The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

Does she have the DNA goods? I still think it very possible that she does. Do I think it makes any difference? Not any more.

I still have hope. I have always said that I hoped that there is good data that can be salvaged, IF she would ever release it all, of course. In the right hands, perhaps it can be useful. I have become more doubtful since the coauthors have said they did not have a hand in the analysis of the data and just did tests for her. But I am still hopeful, if for no other reason than the sample submitters themselves deserve having someone try to salvage the data. Actually, we all deserve having someone try to salvage the data. But unless she shares it openly (which again, would have happened had she published in a real journal), we will never know. But I am at a point where I am wondering WHY she is not sharing the full data. If it is good, it will vindicate her AND the submitters AND our community - but that cannot happen unless scientists take a crack at it --- ALL of it.

Talk about a wasted opportunity...

Yes - and wasted samples, wasted time and wasted money. We can always get more samples, and we have plenty of time - but the money is another matter. Money doesn't grow on trees ... and neither do Wallys.

*a thoroughly frustrated Mulder goes off to bang his head against a wall*

The wall has gotten crowded but we'll gladly make room.

[Cotter]

@ LC ^^Ummm...good question.

I'm guessing it has something to do with the physical and spatial understanding of the alternate dimension that some can still travel between.

Duhhhh.

:-)

Edited April 16, 2013 by Cotter

[kbhunter]

Most if not every single person that worked on any of this with her wanted and still want the good data salvaged, there was much work done by many. Some much more than others, but there were many involved in trying to do anything to help. I know she was warned and told to stir clear of some of the controversial issues. Too bad she didn't listen.

KB

[Guest thermalman]

Here's the thing I don't understand - assuming the screenshots are true, Ketchum claims that Bigfoot managed to breed the human out of their species and can no longer mate with HSS. However, they still retain human mtDNA as a result of the hybridization. In other words, they were attempting to breed the human out of their species, but only by mating with female direct descendants of the first generation hybrid females. If they were truly trying to eliminate HSS from their species, wouldn't they exclude those females from breeding? Moreover, they were able to hybridize with HSS when they had no human DNA whatsoever, at least according to Ketchum. So, why would a species that is genetically more similar to humans be less able to interbreed than when they were less similar?

Just like mice did. After all, they share over 90% DNA with humans. Isn't that the same thing you're trying to say?

[Guest]

Is it fair then RR, to say that the speech that the Data has created about itself is "I am an amalgam of sequences from known animals, and there is nothing in me to indicate support for a novel, unidentified species"?

IMO, you have hit the nail on the head. The MK sequences are an amalgam of sequences from known animals and some sequencing artifacts.

At this point, she could have the most prefect DNA in the world and no one will give her data a decent hearing, esp after the IM leaks.

1. She doesn't have the "most perfect DNA in the world". She has an amalgam of known animal DNA and artifacts from sequencing.

2. I and others have given her a decent hearing. Based only on the data she claims is needed to verify her conclusions, RR, Theagenes, I and others have called "baloney!"

3. I don't care about her degrees and expertise, previous experience, or business practices. I made my call based on the data. I wanted her to succeed. She didn't.

I'd be howling mad if I had sent a sample to her for analysis, and her DeNovo paper was the outcome. I hope that some of the sample submitters can get there sample back so they can be analyzed elsewhere.

The data speaks for itself.

RR, glad to see you're still posting. I had to take a break. Have you had a chance to see whether any of the human portions of the MK contigs contain coding sequence? Wouldn't it be kinda odd if all the human sequence was non-coding?

[Guest]

Most if not every single person that worked on any of this with her wanted and still want the good data salvaged, there was much work done by many. Some much more than others, but there were many involved in trying to do anything to help. I know she was warned and told to stir clear of some of the controversial issues. Too bad she didn't listen.

KB

I've already used my plus for today. Really wish we had more plusses ....

[Guest]

I can't believe it took this long for you to get frustrated.

Hands icepak to Mulder.

Been getting there for some time, actually. Just objectively a good time to say it.

Keep in mind I come from the perspective of someone who has direct experience seeing one and knowing that they exist, so I'm over the first obstacle (acceptance of the topic) already.

And it's DNA science. It's not supposed to be that difficult: Take the sample. Analyze the sample. Compare the results. Report the findings.

I found it (and find it) difficult to believe (ugh, hate that word) that a multi-disciplinary team, working for five years with multiple independent labs doing blind confirms on the samples could get things this messed up.

But with the IM/FB evidence available, it seems clear to me that Dr Ketchum has taken what could have been a perfectly servicable car (study) and driven it into the proverbial ditch. I repeatedly said that I would admit it if I ever saw evidence that the study would not get the job done vis a vis proof.

This is me making good on that. Whether she has the goods or not (and I maintain she may actually have what she says she has), this study is not going to be the "game closer" that it appeared to be earlier. It now falls to cooler heads (Sykes) to take up the task.

[Guest]

^^^^

TimB, ThermalMan ...

This is how it's done.

Mulder, guide them into the light.

[Guest]

I'd be howling mad if I had sent a sample to her for analysis, and her DeNovo paper was the outcome. I hope that some of the sample submitters can get there sample back so they can be analyzed elsewhere.

I am not a submitter but I've been angry that Denova paper was the outcome of so many submissions. I really hope that the samples that were submitted can still be used for another study, Sykes or otherwise.

[Guest njjohn]

Source of the conversation comes out : http://bigfootforums.blogspot.com/2013/04/source-comes-forward.html

Hopefully some more of those under NDA now can come forward. Now that this information is in the public sphere, it is no longer blocked by the NDA.

Mulder - The paraphrased statements were that the mtDNA had to be made more important, and her believing the Peru samples may belong to the paternal donor. I have screenshots of those statements as well, but those sources don't wish to come out in the public yet. That's why I can't quote them word for word.

As a journalist, sources are my lifeblood. If they don't want to come forward, I completely respect them for even having the courage to point me in the right direction. Some have called them cowards, but there's a difference between cowardice and a genuine fear of repercussions. They are the ones that want the truth to be known. They're the ones that deserve any and all congrats. I am simply a messenger. So I welcome the attacks by some, because I'd rather have them use their vitriol on me than on the sources of the information who have gone through enough already.

[Guest]

I feel for you Mulder. I'm a skeptic and, not having seen one as did you, I am not a "knower". But I can say this. I am probably just as dejected about these results as you. I agreed with you way back when that DNA = critter. But I've learned that not all labs and their professionals are created equal.

[Guest]

I am not a submitter but I've been angry that Denova paper was the outcome of so many submissions. I really hope that the samples that were submitted can still be used for another study, Sykes or otherwise.

Leaving the "who owns the samples" question aside (I've heard it both ways), realistically no one is going to want to touch a sample that had anything to do this study with a 10-meter cattle prod. The water is just too muddied.

That's just the realpolitik of the situation.

[southernyahoo]

Most if not every single person that worked on any of this with her wanted and still want the good data salvaged, there was much work done by many. Some much more than others, but there were many involved in trying to do anything to help. I know she was warned and told to stir clear of some of the controversial issues. Too bad she didn't listen.

KB

LOL not at you but the point. Bigfoot is controversial, DNA alone as proof is controversial, Bigfoot having human DNA is controversial, a relict hominin or hominid existing today and proving one exists without showing "how" it exists and where on the tree of life it exists would'nt fly either.

Can you folks imagine her predicament for a minute. Failure was not an option. She had submitters who were very confident in their samples and hopefull for answers. She had a benefactor who was very confident in the phenomenon having had his own encounter and expected something for his money and held out for genuine scientific peer review. She had confidence in the samples herself but couldn't change the data just to satisfy science. Could anyone imagine the accusations if she didn't atleast produce a report published or not? People would say she just took Walleys money and never produced a thing. It's clear that she did contract out work to several different labs, and they did simply test the samples and report what they found. If she had called no joy, the scientific community would love her, but Bigfooters would feel they had been had. She could not win.

[Guest]

Hmmmm. A psychologist releasing private conversations from Dr. Ketchum. Not sure if it's a tragedy, or a comedy. Actually, a psychologist/preacher/squatcher is the stuff reality TV is made of. Glad he did it, but I'm not sure I would've done the same. If I did, I wouldn't have hidden my contributions to the conversation out of it. Where can we find the full conversation?

Edited April 17, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC
GG 2 & 3; Rule 1 A

[Guest]

^psychologist? Licensed ohh.. I may have to read this...gosh guys, really? If it is coming to this njjon I see the argument of repercussions, and there is a reason - this would be an ethics violation, goodness! I don't care about what MK might retaliate with...or any potential breach of NDA...that comes after this professional duty of confidentiality as a psychologist...did she infer any kind of confidential relationship b/c of those credentials...did he/she warn her that nothing was confidential?

But, also if that isn't the case, generally there is great leverage against those who wish no public name, b/c this is BF we are talking about..and any public trail of a real name in this mess...will remain a google item for potential employers for ...maybe ever....so? Personally, I flippin don't know.. I have thought about this chicken game going on for so long...I have advised all with any NDA or concern to seek counsel....and to me that is right action....following the advice of counsel who knows your facts...i hope those involved and stake holders have..

Otherwise, I still don't think this has gained much, for the risk it presents, or backlash.......just my two cents. We already knew.

I am curious, does Wally think he got his money worth? He is the one with deep pockets and position to reveal all this to a public record, a court case....any others that might file against each other will settle..or get dismissed...just again two cent thoughts....

Edited April 16, 2013 by apehuman