The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

I didn't ask for CV's of those working with Melba - I asked about Melba's CV. Why wouldn't Melba want to show the world she is doing everything humanly possible to get her results confirmed? That's what she is supposed to do. So, I'm not sure why this is an issue.

It's Melba's paper and her work to defend. Not mine or anyone elses.

But, I wish you all the best

[Guest njjohn]

Ridgerunner gave his credentials. I even stated them in the article. He's a molecular biologist with 30 years experience in functional genetics. If it all comes down to credentials, some could argue Dr. Ketchum isn't qualified to speak on the results, since her experience is even less. But no one's been saying that. This about the discussion about those results. There are people here qualified to understand and explain it. And if they question the science, they need to show why they question it. And I think they've done a good job putting it in layman terms.

If theagenes, GenesRus, Ridgerunner or maelsquatch say something, I know I expect they are going to backup their claims with explanations. Those explanations, if they disagree with the findings in Dr. Ketchum's paper, are not attacking Dr. Ketchum or her credibility. Science is all about proving your hypothesis and having others recreate it. This might not be a science forum, but the scientific method isn't only for science forums. The process is pretty generic. Without the process, there is no science.

The biggest issue that I heard a lot earlier but not a lot lately, is that the unknowns weren't unknowns at all. They all Blasted as Panda (because American bears aren't in great supply in Genbank), Lemur, etc.. Is that still the case, or are the unknowns still coming up unknown?

But I do agree. There are some that aren't answering questions and just calling it over and a dead horse. But don't let those few loud voices overshadow the rest that have been asking questions both in support and against. Without questions there won't ever be answers.

[Guest]

<p>

Of course you would lc. We know that nDNA comes from both parents. TP is stating specifically that the male progenitor's contribution of nDNA is the only novel one. He does not state any detail of the nDNA from the female contributor. His statement is clearly indicative of what MK's stated findings have been all along. Despite what you and others may deem from your misinterpretation of TP's quote,

"Multiple labs observed this anomaly, an dutifully reported it to Ketchum".

Actual people and labs, that have had full access to the samples, concur with what was found by MK.

1- Am I correct in understanding that "this anomaly" refers to single stranded sections2- Does "concur" mean that the other labs also found sections of single stranded DNA (typically caused by contamination, degradation or artifacts) OR does "concur" mean the other labs also found single stranded DNA and they agree that it is valid DNA from a previously unknown species that has a DNA structure unlike any other animal or earth, but could hybridize with humans???</p>

Edited March 27, 2013 by comncents

[Sunflower]

If theagenes, GenesRus, Ridgerunner or maelsquatch say something, I know I expect they are going to backup their claims with explanations. Those explanations, if they disagree with the findings in Dr. Ketchum's paper, are attacking Dr. Ketchum or her credibility. Science is all about proving your hypothesis and having others recreate it. This might not be a science forum, but the scientific method isn't only for science forums. The process is pretty generic. Without the process, there is no science.

njjohn,

I appreciate that there are posters here who have some knowledge of this particular subject however, not one of them has done the testing? Or correct me if I'm wrong....

The people who did the testing were NOT told what creature the material came from, it was a blind study. Could they all have made the very same mistake?????

[Guest]

Could they all have made the very same mistake?????

So far, none of the coauthors have admitted to doing any of the analysis, only running tests.

[Guest]

The whole point of publishing papers in peer-reviewed, scientific journals is to put your work out there for criticism. You share your hypothesis, your methods, your results/findings, your data and your assertions OPENLY and IN DETAIL specificaly so others can pick apart your work. Then, someone else will write a paper about their own findings when attempting to either prove you wrong, prove you right, or simply to take the research in a different direction. This is how science works.

Any REAL scientist not only knows and expects this, but WELCOMES this ... because in the search for TRUTH, a REAL scientist WANTS to be proven wrong IF they are, indeed, wrong. REAL scientists don't run from the debate, didn't hold back their data or details of their methods, don't shield their coauthors (most coauthors WANT credit/association with sound research - just look at any research university's news page), and they didn't put out confusing, contradictory or convoluted information in response to questions. They also don't create fake journals, edit their paper after the fact, delete coauthors, misrepresent coauthor participation, seek validation from hobbyists or insinuate hobbyists to be equivalent to degreed professionals, etc. Such are not the actions of a real scientist, and as OTLS has pointed out on his/her blog, would instead be grounds for dismissal from one's university or research organization.

This is NOT about personality. Many scientists are difficult people, but that doesn't mean their research is faulty.

And scientists certainly DO have a right to monetize the value of their work, within the ethical parameters dictated by their employment situation.

But when behaviors spill over into areas where ethics and credibilty are impacted, people are within their rights to criticize them because they DO have a direct impact on the credibility of the work itself.

For example, while a self-publishing scientist can legitimately charge for a paper (and remember, journals charge nonsubscribers about $30 for papers) ... they do raise the eyebrows of ethics and credibility when they charge for papers from what they claim is an "open source" venue. Why? Because "open source" means FREE. Ketchum review panelist Dr. Darren Naish points this out in his recent podcast.

They also raise the eyebrows of ethics and credibility when their papers are not accompanied by the data that would have been required/expected with papers published via normal means, PREVENTING the very analysis, review and discussion that is the whole POINT of publishing in the first place!

AND they raise the eyebrows of ethics and credibilty when they say the data cannot be posted to GenBank ... then say it will ... then say it has been ... then say the data doesn't exist ... then announce that the data has been shared with unnamed individuals and no update will be provided for months ... all the while denying the data to those who have purchased the paper AND the right to have access to that data.

But the BIGGEST problem with ALL of this is that people think they have to pick sides. The ONLY side that matters is the side of TRUTH. And that means being highly critical of new ideas as well as questionable behaviors - that is simply the way science gets at the truth. The phrase "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," comes to mind.

The bottom line is, we can debate all day long but the answer won't be settled here. It will be settled by future papers. No scientific discovery or advance is ever made through one paper. What pains me is to see Dr. Sykes portrayed in some venues by Dr. Ketchum's followers as some sort of "enemy." Only Sykes, and anyone else doing additional studies, can offer the Ketchum study, or any portions of it, any hope for redemption.

Personally, I hope that happens. I really do hope that out of all of this mess, something can be salvaged.

[Guest]

And before anyone says "prove this" or "show where you got that" ... I have referenced information already documented somewhere in this discussion thread or in njjohn's blog posts, or on OTLS's or Jim McClanahan's well-researched blogs. If you missed anything I mentioned, you'll have to find the references yourself. I don't have time to do it for you, and it will just rehash material already discussed here ad nauseum.

[Guest]

Ridgerunner gave his credentials. I even stated them in the article. He's a molecular biologist with 30 years experience in functional genetics. If it all comes down to credentials, some could argue Dr. Ketchum isn't qualified to speak on the results, since her experience is even less. But no one's been saying that. This about the discussion about those results. There are people here qualified to understand and explain it. And if they question the science, they need to show why they question it. And I think they've done a good job putting it in layman terms.

If theagenes, GenesRus, Ridgerunner or maelsquatch say something, I know I expect they are going to backup their claims with explanations. Those explanations, if they disagree with the findings in Dr. Ketchum's paper, are attacking Dr. Ketchum or her credibility. Science is all about proving your hypothesis and having others recreate it. This might not be a science forum, but the scientific method isn't only for science forums. The process is pretty generic. Without the process, there is no science.

John, do you mean "Not attacking Dr. Ketchum or her credibility" there?

[Cotter]

Albeit a lot of this discussion is over my head, I have a question.

When a lab 'tests' something, what EXACTLY is the reported outcome? Does this vary lab to lab?

When someone does an 'analysis' what EXACTLY is being analyzed?

I'm curious if some of the lab test results were just oodles of numbers that were later analyzed by Ketchum, or if the tests indicated the 'novel' DNA and the analysis of WHAT that may be was left to the others.

