Guest thermalman Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) Molecular dna testing of feces that is fresh and properly stored is within the realm now...... it would just not be a cheap endeavor and would be rather 'messy' to put it bluntly. From what I've read about it, the bacterium DNA is very prevelant throughout the feces samples and initially dominates the DNA results with false positives. @TH Bantering about how YOU feel about YOUR issues with MK does not bold well for your judgement on the facts at hand. It seems you do not "get it". MK will do as she pleases and when she pleases, NOT when YOU or anyone else feels she should. Live with it. YOU are nothing in her sphere. Edited March 9, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 9, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted March 9, 2013 I said fresh...... if you don't believe me then believe this: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/dna-stool-test/MY00623 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 From what I've read about it, the bacterium DNA is very prevelant throughout the feces samples and initially dominates the DNA results with false positives. @TH Bantering about how YOU feel about YOUR issues with MK does not bold well for your judgement on the facts at hand. It seems you do not "get it". MK will do as she pleases and when she pleases, NOT when YOU or anyone else feels she should. Live with it. YOU are nothing in her sphere. you know as well as I do that we have been arguing about appropriate opinions. If you now feel you have lost that argument, and want to change tack, to what can we "do" about it... fine... I actually agree with you on this one - the answer is "nothing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) I'm not arguing. Just stating the circumstances and facts as they currently stand with MK. Edited March 9, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) I think the frantic fanaticism that infects the arguments against Dr. Ketchum make those same arguments suspect. The witnesses to the sample distribution are suspect at best and that makes it hard to put any certainty in the arguments made against Dr. Ketchum's report as is it to put certainty in Dr. Ketchum's unsubstantiated claims. It hasn't been proven- it hasn't been found false. Both sides have holes in their arguments and I refuse to leap over those holes on the word of the players involved. It is simply unproven and I won't be bullied into saying otherwise. You have a right to believe what you want but to insinuate there's holes in our arguments (Tyler and I) is a false assertion and I challenge you to prove your statement by example It's very simple from our standpoint (Tyler and I) as these are proven "facts" you cannot argue against and multiple parties can substantiate externally from Tyler and I, if we're so "biased." FACT-Dr. Ketchum received Justin's sample a few days after he purportedly recovered it FACT-Within 5 days, Dr. Ketchum stated that the sample was "a bigfoot" from preliminary testing (well prior to purported "Illumina" testing that's supposed to make it a bigfoot) FACT-Dr. Ketchum called Justin 14 months ago (disregard the fraud suggestions for now if you question the details) with multiple witnesses present and prophetically stated what a "regular" lab would get if he decided to test the tissue instead of destroy it for her. She said it he would get a "regular animal with possible contamination." FACT-Justin confided in me immediately after that call and requested independent testing ASAP FACT-Tyler and myself pursued independent testing with two reputable labs as a checks and balances and used frozen tissue Justin sent and salted tissue (which was out of his possession since July 2011). In addition, we made a public promise of transparency, regardless of results FACT-Both labs came back with almost identical conclusions, including confirmation of the "salted" tissue. The results came back as DR. KETCHUM prophetically said they would almost a year prior FACT-Dr. Ketchum contacts us via a third party and tries to discourage us from releasing results and after initially suggesting third party testing, becomes evasive & declines any alternative suggestions to resolve the conflict in results (this is documented and we'd be willing to share with Dr. Ketchum's permission) FACT-Tyler and I release labs results as we said we would (with Justin's support although he anticipated results would maybe turn out different based on circumstances and some initial feedback from labs) FACT-For "the first time," Dr. Ketchum and persons within her camp insinuate ("as fact" mind you) that samples were intentionally switched as an explanation for the conflict in results and give definitive reason why without any basis of evidence whatsoever that that's what happened or that was a concern (prosecution) by the submitter FACT-Dr. Ketchum releases her paper without evidence of a "successful" peer review, on a newly purchased journal, charging 30$, provides less then 1% of the raw sequence data to currently make comparative analysis by credentialed persons impossible, and fails to provide substantiating lab reports etc... and not only does she have zero support publicly from her co-authors or any other independent party, but with limited data provided, many credentialed have come out and stated (including almost every "admitted" and qualified PHD "in-house" here) that the data they've been allowed to see, fails to support her hypothesis. Everything I've stated is not an opinion, or a biased viewpoint, they are facts and if you believe Justin lied about what was said on the call from Dr. Ketchum, fine, then you have to believe it was a lucky guess by him because it's exactly what happened and I can give you a list of 20 people (several here) that have known that's what Justin claimed was said 14 months ago (not made up recently) through me updating them of what we're doing (testing) and why. And here's one more fact for you: Tyler and I would do anything to have these animals be proven to exist tomorrow and could care less "how" or "who." The only thing we will never compromise is our "character." Neither of us ever plotted against Dr. Ketchum in any fashion, only to get truth and make sure no one was blindsided. I was suspicious of her from the beginning because of her public behavior and things said to me internally (even had a pleasant email exchange with her during that time), however I didn't detest her as a person until the suggestions made to Justin and the subsequent behavior afterwards leading up to the release of her paper. Even then I hoped that something significant would come from her paper. Although disgusted by the suggestions to Justin, Tyler actually maintained less emotion (more sensitivity for me in closer relationships with those potentially being harmed) and went above and beyond to do everything by the book, including his advocacy of the sample while being processed and patience in trying to work with Dr. Ketchum. Edited March 9, 2013 by BartloJays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 9, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted March 9, 2013 Ketchum missed her chance to save money there was already an online peer-reviewed journal at this site and even some similar special issues: Such as the special issue on Hairy Roots: http://altweb.astate.edu/electronicjournal/preface_hairy_roots.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 embarassing when you get caught huh! i think stepping isn't the only thing your slow at shoot again and forgot the powder meaning you didnt even come close to getting it right. they are my thoughts on the study and typed it myself. if you think i'm lying, get some proof, prove me wrong,instead of accusing me with no proof to back up your claims. seems to a lot of that going on lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 plussed zig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 We've been dealing with the PGF for the past 45 years and it hasn't been good enough for the skeptics and trolls, so it doesn't really matter when MK releases her data. The same individuals will likely disbelieve and attack her the same way. Just another witch hunt that allows skeptics and trolls to jump from one band wagon over to the other. Not all trolls and skeps.... Ever think of the "Flat Earth Folks"... They are still around .. How long ago did atlas have a round globe on his shoulders? ....... That's too long.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) I'm not arguing. Just stating the circumstances and facts as they currently stand with MK. When I state facts as I know them, and you question those statements, and subsequently state the facts as you see them, and those two statements contradict eachother and we each advocate for our positions... most people would call that a debate, an argument, or "bantering" ... Lawyers give "closing arguments"... you can call it whatever you like. You did change tack from discussing the appropriateness of drawing conclusions from the data she released, to discussing whether there was anything we can do about it. FACT-Dr. Ketchum releases her paper without evidence of a "successful" peer review, on a newly purchased journal, charging 30$, provides less then 1% of the raw sequence data to currently make comparative analysis by credentialed persons impossible, You see there? You see Bart? You are a bold faced liar! The Your FACT is incorrrect - because, in fact there HAS been some analysis... so it wasn't impossible. Complete analysis has been "impossible", but partial (and in my view, insightful) anlayses have been performed. The data has been proven to be "wanting". Tman and others say this is not a trial, not a court room... but then mention the court of public opinion. If this was a court (of public opinion, or otherwise), the dialogue would go like this: "Judge (The undecided public): Dr. Ketchum, you have been charged with shoddy data that does not support your conclusions. How do you plead? Ketchum: Not guilty Judge:Please proceed with your defense Ketchum: Here it is, but some is missing. Prosecution (The knowledgeable researchers and scientists): Well, working with what you have given us, there are X, Y and Z glaring deficiencies. Ketchum: But I have more data available for my defense. I only let out the crap defense thus far... the actual really good stuff is in my briefcase. Judge: Would you care to show that evidence to the Court? Ketchum: No... well... hmmm... maybe some day... the next time someone forces my hand. Judge: Well, present it to this current courtroom, or they will have to form their opinions on the defense that you have presented thus far... they can't be expected to form an opinion based on hidden information - that's why you are here in the first place - because you hid information for years. Ketchum: No...I won't do it... but trust me, there is better stuff right here in my briefcase, and other lawyers are very favorable towards it. (Ketchum camp cheers in the background : Yeah, right on sister! you tell them!!! they have no business forumlating opinions on that little bit of data you gave them!!) Judge: Order! Order! Simmer down, or I'll have you removed from this forum, and you'll only be able to watch youtube! Well little lady, I'm afraid if that is all you will give us to go on at the moment, I have no choice but to side with the prosecution. The only evidence provided to this court, to date is infact shoddy. You are hereby sentenced to a judgement of Quackery... (and you should be glad I have reduced it to that, from the initial charges of worse) until such time as a new defense team is willing to produce new evidence that can exhonerate you." That my friends, is how court works, how public opinion works, how school works, how careers work, and really, how science works too. You are judged on the information you provide, not the information you withhold as a secret. Edited March 10, 2013 by Tyler H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Well Little Lady. Quote Tyler H: "Well little lady ..." "Well little lady," ... male chauvinist much? I like this one tho, "You are hereby sentenced to a judgement of Quackery..." Does she reply?, "Well, little man, I don't care a fig about your Quackery. After all, quackery is what got me where I am today!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 @ TH "When I state facts as I know them, and you question those statements, and subsequently state the facts as you see them, and those two statements contradict eachother and we each advocate for our positions... most people would call that a debate, an argument, or "bantering" ... Lawyers give "closing arguments"... you can call it whatever you like. You did change tack from discussing the appropriateness of drawing conclusions from the data she released, to discussing whether there was anything we can do about it." How can one draw a conclusion of any sorts from 1% of the total given facts of a report? I say it's impossible, but you seem to think one is capable of doing so. Any person, in their right mind, wouldn't come to a conclusion on any deal with only 1% disclosure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I think the anti- Ketchum sentiment is so thick with some people that they'll use public opinion of her release rate to convince themselves it's evidence of nefarious deeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 How can one draw a conclusion of any sorts from 1% of the total given facts of a report? I say it's impossible, but you seem to think one is capable of doing so. Any person, in their right mind, wouldn't come to a conclusion on any deal with only 1% disclosure. How can one write a scientific paper of any sorts from 1% of the total given facts of a study? I say it's impossible, but you seem to think one is capable of doing so. Any person, in their right mind, wouldn't come to a conclusion on any deal with only 1% facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Indeed Tim. Mind boggling isn't it, if that's all they're hanging onto as a rebuttal. @ RR, We know for certain there is more. The conclusion I've come to is....wait and see, not whether it's right or wrong. Edited March 10, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts