Cotter Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Well Ape, I don't know as if a FB conversation would qualify as doctor/patient priveledge..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 (edited) I tried to qualify it in an edit..you might be right...but, it would be easy to ask a licensing board to review.... it isn't professional IMO... I might have a too strict view from the legal training..I don't know their exact rules...or this situation...but it still didn't seem too necessary to do this...however, I will get off the soap box, I can't really add more... Edited April 16, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 (edited) Check out the latest from Rhettman Mullis. And apparently Dr. Sykes doesn't agree with the findings of the Ketchum study. Edited April 16, 2013 by OntarioSquatch GG 2 & 3; Rule 1 A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 (edited) If she had called no joy, the scientific community would love her, but Bigfooters would feel they had been had. She could not win. Well, it wasn't supposed to be about "winning" - it was supposed to be about telling the truth about what she'd found in the actual samples. Sample, test, results, publish. Nothing else. If she'd stuck to that, I'd have respected that, though I would have been disappointed. Now, I'm well beyond disappointed... I disagree with the "Ketchum needs help" statements. There plenty of folks in the world who believe like she does and it's not said of them that "they need help". She's entitled to her beliefs, even if others feel they are wrong or weird, same as anyone. Edited April 16, 2013 by madison5716 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 If she had called no joy, the scientific community would love her, but Bigfooters would feel they had been had. She could not win. Well, it wasn't supposed to be about "winning" - it was supposed to be about telling the truth about what she'd found in the actual samples. Sample, test, results, publish. Nothing else. If she'd stuck to that, I'd have respected that, though I would have been disappointed. Now, I'm well beyond disappointed... What do you think she did not tell the truth about from her perspective and what she believed to be true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Truth and facts are just that, truth and fact. They are such regardless of perspective. The sun either exists or does not. Regardless of anyone's perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 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. False - we have people willing to follow up on samples that were associated with her study. 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. I had the exact same predicament -Smeja provided me with a sample that he was almost sure was Squatch - I still told him the truth, and he still took it like a man! There is no excuse for Ketchum. She was obligated to find the truth, not answers that fit her dreams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 If she had called no joy, the scientific community would love her, but Bigfooters would feel they had been had. She could not win. Well, it wasn't supposed to be about "winning" - it was supposed to be about telling the truth about what she'd found in the actual samples. Sample, test, results, publish. Nothing else. If she'd stuck to that, I'd have respected that, though I would have been disappointed. Now, I'm well beyond disappointed... I disagree with the "Ketchum needs help" statements. There plenty of folks in the world who believe like she does and it's not said of them that "they need help". She's entitled to her beliefs, even if others feel they are wrong or weird, same as anyone. Agreed Maddie. *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest J Sasq Doe Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 JSD - If you read any posts other than your own, MAYYYBe you could not see the significance of njjohn's post - it has to do with the low degree to which MK's samples match human. SHe acknowledges that they are less "like us" than chickens are... yet she thinks we can mate. Also, some people pulled information from njjohn's report, and were able to somehow get hold of the whole conversation from facebook - they were trying to attack njjohn, but they proved that the conversations was real, and not fabricated. Deal with it. (or not... the multitude of JSD's that write these posts seem to collectively reject evidence all the time.) Oh here we go again. You Trent U bear fiasco guys just can't get enough of the Ketchum bashing, haha. I read the guy's pdf and I regret having wasted the time doing so. Unsubstantiated conversations? Anonymous sources? I call it yellow journalism, and it's a shame to use the word journalism with that article. Show me the transcript of that conversation unedited. Show me the person that was involved. Show me that Ketchum was involved. I am not going to take anyone's word for anything. Zero proof of anything in that pdf. Sorry, just not that gullible here. Now, how about we get back to the study and the data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Rhett has come forward with a statement I just read on BFE, and he makes a strong case, and I do like it in first person, so I am soothed in that regard.... The missing sample is a real wow.... wow...so, I gave up a long time ago on this..not sure why I keep reading about it...except, well it took a lot of time/effort/sacrifice from many of us (kbhunter would have plussed if I had any) and it's hard to ignore ...http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/04/rhettman-mullis-explains-release-of-his.html#comment-form it really is just a drag, I have not mentioned this study to anyone since it published...still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Show me the transcript of that conversation unedited. Show me the person that was involved. Show me that Ketchum was involved. Now, how about we get back to the study and the data? Um... that already happened if you have been paying attention. It's been proven that it was her. Why did MK take down her denovojournal.com website? Pretty suspect timing don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 (edited) Not really. I just revamped my website the past two days, totlally changed it. You're reading to much into the gossip venue, by pointing out a non essential element of supposed DNA sequencing. Edited April 16, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 You don't need to take a website down in order to revise it. Are you going to keep defending that opinion if it is down tomorrow? How about the next day? A month? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Depends how long the updates might take, or whatever else they are doing to it? You're exaggerating a simple incident into a national headline. Do you work for the Enquirer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 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. False - we have people willing to follow up on samples that were associated with her study. If that pans out, great. I'll happily be wrong. That said, given the "bad odor" now attatched to anything to do with the study, any other researcher is going to have to be 350% careful to tripple dot every "i" and cross every "t" if they want to use a Ketchum study sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts