The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest thermalman]

You must have RidgeRunners posts blocked because you obviously haven't seen any of that science

Seen it? Yes.

Understand it? Very little. Like most others here.

Do I recognize reputation bashing? Yes I do.

Do I recognize counter claims without supporting evidence? Yes I do.

I'm not a skeptic. However, I have to agree with your assessment of the paper. I would love to have Dr Ketchum explain, for those of us who don't see it, how the data presented in the paper support her conclusions. I personally can't connect the dots.

MIB

Agreed.

Edited April 13, 2013 by thermalman

[chelefoot]

I keep reading folks asking for someone to provide a source of a reputable scientist who has proven that MKs study has NOT established a new species- other than our own members who are scientists. Has anyone been able to site a source of a reputable scientist who supports Melba's findings?

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

Actually based on your postings and embarrassing justifications in this thread defending Dr Ketchum, or lack thereof (I should say).......

Well, make up your mind. Are there any "embarrassing justifications", or are there a lack of them?

If by "embarrassing justifications" you mean all of the times that I encourage folks to focus on the data/study and leave the personal garbage out of it, well, then yeah, to you that might seem embarrassing.

I'm your worst nightmare.....of course, right after the person you blindly defend...you just haven't accepted that yet.

You are not my worst nightmare, sorry. Maybe my worst cartoon, with your agenda, but certainly not nightmare.

Now that you've once again been able to go off on a tangent, care to get back to the study/data, or is that not in your best interests?

Edited April 13, 2013 by J Sasq Doe

[Guest Tyler H]

My comment relates to the condition of evidence and it's viability to produce a non-contaminated result. That's a standard to consider when we both know that someone like Sykes doesn't come around too often. I think it's a shame you and others couldn't find fresh deposited samples in the area of the shootings. They would be far less challenging to test.

All personal feelings aside, I'd put my sample right there with any to have viable cells with an intact nucleus. The difference is that the stained boots have a great story to go with them and a better excuse for failure.

I am quite convinced that contamination is not a huge hurdle. Trent University explained to me how many protocols have been developed to deal with contamination. A contaminated results will still produce multiple contributors - some will be identifiable, and some will not. The problem comes in, when intricate systems such as illumina are told to look at the plural contributors as one genome/contributor.

[Guest njjohn]

The science has been attacked all through this thread. Did you somehow not notice those posts?

Right down to her extra commas, edited names, and claims that a certain Dr. named, turned out to be a minister (does anyone know how many people might have the same name)? Lots of finger pointing, but no due diligence........all of it not really science. BTW, how can one declare a scientific fact of findings without having seen the total report?

Denovo proof enough !

You said 3! Where's the other evidence supporting your claim? Anything written by the editors proclaiming the refusal? And in supporting the critics, your scientific credentials are?????

As has been said multiple times, the extra comma didn't show up until weeks after the fact. Sarah Bollinger was removed from the original version of the paper where she was listed as a co-author. She was a DNA Diagnostics employee. Removing a name from a published paper requires at the very least a citation noting what was edited and why. It's in the ethical guidelines of every profession and journal out there. Except DeNovo. But that's just one mistake in a long list of mistakes and contradictions of statements.

There are 34 Rayford Wallaces in the United States. Only 7 are Doctors. Only 1 works with what was formally bigfootstudy.com and who's original owner John Phillips (who goes by #59) worked with Dr. Ketchum on setting up the foundation. He of course left after he realized everyone had setup themselves with $90k a year positions. http://www.bigfootst...pic,1465.0.html

Dr. Rayford Wallace only edited the paper though, so having a scientific degree isn't important. It's just a piece of the puzzle.

If the truth points out that someone isn't being completely honest, that's not reputation bashing. It's showing that the person isn't being completely honest. That's it.

I have read/heard conflicting statements from MK that this additional data exists and is going to Genbank.

I recall she stated early that great scientists had come forward after release to help her do that We haven't heard anymore on that, right?

I gave up on thinking there really was any more than the supplementals provided with the paper cited here, and after that last FB post from MK that "it's all in the paper" assume there isn't.

Is this still a gray area?

No, this was still when people thought more was going to be released later. Before Dr. Ketchum said everything needed to prove what the paper stated was included. More data is irrelevant. The full study of the genomes would take years, and would just delve deeper into what the paternal species nuDNA withheld. But she jumped to the Peru samples instead.

*******

And I love the "agenda" talk. I was going to do simple interviews every few weeks to get the blog active again. It wasn't until I started asking questions that the rabbit hole opened. Trust me, I wish I could reveal right now what I have. It would definitely clear some things up for most. For me it leaves more, albeit different questions.

[Guest Tyler H]

Tman, JSD, and other MK believers - If you DON'T feel this data was sufficient, and still feel that our conclusions need to wait on more data, then you have to explain to me why Melba herself felt it was sufficient for PhD peers to review, but it is not suffiicient for your own personal layman's standards.

First of all, speaking for myself, I am not an "MK believer". I am a believer of looking at the data. The truth is in the data, and not in what people say that MK did or did not do, or say or did not say. All of that is irrelevant.

I am just waiting for a qualified, credentialed expert (unbiased, ergo outside of bigfootery) to look over her data, and prove/disprove her results. Until such a person receives that data, then all of this is pretty much a sideshow, especially that which has nothing to do with the study's data.

But I'm not worried about the data and what it may/will/does reveal, do you?

Sincerely - how can you say "just waiting for a qualified, credentialed expert (unbiased, ergo outside of bigfootery) to look over her data, and prove/disprove her results."? It's been gone over by multiple credentialed people who actually accept the existence of this animal....and you have rejected their conclusions. Yet, you say when 'someone else' who DOESN"T believe in the animal, rejects Melba's claims, THEN you are going to believe it? It's been done. It's happened. I think you really need to analyze what specific criteria are missing for you, so that you don't just reject any other forthcoming reviews of the data, creating new excuses about the source each time.

Why would rejection of MK's claims, by someone who DOESN'T believe in BF, be more compelling to you than the rejections by people who ARE OPEN to this animal's existence?

[Guest]

The agenda talk not from me NGJon. For me that mantra/complaint is over used by those who seek to advance this study as a credible peer-reviewed analysis of bigfoot DNA...and keep this thread alive. I think most of us would let it die, it's just...well... boring in BF land right now....

Edited April 13, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest Tyler H]

The burden of proof lies with people making extraordinary claims that go against all the strictures of science and genetics. If you think otherwise, you are of an intellect that I cannot comment on here, for fear of being banned.

Aside from the fact that the "extraordinary claims" fallacy has been debunked right to death, I would ask you to please specify what 'extaordinary claim" you are referring to? That bipedal hominids exist? Plenty of proof that they have for millions of years. That bipedal hominids exist contemporaneously? The simple fact that you and I (both bipdeal hominids) are having this conversation proves that they do. Please show me what fact of science or nature precludes there being additional specie and populations of bipedal hominids as yet undocumented.

Keep in mind that on top of recent finds of heretofore undocumented populations that DOUBLED the numbers of lowland gorilla, it has been recently found that there is an entirely up to now undocumented additional population of orangutan. They may not be hominids proper, but they are fellow greater apes, and if they can exist, so can undocumented hominids.

So, even if the "extraordinary claims" dogma is valid, how does it apply in this case?

The science has been attacked all through this thread. Did you somehow not notice those posts?

Again, please show me the multi-year, multi-laboratory, multi-disciplinary peer-reviewed study that debunks the paper.

Mulder - Serious? Are you really going to lecture me on the existence of Sasquatch, after I've seen them? After all this time, do you think I'm calling the existence of any hominins, or other great apes, the "extraordihnary claims" that have no proof?

For the record - I am convinced this animal exists. I do understand however, that for many, the burden of proof on that topic has not been met.

Yes, I do view MK's claims that she has 3 genomes of this animal, "extraordinary" - but more so, I refer to her claims that THESE particular genomes support that claim. The genomes she has provided defy the principals of genetics in many ways - many of which I don't fully understand myself. But I DO understand that having less homology with HSS and other primates than turtles do, makes the 'extraordinary claim' of Sasquatch's existence even harder for skeptics to swallow, as it has been overshadowed by an even more OUTLANDISH claim about the genetics involved. Her claims are extraordinary by most people's standards - first that she has proof of an unaccepted primate in North AMerica, and then, that the data which defies all understanding of genetics should be accepted as said proof. Her claims require AT LEAST oridnary evidence, if not extraordinary, wouldn't you agree?

So, "DEEPLY FLAWED evidence" is likely just not going to cut it, wouldn't you agree?

Now, you still have not justified why you think a "multi-year, multi-laboratory, multi-disciplinary peer-reviewed study" is necessary to debunk this.

The claims have never stood, so they never needed to be knocked down.

And as an illustration: If a tree grows for 5, or even for 50 years, does it have to take 5 or 50 years to chop it down? I don't get your logic.

You need to go back to my last post after the last time you posted this nonsensical demand for a "multi, multi, multi, multi-disciplinary peer-reviewed blah blah blah study" and answer the follow-up question I posed. I consistenly try to address and answer your questions, yet you consistenly try to side-step mine.

[Guest BartloJays]

Actually based on your postings and embarrassing justifications in this thread defending Dr Ketchum, or lack thereof (I should say).......

Well, make up your mind. Are there any "embarrassing justifications", or are there a lack of them?

If by "embarrassing justifications" you mean all of the times that I encourage folks to focus on the data/study and leave the personal garbage out of it, well, then yeah, to you that might seem embarrassing.

I'm your worst nightmare.....of course, right after the person you blindly defend...you just haven't accepted that yet.

You are not my worst nightmare, sorry. Maybe my worst cartoon, with your agenda, but certainly not nightmare.

Now that you've once again been able to go off on a tangent, care to get back to the study/data, or is that not in your best interests?

"Agenda," oh you must be referring to the "Trent bear fiasco" you referred to earlier where after Dr. Ketchum failed to manipulate the witness by first asking for the rest of his sample, then requested him to destroy it while simultaneously requesting the boots to plot indefinitely defrauding one of my best friends and prophetically predicting results from a "reg lab"..... out of concern we went and tested both the frozen and salted sierra's tissues and according to two prominent labs, one being Trent, the centerpiece of her study was actually a piece of contaminated bear and we shared the results publicly (as we said we would) to warn the public (of course after she denied third party testing to resolve "the conflict" in results). Is that the "agenda" you're referring to?

Oh BTW, it's now been over three weeks since she was asked to return the rest of the Sierras piece she tested to it's rightful owner (in violation per her research agreement) and last I heard that hasn't happened yet. Wonder what the hold up is J Sasq Doe? If the owner decides to test it she can prove our labs are incompetent (I'd be thrilled) or our labs (and Wally) were purposely given bear. I'm sure it's on its way soon right...

Yeah, none of that is important.......let's get back to the "study and data"..... speaking of which, any idea J Sasq Doe where the rest of the data is and why it's not being made available so rigorous scientific review can take place? Any idea why not one co-author and or qualified expert has come out in support of the paper? My lord, do you suspect it has anything to do with the top secret nature of ..... you know...... the "angel/alien" DNA? And how about you providing an embarrassing justification or two for zero evidence to substantiate the so-called "successful" peer review and no lab reports provided with the manuscript to help substantiate the work?

Edited April 14, 2013 by BartloJays

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

A few things that made me change my mind about the study:

- Her spokesperson Robin Lynne is a fake habituator.

- The pictures of stick structures that were originally posted on Facebook along with the outlandish claims that were made with it were something one would expect to see from a typical YouTube hoaxer or maybe Internet/Forum habituator

-The paper was said to be with a reputable journal, when in reality it was being prepared to be self-published

-At least 19 of the samples in the study are from confirmed hoaxers

-They were begging Tyler to not release the DNA report on the Sierra sample (which was done professionally)

- The Bigfoot steak turned out to be a bear steak

- Justin Smeja was asked to destroy/manipulate the rest of his sample and to help defraud Wally Hersom

-The DNA sequences that came with the paper didn't make sense/they clearly didn't come from a novel species

-Her study has been thoroughly debunked by many qualified individuals

I know I'm missing a lot, but that's probably most of it.

Edited April 14, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[southernyahoo]

Yes, I do view MK's claims that she has 3 genomes of this animal, "extraordinary" - but more so, I refer to her claims that THESE particular genomes support that claim. The genomes she has provided defy the principals of genetics in many ways - many of which I don't fully understand myself. But I DO understand that having less homology with HSS and other primates than turtles do, makes the 'extraordinary claim' of Sasquatch's existence even harder for skeptics to swallow, as it has been overshadowed by an even more OUTLANDISH claim about the genetics involved. Her claims are extraordinary by most people's standards - first that she has proof of an unaccepted primate in North AMerica, and then, that the data which defies all understanding of genetics should be accepted as said proof. Her claims require AT LEAST oridnary evidence, if not extraordinary, wouldn't you agree?

So, "DEEPLY FLAWED evidence" is likely just not going to cut it, wouldn't you agree?

I'll level with you here Tyler. I was hearing about how the nuclear DNA was abnormal throughout this study. Something convinced Dr. Ketchum that's just how their DNA is. That's my perception of all this. I don't know if that is to be blamed on Dr. Ketchum or bigfoot at this point. But she never hid the fact that the nDNA just wasn't right from submitters under nda. So now we wait to see more homologous nDNA, if it is to be had at all.

Edited April 14, 2013 by southernyahoo

[Guest]

Actually based on your postings and embarrassing justifications in this thread defending Dr Ketchum, or lack thereof (I should say).......

Well, make up your mind. Are there any "embarrassing justifications", or are there a lack of them?

If by "embarrassing justifications" you mean all of the times that I encourage folks to focus on the data/study and leave the personal garbage out of it, well, then yeah, to you that might seem embarrassing.

I'm your worst nightmare.....of course, right after the person you blindly defend...you just haven't accepted that yet.

You are not my worst nightmare, sorry. Maybe my worst cartoon, with your agenda, but certainly not nightmare.

Now that you've once again been able to go off on a tangent, care to get back to the study/data, or is that not in your best interests?

"Agenda," oh you must be referring to the "Trent bear fiasco" you referred to earlier where after Dr. Ketchum failed to manipulate the witness by first asking for the rest of his sample, then requested him to destroy it while simultaneously requesting the boots to plot indefinitely defrauding one of my best friends and prophetically predicting results from a "reg lab"..... out of concern we went and tested both the frozen and salted sierra's tissues and according to two prominent labs, one being Trent, the centerpiece of her study was actually a piece of contaminated bear and we shared the results publicly (as we said we would) to warn the public (of course after she denied third party testing to resolve "the conflict" in results). Is that the "agenda" you're referring to?

Oh BTW, it's now been over three weeks since she was asked to return the rest of the Sierras piece she tested to it's rightful owner (in violation per her research agreement) and last I heard that hasn't happened yet. Wonder what the hold up is J Sasq Doe? If the owner decides to test it she can prove our labs are incompetent (I'd be thrilled) or our labs (and Wally) were purposely given bear. I'm sure it's on its way soon right...

Yeah, none of that is important.......let's get back to the "study and data"..... speaking of which, any idea J Sasq Doe where the rest of the data is and why it's not being made available so rigorous scientific review can take place? Any idea why not one co-author and or qualified expert has come out in support of the paper? My lord, do you suspect it has anything to do with the top secret nature of ..... you know...... the "angel/alien" DNA? And how about you providing an embarrassing justification or two for zero evidence to substantiate the so-called "successful" peer review and no lab reports provided with the manuscript to help substantiate the work?

Bart

What is your position on just what Justin shot that day.... Bigfoot, Bear or just a story..

Just curious

[Guest Tyler H]

Yes, I do view MK's claims that she has 3 genomes of this animal, "extraordinary" - but more so, I refer to her claims that THESE particular genomes support that claim. The genomes she has provided defy the principals of genetics in many ways - many of which I don't fully understand myself. But I DO understand that having less homology with HSS and other primates than turtles do, makes the 'extraordinary claim' of Sasquatch's existence even harder for skeptics to swallow, as it has been overshadowed by an even more OUTLANDISH claim about the genetics involved. Her claims are extraordinary by most people's standards - first that she has proof of an unaccepted primate in North AMerica, and then, that the data which defies all understanding of genetics should be accepted as said proof. Her claims require AT LEAST oridnary evidence, if not extraordinary, wouldn't you agree?

So, "DEEPLY FLAWED evidence" is likely just not going to cut it, wouldn't you agree?

I'll level with you here Tyler. I was hearing about how the nuclear DNA was abnormal throughout this study. Something convinced Dr. Ketchum that's just how their DNA is. That's my perception of all this. I don't know if that is to be blamed on Dr. Ketchum or bigfoot at this point. But she never hid the fact that the nDNA just wasn't right from submitters under nda. So now we wait to see more homologous nDNA, if it is to be had at all.

I can be on board with tihs mindset SY - if not fully for myself, then I can at least understand someone in your situation having that mindset.

I just think that it stems from more "just wait, it's going to get better" propaganda from MK. I wonder how many years that song will be played before no one is willing to wait any longer.

I will say this: "watch for some evidence to come out shortly, which indicates even MK realized her current claims do not make sense in light of the genetic results obtained"

Bart

What is your position on just what Justin shot that day.... Bigfoot, Bear or just a story..

Just curious

I know you aren't asking me, SC - but I think both Bart and I believe Justin's story, and as such, are as convinced as a third party who was not there to witness it, can be. We think he shot what he claims to have shot.

Bart has the added evidence of having eaves-dropped on a conversation between Justin and the driver. He has relayed that a few times. That conversation too, further convinced him that they were/are telling the truth.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Tyler H

[Guest]

The burden of proof lies with people making extraordinary claims that go against all the strictures of science and genetics. If you think otherwise, you are of an intellect that I cannot comment on here, for fear of being banned.

Aside from the fact that the "extraordinary claims" fallacy has been debunked right to death, I would ask you to please specify what 'extaordinary claim" you are referring to? That bipedal hominids exist? Plenty of proof that they have for millions of years. That bipedal hominids exist contemporaneously? The simple fact that you and I (both bipdeal hominids) are having this conversation proves that they do. Please show me what fact of science or nature precludes there being additional specie and populations of bipedal hominids as yet undocumented.

Keep in mind that on top of recent finds of heretofore undocumented populations that DOUBLED the numbers of lowland gorilla, it has been recently found that there is an entirely up to now undocumented additional population of orangutan. They may not be hominids proper, but they are fellow greater apes, and if they can exist, so can undocumented hominids.

So, even if the "extraordinary claims" dogma is valid, how does it apply in this case?

You mean the 3 science journals that rejected it yeah that would qualify as people be outside of Bigfoot

Which ones? The ones that refused outright to look at it based on topic or the ones whose reviewers spent their reviews making snide remarks about Melba and not addressing her paper? Both of which happened in this case.

From the guy who has posted multiple times throughout the thread about how Science works it is pretty shocking you have no understanding of how important a "testable hypothesis" is. It is the basis of all Scientific claims.

Here is a refresher for you on the Scientific Method:

The steps of the scientific method are to:

• Ask a Question
  
• Do Background Research
  
• Construct a Hypothesis
  
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  
• Communicate Your Results
  

That is not needed in desriptive or documentary science, which dna analysis is. In this sort of science the researcher:

• Gathers data
  
• Tests the data
  
• Reports the data
  

No "hypothesis" needed. A simple declaration "We gathered x samples, made y tests and got z results.

The science has been attacked all through this thread. Did you somehow not notice those posts?

Again, please show me the multi-year, multi-laboratory, multi-disciplinary peer-reviewed study that debunks the paper.

So Mulder, please show me the multi-year, multi-laboratory, multi-disciplinary peer-reviewed study that proves bigfoot exists

And "Melba said" doesn't count. Show me some links to people that were intimate with the analysis and writing of the paper that have gone on record confirming the accuracy and valility of the paper and the journal its published in.

Edited April 14, 2013 by squatting squatch

[Guest]

I'm just curious how past transgressions, frequency of inadequate work, financial mismanagement, preposterous claims, etc, have no bearing on what one may expect from someone? So, by that logic, someone with a 500 credit score should be able to finance a 400k house, as long as their income is within the accepted parameters for a loan that large, correct? It's pretty unfair that just because someone never pays back any debt, that they aren't trusted to receive a loan, right?

Everything MK has shown us so far is relative to this study, unfortunately. It's not a character assassination....It's re-hashing what she has done, or hasn't done. Has nothing to do with the pack mentality. It just so happens a lot of people disbelieve her claims based on what she's done in the past, or lack of what she's done in the present.