Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 She is having the data run by other labs, witch she does not care to mention who they are. It doesn't make her suspect, she just wants them to do their work without people in the bigfoot cummunity calling , e-mailing , harassing, etc...demanding answers to everyone of their questions, and they want the answers yesterday. And the second their demands are not met, they become belligerent rude, hostile, etc... towards them, to the point of ruining the personal life of the accused. Ketchum wants to protect them from this behavior, and I don't blame here one bit. The actions of some people in the Bigfoot community are deplorable, I don't understand how they can look themselves in the mirror. The sad reality is, they enjoy it, they feel good about themselves, and believe they are doing important work. If your only claim to fame is destroying someone's hopes and dreams publicly, your beyond help, and do not possess one deeming quality as human being. They can make a thousand excuses for their actions, but an excuse is the only reason for their actions. It's not directed towards people making fun or RD and the like, they welcome the attention anyway they can get it. Ancestry.com is not a lab. Nor is an architect a geneticist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Well, I had done a bunch of research on John Marsh, only to come back here and see that you guys had already figured out that he's not a geneticist, but a landscape architect. He's also project admin for his family's genealogy project, which is described as being run by "amateur genealogists." Ancestry.com is not a lab. Nor is an architect a geneticist. Nor is a "landscape architect" usually actually educated as an architect. The dude that cuts my grass, weeds my flowerbeds and trims my bushes calls himself "landscape architect". That is the guy you quote as support of a major scientific discovery? That is the A-team you bring out to take this study home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Why didn't she simply supply the data if it was that simple... Why make another claim that she won't back up. I'm sure this could be verified if it's in the mtDNA in the paper... Have at it guys. About an hour before that, she posted the following "We just received permission to post. There will most likely be a new paper come from this so we will not post the new findings but you will see enough of the proof to validate the paper. I am SO excited!!!!!" New paper, maybe another $30? ....is that all that interest you? The bucks, my goodness, I'll give you the money if you got nothing better to contribute too. The only thing it appears people are interested in is the 30 bucks. When you expect something for Nothing, and that something required work to finish ( preform ) ..... Is that not one of the definitions of " Entitlement" ? Geesh guys .... Find some thing more substantial to complain about.... She is having the data run by other labs, witch she does not care to mention who they are. It doesn't make her suspect, she just wants them to do their work without people in the bigfoot cummunity calling , e-mailing , harassing, etc...demanding answers to everyone of their questions, and they want the answers yesterday. And the second their demands are not met, they become belligerent rude, hostile, etc... towards them, to the point of ruining the personal life of the accused. Ketchum wants to protect them from this behavior, and I don't blame here one bit. The actions of some people in the Bigfoot community are deplorable, I don't understand how they can look themselves in the mirror. The sad reality is, they enjoy it, they feel good about themselves, and believe they are doing important work. If your only claim to fame is destroying someone's hopes and dreams publicly, your beyond help, and do not possess one deeming quality as human being. They can make a thousand excuses for their actions, but an excuse is the only reason for their actions. It's not directed towards people making fun or RD and the like, they welcome the attention anyway they can get it. Dang "Z" ....... That is gooooood ... That is dang good analysis. ..... Dang good... Thank you ... Sorry to say but that is what this thread has turned into ..... So sad. But plussed to you again .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Why didn't she simply supply the data if it was that simple... Why make another claim that she won't back up. I'm sure this could be verified if it's in the mtDNA in the paper... Have at it guys. About an hour before that, she posted the following "We just received permission to post. There will most likely be a new paper come from this so we will not post the new findings but you will see enough of the proof to validate the paper. I am SO excited!!!!!" New paper, maybe another $30? ....is that all that interest you? The bucks, my goodness, I'll give you the money if you got nothing better to contribute too. The only thing it appears people are interested in is the 30 bucks. When you expect something for Nothing, and that something required work to finish ( preform ) ..... Is that not one of the definitions of " Entitlement" ? Geesh guys .... Find some thing more substantial to complain about.... I think you are on to something here when you reference preforming.. if a DVM scientist has a preformed opinion, is their study truly objective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Does anybody remember this statement? " Dr. Melba Ketchum February 15 I have independent analysis of our data going on. If the outcome of what we are doing supports our analysis, then we are vindicated. If not, then I will announce that also. It involves top level scientists that have volunteered after I released the paper. IF THEIR FINDINGS ARE THE SAME, THEY WILL GO PUBLIC. So, please be patient. They also will assure upload to GenBank and they can make that happen." Now we have this: "We just received permission to post. There will most likely be a new paper come from this so we will not post the new findings but you will see enough of the proof to validate the paper. I am SO excited!!!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 She is having the data run by other labs, witch she does not care to mention who they are. It doesn't make her suspect, she just wants them to do their work without people in the bigfoot cummunity calling , e-mailing , harassing, etc...demanding answers to everyone of their questions, and they want the answers yesterday. And the second their demands are not met, they become belligerent rude, hostile, etc... towards them, to the point of ruining the personal life of the accused. Ketchum wants to protect them from this behavior, and I don't blame here one bit. The actions of some people in the Bigfoot community are deplorable, I don't understand how they can look themselves in the mirror. The sad reality is, they enjoy it, they feel good about themselves, and believe they are doing important work. If your only claim to fame is destroying someone's hopes and dreams publicly, your beyond help, and do not possess one deeming quality as human being. They can make a thousand excuses for their actions, but an excuse is the only reason for their actions. It's not directed towards people making fun or RD and the like, they welcome the attention anyway they can get it. Ancestry.com is not a lab. Nor is an architect a geneticist. i didn't say they were Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Well, I had done a bunch of research on John Marsh, only to come back here and see that you guys had already figured out that he's not a geneticist, but a landscape architect. He's also project admin for his family's genealogy project, which is described as being run by "amateur genealogists." Also, that discussion board is open to anyone, so Dr. Ketchum has, either accidentally or on purpose, falsely insinuated that it is for scientists ... or perhaps she just didn't know any better. $%@!!! I was hoping that she really had found someone who could at least validate her mtDNA data, as I think it's all that can be rescued from her study. I think your research in the individual is lacking in any factual evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 In case anyone is curious, Ketchum's "support" comes from the Ancestry.com discussion board. Just scroll down til you find the Bigfoot DNA thread. Also, to build off of Scales, who beat me to Ancestry.com, here's what John Marsh has to say about Phred scores: Does the Q30 quality scores of above 88 mean 30 times average coverage, and 88 percent of the genome reconstructed? Just my guess, I don't know what it means. But on the face of it, does the scores obtained hint at a reliable coverage? LOL - quite the informed Dr. ... "Published on religiously backed ancestry sites everywhere!" Part of the problem might be that A. John Marsh is an architect, not a geneticist. And why am I not surprised...... at least he's not in the clothing industry making denim (blue genes)...... It seems like when you can't attack the argument ... Then attack the person .... The only dog I got in the fight is "I have had encounters," so to me, Bigfoot is real... The personal attacks here are also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 I think your research in the individual is lacking in any factual evidence. And you need to go back a couple of pages and catch up. I was not the only, or the first, who found this. Google him yourself. Go to the link Melba provided and backtrack his url registrations to his home address and then keep going from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 (edited) What labs? The universities she claimed already ran them and did this indepth analysis said they did not. When the paper is full of contradictions like that and people call out the paper for what is actually there, that's not harrassment or being personal. What do you think science is? If you claim to prove something, you better have the data to back it up. Calling every single qualified individual who has pointed out the problems with the paper an armchair scientist is the namecalling. Science is going back and forth with the data. It's either provable or it's not. It's really that simple. Well according to you and others, she did not prove it, but you keep posting comments as if your rebutting what she answered to your question. you state that she didn't answer your question. so, you believe she didn't prove it with data and she didn't answer your question, why do you keep going after her like your in a debate with her? the people that say she has nothing and similar comments, what are you trying to do by posting negitive comments about her? you also said she is name calling, how is making a general statement about people that didn't do an analysis of the data, armchair scientist, name calling?it isn't directed at a person on this forum, and through all of this, that is the closet she. ever came to returning fire ,and she never attacked a person on this forum. i'm sorry but she is treated worse than RD, at least they shut his thread down. Your a moderator here, and you constantly doubt her and post negative comments , sorry John, but it's not right to be a moderator and constantly attack every thing she does. if you feel i'm out of line, do what you have to, i wont be upset. Edited March 23, 2013 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Why didn't she simply supply the data if it was that simple... Why make another claim that she won't back up. I'm sure this could be verified if it's in the mtDNA in the paper... Have at it guys. About an hour before that, she posted the following "We just received permission to post. There will most likely be a new paper come from this so we will not post the new findings but you will see enough of the proof to validate the paper. I am SO excited!!!!!" New paper, maybe another $30? ....is that all that interest you? The bucks, my goodness, I'll give you the money if you got nothing better to contribute too. The only thing it appears people are interested in is the 30 bucks. When you expect something for Nothing, and that something required work to finish ( preform ) ..... Is that not one of the definitions of " Entitlement" ? Geesh guys .... Find some thing more substantial to complain about.... I think you are on to something here when you reference preforming.. if a DVM scientist has a preformed opinion, is their study truly objective? There you go again ... Attack the person or the spell check .... My bad performance .... Again so sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 (edited) Ancestry.com is not a lab. Nor is an architect a geneticist. But a landscape architect... now, that is different - that is dang near a geneticist. She is having the data run by other labs, witch she does not care to mention who they are. It doesn't make her suspect, she just wants them to do their work without people in the bigfoot cummunity calling , e-mailing , harassing, etc... So, just to be clear... she doesn't want to cite the PhD's involved in her work... but is willing to cite and defer to someone whom she implies is a qualified specialist (actually implied he was a "scientist") but in reality, turns out to be a landscaper on a blog... Got it - makes perfect sense. Fits right in with citing hoax papers and the like, as her reference material. Edited March 23, 2013 by Tyler H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Here's the summary of just some of the mistakes and contradictions surrounding this paper... http://bigfootforums...den-gnomes.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 (edited) What labs? The universities she claimed already ran them and did this indepth analysis said they did not. When the paper is full of contradictions like that and people call out the paper for what is actually there, that's not harrassment or being personal. What do you think science is? If you claim to prove something, you better have the data to back it up. Calling every single qualified individual who has pointed out the problems with the paper an armchair scientist is the namecalling. Science is going back and forth with the data. It's either provable or it's not. It's really that simple. ... Your a moderator here, and you constantly dought her and post negitive comments , sorry John, but it's not right to be a moderator, and constantly attack every thing she does. if you feel i'm out of line, do what you have to, i wont be upset. All Njjohn has done is point out facts. I hope that just because he is a moderator, that that doesn't mean he has to turn off his ability to think critically and express his opinion. Edited March 23, 2013 by Tyler H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Zigo, my comments as a moderator and board member are different. My actual title is the blogger for the BFF, but because of the access required, I had to train to become a moderator and do help with that. Point out where I have attacked her personally and I will publicly apologize. I've gone after the facts and pointed out what's wrong. If that's considered negative than it falls back on her for not setting the record straight. Just read my article and you'll see the problems with the paper and everything surrounding it. As a journalist, I will always pursue truth. And yes, sometimes the truth hurts. You can ask Tyler how hard I came at him with questions. And I'll do it with anyone that makes a claim that isn't easily answered with what's presented. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts