The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

Any possible reason except MK tucking tail and running right ?

So just like the other Ketchum defenders you refuse to confine her to any timeline whatsoever.

Edited April 18, 2013 by BipedalCurious

[Guest thermalman]

Why should I run? Logical questions for learning the truth, is all.

Edited April 18, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

Any possible reason except MK tucking tail and running right ?

So just like the other Ketchum defenders you refuse to confine her to any timeline whatsoever.

Pardon the interruption !!!! In the bashing .... And banging ......

BUT.... I thought that was going to be 6 months from February.....

[Guest]

Logic dictates correlation between an embarrassing release of information and Denovo going dark.

Then again the Ketchum supporters haven't been too keen on logic skills as they have been repeatedly told for the last several years that this whole thing would turn out exactly the way it has.

Some still are plugging their ears and screaming NahNahNahNah !!!

[Guest njjohn]

Either they have the worst internet security known to man, or it's down intentionally. I'm not ruling out hacking, but 99% of the time a site is hacked, it's either the entire server is crashed or they just change information to show false information. The domain screen usually indicates it's taken down server side.

I also take into account the history of their other sites. The genome project and protection sites were both claimed to be hacked also, when multiple pages are still live indicating they just removed the home pages. That's more indicative of someone just not knowing that removing the index page doesn't remove the ability to reach the other pages, not hacking.

I'll give them the 1% chance though.

[Guest]

The genome site appears still to be up and functional. I think someone with ill intent would go for all sites related.

[GuyInIndiana]

I'll give them the 1% chance though.

Then you, sir, are extreeeeeeemly generous.

[Guest thermalman]

Logic dictates correlation between an embarrassing release of information and Denovo going dark.

Then again the Ketchum supporters haven't been too keen on logic skills as they have been repeatedly told for the last several years that this whole thing would turn out exactly the way it has.

Some still are plugging their ears and screaming NahNahNahNah !!!

Oh my! biped! And you're how old?

Any possible reason except MK tucking tail and running right ?

So just like the other Ketchum defenders you refuse to confine her to any timeline whatsoever.

Pardon the interruption !!!! In the bashing .... And banging ......

BUT.... I thought that was going to be 6 months from February.....

LOL.

[Guest]

SY.... you are usually well-versed but I cannot make heads or tails of your argument because it does NOT MATTER to GenBank.

Ketchum had WRITTEN permission via the research and testing agreement from all of the sample submitters, whether they submitted their own DNA samples or not. So all of the HUMANS involved in the study are covered by this paperwork. Why would they sue her for including their data in the the study? After all, we must presume that she tested samples against the submitters to be sure that she was not mistaking Sasquatch DNA for theirs. I would think that you submitted your own DNA to her for comparison to your sample. Would you sue her for including your DNA data in the study as a control against your sample? That doesn't even make any sense! Knowing many of the submitters, I can't see how ANY of them would sue her for that. And as far as them being identifiable - if they are not in GenBank by NAME, they would not be identifiable. But for argument's sake, let's say you are in GenBank ... unless someone went looking for your data, no one would have a clue you were there.

Now, the so-called human in the Sasquatch samples is only 3 percent homology. How on earth can that qualify as "human?" Granted, I myself believed - and still do - that Sasquatch must be very closely related to us IF Native American accounts of interbreeding are correct. Therefore, I expected them to be closer than chimpanzees' 98 percent. She's been claiming that the mitochondrial DNA is "fully" or "100 percent" human, yet we have it in her own words from more than one source that it is only 3 percent.

But again, GenBank does not police what is submitted to them. So, given that the sample submitters gave her permission via the research and testing agreement, from whence comes her risk for being sued over providing human data to GenBank? I just don't get your argument, and I do think she used this policy as an excuse to avoid sharing the data and to confuse people.

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.

I'm not twisting words. They merely identified haplotypes in the DNA they tested. They had nothing to do with the data interpretation of Sasquatch as a hybrid being.

[Guest]

It is NOT sufficient for a debunker to say "I do not accept" or "[X] is wrong." They must demonstrate with specificity how and why their interpretation is correct. They must, as even grade school math students are reminded "show their work".

Again if a math student brings in horrible work, all the critic has to do is point out the mistakes, which is what geneticists have done. And before you come back with "where have they been published". Ketchum didn't even publish her work in a good journal in the first place. No repectable journal would publish a paper with a such a balantly flase phylogenetic tree.

If the work (any work) is so "horrible" and "blatantly false", then it should be easy to take the date, go into the lab, and produce a formal paper with specifics and evidence, should it not?

What you are saying (as you Skeptics always say) is th

It is NOT sufficient for a debunker to say "I do not accept" or "[X] is wrong." They must demonstrate with specificity how and why their interpretation is correct. They must, as even grade school math students are reminded "show their work".

Again if a math student brings in horrible work, all the critic has to do is point out the mistakes, which is what geneticists have done. And before you come back with "where have they been published". Ketchum didn't even publish her work in a good journal in the first place. No repectable journal would publish a paper with a such a balantly flase phylogenetic tree.

(Again speaking to the issue, rather than this specific study)

If the work (any work) is so "horrible" and "blatantly false", then it should be an easy matter to do the lab work and produce a paper with specifics and evidence, should it not?

What you are saying (as Skeptics always do) is that the total burden of producing evidence is on the proponent side and that those seeking to rebut need produce nothing to prove their case in turn. Which is not scientific in any way.

[southernyahoo]

SY.... you are usually well-versed but I cannot make heads or tails of your argument because it does NOT MATTER to GenBank.

Thanks, but yes it does matter to them, they wouldn't say "don't do it" on their home pageif it didn't.

Ketchum had WRITTEN permission via the research and testing agreement from all of the sample submitters, whether they submitted their own DNA samples or not. So all of the HUMANS involved in the study are covered by this paperwork.

The nda covered the DNA from the sample if not me, but didn't cover my DNA being put in GenBank.

Why would they sue her for including their data in the the study? After all, we must presume that she tested samples against the submitters to be sure that she was not mistaking Sasquatch DNA for theirs.

True, but this doesn't cover me finding someone else's hair on a tree. Person unknown. Could this person suddenly come forward realizing from the date ,place and circumstances I provide that it was they who deposited the sample? In my case, this is possible if we ignore morpholgy, odd behavior etc.

I would think that you submitted your own DNA to her for comparison to your sample. Would you sue her for including your DNA data in the study as a control against your sample?

Yes I did, and I wouldn't sue, but would have it removed if I knew it was me.

That doesn't even make any sense! Knowing many of the submitters, I can't see how ANY of them would sue her for that. And as far as them being identifiable - if they are not in GenBank by NAME, they would not be identifiable. But for argument's sake, let's say you are in GenBank ... unless someone went looking for your data, no one would have a clue you were there.

Someone could find their DNA in genbank with a 100% match, that doesn't happen unless it's you or a family member of the same mother in the mtDNA.

Now the so-called human in the Sasquatch samples is only 3 percent homology.

You've confused the nuDNA with the mtDNA. The mtDNA is 100% human.

How on earth can that qualify as "human?"

See above.

Granted, I myself believed - and still do - that Sasquatch must be very closely related to us IF Native American accounts of interbreeding are correct. Therefore, I expected them to be closer than chimpanzees' 98 percent. She's been claiming that the mitochondrial DNA is "fully" or "100 percent" human, yet we have it in her own words from more than one source that it is only 3 percent.

The Novel sequences in the nuDNA might be that far away,hence the not of this earth statement.

But again, GenBank does not police what is submitted to them. So, given that the sample submitters gave her permission via the research and testing agreement, from whence comes her risk for being sued over providing human data to GenBank? I just don't get your argument, and I do think she used this policy as an excuse to avoid sharing the data and to confuse people.

I think it is a legitamate concern to load the 100% human mitos into genbank.

I'm not twisting words. They merely identified haplotypes in the DNA they tested. They had nothing to do with the data interpretation of Sasquatch as a hybrid being.

True they didn't call it sasquatch or a hybrid, though they were only looking into the mito's and had no trouble interpreting it as fully human. That is an important data point.

[Guest]

I still think the GenBank policy is being used as an excuse. I did get the mito and nuc switched - my bad.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Can't upload what isn't there . The fact that the DNA shows a mix of known animals with modern human and not a novel species has been greatly overlooked IMO.

[Guest]

SY, are we then not at a stalemate now with the DNA and GenBank?

If they are indeed human (by mtDNA standard), how can one proceed with the DNA study (including GenBank submission or publication) if one can not get their informed consent?

Would you feel that a dead specimen's DNA could be submitted, or the fact that it may have a living relative prevent it's submission?

Do you have any thoughts on how you could get around this point? It seems by finding the mtDNA is human we have painted ourselves into a corner regarding publishing the sequence - or is the fact that the nuDNA is not 100% human sufficient to make the claim that BF does not need to provide consent. IMO nuDNA trumps mtDNA.

I don't think GenBank's policies are in place to inhibit science (which when taking this literally is exactly what I think it would be doing).

[Guest]

"What you are saying (as Skeptics always do) is that the total burden of producing evidence is on the proponent side and that those seeking to rebut need produce nothing to prove their case in turn. Which is not scientific in any way." Yes it is. Once again, you keep re-inventing how science works. When a scientist gathers data and writes a paper with a hypothesis, the journal editors make sure the evidence collected supports the hypothesis and the paper gets published. It is then that potential critics have to "produce data and evidence of equal weight"., As Darren Naish (who reviewed the paper) points out, Ketchum didn't get pass the first stage. Her evidence wasn't strong enough to support her conclusions and legitimate papers reject her article. Hence why she had to buy one and publish it there. .

Edited April 18, 2013 by Jerrymanderer