Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 (edited) I did some searching and it seems bleach will destroy DNA. How can anyone do a DNA study with bleached samples? Edited April 11, 2013 by OntarioSquatch
southernyahoo Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 (edited) The obvious answer, that many here (like ridgerunner ) have pointed out, is she has animal samples (bear etc) contaminated with human DNA. That explains everything about her results. It explains her weird hybrid DNA. It also explains why there is very little similarity among her "new species". Until someone comes up with a reason that that CAN'T be the case, which Melba certainly has not done, I'm afraid that's the obvious conclusion. The answer is in the ability to check and know you have a single contributor from viable samples. From there, the obvious conclusion is merely an assumption. But you are right in that Melba didn't detail that part in the paper. Now, you proponents love to talk about not giving her a chance and attacking her character, so please, refute the above argument. I'm not attacking her character, and I'm saying that as of now, her paper is worthless because there is no way NOT to conclude she just got multiple DNA readings -- the animal itself and human contamination -- and just muddled it all together. You say the jury is still out on her study. Well, that's fine, but when it comes to THIS PAPER it does not prove Bigfoot exists. My sample has not produced a single known animal 100% other than human in the DNA, yet was never suggested to be human from examiners. This is why I remain interested in this study and others. There was no mud in the mito according to Ketchum. I accept that for now, until there is other analysis that disproves that or proves bigfoot is something else. Until someone comes up with a reason as to why her samples are not just contamination, that's the logical conclusion. So please, if you're going to quote this post, quote this paragraph and answer that question!Finally, I'd like to point out that plenty on here think the Melba paper is bull, but still believe in Bigfoot. Admitting it was a swing and miss doesn't make your belief less valid, unless your only reason to believe was an upcoming paper. Speaking for myself, there was many different points of data that led me to suspect my sample was from a primate that lives in the wild. Many of those had nothing to do with Melba's paper. Knowing it's not contamination involves the use of the electropheragram, and any paper proving what Ketchum claims would have to be chock full of images showing that. Edited April 11, 2013 by southernyahoo
Guest Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 The obvious answer, that many here (like ridgerunner ) have pointed out, is she has animal samples (bear etc) contaminated with human DNA. That explains everything about her results. It explains her weird hybrid DNA. It also explains why there is very little similarity among her "new species". Until someone comes up with a reason that that CAN'T be the case, which Melba certainly has not done, I'm afraid that's the obvious conclusion. ... THIS PAPER it does not prove Bigfoot exists. .... Finally, I'd like to point out that plenty on here think the Melba paper is bull, but still believe in Bigfoot. Admitting it was a swing and miss doesn't make your belief less valid, unless your only reason to believe was an upcoming paper. I think this is an excellent observation. Some people seem unable to separate the paper from their BELIEFS. Science and belief should NEVER mix because it corrupts the ability to be objective. We certainly see a lack of objectivity in this thread because people want to BELIEVE in the paper so badly that they are blinding themselves to its obvious faults. I do not "believe" in BF - I know they exist. I know they are not animals. I know they have speech. I am of the opinion that they must have are related to humans because of their ability to mate with humans (I take Native American accounts seriously). I supported Dr. Ketchum for many months and wanted this paper to hit a home run, to continue with the baseball analogy. But it did not. I can't even credit her with an RBI because she hit only foul balls! She blamed the peer-review process for her failure instead of taking responsibility for producing an inferior paper, walked off the field, invented another game with rules that do not hold her accountable ... and wants to call it a home run. I don't think that would fly in baseball any more than it did in science. Can I give her credit for taking some swings? I don't know. Since she's not a geneticist, I'm not sure she knew how to hold the bat properly ... or even used a bat. name='thermalman' timestamp='1365653135' post='727593'][/b]"@ shboom "So, I'm sorry, but there is NO reason anyone should be forced to be put at risk for such retaliation." Neither should Melba, who is also a member! Actually that's incorrect, you see, it's the real world and she's the self-anointed and apparently nobel worthy, "public figure" ... To Bartlojay's point .... as a public figure, Dr. Ketchum legally loses a significant amount of her rights to privacy, and is positioned as a focal point for near-limitless public discussion, criticism, etc. In fact, the court classifies her as a "willing public figure" because she SOUGHT this position via her interviews, Facebook fan page, efforts at self-promotion, pursuit of a documentary, controversial topic/findings of her paper, provocative behaviors/public statements, etc. (as opposed to "unwilling public figures" who end up in the limelight through no fault of their own - Dr. Ketchum's coauthors would fit this description, for example, because of their association with her [Carlisle v. Fawcett Publications, 201 Cal. App. 2d 733, 20 Cal. Rptr. 405 (1962)]). You can find these concepts in the privacy discussions in any mass communications law book. I've not tried multiple quotes and quotes within quotes before ... hope this post's formatting is clear.
Guest Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 (edited) Plussed Shboom2GA Edited April 11, 2013 by apehuman
Guest BartloJays Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 (edited) Finally, I'd like to point out that plenty on here think the Melba paper is bull, but still believe in Bigfoot. Admitting it was a swing and miss doesn't make your belief less valid, unless your only reason to believe was an upcoming paper. Thank you for pointing this out because the point is completely lost on some here. I don't even have an issue with her hypothesis as a possibility or origin explanation (wouldn't surprise me at all) more so, because I could care less what they actually are (the "pursuit" is my passion) than I think I'm knowledgeable enough in that particular area to make an argument for or against it. My problem is the ethics, the motives, the presentation and the representation because we are all guilty of association of subject. I "know" they exist because I've seen them and would bet everything I have and love without blinking. The difference is I accept that's not reality to the majority of the world for good reason, such as, an embarrassing historical evidence record and understandable perception of presumed unviability by the general consensus and it's "our" burden, the ones that care and are making the claim to prove it....collectively as of today we've all failed up to this point. I hope that failure motivates many of you because it sure does me. I think now more then ever, especially for those of us that do "know," we should promote elevating our collective standards rather than foolishly thinking the world and science should lower theirs. Edited April 11, 2013 by BartloJays 2
Guest Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 I think now more then ever, especially for those of us that do "know," we should promote elevating our collective standards rather than foolishly thinking the world and science should lower theirs. AMEN! :clapping: :clapping:
southernyahoo Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 Since she's not a geneticist, Depends on how you want to define that. She is a published coauthor in several papers dealing with, believe it or not , standards in dealing with animal DNA in forensic cases and genomic work on the equine family. http://www.lab.fws.gov/pdfs/Budowle_etal2005.pdf http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Horsemap/northamerica.html Melba Ketchum Director, Shelterwood Laboratories, Timpson, TX 75975 A former professional horse trainer and practicing veterinarian, Melba now practices in the field of genetics. Founded in 1985, Shelterwood Laboratories has long been associated with research in the field of equine genetics such as equine brucellosis, enzymes, forensics and more recently equine gene studies using array technology.
Guest Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 She has a degree in vet med and some training in how to run equipment that processes DNA tests. She runs tests for people. That does not make her a geneticist. She has not even claimed being a geneticist.
Guest Tyler H Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 (edited) You want proof that someone is an expert and therefore, qualified to make observations about the situation .... but then you use the person's qualifications to insinuate that they are biased because you don't like what they say? Wow! With that kind of double-standard at work, why should anyone bother exposing themselves publicly by providing names/credentials? Such info won't matter because DENIAL is at play here, NOT logic. Couldn't agree with you more!......... Imagine!............ Posting an "official" DNA report signed off with "Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy" Phd! Certainly looks like a desperate attempt towards discrediting MK's report. At least Melba uses her real name and has faced her critics by putting her report out there! Nope, not hiding at all. Most of us know the pdf image that you are referring to here, TMan... gotta ask you (since I was the one posting it) - where abouts, exactly, did the author or I say it was "official"... and exactly why does using "Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy" as a handle, make him less credible than using "Thermal Man" as a handle? You want to fault people for hiding behind pseudonyms? haha - too funny. I'm using my real name - how 'bout you? Since she's not a geneticist, ... Melba now practices in the field of genetics... You could stretch that to say her secretary also "practices in the field of genetics"... same with the courier that carries the genetic materials. Edited April 11, 2013 by Tyler H
Guest Tyler H Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 Some of you people are not making any logical sense. And why the heck should ANYONE be forced to identify themselves publicly on this forum? One scientist spoke out on this forum and Melba's supporters contacted his organization in a vindictive attempt to have him fired. He then left the BFF. So, I'm sorry, but there is NO reason anyone should be forced to be put at risk for such retaliation. John has been chosen to be a writer for the BFF blog - he has been vetted by this forum. If he's privy to posters' credentials and can vouch for them, I think that should be acceptable. Otherwise, you're essentially calling him and these other posters, like GenesRus and Ridgerunner, liars ... and I think that is against forum rules, is it not? It's bad enough that you're taking such an accusatory tone with him and these guys ... who don't have to spend so much of their time analyzing the paper and sharing their findings here. Because, when making claims, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. As Melba was scrutinized, so should those who are making their own claims. Pretty simple logic. Ummm - the only true claim here, the only NOVEL claim being made, is by Melba. It runs counter to all laws of genetics. But you say the person that stands up and says "um, excuse, me this runs counter to all laws of genetics, and she really hasn't proven her point"... THAT is the person who has the burden of proof? OMG, laugh out loud funny - the worst case of circular reasoning and utter hypocrisy I may have every seen. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Current Academic Scientific Bigfoot Community Thousands of documented reports by folks from all over the world, stating they have had an encounter with Sasquatch…. Bigfoot encounters have been reported since history began Indian “lore†(from all continents) includes Bigfoot interactions since their History began Many of the MK skeptics on this forum have posted that they believe in the fact that Bigfoot is real for whatever reason… ( I do, I’ve had my encounter, that is why I am patiently waiting for the verification that Melba is right. My encounter wasn’t “HUMAN CONTAMINATION†In the history of Bigfoot / DNA testing 1000s of Bigfoot/DNA tests have been performed since the Human genome was sequenced… Until the Melba Ketchum report, The only actual test findings reported to actual tests are: Known ( e.g. Bear, Elk) Unknown or Human contamination 200+ samples sent into DMK for her DNA/Bigfoot study 168 accepted my Melba for testing 111 identified by Melba as Bigfoot Melba says she used a different set of primers and sequencing Melba got different results by not doing the same old thingy over and over The Ancients thought the world was round The scientific Community in the Mid (dark) ages thought it was flat Nuff said about that But what if every previous attempt at the primer and sequencing was done wrong and her primer and sequencing IS RIGHT…. The Current Scientific Bigfoot community is represented by Sykes ongoing Bigfoot/DNA study Sykes has run into problems with his Bigfoot/DNA report The report is delayed… Wonder if Sykes was still doing the DNA the same old way. But has now changed his primer and sequencing process Less we forget….. this is now all about GENETICS and testing not attacks and speculation and insanity A definition of the current Scientific Academic Bigfoot/DNA Community Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Sound Familiar ? long post - point is that none of us are attacking the issue of whether squatch exist or not - I've seen them, and so have many of Melba's most ardent critics here. Leave that alone. We all want it proved, and it WILL get proved through other means, but not by Melba's flawed claims.
Guest thermalman Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 I did some searching and it seems bleach will destroy DNA. How can anyone do a DNA study with bleached samples? Here's a study that might help explain DNA/bleach correlation. http://www.isfg.org/files/6834bde1ff72de292232127e2a49d99fa490b26e.05014573_850094813042.pdf
Guest Tyler H Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 (edited) IT FAILED PEER REVIEW !!!!!! Nuff said. It was reviewed, passed, and published in Denovo. You may not like it, but it was. Nuff said unless you have proof that their review process was improper in some fashion. Why on EARTH does it have to be multi-year, or multi-disciplinary? If, individually, a geneticist takes issue with the genetics, and a biologist takes issue with the biology, and a bioinformaticist takes issue with the phylogenetic tree, or other interpretations, why is that not sufficient? And if it takes someone an hour to CREDIBLY show why her data is faulty, why is that less legit than someone who takes YEARS to debunk it? Huh?? I guess I'll have to take longer to post logical replies - it appears you think that credibility varies directly with delay... must be why you think Melba is so credible - she is a great 'delay-er'. Can anyone comment on whether a "study" is normally required to properly debunk claims that are never proven in the first place (Such as Mulder is asking for)? To my knowledge, that is just not how it works. The refutation must be of equal or superior weight to be considered valid. That is the only way to be fair. Is it your contention that a five-year, multi-disciplinary study including independent blind findings by multiple independent labs that passed reveiw and was published can be overturned by a some jeering hyenas who have maybe put an hour or two into skimming the paper and supporting documentation at best? Who have done no lab work OR taken the time to produce a formal report for consideration and debate? No, it is my contention that a five-year, multi-disciplinary study including ALLEGEDLY independent blind findings by multiple independent labs that HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE passed "reveiw" (in the normal sense) and was published can be overturned by nearly EVERY SINGLE person who understands genetics, and who has taken the time to try looking at her sequences and doing the BLASTS. By your own claims, her data is incomplete, so by NO standards, can it be said to "hold water" - yet you think that the fault lies with the people who point out these very facts. You do NOT need to have the same buden of proof to merely point out the myriad ways in which her study goes against nearly EVERYTHING that has been established about how genetics work. Don't tell my you have never cited "exttraoridinary claims require extraordinary proof" to anyone Mulder. She doesn't even have ORDINARY proof for her astronomically extraordinary claims. Why on earth would the same burden of proof lie with those who are backed by decades of established laws of genetics? PS - you did not refute either of my analogies. In your mind why does Melba's study get to side-step the standards that every other situation and every other person on the planet is held to? Her claims in her scenario would not fly at work, at school, in a family, in a romance, or in any other academic arena - why should it fly JUST for her, JUST for this scenario? Edited April 11, 2013 by Tyler H
southernyahoo Posted April 11, 2013 Posted April 11, 2013 You could stretch that to say her secretary also "practices in the field of genetics"... same with the courier that carries the genetic materials. It wasn't a stretch, and if it weren't for her paper on bigfoot, people without some axe to grind would have no problem admitting it. 1
Guest Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 OK, then, because I am a rockhound, I now declare myself a professional geologist. I will prepare a paper in which I identify the complete map of the suture zone between the North American and African cratons in the southern Appalachian oragen. But I will only include data points for a couple of locations and I will hold back the rest of the data while still claiming to have accomplished this amazing feat. And no one should ever question my findings because, after all, I am a professional geologist, and I have the rock collection to prove it. Again, Ketchum herself has NEVER called herself a "geneticist." Other people have put that label on her in error. She is a forensic scientist.
southernyahoo Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 She has a degree in vet med and some training in how to run equipment that processes DNA tests. She runs tests for people. That does not make her a geneticist. She has not even claimed being a geneticist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneticist A geneticist is a biologist who studies genetics, the science of genes, heredity, and variation of organisms. A geneticist can be employed as a researcher or lecturer. Some geneticists perform experiments and analyze data to interpret the inheritance of skills. A geneticist is also a Consultant or Medical Doctor who has been trained in genetics as a specialization. They evaluate, diagnose, and manage patients with hereditary conditions or congenital malformations, genetic risk calculation, and mutation analysis as well as refer patients to other medical specialties. Geneticists participate in courses from many areas, such as biology, chemistry, physics, microbiology, cell biology, English, and mathematics. They also participate in more specific genetics courses such as molecular genetics, transmission genetics, population genetics, quantitative genetics, ecological genetics, and genomics. Geneticists can work in many different fields, doing a variety of jobs. There are many careers for geneticists in medicine, agriculture, wildlife, general sciences or many other fields. Listed below are a few examples of careers a geneticist may pursue. Genetic counseling Medical genetics Gene therapy Pharmacogenomics Molecular ecology Animal breeding Genomics Biotechnology Proteomics Microbial genetics Teaching Management of a Lab Sales and Marketing of science products Publishing of scientific material Patenting procedures Paternity testing Forensic DNA Again, Ketchum herself has NEVER called herself a "geneticist." Other people have put that label on her in error. She is a forensic scientist. ooops!
Recommended Posts