This might be a stupid question, but I can envision 'tests' and 'analysis' overlapping depending on what was contracted.....

I hope that makes sense.

[Guest njjohn]

Ridgerunner gave his credentials. I even stated them in the article. He's a molecular biologist with 30 years experience in functional genetics. If it all comes down to credentials, some could argue Dr. Ketchum isn't qualified to speak on the results, since her experience is even less. But no one's been saying that. This about the discussion about those results. There are people here qualified to understand and explain it. And if they question the science, they need to show why they question it. And I think they've done a good job putting it in layman terms.

If theagenes, GenesRus, Ridgerunner or maelsquatch say something, I know I expect they are going to backup their claims with explanations. Those explanations, if they disagree with the findings in Dr. Ketchum's paper, are attacking Dr. Ketchum or her credibility. Science is all about proving your hypothesis and having others recreate it. This might not be a science forum, but the scientific method isn't only for science forums. The process is pretty generic. Without the process, there is no science.

John, do you mean "Not attacking Dr. Ketchum or her credibility" there?

Yes, Not attacking. I'll go edit. I posted quick before running out of the house again.

[Guest Steve Byrne]

I apologize to all, but I've become too lazy to read all the comments...

Has the raw data been uploaded yet?

Thanks

[Guest njjohn]

If theagenes, GenesRus, Ridgerunner or maelsquatch say something, I know I expect they are going to backup their claims with explanations. Those explanations, if they disagree with the findings in Dr. Ketchum's paper, are attacking Dr. Ketchum or her credibility. Science is all about proving your hypothesis and having others recreate it. This might not be a science forum, but the scientific method isn't only for science forums. The process is pretty generic. Without the process, there is no science.

njjohn,

I appreciate that there are posters here who have some knowledge of this particular subject however, not one of them has done the testing? Or correct me if I'm wrong....

The people who did the testing were NOT told what creature the material came from, it was a blind study. Could they all have made the very same mistake?????

Dr. Ketchum included all the data that she says backs up her claims. Anyone with access to BLAST can test the data provided and analyze what is there. They don't have to do the original tests unless they wanted to test the samples and get new sequences. The data provided is the result of the initial tests. If the results come back different or contradicting the claims made in the paper, that's where we get the discussions we're having. You don't need to run the tests all over again in order to see what's there.

Sunflower, I understand there's some confusion surrounding this. I am not a scientist, so initially all of this made no sense. I thought that whatever was in the paper was incomplete and what would be released later would answer the questions. Once I was asked to ask Dr. Ketchum about the possibility of more data due to the confusion both in the entire BF community and scientific community (everyone kept saying we had to wait for more data) I then learned that she feels everything needed to prove her claims was already in the paper. The remaining data is the genome data that will take awhile to fully analyze. Nevermind the other 108 mtDNA sequences.

But the scientists that have analyzed the current data say it doesn't prove what she's claimed. Even the one peer reviewer that has spoken out said there wasn't enough data to prove what she claimed. That's the reason it failed peer review. It wasn't because they didn't understand it or had a bias against her, it was because in order to claim X, you need to prove X and she fell short of that. Could something be in the remaining data? Absolutely. But currently, the claims in her paper haven't been sufficiently backed it up.

I'd say it's like a math test, where you write down the answer and didn't show the work, or only showed some of the work. Even if the answer is correct, the teacher will mark it wrong. That's what this paper is. It's only partially done. I don't hate Dr. Ketchum. I think if what she claims is correct, it would be a major discovery. But no one can accept her "answer" as correct without the work. And that's what she's asking everyone to do. It doesn't work that way in elementary school, and it certainly doesn't work that way in the scientific community. There's nothing personal about that.

[Guest thermalman]

Albeit a lot of this discussion is over my head, I have a question.

When a lab 'tests' something, what EXACTLY is the reported outcome? Does this vary lab to lab?

When someone does an 'analysis' what EXACTLY is being analyzed?

I'm curious if some of the lab test results were just oodles of numbers that were later analyzed by Ketchum, or if the tests indicated the 'novel' DNA and the analysis of WHAT that may be was left to the others.

This might be a stupid question, but I can envision 'tests' and 'analysis' overlapping depending on what was contracted.....

I hope that makes sense.

I believe it means that all the labs and testing are following the same protocol on the same samples. But I might be wrong?

<p>

Of course you would lc. We know that nDNA comes from both parents. TP is stating specifically that the male progenitor's contribution of nDNA is the only novel one. He does not state any detail of the nDNA from the female contributor. His statement is clearly indicative of what MK's stated findings have been all along. Despite what you and others may deem from your misinterpretation of TP's quote,

"Multiple labs observed this anomaly, an dutifully reported it to Ketchum".

Actual people and labs, that have had full access to the samples, concur with what was found by MK.

1- Am I correct in understanding that "this anomaly" refers to single stranded sections2- Does "concur" mean that the other labs also found sections of single stranded DNA (typically caused by contamination, degradation or artifacts) OR does "concur" mean the other labs also found single stranded DNA and they agree that it is valid DNA from a previously unknown species that has a DNA structure unlike any other animal or earth, but could hybridize with humans???</p>

I'm only quoting what Thom Powell had wrote. I personally don't know all the details, although he might. My comments are based on my limited knowledge that I've gained from the posts pertaining to DNA sequencing.

Edited March 27, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

SY, Thermalman, Zig, SC, and others who support Ketchum. Does Ketchums paper, in your opinions, prove existence of Sasquatch? Did she put any of the nuDNA sequence on the paper? I'm curious as to what you tell people now, regarding proof of BF? Do you say, "Yes, it has been proven, and here's the paper to prove my claims!" Do you guys cite things that have been stated by her that haven't been put in the paper?

Could I, for instance, go up to my agency director, and say,"Hey, boss, Bigfoot is finally proven to exist! Here's the paper that proves it!" Could I tell my brother, a Cornell educated doctor, "Hey, bro, I told you! Bigfoot's real! Here's the peer-reviewed paper that proves it!" Would it be a good idea to tell my other brother, who is a detective, and was previously a Fish&Wildlife officer, "Hey....If you guys need any DNA work done for a case, I know of a great forensics lab in Texas that you guys should use. And, btw, they proved the existence of Bigfoot recently. Take a copy of the paper, and show it to everybody in the office."

Even though I know BF's exist, I'd personally feel idiotic standing there looking an educated/reasonable person in the eye, and telling them BF is real based on this paper. I guess that's my own personal feeling, but is there evidence of existence somewhere in the pages of the study? I can't take her seriously enough to believe that there is. It has nothing to do with group-think, or the Tribalism, even though I'm a registered NA. I do, however, believe the people who claim they are qualified to speak about DNA on this message board about the lack of evidence, and it is part of my logic behind why I don't think she is being truthful. So, yeah, I suffer from confirmation bias, I suppose. The other part of why I think she isn't being truthful has to do with what she's put out on social media, her method of delivering the paper, who she confides in to speak for her/represent her, and her overall track record in regards to her business practices, all of which, I use my own gut feelings to come up with my own conclusions about her, and they are independent of anybody else's thoughts/claims. It sure doesn't feel like she's proven anything, though, and it seems that she is trimming wallets of $30 a pop for a sci-fi paper that makes a myriad of claims that aren't backed up by hard science.

She is a doctor, apparently, and should know better than to use terms like 'Angel DNA', or claim to have mind-spoken to BF's. Is that not weird? Does that have no bearing on her character, in your opinions?

[Guest thermalman]

@ PNWS

"SY, Thermalman, Zig, SC, and others who support Ketchum. Does Ketchums paper, in your opinions, prove existence of Sasquatch? Did she put any of the nuDNA sequence on the paper? I'm curious as to what you tell people now, regarding proof of BF? Do you say, "Yes, it has been proven, and here's the paper to prove my claims!" Do you guys cite things that have been stated by her that haven't been put in the paper?"

I can only speak for myself. I haven't told anyone anything, as I patiently wait for some type verification of the whole ordeal.