Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) Remember....Melba can dispel all of this by releasing the actual data to back her claims, yet she refuses to for whatever reason.(Well, it's pretty obvious why she hasn't to me) I guess if she released it, the charade would be over, and there would be no more drama-mongering by the Ketchum Camp, and who wants that? And Cath...I've seen you getting after Bart on the Sierra Site as well.....Do you act independently, or do you have a dog in the fight? Bart...Do you know if Wally gets any of that $30? Does anybody know how many people have paid to look at the paper? Edited March 8, 2013 by PacNWSquatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Byrne Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 At this point I come here for one single reason. To see if she has released the data. Nothing else matters. This paper seems to have been released in a manner consistent with disproving the existence of sasquatch. Incompetence doesn't cover not releasing the data. This action is about intent, not training or procedures. Melba Ketchum, Please release the raw data and your deserved reputation, be that what it may, will be restored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Where can I find what exact data she hasn't released? I'm unclear on that due to the flooding of vitriol and hyperbole that has been a part of this thread since she released her data... It's hard to find facts a midst all the emotion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) ^ Really, that is what you get out of this thread? Have you followed it at all since "the release"? The 'missing data' has been discussed ad nauseum (hint not uploaded to genbank for analysis by scientists). Further, the data she did release has been analyzed. The analysis of the sample 26 chromosome 11 data released by Ketchum (sierras sample) support the independent analysis by Bart and Tylers labs! Bear, human, contamination. Following this thread with only a modicum of reading comprehension can lead to no other conclusions. Edited March 8, 2013 by NukaCola Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) At this point I come here for one single reason. To see if she has released the data. Nothing else matters. This paper seems to have been released in a manner consistent with disproving the existence of sasquatch. Incompetence doesn't cover not releasing the data. This action is about intent, not training or procedures. Melba Ketchum, Please release the raw data and your deserved reputation, be that what it may, will be restored. That would be the thing to do. Does anyone know if in fact the "scientists who came forward after the fact" and contacted her are doing the claimed review and upload? Personally, since the several here gave their time and expertise to explain the problems with the DNA study, and as importantly when the weirdness of the "Jamez" journal surfaced I lost hope and maybe even sank into thinking the worst. The addition of the accusations that Wally's money was misspent is troubling b/c of the "Protection Fund" which does not seem to be legally organized (with the accompanying accountability) but collecting public money in the name of Bigfoot and Science, even while science says, "no, sorry, your study doesn't demonstrate what you claim." The long promise and resulting split in BFdom b/c of NDAs and the "in/out with MK" flavor that developed makes this more than just..did she prove it, or get it right...it became the mantra of the future proof of a Human Tribe for so many and a decision in future loyalties as well. The flavor of the study as it progressed was for many a huge red flag....and many complained early about the secrecy, weird Facebook groups and so on, but were shouted down b/c it was claimed this secrecy and behavior was needed b/c Bigfooters are so untrustworthy.....as evidenced by their very "attacks" on the internet (echoed above as to the nasty thread here) ...and it seemed a valid position..so we waited..and waited and are still waiting. ALL MK has to do is be honest and present her work honestly IMO and explain her efforts and partially completed website/protection fund (and incorporate it..no sole proprietor on this please!) and she would have a good deal of support, even if her science is wrong....she did try (I think!) and since we know BFs are real these kind of 'groups" can exist even without proof..... But, I don't feel like even that small concession has happened. I would like to be proved wrong, but today i am feeling scammed.. .hummm....? Edited March 8, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Lights Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Just read an interesting article. This quote stuck out to me: University of Arizona researcher Michael Hammer says Perry’s DNA suggests there may have been an earlier species of humans that went extinct—but not before interbreeding with the more modern version of man. Here is the link: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/father-humankind-340-000-years-old-210033011.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) thanks for the link, and eventually we will know. p.s. also...those that contributed some long term research to the study effort and are now pinned on that Genome project site....I don't know what to say or think, as I am able to separate individual efforts from the package....and I do want to say I am really proud as a "Bfer' of many of the contributors....and don't want those lost if this whole affair tanks. Association with the study or protection group by submitters is not indicative to me that they support the conclusions of the study (or MK)..although they may support protection etc.. It is not clear to me how many of those submitters feel b/c many don't seem to be saying...here or on their blogs anyway. I went to Olympic Project site and can't find any post of the study on the site...and same with some others...and yet, there are other sites proclaiming proof... so...yeah..time for GenBank and real review... (anyone see the comet last night? too cloudy here, but tonight...!) Edited March 8, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) Just read an interesting article. This quote stuck out to me: Here is the link: http://news.yahoo.co...-210033011.html Northern Lights, thanks for sharing. Go to the actual article and read the fine print, "The American Journal of Human Genetics" Extremely interesting. Peace Edited March 8, 2013 by Sunflower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 ^ Really, that is what you get out of this thread? Have you followed it at all since "the release"? The 'missing data' has been discussed ad nauseum (hint not uploaded to genbank for analysis by scientists). Further, the data she did release has been analyzed. The analysis of the sample 26 chromosome 11 data released by Ketchum (sierras sample) support the independent analysis by Bart and Tylers labs! Bear, human, contamination. Following this thread with only a modicum of reading comprehension can lead to no other conclusions. I can get my reading comprehension tested if you like but I think you might want to take your own advice. There is no proof that the samples tested by Bart and Tyler were the same material tested by Ketchum beyond the testimony of two people who state they detest Dr. Ketchum. That, to me, is not conclusive, but whatever "logic" works in your mind you are welcome to. So, in my world, were substantial proof is needed for something to be a fact, I'm actually going to have to ask if someone with a PHD in molecular biology or a related field has something specific they are looking for from Dr. Ketchum to be released before I care what your or anyone else who's not an expert opinion is on the "only conclusion" possible. Pardon me for wanting to use my brain for something other than parroting what other's on the forum have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted March 8, 2013 Moderator Share Posted March 8, 2013 TimB - That's a good point, however, even if the samples really are from the same source, that's not conclusive. The chain of custody was irreparably broken before the sample was retrieved. It was .. 5 weeks? .. from the time Justin pulled the trigger 'til the sample was retrieved. There is nothing more than circumstantial ("locational", if that's a word) evidence that what he shot and what they found 5 weeks later were one and the same. On the other hand, after almost 50 years in a bear preserve, seeing up to a dozen bears in a day, I've never stumbled over a dead bear. So ... that they would drive up there and just happen to do so seems unlikely, too. "I don't know." <-- That's my story and I'm sticking to it 'til the raw DNA data is released and analyzed by a competent person without a dog in the fight. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) I can get my reading comprehension tested if you like but I think you might want to take your own advice. There is no proof that the samples tested by Bart and Tyler were the same material tested by Ketchum beyond the testimony of two people who state they detest Dr. Ketchum. That, to me, is not conclusive, but whatever "logic" works in your mind you are welcome to. So, in my world, were substantial proof is needed for something to be a fact, I'm actually going to have to ask if someone with a PHD in molecular biology or a related field has something specific they are looking for from Dr. Ketchum to be released before I care what your or anyone else who's not an expert opinion is on the "only conclusion" possible. Pardon me for wanting to use my brain for something other than parroting what other's on the forum have said. Your wish is my command TimB - here you go for the fourth time now - examine the attached document carefully. There are nice shiney pictures which make the logic inescapable... and on top of it all, it was done by yet another PhD geneticist just like you want (that makes at least 5 on this forum who all agree with this interpretation.) Now, the complaint is that she has only released 1% of her raw data. Please tell me why we might want to assume that this 1% is the WORST of her data, and why she would not instead have more likely released the BEST of her data... Said "best" now having been torn to shreds, I really don't know why anyone cares to wait on the rest of her data which may never be released. Also, I'm curious - how long do you think we should wait for the rest of that data, before anyone can start to form opinions on the data we DO have, and on Melba's capabilities or credibility? visual representation of contamination Genbank results.pdf Edited March 8, 2013 by Tyler H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Did you want to attach the document? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) @TimB Why don't you look at your own signature? You know the one with the quote you cherry picked from a list of several other identified PHD's? "One would need to view more sequencing information before supporting the conclusions.†As in, the conclusions in the Ketchum paper cannot be supported unless she releases data to support it. Thus her hypothesis and papers conclusion should be considered invalid until a time when she decides to (try to) support her argument with data. I agree there is no "proof" that Ketchum, Tyler and Bart's tests were of the same sample, however I find there are many striking coincidences that make it very likely (much more likely than the conspiracies floated by the other crowd). Among those coincidences I include the fact that Tyler and Barts samples came back as bear with human contamination. Analysis of the little data released by ketchum of that purported same sample comes back as bear, human, unknown/contamination. Edited March 8, 2013 by NukaCola Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 TimB - That's a good point, however, even if the samples really are from the same source, that's not conclusive. The chain of custody was irreparably broken before the sample was retrieved. It was .. 5 weeks? .. from the time Justin pulled the trigger 'til the sample was retrieved. There is nothing more than circumstantial ("locational", if that's a word) evidence that what he shot and what they found 5 weeks later were one and the same. On the other hand, after almost 50 years in a bear preserve, seeing up to a dozen bears in a day, I've never stumbled over a dead bear. So ... that they would drive up there and just happen to do so seems unlikely, too. "I don't know." <-- That's my story and I'm sticking to it 'til the raw DNA data is released and analyzed by a competent person without a dog in the fight. MIB The tissue was found something like 40-100 yds from where they thought the body ended up. It was found by a bear hunting dog. The area is a well known bear hunting area. The fact that scraps of bear hide were found (not a whole dead bear) are not absurdly low, when you think of how many bears may be dressed in that area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 That document is interesting- I'm wondering if I missed the part where the PHD detailed what further info they were looking for? In my world, "most likely" is not definitive, but I know that some specialties have their own use of jargon, so that might mean definitive. I just wish someone qualified would speak to what they are lacking from this report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts