. New Rules (or common sense) 1) IF YOU MAKE A CLAIM YOU MUST PROVIDE ALL DATA THAT BACKS UP THAT CLAIM. 2) IF THE DATA THAT BACKS UP YOUR CLAIM IS NOT PROVIDED YOUR CLAIM SHALL BE CONSIDERED FALSE 3) IF ALL DATA IS EVENTUALLY PROVIDED THE CLAIM CAN BE RE-EVALUATED. UNTIL SUCH TIME THE CLAIM SHALL BE CONSIDERED FALSE Remember, Ketchum made the claim first. She put her paper out there in public view with the statement that she has proven Bigfoot to exist. We are currently at state #2 above. Her claims are false. Edited March 16, 2013 by BipedalCurious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts