Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 (edited) Here's the summary of just some of the mistakes and contradictions surrounding this paper... http://bigfootforums...den-gnomes.html Well done, John. A concise, well written summary of the many, many issues surrounding the paper. You were much more respectful to Dr. Ketchum, DVM, than I would have been. Edited March 23, 2013 by leisureclass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman 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. Very true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 (edited) 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. I appreciate your efforts a great deal. I am distressed by the Ketchum affair for the smear it gives science, bigfoot researchers, women in leadership, and humanity generally. It does matter to me a great deal that she does not appear to be truthful regarding this work or other people involved, or in opposition. p.s. loved the two commas snag....such a sloppy trail has revealed several editing changes..or mistakes. I think the post here weeks back with the JAMEZ line at the end was probably a mistake too.....who would even make that claim?..it seems had they not left that sentence in we would know nothing about Casey. Mullins (wait we still don't!).... p.s.s. I need/require an assistant for my typing.. I know this about myself after so many decades...so on the one hand I felt some sympathy for the person editing on-line (they would not have missed it in print) but also deep anger...WTF are you guys doing? Stop now, stop trying to turn a sows ear into a silk purse..... a re-write might be in order, maybe something is there...but, changing this published work after the fact is ...well right in line with the many unorthodox approaches this entire project has taken. Pioneering does not translate to breaking all the rules..... Madison, great post BTW.... Edited March 23, 2013 by apehuman 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. After rereading her facebook post, I think the most dishonest part was linking to the Nature article instead of the original rootsweb post. I'd almost be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she assumed Marsh was a geneticist, but for that link. 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." Oh yes. Those were the days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman 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? Nor is a sports journalist a science journalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 23, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted March 23, 2013 (edited) 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. It seems when you've got no data, act like you do and then promenade around and stall for another two years of dowsy-do and everybody will think you are square-dancing just fine, except those that see through the lack of data...... and the willingness not to provide anymore data...... unless you cough up 30 bucks to be part of the sting. And yes, I have had a class A sighting, know Bigfoot is out there and still no longer respect Dr. Ketchum's science. Edited March 23, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 TM - I can and have written about many things. Journalism is about the facts. I don't and have never claimed to be a scientist. Sports writing was a hobby. BF is a hobby. You don't need to have a special degree to write about sports. You don't need to have a special degree to write about bigfoot. I am a journalist with a degree. If you think i've been wrong about laying out the facts, please state what you think my inaccuracies are. I'd love your opinion on how I was wrong in pointing out the contradictions in her own words. I didn't write those for her. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Now what? I pull two contrasting positions out of the air, in context with the quotes I provided, and I get a public rebuke from a poster/mod insintuating my remarks were about him/her? Give me a break! Fact is, I love and follow sports, and was just making a generic contrasting comparison, in line with the other contrasts. I know nothing about who or what you are njjohn and if it seems there was a personal attack against you, it was purely conicidence. Sheesh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 njjohn, Most of what you wrote was about stuff not associated directly with the paper. I would like to point out that no-Profit situation which if you actually did correct investigation you would have learned the following. To me and I would suspect several others you purposly put out something saying she trying to defraud people. But a simple search on the web and the goverment No-Profit areas you would have learned the following You do not have to wait to get a tax exemption from the IRS to operate. Not having the exemption may limit your ability to raise funds or bring in revenue, but it does not preclude you from starting to operate. http://nonprofitorganizations.uslegal.com/frequently-asked-questions/ http://nonprofit.about.com/od/qathebasics/f/Needfortaxexemp.htm I would suggest if you claim yourself as a real reporter then you should retract your statements about the non-profit situation at this present time. You do not know if she had applied or not. The paperwork for all we know could be filed and be waiting to verified. 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. I have different means of getting a search outside of internet and goggle. Try marshadna.arrg.org Smells not like an architect to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Additional: Njjohn, Also did you talk to a tax lawyer to find out what the laws for non-profit are in Texas? I just think you are drawing conclusions from little information that you found. Which is what you blame Melba of doing so if you expect Melba to uphold to a high standard then should you not your self as well? In order to be honest about what you are reporting you do need to investigate more before making assumtions about her Non-Profit organization just by looking. Many people do understand all the "Website and Journal" slapped together issues. But that doesn't make her data incorrect. I see everyone is now trying to find out about the person who complemented her report. Do you not see, why would anyone want to be put into the fire by a bunch of Bigfoot skeptics. Its still toxic subject. It is only a good subject when the data presented falls inline with the majority rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Cath - You're correct, if they were just starting donations today. If you read those pages you'd see you need to file an Application for Recognition of Exception from the IRS prior to accepting tax deductible deductions. Wally has been donating since 2010. Adrian Erickson maybe even longer. And the IRS search I posted lists those that accept under $50k that have applied. Since it would have to have been established a few years by now, even a slow moving IRS would have it on record by now. If they show records that they've had tax exempt status since then, I will gladly retract any statements. And TM, I didn't take it as an attack, at all. If it was coincidence that's fine but it was dead on lol. Now I've explained myself for any future questioners. And I apologize if you saw it as a rebuke. I simply asked questions in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Cath - You're correct, if they were just starting donations today. If you read those pages you'd see you need to file an Application for Recognition of Exception from the IRS prior to accepting tax deductible deductions. Wally has been donating since 2010. Adrian Erickson maybe even longer. And the IRS search I posted lists those that accept under $50k that have applied. Since it would have to have been established a few years by now, even a slow moving IRS would have it on record by now. If they show records that they've had tax exempt status since then, I will gladly retract any statements. There's also the fact that they're incorporated as a for-profit entity in Texas, not as a non-profit. Although I suppose it's possible Dr. Ketchum filed the wrong paperwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Also, how is what I reported not related to the paper? The journal is where it was published. The paper is the paper. The peer review is what led the paper to being published the way it was. The co-authors and contributors were listed in the paper, and the foundations are the result of the paper. It's all related. What is said outside of the paper by Dr. Ketchum that contradicts the paper, very much so puts her data in question. Every action puts the entire thing in perspective. And who's putting who in the fire? A. John Marsh did a very good job with his family's DNA. There's 100x more data there than Dr. Ketchum's paper. But she can't discount actual geneticists that disagree than say the architect's findings deserve a whole new paper. If you read through his other posts, he disagrees with a lot of her claims. And this has nothing to do with majority rule. It's about sound data. What she presented wasn't enough. The peer reviewer said it, the scientists have said it. Not a single person has said the reason this is bad, is because Dr. Ketchum brought it forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts