Guest Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Science Critic really ? You honestly think that data is the entire set of raw data she has? No ... Just shocked you would ask that .... Due to the one sidedness of your posts. She said before all the data was there yet now she's releasing more. Plus the excuse that "GENBANK" refuses my data. It's entirely laughable. Yea, very sick, laughable, ad nauseum .... But that is the way critics and the Science of BigFoot has been and still is ... I return to the pun used on this thread in earlier posts ..... " Game, Set, Match .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Lights Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Ketchum Bigfoot DNA Results Accepted at ZooBank http://www.ghosttheory.com/2013/10/23/ketchum-bigfoot-dna-results-accepted-at-zoobank As far as I can tell, this just means she filled out the paperwork correctly. Nevertheless, it's a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SDBigfooter Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 It would be nice if someone could give some expert opinions on her new data. I have looked over it and see that I need to do some research because my armchair degree just isn't quite cutting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 How to read Chromatographs: http://seqcore.brcf.med.umich.edu/doc/dnaseq/interpret.html That is a good link for understanding the reliability of the sequence data. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Just think how much information she might have shared if it weren't for the $&@" skeptics post she recieved. Guess we will never know .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 He originally submitted it to Ketchum's Journal, DeNovo, but never got a reply back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 Even if Bigfoot is human, her paper is still rubbish. You cannot tack a correct conclusion onto the end of a paper unless you have shown something in the paper to warrant that conclusion. She did not do so. Again, there is no if about it - the paper is not valid. It's not about whether her conclusions are correct. It's the fact that she showed nothing to warrant them. It's simply an unsupported opinion, with no more validity than anybody else's unsupported opinion. One again your enthusiasm for attack is poorly timed Photos by Dr. Melba Ketchum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 What's this all about?: http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/10/supposedly-strangest-thing-to-come-out.html#moretop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SDBigfooter Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 (edited) Very strange. She does seem a little crazy. Except, that it is the type of crazy that you take with a grain of salt. It's the kind that you sit back and watch and see what happens. She has not offerred enough that can stand on it's own but why go out of your way to ruin her? There is so much drama here it's insane. The craziest people seem to be the ones who want to destory her. Very interesting. It reminds me of the current state of politics in the US for some reason. What it sounds like is we have a bunch of idiots who claim to be DNA experts? What is so hard about interpreting the data? What is going on here? No one can really talk because of NDA's? What a crock. I can't tell you the truth beause of this NDA I signed? They all sound shady. I have heard the bear argument and that has been around for a while. They complain about her paper not having the full data set. That would be a bad thing. At the same time, I thought all she really showed were a few of the genes she mapped. They are genes that are not unique to a single species of animal aka you wouldn't be able to test for species identification. I can't take either side of this cat fight seriously because of all the allegations/claims but it's a shame that this is how the community works all the time. It is pathetic. Edited October 24, 2013 by SDBigfooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/10/homo-sapiens-cognatus-posited-as-new-name-for-bigfoot/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 WOW! You have to look at the new DeNovo website. Especially the press release. The editor of DeNovo is now admitting Ketchum papernever passed peer-review, ever! Not with one journal (including the one they supposedly bought). http://www.advancedsciencefoundation.org/#!press-release/cm8a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 By the way, it's fake, but I think it sums it up pretty good. Ketchum evidently decided to dropped the journal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 I questioned Melba about this - the self publishing, not peer reviewed..the whole nine yards. Here was her response (which is publicly posted, btw) To address what the hackers put on the website: 1. We did pass peer review (link to leaked reviews below) 2. There was incredible scientific bias. Even with 3 genomes we had one major journal tell us we had no proof and that they would not even send it out for peer review. Another said the hairs could have been from any animal (didn't matter that they had been analyzed and DNA tested). Another said it wasn't anything that they felt would fit in their journal. These three wouldn't even send it out for peer review. I have the emails to prove this and just how unprofessional it was. I was out of time and thoroughly disgusted. 3. We acquired JAMEZ but no money changed hands. I never said it did. The editor was so upset about the attorney intervening that he was going to abandon JAMEZ so I asked to acquire it because I didn't want to lose the passing peer reviews. They were the first fair responses we had from the scientific community after wasting months with Nature and others that wouldn't even read it or send it out for peer review. 4. The Wix website was built for JAMEZ, we just changed the name. I never would have put a website on that server. The hackers did it all. Seems the last time something was posted that was in a negative light, the site sent down and the claim was that it was hacked. I could swear that it was stated that they purchased the journal - Both in writing and in several interviews. But I also recall her saying it was "acquired". So maybe it was just others who claimed she purchased it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 This is from the Doubtful News article regarding Kechum's Zoo Bank application. Makes perfect common sense to me: "Dr. Ari Grossman, Associate Professor of Anatomy at Midwestern University tells Doubtful News the main problem is that there is no formal differential diagnosis, type specimen, or designated location of a type specimen to verify the organism named. While electronic journals may be cited for ICZN registration, Ketchum’s self-publication in this case leaves the registered name Homo sapiens cognatus open to challenge. A case can be presented to the ICZN, and they can investigate and decide to keep or deny the name and publication,†Dr. Grossman explains. In addition to the problems mentioned above, “The sample sources appear to be of dubious origin and cannot be substantiated or recollected (that is, no possible repeatability of the tests)â€. Dr. Grossman contends that a challenge to remove the name may succeed based on these weaknesses." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 ^^^^Right. Don't tell me Patty's human and give me a DNA string, and no animal, as your proof. That's as far from true science as Bigfeet Saucer People. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts