Guest Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 Not even going to address your made up conspiracy theories designed to defend and explain every possible thing Ketchum does. The excuses being invented crossed the line of the absurd a long time ago.
southernyahoo Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 YES! This has been one of the biggest problems all along - and based on the recent comments here, something certain individuals are still choosing to ignore. SHE MUST RELEASE THE DATA. This is NOT negotiable. Had she published in a real journal, she would have been REQUIRED to release ALL of her data via GenBank or one of its competing services so that ANY interested scientist would have had ready access to it for study/testing/replication. By self-publishing, she avoided this REQUIREMENT. Heck, at this point, how do we even know she even submitted to a journal? How do we know that she did not plan to self-publish so she could avoid the requirement of releasing her data? If you go with that line of thinking then you can't claim it was ever rejected by any journal either. I think self publishing was always plan B though. Better to get the message out and data provided it did not contain human identity according to genbank themselves. Civil action could result if a scientist did that knowingly. If she does not release her data, no one can ever prove her right. However, if she does not release her data, then no one can prove her wrong, either - and maybe that was the goal. If she allowed her personal beliefs to taint her interpretations of the data, then the last thing she would want is for that tainted interpretation to be proven by the data itself. She could put the human data in private hands but who can she trust with it? If the data is legit, she has nothing to fear because the data will vindicate her I think the human data is already verified by Family Tree. They did the sequencing, and according the service they claimed to do, that also includes interpretation. . This is NOT a matter of her choice, as some here seem to think. This is not a matter of forcing her to do something improper, as some people here also seem to think. It is a REQUIREMENT. The entire point of publishing a paper is to present data and what it represents. Without the data, there is nothing. That's why publishing scientists are required to provide it. Ketchum is not above the rules, and the rules say you RELEASE YOUR DATA. (Of course, the rules also say you don't edit your paper or remove co-authors after publication, but I digress.) Human DNA has different rules. I expect that the coauthor requested to be removed, you wouldn't honor the request? I am afraid that we will see no data because the data will prove either:1) that her interpretations are based on her personal beliefs 2) that her interpretations are flawed due to her not being a geneticist 3) a combination of the above Agian this ignores the work outside labs did. They either did sequencing or analysis or both. Nothing is not an option here. As I have stated many times, I still have hope that there is some useful data that can be salvaged from this mess.
Guest Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 SY ... First of all, GenBank has NO SUCH RULE about human data. They presume that the scientist got permission - GenBank does not ask for documentation to that fact. She could have sent them your DNA without your permission and they would not know - or care - because the legal burden is on the submitting scientist NOT GenBank. This excuse of hers was debunked a long, long time ago by a real geneticist familiar with the service. Go to GenBank's site and read the rules yourself. And besides, there are other alternatives to GenBank. Regarding the coauthor - NO, this simply does not happen in real life. Coauthors normally see the papers before publication and give their permission to be listed. And papers are simply NOT altered once published. Retracted, yes. Regarding the other labs - so far, NO ONE has confirmed that they had anything to do with her interpretations. In fact, they have denied it, or claimed they never saw the paper, or claimed they didn't know what the paper was about. So, yes, "nothing" is very much on the table.
Guest njjohn Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 SY - We know there were multiple rejections. Stubstad and Javabob both mentioned the first journal that flatly rejected it for not being a scientific paper. Including the theories about type of DNA that wasn't of this world is the quickest way to get it rejected by science. This was all around the time people were kicked from the study after voicing concerns about this very subject. The forensic journal I posted a few pages ago came from sources that it was the second journal. Nature was the third and the newly created journal was the fourth rejection right before she purchased it and published there. And you don't need rejection letters to verify, because they obviously didn't publish the paper. No journal would make a statement about rejection, just like Ketchum can't legally release her peer review. The simple fact that it ended up in DeNovo states that no accepted journal would touch it. Human DNA by itself doesn't mean anything. Most of us aren't in Genbank, so saying it doesn't match Genbank doesn't prove it's unique. But she's claimed it's been submitted to Genbank already. We haven't heard anything on that front in awhile. Even if the coauthor requested to be removed, once published, you'd have to make note of it. Once it's published, it follows different rules. None of this ignores the work outside labs do, because we have never seen the lab reports. All we have are random sequence information with no context, but this is what she says proves her claims. I did ask the Ketchum camp about the lab reports and the response was the Journal requested that no lab reports be included. Remember this is the same journal that she owns. When you go to a doctor and are sent to a lab for blood work, they send you back with the report, not just the results scribbled on a piece of paper. Forget the complete data, even the little data we have, there is no proof that it's what the labs returned. And when you have statements from Ketchum saying they have to make the mtDNA more important... you can see how questions arise.
Guest Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 I'm not even sure how "3% homology" would even qualify as "human data." Of course, if Robert Lindsay is right, Dyer really does have a body, we'll all find out for sure in 13 days, and this entire discussion might be moot, depending on the results of that body's DNA tests. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony ... the "scientist" fails to deliver but the "hoaxer" comes through.
Guest Tyler H Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 I reread the Facebook conversation and am even more shocked than the first time. Here are a few of my favourite lines "I am married to Bigfoot and am having his child and it has been very painful..." "They have govt and elders also, one said to my prophet friend: many try to find me but only once will I meet." "They are part angel I believe and since angels were with god, they were able to keep their supernatural abilities." "They have Christian beliefs, did you know that?" Sounds and looks like a " hack" job? Denovo website taken down and all points mentioned above are controversial propaganda, albeit they're funny. Someone is playing with Ketchum and the public. Very satirical. LOL. Are you laughing because you're implying hacking is not possible? You mentioned "funny" and "satirical".. I thought perhaps you were also writing a funny satire or something, so I laughed. Are we merely talking about the "possible" here, or does "reasonable" not also enter into the equation somewhere? Is it possible that someone hacked something and manipulated something? Sure Is it reasonable to keep grasping at the straws that are barely in the realm of possibility, with each of the myriad new issues that arrise in the MK camp? Nope. Is it reasonable to think that Cath McMillan, an avid MK support, and njjohn supporter, posted screenshots that she was hoping to use to discredit njjohn, but she for some reason also manipulated the conversations to make MK look bad? Nope. (But then, I have come to stop expecting anything reasonable from anyone who only hides behind a made-up name, and won't reveal their identity, or what stake they have in all of this, yet expects exactly that from anyone else who gets involved in this debate.) JSD and Tman - you have both suggested that there are questions that we need to ask Melba, rather than post the questions here. Melba knows of this forum, why wouldn't she come and post answers here, just as other researchers have? Can I suggest that you make a list of the questions which you think we should ask her, and which you think she will answer, and I will do my level best to get answers from her. thanks!
Guest Tyler H Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 I reread the Facebook conversation and am even more shocked than the first time. Here are a few of my favourite lines "I am married to Bigfoot and am having his child and it has been very painful..." "They have govt and elders also, one said to my prophet friend: many try to find me but only once will I meet." "They are part angel I believe and since angels were with god, they were able to keep their supernatural abilities." "They have Christian beliefs, did you know that?" Sounds and looks like a " hack" job? Denovo website taken down and all points mentioned above are controversial propaganda, albeit they're funny. Someone is playing with Ketchum and the public. Very satirical. LOL. Are you laughing because you're implying hacking is not possible? You mentioned "funny" and "satirical".. I thought perhaps you were also writing a funny satire or something, so I laughed. Are we merely talking about the "possible" here, or does "reasonable" not also enter into the equation somewhere? Is it possible that someone hacked something and manipulated something? Sure Is it reasonable to keep grasping at the straws that are barely in the realm of possibility, with each of the myriad new issues that arrise in the MK camp? Nope. Is it reasonable to think that Cath McMillan, an avid MK support, and njjohn supporter, posted screenshots that she was hoping to use to discredit njjohn, but she for some reason also manipulated the conversations to make MK look bad? Nope. (But then, I have come to stop expecting anything reasonable from anyone who only hides behind a made-up name, and won't reveal their identity, or what stake they have in all of this, yet expects exactly that from anyone else who gets involved in this debate.) JSD and Tman - you have both suggested that there are questions that we need to ask Melba, rather than post the questions here. Melba knows of this forum, why wouldn't she come and post answers here, just as other researchers have? Can I suggest that you make a list of the questions which you think we should ask her, and which you think she will answer, and I will do my level best to get answers from her. thanks! HI Guys Sorry, I posted and did not see my errors until now, and can't edit my comment. It was supposed to read as follows: "You mentioned "funny" and "satirical".. I thought perhaps you were also writing a funny satire or something, so I laughed. Are we merely talking about the "possible" here, or does "reasonable" not also enter into the equation somewhere? Is it possible that someone hacked something and manipulated something? Sure Is it reasonable to keep grasping at the straws that are barely in the realm of possibility, with each of the myriad new issues that arrise in the MK camp? Nope. Is it reasonable to think that Cath McMillan, an avid MK supporter, and njjohn hater, posted screenshots that she was hoping to use to discredit njjohn, but she for some reason also manipulated the conversations to make MK look bad, and NJjohn look good? Nope. (But then, I have come to stop expecting anything reasonable from anyone who only hides behind a made-up name, and won't reveal their identity, or what stake they have in all of this, yet expects exactly that from anyone else who gets involved in this debate.) JSD and Tman - you have both suggested that there are questions that we need to ask Melba, rather than post the questions here. Melba knows of this forum, why wouldn't she come and post answers here, just as other researchers have? Can I suggest that you make a list of the questions which you think we should ask her, and which you think she will answer, and I will do my level best to get answers from her. thanks!
Guest J Sasq Doe Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 JSD and Tman - you have both suggested that there are questions that we need to ask Melba, rather than post the questions here. Melba knows of this forum, why wouldn't she come and post answers here, just as other researchers have? Can I suggest that you make a list of the questions which you think we should ask her, and which you think she will answer, and I will do my level best to get answers from her. thanks! Sorry, but I have no idea what questions you and your group would like to ask Ketchum. You need to do that work.
Guest J Sasq Doe Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 (edited) AGAIN !!!! WHY HAS KETCHUM NOT MADE A SINGLE COMMENT ON THIS? No denials that it was real, no statements, no attempt at any sort of damage control. JSasqD perhaps you know? Or is the answer that we (again) have to ask Dr. Ketchum? Is anyone compelled to come in here and make comments? I don't think there is such a rule. I would suggest that you direct those questions to Ketchum. Ok, I'll ask the same question I always do: what evidence do you have that the screenshots were Photoshopped? What motive to you ascribe to Rhettman and NJ for coming forward with these screenshots? Without the complete unedited conversation being published, the chance for manipulation exists. I referred to such a possibility, but not the certainty of it. Although a case for manipulation has pretty much been made due to the fact that one person's comments aren't even in the pdf. As for motives, I have no idea. You ask her JSD - you seem to have an interesting connection to her. Your imagination is running wild on you again, hahaha. I have no interest in this other than to see the study proven/disproven by a qualified person. End of story. But hey, the way the attacks have been going, it's nothing for one of you to dream up an imaginary relationship and run hog wild with it. Do whatever you like Tyler. It still will not detract from the fact that the answers people are looking for are either present or absent in the data. Oh, not sure if I mentioned this to you before or not, but be sure to ask Ketchum the questions that she has the answers to. Edited April 17, 2013 by J Sasq Doe
Guest Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 Bill Clinton found out the only way to get re-elected Gov of Arkansas, avoid impeachment, etc was to come clean about "nearly everything"' e.g. Smoking a cigar..... And other famous deeds...... The ball is in her court and has been for months. My vote is "quiet the critics" ....... Science should eventually win out.... But after closely following the Smega issue, and the steak, I am not sure the science of DNA is yet ready to solve the mystery of that part of DNA.... Thousands of samples ( just like the tens of thousands of documented sightings of Sasquatch) have been "tested" by the scientists in the Sasquatch arena since DNA was discovered, sic ..... On a side note .... Heck, I know there is a Bigfoot..... BUT .......... Nothing has been found, except a creature, a bear, human contamination, unknown and so on ad nausea...... I am a fan of most science, made my living at it, but the Lame stream Academic Scientific folks, when it comes to Bigfoot, have an agenda of hear no evil, see no evil, talk no evil and TEST no evil. Hence my nickname ScienceCritic... It stems only from the no show of the scientific communiy, when the subject of Bigfoot is broached.... At this point we are no further along than when DNA was introduced..... iMHO. I believe DMK had roughly 168 samples from enought reputable folks in the Bigfoot community to HAVE SOMETHING... Positive. We shall see, I hope..... I do believe Smega as far as the kill, not the story so much, and the "steak recovery is cloudy. Tyler had the same reaction to the tests results as I have had. I'm just sure the DNA community is not yet up to the task..... Yet. Maybe they will not be in my lifetime.. unless the body is laying there in front of them and they are forced to re-learn some rules, and techniques... If not, then maybe Dyer has the goods, ( cant believe im looking forward to the results of what i think is a master hoax) and Sykes wait since September is because, haha some one scientifically is having to relearn those rules, while working on " his body". My hunch is, " If this is so" Sykes is waiting for an answer to jumpstart, or finish his now bogged down study. I'm looking forward to the Erickson " Nat Geo" now... The MK stuff will eventually resurface, some time around August is my guess.. Nuff said... Dadgummit ....
southernyahoo Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 SY ... First of all, GenBank has NO SUCH RULE about human data. They presume that the scientist got permission - GenBank does not ask for documentation to that fact. She could have sent them your DNA without your permission and they would not know - or care - because the legal burden is on the submitting scientist NOT GenBank. This excuse of hers was debunked a long, long time ago by a real geneticist familiar with the service. Go to GenBank's site and read the rules yourself. And besides, there are other alternatives to GenBank. Yes, Genbank assumes no responsibility, and puts that on the submitting geneticist. How could Melba be certain she didn't need it from the donor if the human DNA alone doesn't prove bigfoot exists? It's not Genbank who would have a case to persue. It would be obvious she didn't have permission being that it supposedly comes from bigfoot samples. This supposition could be used against her. She could certainly be accused of knowingly submitting human DNA containing personal identity markers without the donors permission. Her personal opinion of where it comes from ( not the sample submitters} would be evidence of that fact. This looks like an excuse, but just ask these people how touchy it can be. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/us/22dna.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Regarding the coauthor - NO, this simply does not happen in real life. Coauthors normally see the papers before publication and give their permission to be listed. And papers are simply NOT altered once published. Retracted, yes. You have to make up your mind whether to call this a typical science paper or not. Why don't we just call it a report for now? Regarding the other labs - so far, NO ONE has confirmed that they had anything to do with her interpretations. In fact, they have denied it, or claimed they never saw the paper, or claimed they didn't know what the paper was about. So, yes, "nothing" is very much on the table. You are twisting words. Yes Family Tree did confirm they tested samples and performed this service. The mtDNA haplotypes come from Family tree Shaboom. That's sequencing and interpretation. They may not have known what Ketchum would do with it, but contractually, they didn't have to. http://www.familytreedna.com/products.aspx mtFullSequence mtFullSequence Close info... ORDER NOW$299.00 For both men and women. Highest level mtDNA test. Tests both HVR1 and HVR2 (Hypervariable Regions 1 and 2) and the Coding Region. This is all of the mtDNA. Provides most recent ancestral origins.* Includes HVR1, HVR1+HVR2, and FMS matches. FMS matches are related within the past 16 generations.** Recommended for confirming a relationship on the direct maternal line. We store your DNA for free so that you can upgrade the test in the future NO subscription fees * Your matches and ancestral origins depend on how your DNA compares to our database. With the largest DNA database in the world, you have the greatest chance of finding close relatives by testing with us. However, if your maternal line is rare, it is possible you will not have matches or ancestral origins information right away. As our database is constantly growing, you may have matches over time, and we will send you e-mail notifications about any new matches. ** with a 90% confidence interval.
Guest thermalman Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 (edited) Not even going to address your made up conspiracy theories designed to defend and explain every possible thing Ketchum does. The excuses being invented crossed the line of the absurd a long time ago. No excuses, just inquisitive and logical thinking. I'm not making up the conspiracies, the opposition is. If you don't believe me, reread the thread and count out loud the accusations. So, is this your best answer in explaining the hacking impossibility while the server is still operating? Even your friend TH agrees that hacking is a possibility! Area between a hard place and a rock looming. @TH. "Can I suggest that you make a list of the questions which you think we should ask her, and which you think she will answer, and I will do my level best to get answers from It seems only the resistance have the questions needing to be answered. Edited April 17, 2013 by thermalman
Guest Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 (edited) TMan. It is clear you have not the the background in hosting provider design to see that it is clear she took the site down. Yesterday you claimed it was due to an update and now today you have switched to the "hacking" theory. How about this TMan. If it indeed has been hacked how much longer would you suggest that the site will be down? Based on your claim of "hacking" how much longer till it's fixed? A) By the end of the week B ) End of the Month C) Sometime this year D) I refuse to guess because it will make Melba look bad. Edited April 17, 2013 by BipedalCurious
southernyahoo Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 SY ... First of all, GenBank has NO SUCH RULE about human data. I gonna ask, what part of this statement do you think Dr. Ketchum should ignore? Privacy If you are submitting human sequences to GenBank, do not include any data that could reveal the personal identity of the source. What part of it is unclear or could be construed as flexible and open to interpretation?
Guest thermalman Posted April 17, 2013 Posted April 17, 2013 (edited) @ Biped, Well my dear, could it be that she took the site down after being hacked into? What other reasons might a site go down? My suggestion as an update was another possible solution to why the site went down. As far as down time, I have no idea how long it might be down? You seem to know a lot about IT. Might you know how long it will be down? Or are we getting to close to the answer? Edited April 17, 2013 by thermalman
Recommended Posts