The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest Tyler H]

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.

**Removed non-reciprocating link**

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?

lol

Edited April 17, 2013 by Tyler H
BFF Rule 2 D

[Guest]

I stand by every thing I said about how Science should be handling this situation: by debunking the data with data of equal or superior weight and amount.

No, all they have to do is look at Ketchum's data and show that her interpretation is wrong or is not enough for her to make these claims.

[southernyahoo]

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.

Oh she gave answers to the submitters all along, the problem was that hers were pro-bigfoot , and attempting to publish in a peer reviewed journal which is not the same as just typing up a report. for a single customer. Each sample is a separate case in this study, and you've already acknowledged the difference in standard she was being held to based on her conclusion. Yours wasn't even proven until another lab took it further. Such could be done with each sample in this study, though I doubt the results would be the same. We don't know she didn't tell the truth about many of the samples.

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

Um... that already happened if you have been paying attention. It's been proven that it was her.

Where is the unedited transcript that would show that nothing was taken out of context, and is indeed accurate? Did I miss that, or am I to take the edited version as gospel?

Why did MK take down her denovojournal.com website? Pretty suspect timing don't you think?

I have no idea. I would suggest that you ask Ketchum herself. She would have an answer for you.

As for Rhettman Mullis, here are his own words:

"I am not qualified to determine the authenticity of genetic science and that is why I turned her paper over to Sykes and Nekaris and both did not respond favorably to the science in the paper. Genetics is not my area of expertise."

So....how about we get back to the data, and move past the enquirer stuff from biased competitors.

[southernyahoo]

False - we have people willing to follow up on samples that were associated with her study.

Well fill me in!

[ThePhaige]

I have got to say something about all of this. After hearing of this last night and reading the one way conversation posted in the blog by njjohn from MK, I was not surprised at all to be honest in fact. I have had some time for this to sink in and to ferment inside me a bit... I did not think any less of MK for her views as many of her observations align with my own in some ways. If anything I felt more concern for the danger she is in spiritually than professionally or even mentally. She is not a victim of mental defect here in my opinion, but she is in fact a victim in other ways that have much more far reaching consequences and implications... We have a saying where I come from that you says... you cant save your ass and your face at the same time, which is not unlike the saying you cannot serve two masters. Where she was in error in my opinion is in trying to be all things to all people...to have ones personal views and to also attempt to be purely scientific. In this case those two are in conflict from the get go here. Obviously I am hitting the high spots here and this is much more complicated than that. The lines that separate personal beliefs, personal experience and the science are blurry and can always be scrutinized no matter who it is, some are just smarter to not reveal the 3 and keep a degree of compartmentalization to the affair. In todays world it is almost impossible.

Now having said that, I am all for truth, however... the way this truth was put to the surface I find disturbing, disingenuous and agenda laden in every way I can imagine. For one where is the other side of the conversation? Why the deletions of those facts? Where is the context? Where is the couth ? Where is the trust among fellows? Where is good faith (I mean being a pastor and all) wouldn't ya think..... I can go on and on, but I will stop there because one cannot hide from the one he is pastoring on behalf of. I would wonder what That Individual might think of all of this. Sounds like a Sasquatch in human clothing to me, and I feel rather sick about it today. Even so... nothing that was known from the previous day has changed. Me thinks we need more help as a species than ever.

Edited to include: I am not pointing at njjohn here if it was not him as the conduit it would have been someone else.... and the real truth here is the reveal of the character of the individual who released this information for viewing in the public square.

Edited April 17, 2013 by ThePhaige

[Guest]

I have no idea. I would suggest that you ask Ketchum herself. She would have an answer for you.

People ask her questions all the time. She refuses to answer and blocks you off her Facebook.

[Guest thermalman]

Well, one should learn to ask nicely!

[Guest njjohn]

J Sasq Doe - Like RR said, she doesn't even understand what she has in the data. And I understand Rhettman isn't a geneticist. Neither are you, neither am I, neither is Paulides, and neither is Dr. Ketchum. You can deflect criticism of her actions and her beliefs of what the data is, but that doesn't change the facts of what is there. Her three genomes aren't even related to each other. You keep asking for a non-bigfoot related scientist to look into it on a bigfoot forum. Everyone has shutdown the data in the paper.

As to the "enquirer" type of info in the PDF. Read it again and look back at the statements by others who have had their reputations tarnished the last few years for claiming the exact same things said in the conversation. Stubstad, Javabob, etc.. Not so crazy now are they? And when more sources come forward because to verify this information, are you going to claim bias there as well? Simply because they give information counter to what Dr. Ketchum proclaims as her truth? This has been known by many for years, but no one had the courage to stand up until now. And it will lead to more. He wasn't her pastor or psychologist. This wasn't a privileged conversation. He just had enough of others being attacked and threatened for knowing the truth.

Dr. Ketchum's only response to my article was to threaten BFE with legal charges of libel. They know my email. They know how to contact me. But they know I know communication laws and a libel suit would never make it to court. She's a public figure and she'd have to prove it was a lie, I knew it was a lie, and that I had malicious intent. They haven't made a statement other than those actions. And they definitely haven't contacted me, even though I've had an open invitation out for awhile now.

People need to realize Dr. Ketchum isn't the only "expert" in the field. Her data isn't magically aligned to where only she can read it. It doesn't react differently under her microscopes than other labs. If multiple scientists I've never heard of or without names say there's something wrong with these conclusions and there's only one or two with ties to Dr. Ketchum that say it's perfect, I'm going to look into what the multiple say. I wouldn't ignore the other side, but I'd definitely take a look. That's not bias, that's common sense. To ignore anyone that disagrees is just putting up a wall.

Have an open mind, and you'd be surprised how much more information is out there. I haven't shut myself down on this story. If Dr. Ketchum can explain everything, I'm all ears. But I'm not closing off possibilities that it's junk science. Just like I'm not closing off possibilities that there's something valid in there.

[Guest]

Well, one should learn to ask nicely!

As if that has anything to do with it. She squashes any and all conversation that is not useful to the outcome she desires.

I have a feeling she may decide to fade away from this whole debacle in the near future.

[Guest thermalman]

So will half of the skeptics posting here.

[Guest]

Southernyahoo asked: What do you think she did not tell the truth about from her perspective and what she believed to be true?

Perhaps that wasn't the best choice of words on my part. I didn't mean to imply truth vs fiction. I meant to imply that i wished she'd published only the facts as she'd found them as she did her testing, implying the raw data, the actual results without implying or adding anything else.

It appears to me that she really thinks her published data leads to the conclusion she believes in.

[Guest]

The ketchum report is over and done with. It proved nothing, was lousy(at best) science, and was laughed at. Why are there still people staunchly defending it/her?

[Guest]

I think Rhett should be commended for coming out on the side of truth.

[Guest]

Well if she can telepathically communicate with TaShona and convince her to hold a press conference, this would be over, but it might take a lot of blueberry bagels to convince TaShona not to make herself invisible and scare everybody with her glowing eyes. Just remember, if they glow red that means she's mad, but if they glow green you're good.

Edited April 17, 2013 by squatting squatch