Guest Silent Sam Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Here you go: http://bigfootforums.blogspot.com/2013/03/based-on-true-lab-report.html Nicely put together and succinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Here you go: http://bigfootforums...lab-report.html plussed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) njjohn you said in the blog; (Note - this timetable has been edited out of the latest online version of Dr. Ketchum’s paper - “Novel North American Hominins.â€) So, did Ketchum add numbers to replace the 13,000 to 15,000? Any explanation for the removal of this information? Then there is this from Troy Hudson.. “Melba said everything is in the paper, except the physical samples.†Well, then I guess this is over. If everything is already in the paper - then there is no need to update the paper or add information - or sequences.... Looks to me like the 1% supporters are talking about - is actually 100%.... Oh man.. I have no words. Edited March 19, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) Again Sasq..... 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 interesting that so many here refuse to apply these exact same rules to ms.ketchum's work Edited March 19, 2013 by slappy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 ^ Hi Slappy, I'm not sure there are 'so many here' that your comment applies to. Maybe a handful, but heck, that doesn't really constitue 'so many' does it? I've long ago stopped supporting the kind Doctor, until more suitable responses and data can be provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 njjohn you said in the blog; So, did Ketchum add numbers to replace the 13,000 to 15,000? Any explanation for the removal of this information? Then there is this from Troy Hudson.. Well, then I guess this is over. If everything is already in the paper - then there is no need to update the paper or add information - or sequences.... Looks to me like the 1% supporters are talking about - is actually 100%.... Oh man.. I have no words. The timetable of dates has been edited out, but it still mentions the land bridge. There has also been sections added. I'll try to put a change log together myself when I get time. According to Dr. Ketchum, everything needed to prove her hypothesis is in the paper, everything is included in the paper, and that's all there is. I know that contradicts what the paper says, but I don't think Melba would lie to me knowing I was a journalist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Here you go: http://bigfootforums...lab-report.html Plussed John. Speaking of "1%" here's about 1% of the total questions in which no answer has been provided With respect to the data, why were the lab reports not attached to the manuscript as appendices to substantiate the work that was done on specific samples (why not share them now)? Why is there zero public support/defense from ANY of the co-authors and all attempts at contact (by multiple parties) have been ignored or elicited the vaguest of responses, where is the evidence that there was a "successful" peer review other than the claim there was? Is Casey Mullins a real person as no one has been successful in tracking him/her down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) The timetable of dates has been edited out, but it still mentions the land bridge. Well, I suppose she needs this land bridge for her theory to be legit - so maybe if she leaves it in - it will be? Edited March 19, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Here you go: http://bigfootforums...lab-report.html Really well done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Here you go: http://bigfootforums...lab-report.html Great work! We're lucky to have such awesome people here on this board! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 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. I'm allowing for the possibility that she is right about the mitochondrial data being human and wrong about it being from a bigfoot. In this scenario, it would violate someones privacy to publish their indentifying genomic markers in genbank. If Human mtDNA does not prove bigfoot is human, then you have to concede that it is not ethical to publish "all" the data. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/ Privacy If you are submitting human sequences to GenBank, do not include any data that could reveal the personal identity of the source. GenBank assumes that the submitter has received any necessary informed consent authorizations required prior to submitting sequences. Sure, you could just pretend you have consent and authorization to upload human sequences. Would you do it if the nuDNA and it's connection to the mitochondria had not been independently verified? Or if the people verifying it, wouldn't stand behind their work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) SY, I'm not sure MK's logic (or yours) is parsing on the Genbank issue. MK claims proof that these are not human but instead a hybrid, a new species with no expectation of consent. The only way this scenario makes sense is if she knows the samples are completely human? I'm also interested in your response to Ridgerunner's anology of Genbank/consent vs. Maltida/underaged nude model? Regardless, Genbank ASSUMES " that the submitter has received any necessary informed consent authorizations required prior to submitting sequences" but specifically precludes the submitter from submitting the personal identity of the source (which would obviously include a signed consent form) unless you are reading something different somewhere else? Edited March 19, 2013 by ohiobill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Technically, all humans are a hybrid, we evolved from earlier forms that crossed multiple times, so the issue would be, if bf has human mtDNA, is it still technically human? Perhaps the male progenitor was not us to an extent that the resulting hybrid could be considered a new species, but who's call would that be? We know Ketchum's stance is that it would be a subspecies to homo sapiens. If bigfoot were genus homo, then there could be an issue involving clear photos and no clothes. It reads like this do not include any data that could reveal the personal identity of the source. Not this specifically precludes the submitter from submitting the personal identity of the source Note the word data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Yes, but THIS sentence clearly puts the responsibility on the submitter to get the consent. GenBank does NOT request proof of this consent: GenBank assumes that the submitter has received any necessary informed consent authorizations required prior to submitting sequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 SY - Which on an unknown, non-HSS sample, which was unwitnessed during the sampling would include no "data" that could possibly infringe on consent or individual identity...so again, I'm not sure MK's logic or yours is quite where it needs to be on this issue. Unless MK is sure the samples are completely HSS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts