jayjeti Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) Hi Jayjeti! You seem to keep your thumb on the pulse of the Ketchum deal. Has she indicated at all when we can expect these other scientists to come forward and/or the release of the info? Seems like she just made a statement, then went black. Cotter, you know as much as I do. They contacted her telling her of their results and she commented she doesn't know when they will release it, and she's letting them provide anything further. So, it not up to her; its up to whomever this other lab is. Edited September 16, 2015 by jayjeti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 The sequences that Melba Ketchum provided with her paper have already been examined and it turned out that her samples were badly contaminated. All she has now are more claims that probably can't be backed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 (edited) The sequences that Melba Ketchum provided with her paper have already been examined and it turned out that her samples were badly contaminated. All she has now are more claims that probably can't be backed up. Hello O. Squatch, examined and determined to be contaminated by who? According to her she sent samples to multiple university labs. All the testing was done in university labs that use thorough washing techniques to remove contaminants. They did double blind studies where the same sample was sent to more than one lab for comparison. The testing included sequencing three entirely different genomes and getting the same results showing a hybrid of Homo sapien and another unknown hominin species. And now, according to her, another lab has sequenced the entire genome and come up with the same results that it's a hybrid human species. A criticism she's made of the contamination charge is it can't all be contaminated. She used 12 labs in all. Those crying contamination have not studied the individual samples to determine that, which is why I asked examined by who and determined to be contaminated by who? The source of that charge may originate from skeptics who doubt bigfoot's existence who assume it must be contaminated. Edited September 17, 2015 by jayjeti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 ^Who did Ketchum send them to? It would be interesting to contact these universities and see if they really did get hybrid results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 (edited) Those are all Melba Ketchum's claims. There isn't anything to suggest that she's telling the truth about any of them. Here's a link on how her paper turned out http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/02/breaking-bio-on-the-ketchum-sasquatch-sequences/ Edited September 17, 2015 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Is there anything to indicate that she was lying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 (edited) There's the obviously contaminated DNA. The sequences she provided had a mix of DNA from dog, lemur, panda, possum and a bunch of other species. Anyone with enough knowledge on interpreting DNA results can tell that the samples were contaminated on purpose. If it was contamination from just one or two species, then one might say that it was just an accident. Edited September 17, 2015 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 It does seem implausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SDBigfooter Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 She isn't the greatest scientist who ever lived or anything but I do support some of her finds. I disagree that all her samples were obviously contaminated. Then again, I am no professional. Hopefully something else can come to light to push this further. Can you easily identify purposeful species contamination, OS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted September 18, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted September 18, 2015 (edited) jayjeti - While there is misinformation, nobody published Ketchum's paper but Ketchum. She can't shift blame for that absolutely shoddy work onto anyone else. A scientific paper follows a very rigid form. The data / results presented MUST support the conclusion else the paper is invalid. Ketchum's data does not support her conclusion. The paper invalidates itself. This is not about other people criticizing her, it's only about others having the audacity to notice that Ketchum condemns herself. MIB I doubt the other scientists that might try to replicate the work have had the same kind of problems in buying their own journal and then publishing a singular article in their own journal that was bought months before the big reveal. Or maybe we will never see squat(ch). Edited September 18, 2015 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 I don't have the Ketchum report but does anyone know if she actually specified what universities did testing that came up with hybrid? Or who this new independent lab is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 She says she is not at liberty to say. (Regarding who the new lab is supposed to be.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 I don't know who interpreted hybrid. Most of the universities are anonymous likely due to the stigma this subject might cause. But some are noted in Ketchum's paper like USC because some of the paper's authors worked for those universities including the University of Texas which sequenced the genomes. Texas A&M analyzed the electron microscopy and histopathology, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 (edited) There's the obviously contaminated DNA. The sequences she provided had a mix of DNA from dog, lemur, panda, possum and a bunch of other species. Anyone with enough knowledge on interpreting DNA results can tell that the samples were contaminated on purpose. If it was contamination from just one or two species, then one might say that it was just an accident. If the samples were contaminated in such a thorough and systematic way, who would have contaminated them? It does not seem likely that Dr. Ketchum contaminated her own samples. It's obvious (to me) that, if the samples were contaminated purposefully, then someone else did the contamination, after the dispersal of said samples to the various labs doing the independent testing. And when did dog, lemur, panda, and possum enter the picture as contaminants? I had heard that the contaminant was human DNA, supposedly from the researchers who collected the samples (many of whom were quite experienced in the field and knew very well how to collect samples without contaminating them). Am I the only one who thinks it's strange that the contamination argument has shifted in this way? And I'm not accusing you, OntarioSquatch, of shifting the focus. I presume you're just reporting on what you've heard recently (or maybe not so recently). But this, to me -- as a layperson who knows nothing about genetics -- seems quite bizarre. Sounds like someone said, "Hah! If this accusation doesn't stick, we'll try THIS one! No worries that the two totally contradict each other! Because as we all know, nobody has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." [Edited to say, Oops. These are essentially the same questions Jayjeti asked earlier. Sorry for the duplication! But the focus-shifting is still odd to me; not sure if that particular thing has been addressed.] She isn't the greatest scientist who ever lived or anything but I do support some of her finds. I disagree that all her samples were obviously contaminated. Then again, I am no professional. Hopefully something else can come to light to push this further. Can you easily identify purposeful species contamination, OS? Thanks for this post, SDBigfooter. Gave me the courage to make mine. I don't know who interpreted hybrid. Most of the universities are anonymous likely due to the stigma this subject might cause. But some are noted in Ketchum's paper like USC because some of the paper's authors worked for those universities including the University of Texas which sequenced the genomes. Texas A&M analyzed the electron microscopy and histopathology, Jayjeti, I've enjoyed all your posts on this subject, AND on all the other subjects discussed on this forum. Your thoughtfulness and courage are an inspiration. Edited September 18, 2015 by LeafTalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Hi Jayjeti! You seem to keep your thumb on the pulse of the Ketchum deal. Has she indicated at all when we can expect these other scientists to come forward and/or the release of the info? Seems like she just made a statement, then went black. Cotter, you know as much as I do. They contacted her telling her of their results and she commented she doesn't know when they will release it, and she's letting them provide anything further. So, it not up to her; its up to whomever this other lab is. There's her out.if it goes south the other lab won't allow it. It'll be "the other lab's" fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts