The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest njjohn]

The starchild skull was debunked awhile ago. It brewed long enough for Lloyd Pye to make a fortune though. 

 

Neurologist Steven Novella of Yale University Medical School says that the cranium exhibits all of the characteristics of a child who has died as a result of congenital hydrocephalus, and the cranial deformations were the result of accumulations of cerebrospinal fluid within the skull.^[4][3]

DNA testing

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes."^[4]

Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs tohaplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native Americanhaplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother.^[3]

 

 

These results aren't from the Starchild skull though, they're from the elongated Peru skulls and getting the same results she got in the BF study again without any data. She won't post on her page, but Foerster posts regular updates when she gives more info. She's chasing hypothesis that are already debunked, much like the april fools papers included in her paper. 

[southernyahoo]

I agree with you about the When part, but it's part of the whole big picture. The claim is it happened at a specific point, so you can't deviate the when. Remember the leaks about the failed peer review based on the timing? That adds up now when you put this together with it, doesn't it? 

 

 

I think I've said before that with the haplotypes from the samples and the hypothesis they are from bigfoot, you couldn't say they were from an ape that preceeded the mtDNA lineages but you could say the crosses happened much later. In that way the timing is not set in stone unless there are mutations in those that occured at a certain point in time and common to most humans today yet with additional ones since they became more isolated. Calculations for a time estimate would always be in the realm of theoretical probability and subject to revision.

[Guest]

'Ketchum mentioned that someone had asked if the manuscript is legit. Her answer?:
 

It is legitimate science involving several disciplines. I wouldn't have double digit co-authors many with PhDs and some University Heads of Departments if this was nothing more than a hoax. We are ALL putting it on the line. Like one head of department said, this is so interesting, why wouldn't we want to be a part of this? Most of the authors have been in on this project for a long time. As we did more science, we added a couple more with a certain expertise. Our bases are well covered.

- Dr. Melba Ketchum"

 

 

 

Stumbled on this article (more like a post) circa April 2012, a  short/long year ago... from BFE while looking for something else....  part of the reason why we ended up with an 800+ page two-year thread I suppose!

 

Of those  "on the line," I wonder if there has been any real fallout in their careers...MK aside.....?  I am aware one author pulled their name, and others aren't making comment...but, I do wonder what they are really thinking and experiencing because of this work..

 

As far as i can tell, after a round on web/radio paranormal stuff....and a whipping via conventional outlets, it has no other significant coverage other than ongoing BF web type sites?

Edited June 1, 2013 by apehuman

[masterbarber]

I'm thinking most reasonable folks are looking at statements she made like this one:

 

March 30

"We have more support from PhDs coming in all the time as well as some good and honest reviews. We are collecting them for a new press release and will release their names at that time. Maybe the world will start to acknowledge our terrific paper and our Nobel worthy discovery at that time!"

 

and perhaps wondering the same things as this astute commentor to the above claim:

 

April 16

"I have questions. Are your samples, the extracted DNA and your results being retested and confirmed independently or not. If not, why not? If so, when do you expect some results? Months? Years? I am not interested in the slightest in the scuttlebut flying around but I would have expected some preliminary outcomes by now from those well qualified to do so. Science likes repeatable but we are yet to see anything at all from any renowned genetic professionals. Your comment would be appreciated. The silence is becoming a little deafening, interrupted only by the likes of Prof. Dr Tyler A. Kokjohn who wonder. like me, why you are not seeking out the best of the best to confirm your results. You and your co-researchers have the paper out. Surely now the focus should be on getting the results endorsed by the best. Nobel Prize worthy research demands nothing less."

 

 

So far, she has not responded to that comment.

 

 

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Melba-Ketchum/359075637446173

[bipedalist]

'Ketchum mentioned that someone had asked if the manuscript is legit. Her answer?:

 

It is legitimate science involving several disciplines. I wouldn't have double digit co-authors many with PhDs .......

Of those  "on the line," I wonder if there has been any real fallout in their careers...MK aside.....?  I am aware one author pulled their name, and others aren't making comment...but, I do wonder what they are really thinking and experiencing because of this work..

 

As far as i can tell, after a round on web/radio paranormal stuff....and a whipping via conventional outlets, it has no other significant coverage other than ongoing BF web type sites?

 

Usually, I think it should be the primary author to which information about the research should be questioned unless they do some kind of pressie with a line-up and open panel or something of the like.

 

I really don't see it incumbent on secondary authors to put up much in terms of Q&A if that is not the way the release was structured. I assume she is primary author since she "owns" the journal and I assume the pay-presence through her contact information.    Of course any good scientist would willingly take their team to a professional conference of some kind (even a BF conference) and sit down and do a panel review discussion for those supportive or critical or on the fence in regard to her research.  Where are the answers and responses in writing to the types of questions Masterbarber alluded to by her peers in his post?  

Edited June 14, 2013 by bipedalist

[Cotter]

From Tuesday:

 

Melba:

 

"It is my opinion that we don't have to prove anything to the naysayers. The data speaks for itself. it is up to the scientific community to step up and honestly disprove what we have done. I know that they can't because of how we did the study. Everything repeated. We proved it, science just does not like what we found."

 

FB Friend of hers:

 

"But Melba are there not still scientists that are looking at the paper, I remember before you said that if you get a few more validations from the scientists (or words to that effect) you would put another press release were are we now with that ?"

 

 

Melba:

"Yes, but it is not finished. Some very well qualified supporters couldn't go public due to their superiors not wanting unwanted attention but there are still people looking at it."

[Guest]

From Tuesday:

 

Melba:

 

"It is my opinion that we don't have to prove anything to the naysayers. The data speaks for itself. it is up to the scientific community to step up and honestly disprove what we have done. I know that they can't because of how we did the study. Everything repeated. We proved it, science just does not like what we found."

 

FB Friend of hers:

 

"But Melba are there not still scientists that are looking at the paper, I remember before you said that if you get a few more validations from the scientists (or words to that effect) you would put another press release were are we now with that ?"

 

 

Melba:

"Yes, but it is not finished. Some very well qualified supporters couldn't go public due to their superiors not wanting unwanted attention but there are still people looking at it."

 

This is a perfect example of how bigfootery works, "it is up to the scientific community to step up and honestly disprove what we have done" and "science just does not like what we found". She has nothing! She never had anything! And where are the pictures and video that were supposed to accompany her paper? And "qualified supporters couldn't go public due to their superiors not wanting unwanted attention"? The whole entire thing is a farce! 

Edited June 14, 2013 by summitwalker

[georgerm]

From Tuesday:

 

Melba:

 

"It is my opinion that we don't have to prove anything to the naysayers. The data speaks for itself. it is up to the scientific community to step up and honestly disprove what we have done. I know that they can't because of how we did the study. Everything repeated. We proved it, science just does not like what we found."

 

FB Friend of hers:

 

"But Melba are there not still scientists that are looking at the paper, I remember before you said that if you get a few more validations from the scientists (or words to that effect) you would put another press release were are we now with that ?"

 

 

Melba:

"Yes, but it is not finished. Some very well qualified supporters couldn't go public due to their superiors not wanting unwanted attention but there are still people looking at it."

 

 

Now proving BF through DNA seems to be overly complicated and not clear cut, so again the road to proof turns into a bumpy, muddy road.

No matter which way the subject of BF turns, there are frustrations and naysayers who slap down the proponents. We have highly trained geneticist who won't stake their reputations on the findings. Why? Are the findings too complicated or is the subject too hot and top genetic personel won't dare touch it. What then? It dies on the vine, and we are back to square one............................prove BF exists. 

[masterbarber]

From Tuesday:

 

 

Melba:

"Yes, but it is not finished. Some very well qualified supporters couldn't go public due to their superiors not wanting unwanted attention but there are still people looking at it."

 

       Pay no attention to the scientist behind the curtain...............

 

The only thing I see on that page is a lot of pandering and the occassional well thought out question that goes unanswered.

 

I'll echo the above comment, Where is the video and pictures that were to go along with this study? I hope the ones we've seen aren't all they have....

[Cotter]

Maybe she and Dyer can go on tour?

[masterbarber]

I think that's sure to be a....moneyma......maker... 

[MIB]

Groan.  

 

Well ... I guess someone had to say it.

[Guest]

Tim, i am sorry,  but I have been out of the countryfor the past month,  doing actual scientifcic research,  you know,  gathering data that i publish in peer reviewed papers.  Unfortunately,  access to the BFF was blocked because i was originating from a foreign country,  regardless,  i will respond to each point below.

 

 

1st- are you saying YOU are OTLS!  If so, then why didn't you put that information in the blog about this instead of saying "sources I can't reveal?"  If you aren't OTLS!, then you yourself have shown how the cloak and dagger psuedo-journalism that is the bigfoot blogosphere.  Thank you for illustrating that.

 

I am not OTLS.   Didn't even take their word for anything.  I simply verified the information in their posts by tracking to the original sources of the information (for example Gary Stone etc).  I actually personally verified the information posted by Smokie by talking to the original sources of the information.  it's not rocket science,  it is not hard,  it takes Google.  10 minutes, and a desire to know the truth!

 

2nd-  Why would I do the work that the blogger that presents him or herself as an authority on bigfoot and Melba Ketchum refuses to do?

I guess we differ here.  I fact checked a whole lot of info posted in OTLS,  and was able to verify everything i set out to check on.  So in my opinion,  OTLS did do the leg work, and then synthesized the info gathered from many different sources into a well researched cognicent time line.  So I guess i simply do not agree that OTLS is not doing their "work".

Just thought since you did not believe the information, you might want to confirm or refute it by going to the original sources.  apparently i was wrong about that!

 

3rd- While the moderators don't normally allow personal attacks in this venue, I have no problem with what you say.  I have challenged at least two people to cite one example of me taking something as true.  You won't find it.  I don't even believe in bigfoot-  I believe in the possibility of bigfoot.  I find it interesting that you try to demonize anyone that doesn't automatically follow your own unsubstantiated belief system.  My experiences in life lead me to believe that demonization  occurs where facts fail.  Have a nice day!

 

Not sure where you are getting the my "unsubstantiated belief system".  fact is over the past 3 years I have personally run over 10  samples declared to be BF through my DNA lab.  every one of them has been identified -  unfortunately,  each and everyone was clearly identified as a known mammal.  bear, Alpaca, dog,  human,  horse.  I am still searching for substantiation of the existance of BF,  and so far all of the data I have examined has said - "nope".

(BTW Spoiler alert -  Guess what Sykes study says -  including many samples form thesame people and samples that Melba calls highhbrid humans).  Mid october,  but you might as well rev up the spin machine right now -

 

So in my mind, I think I try more than most others for an unbiased examination of purported evidence.  And I have to tell you,  every single "failure" is actuallhy more circumstatial evidence that BF does not exist.

 

[Cotter]

@Slowstepper - are you privy to Sykes' results?

[southernyahoo]

 

Not sure where you are getting the my "unsubstantiated belief system".  fact is over the past 3 years I have personally run over 10  samples declared to be BF through my DNA lab.  every one of them has been identified -  unfortunately,  each and everyone was clearly identified as a known mammal.  bear, Alpaca, dog,  human,  horse.  I am still searching for substantiation of the existance of BF,  and so far all of the data I have examined has said - "nope".

(BTW Spoiler alert -  Guess what Sykes study says -  including many samples form thesame people and samples that Melba calls highhbrid humans).  Mid october,  but you might as well rev up the spin machine right now -

 

So in my mind, I think I try more than most others for an unbiased examination of purported evidence.  And I have to tell you,  every single "failure" is actuallhy more circumstatial evidence that BF does not exist.

 

Can you share more details on the samples Slowstepper, like photo's of the samples showing the morphology of the ones that tested human?