The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

I respect your right to not listen to, accept, or even outright ignore the opinions of those who downloaded this paper (for 30 bucks) and gave their own opinion based on their knowledge and expertise from within this community and outside of it.

But, it is also my right to listen to them as well as Melba, and make up my own mind.

Question for anyone.. Has Melba's CV ever been posted for public inspection ? Anyone ever seen it - or can someone point me to it online?

I really don't understand the bickering about the 30.00 by people that didn't believe anything she said before,during, or after the paper was published. If 30.00 is outside of your financial comfort zone, then why would you buy it and complain about the price ?

[Guest TwilightZone]

^If you paid by Paypal and feel you were promised something that was not delivered, you can often get your money back. I did so once after donating to a group that misused the funds and won my "case" if you can call it that.

Luckily I was able to read this "report" from the free link that was accidentally posted for a while...

[Guest Steve Byrne]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but at this point it appears that MK has CHOSEN not to prove the existence of saquatch yet.

The choices are what trouble me. Certainly, more transparency and sharing of data would be more profitable than just talking with George Noory (et. al). I would think that the best of the 111 "good" samples, 20 full mtDNA, 16 haplotypes and 3 full nuclear genomes being proven NOT BIGFOOT would be just as valuable and enlightening as a positive result... to a scientist and to the scientific community, and finally for her reputation and future prospects.

I'm trying to vet the possible scenarios:

1) MK has positive proof, but is too incompetent, greedy, naive or whatever to get it uploaded.

2) MK has positive proof, but has DECIDED not to release it...

a) because bigfoot is best protected as mythical (status quo)

b ) because she likes "owning" the secret.

c) because she was convinced by external forces that it should not happen.

3) MK has nothing conclusive, because she didn't try too hard or is incompetent.

4) MK has negative proof she wants to conceal for whatever reason.

I'm leaning towards #2 (a40% / b40% / c20%).

Current opinions? Thanks!

Edited March 19, 2013 by Steve Byrne

[Guest]

3) MK has nothing conclusive, because she didn't try too hard or is incompetent.

4) MK has negative proof she wants to conceal for whatever reason money.

^ I'd say a combination of 3 and 4 (call it 3.5) is the most likely.

Edited March 19, 2013 by NukaCola

[southernyahoo]

I am sorry, but the paper was released (there was no indication that it was a partial paper), and I did pay $30 for it. Maybe I am due a partial refund? Good science does not release partial papers - if fact I have never had an experience where relevant data was withheld.

I think it's been addressed. There would be legal backlash if she published Human Genomic data without a signed release from the donor if in fact she could ever be proven wrong in her conclusion of a new hominin. The samples, according to her, are from an extant human being with novel nuclear DNA sequences. Any portion of the data that could give specific identity would put her at further risk. I wouldn't expect "all" the data to ever be fully accessable to Joe Public.

[Guest Silent Sam]

You can only speculate on what might motivate a person. However it has clearly been demonstrated that there are a number of people who are willing to follow the good Dr. regardless of any facts or speculation to the contrary. That is always a recipe for trouble, and typically only worsens as the person who is the focus becomes more aware of the situation. Rarely if ever has anyone looked at a group and said "Whoa whoa whoa... you guys are cutting me way too much slack."

[Guest]

@SY

I thought the BF had told her through mind-speak that they approved of the study, could she not interpret that as a release?

Further, her addressing that has also been addressed, it is not that complicated practically or legally unless you want to make it so (for whatever reason). She could easily upload the data.

Edited March 19, 2013 by NukaCola

[MIB]

I won't be staying quiet for long.... article in the queue. I think the perceptions might have to be readjusted some.

You just said something. Looks like it's being generally ignored, but you've piqued my curiosity. Article .. here? Or .. elsewhere? If not here, when it's available, would you post a link? Thanks.

MIB

[Guest Steve Byrne]

I think it's been addressed. There would be legal backlash if she published Human Genomic data without a signed release from the donor if in fact she could ever be proven wrong in her conclusion of a new hominin. The samples, according to her, are from an extant human being with novel nuclear DNA sequences. Any portion of the data that could give specific identity would put her at further risk. I wouldn't expect "all" the data to ever be fully accessable to Joe Public.

I can't buy this... If this is a discovery, then you do what you have to. Who is going to sue you... one of the bigfoots? Please pass along that the Sierra Kills sample came from me and I will sign a release. I just want to know if I'm really a bigfoot and who my ancestors were...

[Guest]

I'm no one's judge, but it is how we do things in our method of questioning, our attitude-per say....that defines us. One can question what they think is wrong with the equation (or the findings)....but, only that should be called into question. Not the motives of the individual that led to the question in the first place.

I am not questioning her motives. I have no way of knowing what her motives are. My concern is that she is masquerading as a charity when, in reality, she is operating a for-profit venture and falsely telling people contributions are tax deductible.

Scientific norm is changed all the time, history has proved this. It just takes time to adjust to it. Mankind, science scholars of that era, thought for absolute certainty that the earth was flat. Does anyone called into Seven Hawking's findings as "marlarkly", he himself proved himself wrong.

Not sure when you are talking about, given that it's been generally accepted the earth was spherical since Aristotle.

[Guest]

I think it's been addressed. There would be legal backlash if she published Human Genomic data without a signed release from the donor if in fact she could ever be proven wrong in her conclusion of a new hominin. The samples, according to her, are from an extant human being with novel nuclear DNA sequences. Any portion of the data that could give specific identity would put her at further risk. I wouldn't expect "all" the data to ever be fully accessable to Joe Public.

SY, She HAS already published human genomic data without a (written) release!! There is more than 5Mbp in her paper! Just not on GenBank. She is free to CONTINUE to put sequences on her website or appending to her manuscript, as she has done by putting FASTA files - reload the article and scroll to the very bottom - they were not there on my first download of the paper.

And if MK is concerned about getting legal releases, did she get Matilda (I believe that was her name) to sign one? She did post images of her, and if I remember correctly she may be an under age female. And she is not wearing any clothing. If she is human, this is probably illegal (sorry no legal qualifications to say this).

So any reluctance to put further information out there for fear of legal action is just a convenient excuse.

[Guest]

I really don't understand the bickering about the 30.00 by people that didn't believe anything she said before,during, or after the paper was published. If 30.00 is outside of your financial comfort zone, then why would you buy it and complain about the price ?

I wasn't complaining about the price, zigoapex. I asked a question about access to changes/updates.

As you can see, on this page, http://www.denovojou...licy/c1o80��she discusses the "journals" digital download policy. What this page does not address is access to a paper that has been purchased - if/when updates have been made to the paper purchased. I am assuming the $30.00 is a fee assigned per download - and not "total access" to every paper on the site, if/when other papers are uploaded to the journal.

If this issue is addressed on the DeNovo Journal site somewhere, I would appreciate a link to the page.

EDIT - SY just answered my question.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Melissa

[Guest]

It is interesting that she is more concerned of a possible lawsuit by Matilda and the other BF than she is of any legal ramifications misrepresenting a for profit business as a non-profit may have.

[Guest njjohn]

Here you go:

http://bigfootforums.blogspot.com/2013/03/based-on-true-lab-report.html

[southernyahoo]

@SY

Further, her addressing that has also been addressed, it is not that complicated practically or legally unless you want to make it so (for whatever reason). She could easily upload the data.

I think it is probably prudent while your data is being verfied to follow Genbanks policy, it's there for a reason. Do you really think there aren't people just waiting to make things more complicated? I speak for myself as to why some of the data wouldn't be released, and I think it's a good reason. @RR is there any data that would indentify a specific person?