Guest BartloJays Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) Can anyone speak to the claims of Scott Carpenter over on his site? I am interested in hearing what you think of his statements posted today. http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/ I’m glad Scott did that article and what he’s insinuated is clearly on record. I’d also like to thank him for this because it makes it easier for everyone to see- Please look at sample 2# in Scott’s article (tissue comparisons) as you’ll see sample 26 in Ketchum’s lab compared to a pic of a piece taken off the salted tissue (other half of Ketchum’s piece) at our Oklah lab. Can anyone look at those two pictures, focusing in on the hair and say with a straight face they believe those samples are different? Again, the salted tissue is the other half of Melbas (see sample 3 comparison) and was out of Justin’s custody the first night I met him when he decided to give it to Wally. The truth is, some here like Ridge, Genes etc.. “think,â€with their expertise, they know what Ketchum doesn’t have (and genomes don't match) based on the limited snippets of information she’s allowed anyone to access. She’s also provided absolutely nothing to substantiate her data at this point, especially from a third-party as I haven’t seen any lab reports, nor have I seen one co-author defend her findings. Doesn’t mean she doesn’t have real data, but she hasn’t provided it so why should anyone think she will when she already shot her wad? We’ve never accused her of being a fraud with the data as I pleaded with her to release her data in my Oklahoma report summary so indep comparative analysis can take place. We believe she’s incompetent in interpretation of data (from expert's opinions who've actually weighed in) and are pretty confidant she didn’t spend hundreds of thousands of Wally’s contributions on legit “testing,†as was specifically allocated to her, and I believe the three witnesses who repeated her intentions they heard with their own ears from her, especially when Ketchum’s words about what regular testing would yield was accurate a year later. This statement from Scott Carpenter below pre-emptively justifying Ketchum's actions 2 days before Justin shared his monologue on what she told him on that phone call should tell you all you need to know about his character…especially with respect to the constant hourly findings updates about her study here: “Would you tell Justin Smeja to contaminate his remaining samples so no one else like Sykes could use his political connections and power to beat you and claim discovery for what you already have? Would you have preemptive press releases before your study is published? Would you purchase a journal that has passed your paper only to back out at the last moment due to political pressure in order to preserve the peer reviews and editorial independence? Though you may not agree with everything she has done, Dr. Ketchum had good reason. She was up against a "like minded" conspiracy. Main stream science knew then and know now what she has. They know it is rock solid and can not be refuted. Their only recourse was to destroy her personally in hopes of discrediting the results. They are AFRAID, afraid of the truth. What is this truth? A unknown, Veterinarian WOMAN from the SOUTH no less with the help of common everyday people have made one of the greatest scientific discoveries of our generation. This is a fact, a truth their belief system just can not tolerate. The religion of Darwinism demands this can not be true and not be allowed to stand. “ Bottom line- If you believe, Justin feared prosecution and would be willing to make himself look like a hoaxer by perception, but not scared enough to avoid it to just say he was hoaxing? Nowhere on record does he say this (fear of prosecution) and no one in bigfoot community that knows him believes this as the first mention of it was AFTER we had a conflict in results on the same tissue If you believe Justin switched samples prior to ever meeting me in July 2011 and ever believing the salted sample he brought to the site for Meldrum to examine was even going to be out of his possession? He actually decided to give it to Wally there at site during body search, it wasn’t planned. If you believe myself (and Tyler) would compromise our integrity to intentionally try and disprove a study regarding a subject (we’re devoted to as many of you are) we’ve wanted to see proven our whole respective lives and would do anything to see come to fruition? So essentially, according to Scott, if you believe that Tyler and I would intentionally give two labs pieces of bear, pay them for testing and go back and forth via email for 7 months, then bother suggesting third party testing to Melba, with “her†piece (she agreed then refused testing and alternatives to testing suggested) before going public? If you believe the scientific community has a collective agenda and been unfair to Dr. Ketchum with respect to what she’s released and not released and the so-called “ape†theorists are conspiring to take down Ketchum…..Not sure how an “ape-theorist†is defined and never met any that care enough about their beliefs to sabotage somebody If you believe ALL that (or any of it), then good luck I’ll take Scott on regarding “the facts†...any day of the week Edited March 21, 2013 by BartloJays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Can anyone speak to the claims of Scott Carpenter over on his site? I am interested in hearing what you think of his statements posted today. http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/ This field is beyond help. Can't we all just get along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 This field is beyond help. Can't we all just get along? No my friend, not when theres so many bad people constantly making a mockery out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) Btw, just so no one has to take my word for it... go to https://ourcpa.cpa.s.../coa/Index.html and enter Global Sasquatch Foundation. Notice it's a business. Take note of the City. Then go to the IRS lookup for non-profits at http://www.irs.gov/C...ns-Select-Check enter city and Global Sasquatch Foundation. Nothing. I gotta say - I am surprised no one has been discussing what njjohn posted here. If you haven't had a chance - take some time and look into these links in the quotes above. Edited March 21, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest J Sasq Doe Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) The links have nothing to do with Ketchum's study, that's why. Edited March 21, 2013 by J Sasq Doe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Sure they do. Those links have everything to do with the business venture she is in -- now that her study is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ Look who made the list... Yes, the list of "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I, um, think that was the point. I suddenly feel like...well, ever clean your windshield when it really needed cleaning...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I, um, think that was the point. I suddenly feel like...well, ever clean your windshield when it really needed cleaning...? No but i tend to clean my windshield when its got something horrid dropped on it from a bird...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 SY, I applaud your abundance of caution - it is a good thing. But here we are, where your level of caution and critical thinking has not been employed, dealing with the manuscript we have at hand. Any privacy issues have already be breached with the sequence she has already published (whether in GenBank or not) and opens herself up to potential lawsuits no different than if she had been able to upload to GenBank. That bridge has been crossed. Even the table with the mtDNA mutations has been provided, and if someone felt inclined, could use the reference sequence as a template and make the changes manually. It would be tedious, but that info, IF it is complete (no other alterations than which are stated), is there already. I just wanted to get back with you on this RR. The fact Kecthum has already posted human genomic DNA was not missed by me. I did ask if there was any sequence in that which could identify a specific person to which was unanswered. The mtDNA mutations table identifies Haplotype markers to my understanding and not specific individuals identity. For the record , I think whole mito genomes could identify a specific maternal line, but would not distinguish siblings from a particular mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Thank you. I personally think I'm going to just dismiss the entire Sierra Kills and Ketchum study from my personal universe and focus on my own area and see what we can figure out here locally. My thanks to those who have spent countless hours gathering data and evidence, debating and discussing and teaching us. Unfortunately, this seems a major dead end. I empathize with those of you who, like myself, really hoped this would all bear fruit, am perplexed with those who continue to defend the indefensible, and am disappointed in those who seek to help solve this mystery and keep the species safe, while engaging in actions that make this more difficult and problematic. C'est la vie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 There's quite a few contributors from the paper on the list of employees there. Add those to the co-authors that say they only did the work and didn't write anything, and you see a pattern. FWIW: Potential authorship roles include individuals or groups who actually gather the data needed by the program in progress. The data may or may not have been in the initial study design. Some papers include data that are relevant to the problem being investigated, but were gathered for other purposes. Often, the main person responsible for gathering the external data set is included as an author, especially if that scientist has not published an article using the data. There is a subtle problem associated with these criteria, however, as larger projects often have one or more research scientists that design how data is to be collected and may have a technician or set of technicians who configure the instruments or carry out the specified analyses. If the technical staff contributes to an analysis, refines or improves the analysis, and also discusses with the research staff how the results of the analysis affects the hypothesis under study, they are usually included in the authorship list. Additional articles may be written that address new developments in analytical or instrumental procedures. A technician is usually the first author on these articles. From: http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2001_03_30/nodoi.9203462371499238483 Other sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_authorship Searched: "criteria for authorship on scientific papers" Thank you. I personally think I'm going to just dismiss the entire Sierra Kills and Ketchum study from my personal universe and focus on my own area and see what we can figure out here locally. My thanks to those who have spent countless hours gathering data and evidence, debating and discussing and teaching us. Unfortunately, this seems a major dead end. I empathize with those of you who, like myself, really hoped this would all bear fruit, am perplexed with those who continue to defend the indefensible, and am disappointed in those who seek to help solve this mystery and keep the species safe, while engaging in actions that make this more difficult and problematic. C'est la vie. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Here's the rub. A quote from Paulides blog: " Remember, Dr. Ketchum is listed as the primary author but in reality is only a co-author as many other PhD’s participated in writing and structuring the white paper. I was fortunate to be privy to some conversations from various journals that had viewed the paper." So the co-authors contacted have said they had no involvement with writing the paper, but Paulides says they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I just wanted to get back with you on this RR. The fact Kecthum has already posted human genomic DNA was not missed by me. I did ask if there was any sequence in that which could identify a specific person to which was unanswered. The mtDNA mutations table identifies Haplotype markers to my understanding and not specific individuals identity. For the record , I think whole mito genomes could identify a specific maternal line, but would not distinguish siblings from a particular mother. I thought I had at least tried to answer that in my post #1775. I don't think there is any sequence that identify a specific person, unless there is a record (linking their sequence to an ID) to compare it too. I agree the mtDNA can not identify an individual but as you said it can identify a maternal line. There is not sufficient nucleotides in the mtDNA, and with the low mutation rate, and due to the fact that it does not undergo recombination, the mtDNA just harbors too little variation for individual ID. But it can id species when there is a reference to compare it too, as again you have mentioned earlier. SY, do you believe the mtDNA table only shows the mutations found to demonstrate the particular haplotypes, or is it an accurate list of mutations that were found that deviate form the reference human mtDNA (which unfortunately, is not identified in the paper)? I thought about recreating some of the mtDNA sequences from the table, but I am not certain if it is comprehensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) There is one table that lists the samples by number then gives a series of numbers "accesion numbers" I think which are identifiers for the haplotype. This table needs reformatting as you get lost on the second page. There is another table that I haven't studied well enough to understand but does give some sequences "mutations"?, which I thought was from the amelogenin results but need to recheck that. The reference human genome would be the reference human mtDNA sequences in Genbank. If there is no deviation from those sequences , or unique mutations then you have 100% modern human DNA. Since Neanderthal has only about 200 differences across the mitochondria, this would appear to be the threshold limit as it is currently the closest to modern human and yet another species of Homo. Edited March 21, 2013 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts