Martin Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 big deal she purchased a journal and rushed the site together. No she did not. She made it all up. http://historum.com/blogs/ghostexorcist/1380-melba-ketchum-s-bigfoot-dna-study-questionable-ethics-creating-journal.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Do we have data from the Trent lab Melissa, that we can compare the insufficient results from Melba's lab with? Yeah - it came back Bear/Justin Smeja - they even told us what part of the world Justin is from (in his ancestry) End of test .. Heck I don't need a PHD in genetics to figure that one out. FYI - the Trent lab was not trying to prove the existence of Bigfoot - they received a sample and asked that it be sequenced. Unfortunately they came up with a result that had nothing to do with Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Absolutely cath. Melba is the geneticist scientist here, not any of us. (as far as I know, apologies in advanced if I'm wrong on that). Melba is a vet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Right Martin? And the media has never been wrong or inaccurate in their reporting before? If Melba's only a vet, why is she allowed to do DNA testing then? Josh Gates has even used her for his DNA findings. Edited March 1, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Question for the DNA knowledgeable -- could this Raw Data be considered proprietary information? Is that why she may not be releasing it? I'm trying to figure out a good reason why she wouldn't release all the data. Good question. In the Genbank annotations, it lists who the submitter is. Since they've been blocked by Genbank up to this point, it could be a possibility that someone else could find a way to get Genbank to accept it, and then they'd be the ones with their name on the find. I'm taking a wait and see attitude with this one, mainly because I don't know enough personally about what and how much the data represents. If it's only 1% of the data, the % of similarity with other species (That we share large % of DNA with anyway) could change dramatically if we compared it to the other 99% of the data. I still question why we don't have the full lab reports from the 3rd party labs on all the samples that didn't give complete genomes at the very least. The more I follow this thread, the more questions it raises and the fewer questions get answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 The skeptics have to be sitting back, laughing their butts off, the whole Bigfoot community fight and bicker with each other. How can possibly believe anything that they say,they even bury people that are trying help prove why they are out looking for . Even if you don't agree with it, wouldn't it be better off talking about what is right with it. And if you feel she has nothing right, say nothing, because anybody that does a separate study has anything that matches her study, will not even be considered to be correct. The way it's going, theier going to have to change it to the Anti-bigfoot forums, "come argue with people that believe in Bigfoot" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 My bold-TM Yeah - it came back Bear/Justin Smeja - they even told us what part of the world Justin is from (in his ancestry) End of test .. Heck I don't need a PHD in genetics to figure that one out. Melba could have likely told you the same thing. FYI - the Trent lab was not trying to prove the existence of Bigfoot - they received a sample and asked that it be sequenced. I don't believe Melba was either. Once she found the DNA anomaly, she then took 5 years to retest and confirm her results before publically releasing the information. Unfortunately they came up with a result that had nothing to do with Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 @ leisureclass "My criticism is based on the fact that she is misstating what a Phred score means. At best, she is ignorant of what Q30 actually represents." Where does one find that data? Here's a decent explanation of what a Phred score is" A Q score is simply a representation of the probability that a base-call is incorrect. Here's the equation: Q = -10 * log10p where p is the probability that the particular base-call is incorrect (calculated using the set of predictors). A base-call with a Q score of 20 has a 1% probability of being incorrect; Q30 corresponds to 0.1%, Q40 to 0.01%, and so on. http://www.biotech.wisc.edu/facilities/dnaseq/sequencing/Illumina_old/Illumina_QC_FAQs Note that it has nothing to do with contamination - it refers to the possibility of base-call errors, which are caused by problems with the chemicals used in preparing DNA for sequencing. For a detailed look at the problem, especially as it relates to Illumina, you might try this article: http://bib.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/01/18/bib.bbq077.full Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Right Martin? And the media has never been wrong or inaccurate in their reporting before? If Melba's only a vet, why is she allowed to do DNA testing then? You can do DNA testing. Look at what Tyler and Bart just did with Smeja's sample. It has nothing to do with "media". This is not tricky and it's all spelled out in the link I posted : Someone (possibly Ketchum) creates an online page for the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology on Scholastica on January 4, 2013. She registers the journal on Zoobank on January 9, 2013. Someone (possibly Ketchum) anonymously registers a webpage for her Denovo Scientific Journal on godaddy.com on February 4, 2013. She publishes her paper on Denovo Scientific Journal and claims she "purchased" the original journal and renamed it on February 13, 2013. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Absolutely cath. Melba is the geneticist scientist here, not any of us. (as far as I know, apologies in advanced if I'm wrong on that). First, Melba is not a geneticist scientist, to my knowledge. Neither am I. Looking up her publication record on PubMed, she is neither fist nor senior author on any paper (unless she is a lot older than I know). So I would not call her a published scientist either. And yes, I do have publications in PubMed (Nature, EMBOJ, MCB, PNAS, NAR, JCB, NSMB, JI, and a couple others). So I feel I am qualified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) You can do DNA testing. Look at what Tyler and Bart just did with Smeja's sample. It has nothing to do with "media". This is not tricky and it's all spelled out in the link I posted : Someone (possibly Ketchum) creates an online page for the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology on Scholastica on January 4, 2013. She registers the journal on Zoobank on January 9, 2013. Someone (possibly Ketchum) anonymously registers a webpage for her Denovo Scientific Journal on godaddy.com on February 4, 2013. She publishes her paper on Denovo Scientific Journal and claims she "purchased" the original journal and renamed it on February 13, 2013. So now we're stating possibilities and moonshine DNA testing as the only evidence to refute Melba? I, for one, wouldn't buy that, and neither should anyone else? Here's a decent explanation of what a Phred score is" http://www.biotech.w...llumina_QC_FAQs Note that it has nothing to do with contamination - it refers to the possibility of base-call errors, which are caused by problems with the chemicals used in preparing DNA for sequencing. For a detailed look at the problem, especially as it relates to Illumina, you might try this article: http://bib.oxfordjou...bib.bbq077.full Where does one acquire that data and info and compare it to the data collected by Melba? Is there anywhere we can see page and data comparisons? Good question. In the Genbank annotations, it lists who the submitter is. Since they've been blocked by Genbank up to this point, it could be a possibility that someone else could find a way to get Genbank to accept it, and then they'd be the ones with their name on the find. I'm taking a wait and see attitude with this one, mainly because I don't know enough personally about what and how much the data represents. If it's only 1% of the data, the % of similarity with other species (That we share large % of DNA with anyway) could change dramatically if we compared it to the other 99% of the data. I still question why we don't have the full lab reports from the 3rd party labs on all the samples that didn't give complete genomes at the very least. The more I follow this thread, the more questions it raises and the fewer questions get answered. Agreed NJJ. And most of them purely hypothetical and presumptuous, without any factbase to fall back on. The skeptics have to be sitting back, laughing their butts off, the whole Bigfoot community fight and bicker with each other. How can possibly believe anything that they say,they even bury people that are trying help prove why they are out looking for . Even if you don't agree with it, wouldn't it be better off talking about what is right with it. And if you feel she has nothing right, say nothing, because anybody that does a separate study has anything that matches her study, will not even be considered to be correct. The way it's going, theier going to have to change it to the Anti-bigfoot forums, "come argue with people that believe in Bigfoot" My bold-TM Agreed. Edited March 1, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Thermalman said: Melba could have likely told you the same thing. But she isn't - is she? Oh, and she would need Justin's DNA for that - which she does not have. So, no she couldn't upon further reflection.. I don't believe Melba was either. Once she found the DNA anomaly, she then took 5 years to retest and confirm her results before publically releasing the information. Seriously? Then what is this all about? Melba absolutely performed this testing - in the hopes of proving Bigfoot Exists. There is not a thing wrong with that - UNLESS she couldn't take human/bear results for the answer. 5 years for all the testing? By my count she has been discussing her "beautiful science" for at least a year and getting refused by Journals for at least the same amount of time (maybe a little less). So, it did not take her 5 years to complete the testing. I will give her 3 years to be nice. Ridgerunner said: And yes, I do have publications in PubMed (Nature, EMBOJ, MCB, PNAS, NAR, JCB, NSMB, JI, and a couple others). So I feel I am qualified. I am scared of you.. Go on with your bad self Edited March 1, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Where does one acquire that data and info and compare it to the data collected by Melba? Is there anywhere we can see page and data comparisons? There is nothing to compare. It's pretty straightforward. A Phred score (the Q30) evaluates one thing - the probability of incorrect base-calls in a given sequence. Melba Ketchum claimed it means something else - that the sequence is not contaminated. I repeat myself: At best, she is ignorant of what Q30 actually represents. At worst, she is being intentionally dishonest in an attempt to bolster her findings and/or try to maximize profit. Either way, being wrong on something that basic calls everything else into serious question. Note that I am speaking only to her work on the paper, and not to the decisions regarding the journal or any of the other ethical controversies in which she's been embroiled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Melissa, Melissa, Melissa,......... you're a good person, but it's your word against hers. So I would be inclined to accept Melba's findings over someone who has never been involved with the whole event. With due respect leisureclass, I will wait and hold my conclusions until the final paper is released, and when a true comparison can be initiated to prove your opinion. Edited March 1, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I would suggest calling the manufactor. Like Melba mentioned .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts