The Ketchum Report (Part 3)

[Guest Tyler H]

Wally would ask for details and get only the most ambiguous information melba could muster. I talked with him during some of these requests. No names, no specifics, no hard data, just summaries and $ amounts.

He was integral to trying alternative methods to achieve peer review since the usual methods were not getting the results melba wanted. But stone knows they did not pass any peer review. I had even more direct insight on this facet but cannot do more than assert that fact due to confidentiality promises.
 

1) is Scholastica a first name or a last name?
 
2) Here's the quote- "Since Scholastica isn't a journal, it doesn't do any peer-reviewing and the screenshot in that blog post did not come from our system.Here's a blog post that someone sent to us that seems to explain in further detail the fabrication you're mentioning: http://bit.ly/1hKOSju ".  (My highlights).
 
Two critical issues here- this un-named person says it "seems to explain".  Never does this un-named say "This is a fabrication and this is why." ( I call this weasel talk).   They point back to OTLS, which certainly has an ax to grind against Ketchum for some unknown reason.  More smoke and mirrors by people who are uninterested in backing up their statements with their name.  It's conceivable that this is all an elaborate game by one person looking for attention.  Who knows what really is going on.
 
3)  You've established yourself as the defender of Wally and all others looking to finance bigfoot researchers who come to bigfoot forums to look for investments.  Care to be more specific on your involvement in the bigfoot world?  Are you a researcher who's been burned?  Or simply a forum member who feels strongly about it?  I'm wondering what moves you to be so focused on this one subject...
 
As always, there's no proof either way- just unknown persons'  opinions.  So I failed your challenge- this will never be proved positively or negatively.  It's all opinion unfounded.  Just one person- ONE PERSON- that will go on record on your theories would help so much with credibility.  Until then it's all just a big rumor factory.

Seriously tim? Sholastica saying it's a fabrication doesn't cut it for you?

Southern yahoo, that first par of my above post was in response to your earlier posted questions to me. My quote effort did not work on my phone apparently.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Tyler H
Removal of personal info

[southernyahoo]

Yes i did talkwith him,  but since you would not believe me,  I invited you and any other doubters to actually check on something,  themselves!

 

Enough with the "review" !  Scholastica has confirmed there was no review, and the supposed "review" leaked by ketchumites is in fact fraudulent.  You don't have to take my word for it,  go to scholasticas FB page,  they confirm it is a fraud -  what more do you want?

 

And again,  if you want the background on the check,  drivedown theroad and go ask Melba, or callher up -  i could tell you,  but you would not believe me,  and if you want to call Wally,  please do,  I will provide his phone number for you! 

 

Pretty simple -  check with Melba,  or stone,  or Wally,  don't take my word for anything  (might want to look at my history though,  because it seems like I got alot of this correct 9 mionths ago,  when you were still gathered adoringly at Melbas feet,  trying to hack into Skeptics email accounts!

 

Bottom Line -  scholastica says fraud,  you want to argue with them,  go to their facebook page,  that would be the proper forum!

 

I never said I didn't believe you slowstepper, i'm inviting to spill all the facts since you would like to have a public hearing of them. So if and when I do call him, I'll have some to double check.

 

Someone may have tried to hack your email, but trust me you aren't the only one who feels that way from time to time and has seen it act up, couldn't log in because some other machine was logged in, had to change their password etc.

Edited November 6, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC
To remove personal info & inappropriate comment

[southernyahoo]

Wally would ask for details and get only the most ambiguous information melba could muster. I talked with him during some of these requests. No names, no specifics, no hard data, just summaries and $ amounts.

He was integral to trying alternative methods to achieve peer review since the usual methods were not getting the results melba wanted. But stone knows they did not pass any peer review. I had even more direct insight on this facet but cannot do more than assert that fact due to confidentiality promises.

 

 

 

So he did have Ketchum's manuscript reviewed? Yes or No?

Edited November 6, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC
To remove personal info

[TimB]

So here's where I stand.  Un-named sources are the evidence of the wrongs done by Dr. Ketchum.  When I attempt to find out who is making these reports, names are mentioned but no one will go on record publicly. It has to be a private conversation off the record. This is sketchy evidence at best and doesn't reach the level of proof needed in most avenues of discussion and research.  I would love to find out something definitive- it's just not something that anyone in this conversation seems to be able to provide. 

 

I continue to watch for it.

 

For the record- I presented my view of the evidence at hand. I call it discussing the evidence.  Would that I had evidence worthy of being considered proof- that's all I ask.

Edited November 6, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC
To staff edit and to remove a quote of deleted content

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Moderator Statement:

 

This topic is now closed due to the numerous back and forth personal attacks within the topic.

 

I'll never understand why you guys won't use the report function to quell this type of thing. When you do use it, it's only after you've responded in-kind, which leads to more of the same, and more work for the staff, in this case, me.

 

Perhaps the punitive measures forthcoming will help you to reflect on this behavior.

 

If you notice this topic open and post within it before the official reopening you will be penalized for failing to follow a staff directive. You have been warned.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Mod Statement:

 

OK, I have done all of the cleaning up of this topic I'm going to do. I want to alert everyone to the fact that this type of back and forth nonsense will not be tolerated any further in this topic, or any other thread for that matter.

 

Attack the argument, not the arguer. Folks, it's really rather simple. We're all grown here.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

Read the rules. Post by them. Consider the following:

 

1. BFF has one rule above all else - Behave like adults!
What do we mean by this? Imagine the forum is run by a bunch of people who have invited you over for dinner - we expect sensible, well thought out conversation. If you start getting personal with other diners, you are likely to be ejected. This not your house after all, you don't have a right to sit at someone else's table and disrupt things.

 

Do not disrupt the forum. I've spent way too much time dealing with the nonsensical poppycock that some feel the need to post. If you can't read and/or comprehend the rules, please cease posting on the forum.

 

Seriously - This will no longer be tolerated. Post accordingly if you value your ability to post on the forum unhindered.

 

Warnings from this point forward will be met with punitive measures.

 

This topic is now officially open for discussion as intended.

[Oonjerah]

Quote Tyler H, "You don't choose a "self-taught" brain surgeon when your life is on the line,

and you don't go to a "self-taught" geneticist for something this monumental."

 

Ditto. 

 

But somebody went to her; I always wondered why. 

[MIB]

My recollection is it was David Paulides that got Melba Ketchum involved.   In either Tribal Bigfoot or The Hoopa Project, he mentions having some samples to test and only one lab being willing to do the work.   I don't know that he named her outright then but he has subsequently given her the credit.

 

MIB

Edited November 7, 2013 by MIB

[southernyahoo]

Yes I believe it was Paulides that started off the study. Melba was a buisness woman who did genetic testing on animals mostly but also some criminal cases involving human DNA. So she didn't answer to anyone who might try and tell her she couldn't investigate Sasquatch samples. This is most likely why she was chosen. I sent her a sample because she was willing to test and publish, and the price was right. I'll do that repeatedly until the sample proves itself.

[Guest Tyler H]

Quote Tyler H, "You don't choose a "self-taught" brain surgeon when your life is on the line,

and you don't go to a "self-taught" geneticist for something this monumental."

 

Ditto. 

 

But somebody went to her; I always wondered why. 

THanks for replying to that post OOnjerah.

It has been removed. I will be reposting when I have time - it just needs to be edited to remove some references to the identification of one party who has been a key player in all of this.

[Guest Tyler H]

Here is my post that Oonjerah was referring to/quoting.

 

"Sorry all - my references in an earlier post were a bit ambiguous. When I said "He was integral to trying to achieve peer review... blah blah" That was referring not referring to Wally – that was referring to someone we will call Larry, (my bad - it read like it was referring to Wally but I had trouble using my phone to post/correct.)

 

Larry was looking for alternate ways for Melba to achieve a pass from peer reviews, since traditional methods were resulting in ... for lack of a better word, "fails". They would send it back each time without passing it. Larry decided that a less restrictive, more open forum where anyone (preferably WITH CREDENTIALS) could review the work, would be more likely to end up with someone "passing" the paper/study.

 

However, the people that reviewed it were more credentialed than expected, and even this 'less stringent/less restrictive' method of peer review failed to elicit the desired "passing" reviews.

 

Larry was in no position to review it himself. He made out like he could read FASTA files the way Cipher could read code in the Matrix ("I don't see the code, I just see Blonde, brunette, redhead..." = "I don't see FASTA files, I just see wet nose/dry nose, otolemur, primate"). Sykes himself likely can't read FASTA files like that - certainly the many geneticists that I dealt with weren't able to do that, and Larry was nowhere near even being a biologist, let alone a geneticist.  Anyways, I digress. Point is - no one, not Larry and not any of the "peer reviewers" in this 'open source' format "passed" Melba's paper.

 

Scholastica has stated that the "review" paper sporting its name is a fabrication and that it doesn't "review" papers or studies. Larry was incapable of reviewing or passing it, and none of the peer reviewers passed it. The only person that I know of that thought the paper was sound, was Haskell Hart - Hart has since reversed himself, and has gone to great lengths to now have a peer review done on his own paper that disproves Melba's conclusions.

 

Do I believe that some of the samples submitted to Melba were actually Squatch? Absolutely. I mean, I don't know 100% for sure that any were actually Squatch, but I think it is very likely that Melba got her hands on good evidence amongst some not so good evidence - but her ineptitude has likely made ALL that evidence virtually unsalvageable. THAT has been a huge motivating force for me. I don't want to see anymore good evidence go her way. She got 200+ samples. She drained the pool! Then Sykes comes along and he could only get like 30 samples. Can you imagine if Sykes had access to the "evidence pool" BEFORE Melba drained it?  That's extremely frustrating. I don't want to see shenanigans like this happen again. As a community, Melba made us all miss out, BIG TIME. She just did NOT have the credentials or skill for this undertaking. That is not an attack, or insult - it is a fact - her training and credentials were insufficient for this undertaking.  You don't choose a "self-taught" brain surgeon when your life is on the line, and you don't choose a "self-taught" geneticist for something this monumental."

Edited November 7, 2013 by Tyler H
To remove content about staff actions/personal privacy

[southernyahoo]

Ahhh to be fair here, Sykes started out only wanting about twenty samples, this turned into a little more, but it appears he has run out of funding before he tested all offered. Also, Ketchum doesn't do nuclear sequencing so she sent out samples for that, this should be kept in mind when criticising the results when it comes from outsourced labs. She deferred work to more competent labs who specialized in the work that needed to be done. She could have used more help, yep sure, but as you have noted Tyler, some scientists if not most are deathly afraid of being associated with this subject even when all you have to do is stand behind your own work. There was nobody stepping up to do this kind of a study prior to Ketchum, and Sykes was late, yes but we were due to have one done with the technology advancing and the prices coming down.

[Guest]

Thanks SY

[Guest]

well, it seems the future will be better if we learn, each the nuances of next gen and the shot gun approach to DNA genomes, or matching thru genbank... and just what do all those variations mean to morphology.. I think that book is not written yet..and hairy giant archaic humans a distinct possibility!  What makes their DNA archiac if so close to us..that link from DNA to proteins to morpholgy...just a regulator set of genes in a few areas, neural, or hairyness, whatever, or even epigenetics? 

 

We learned to get an outside, third party, consultant review of credentials, methods, and progress right away..if one has the bucks...with Sykes, it is provided...one has to believe!

 

. Tyler your post seems spot on to me.  

 

SY agree what started with O-L may not be where it ends up, not clear yet is it?  He will offer testing on anyone's sample at $1,500 a pop, and if BF refunded...pretty fair once he reveals what/how he is analyzing...

 

I also think we as a community, haha, could do better ...and perhaps with costs down to affordable support any kickstart that looks to have a high probability of being a BF hair...what that is, I think is still open and feel reliance on just Farenbach's view would be a mistake.  their hair make look quite human often, even while harboring variant w/o a medulla, etc.  Do they ever cut their ends with a stone flake?  Is blunt cut really a a measure and so on..given we got nada, we should keep those gates as open as possible IMO...

 

Given Zana, and our awakening understanding of how the genome relates to ancient fossils..and that indeed we all may be so similar, and yet appear so different, it shall take a very long time to "work out" BF DNA w/o a type....  fossil DNA from Denisova or the DRC people (! 11,00ybp!) might help show how we have evolved, but still...  it will be ongoing for some time I suspect...and would hate to see us all be so star struck (yet again...it is us you know that fuels all this in the end..isn't it?) as with any particular group or effort to the detriment of others or the overall effort..and spill out like bigfootery.  

 

I think Sykes has set a very good model of the appropriate behavior..and sadly, funding for "crypto" still seems to arise from commercial TV/books...  it was pretty brutal!

 

seems times have changed, or our body of knowledge increasing, an ex might be, areas once closely guarded are no longer..and heck, evidence still surfaces routinely... so..seems  more hair is in order!  and ideas for hair traps.

 

I appreciate Syke's effort, but doubt for mine it would work...as fairly obvious...but any ideas welcome.

Edited November 7, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

It doesn't even matter who is right or wrong in this battle,the damage is done,scientist will not touch this even if they had a sample that was a BF sample,they would be attacked using the same methods to discredit it as with this one,They will find something wrong with the people they used for testing,samples were not handed correctly,the data was not interpreted correctly,etc...No matter what, nothing is going to prove it now unless their is a body.the circus surrounding all involved on both sides of the study made sure of that.

Video,audio,tracks,experiences,photos,field research, etc... isn't going to prove a thing.

Edited November 8, 2013 by zigoapex