The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest Scout1959]

Well sometimes folks get into some interesting fields that do somewhat involve their degrees. A good friend of mine has his Doctorate in Electrical Engineering and during his career he somehow started working on the human nervous system. (which is electrical) He spent many years teaching the Physiology of the Nervous System to medical students. (he's now retired)

Not saying anyone involved in the study has or doesn't have the expertise to weigh in, just saying that looking only at what somebody's degree is in can often be misleading. My friend was a leading expert in the workings of the human nervous system yet his formal training was in Engineering.

[Guest]

SY, I hear what you are saying but I'm afraid that you are falling into the trap of thinking that "all PhDs are created equal." Far from it.

PhD chemists are in many ways LESS flexible (multidisciplinary) than bachelor-degreed chemists because during grad school, they choose a niche in which to specialize (as this guy specialized in pigments, based on his publication record from when he worked at UNC-W in the late 70s/early 80s). But that's beside the point. Remember, we are talking about GENETIC analysis.

There is a LOT of misunderstanding about the kind of education and experience required to "do DNA," and Ketchum's use of inappropriate folks only feeds the misunderstanding. (Although a physical chemist is a step up from a public administrator and a landscape architect.)

For this study to pass muster, which is what we all WANTED (a point that is lost on some), it must pass muster with the right kind of scientists. Unfortunately, so far, it has not. Check out the faculty listed at the links below. I sought research centers that listed titles/disciplines in their directories for ease of scanning. These are the kinds of folks needed to evaluate the study. Note the focus on computational sciences intersecting with biological sciences, with the main emphasis on computational sciences:

http://www.soic.indiana.edu/research/centers/bioinformatics.shtml

http://www.med.upenn.edu/genetics/faculty.shtml#primary

http://www.cbcb.umd.edu/people/faculty

http://brc.ncsu.edu/people-type/faculty/

Now, COULD this chemist have left higher ed and ended up in a situation where he became involved with some sort of DNA work? Sure. However, there is no record of such that I could find on the Web. It is as if he disappeared after the early 80s. He is now doing marketing work for a symphony in Texas.

Credentials matter. If Ketchum is going to present ANYONE as a supporter of note, she must provide their credentials, and they must be the appropriate credentials, to be taken seriously.

[georgerm]

Seems like MK needs a few PHDs in genetics................................pick one from Michigan State. Phds in other fields seems silly when we have so many in genetics.

[Guest]

It's obvious they are posting anything that sounds good and supportive. Anything at all.

[southernyahoo]

SY, I hear what you are saying but I'm afraid that you are falling into the trap of thinking that "all PhDs are created equal." Far from it.

No I'm not falling into any trap, There's no dictating who eventually takes an interest in bigfoot and it's DNA, and there's no making any particular Phd weigh in. What we have is human DNA and some novel nuDNA sequences from a data set that should be all human based on the mtDNA results. The answers as to why, "if not because it is from bigfoot" could come from a molecular analyist from many different fields of expertise. If the physical chemist suddenly had a non-bigfoot explanation, do you think we would see a turn in the support group for this individual? We know the answer to that don't we?

[Guest]

MK failed. The end.

[southernyahoo]

Bigfoot is neither divergent or homologous depending on how you look at it, the beginning of the end.

[georgerm]

Of all the genetic information present in BF dna what percentage was analyzed my MK?

I just don't understand why we can't discern BF dna from human dna. There are huge physical differences between the physical bodies and seems like the dna would show this.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

So much can be said about this, but I think the bottom line is she didn't prove the existence of Bigfoot. Regardless of what anyone says, it was never even her goal to prove the existence of Bigfoot. Lets just say the people who payed her big bucks aren't too happy about this

[southernyahoo]

I've always advocated that people spend only what they can afford to lose chasing bigfoot proof, that way they won't be so unhappy when bigfoot winds up being unpalatable to science, or the science isn't good enough, or if bigfoot just isn't there. Every proponent assumes that risk who seeks proof, and would be childish to simply blame which ever scientist failed at the task, in spite of how confident they may have been along the way.

[Guest]

If the physical chemist suddenly had a non-bigfoot explanation, do you think we would see a turn in the support group for this individual? We know the answer to that don't we?

Wow, I think you're really off-base here.

This is what I find truly irritating about this ongoing debate. This is NOT about wanting to see bigfoot vs. non-bigfoot, or a human vs. non-human relationship in the findings. Some folks here keep trying to over-simplify this discussion into this irrelevant and shallow conflict as a way to avoid acknowledging the real issues.

[southernyahoo]

It may not be what it's about for you shboom2, me either, but it is that shallow for many here, just as we can't even discuss the mechanics of pcr without first making a mountain out of someones credentials.

[Guest]

So much can be said about this, but I think the bottom line is she didn't prove the existence of Bigfoot. Regardless of what anyone says, it was never even her goal to prove the existence of Bigfoot. Lets just say the people who payed her big bucks aren't too happy about this

Yep!

... making a mountain out of someones credentials.

Wow.

[Guest njjohn]

I think the problem here is obvious to those that will admit it. I don't care about the credentials. They only matter because Dr. Ketchum said anyone that isn't a geneticist can't comment, yet everyone that comments in support hasn't been a geneticist. It's a double standard.

But that's only one issue. The major problem is they're saying the data is good, but not giving an explanation why. If you say it's showing this or that, then you can't just leave out the why or how. It doesn't matter if you're a secretary, a janitor or a geneticist, I'd listen to anything or anyone that came out in support if they could backup the how with evidence.

So while some like to believe there's some conspiracy to make things look bad, the simple explanation is there has been absolutely zero attempts by anyone to backup why the science is good besides saying "Because it is." That is what makes it look bad.

[southernyahoo]

So much can be said about this, but I think the bottom line is she didn't prove the existence of Bigfoot. Regardless of what anyone says, it was never even her goal to prove the existence of Bigfoot. Lets just say the people who payed her big bucks aren't too happy about this

Yep!

... making a mountain out of someones credentials.

Wow.

Yeah wow, at the end of the day it's not about the Phd who say's it but the science that holds up to scrutiny. There is a technical problem sequencing the nuDNA from most of the samples. That is the problem, not someones educational or experience background. I'd rather to see independent attempts to work that problem and produce an answer as to why, than to quibble about who is the supreme authority. If they aren't working directly with the samples and giving technical answers I'm not interested in their opinon too much anyways.