norseman Posted October 22, 2017 Admin Author Posted October 22, 2017 Because while "man bear pig" has not been 100% disproven? Its beyond improbable.... Unless there is a island of dr. moreau out there. Or as some of us believe.......aliens. Its ludicrous.... Im out, have fun!
hiflier Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 No one is talking man/bear/pig here. Certainly not me. Lots of hair samples got tossed BECAUSE they were man, bear, or pig, or deer, or opossum, dog, cat, or any other common animal simply through hair morphology alone. So. What? The team, or none of the other labs, didn't know what they were doing? Didn't know how to use their equipment? Fresh out of DNA school? First day on the job? Check the list of people, the labs, and the universities one more time and then tell me no one knew what they were doing 1
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 (edited) No one can confirm what results those various labs got, as Melba made it clear that she won’t release more than 1% of the data. “Man/bear/pig” is a reference to the DNA sequences that Melba Ketchum provided as part of her incredibly flawed paper. Melba Ketchum claims that the DNA supports the theory that sasquatch are a hybrid between Homo sapiens and a non-human speces of primate, but when the sequences that she provided are analyzed, it becomes clear that the DNA sequences that she provided don’t actually support that. If you’re into blindly buying into peoples words, then buy this: Ketchum gave Justin Smeja instructions on how to destroy the DNA of the alleged “Bigfoot steak”. She didn’t think that Smeja would have another piece from that same sample, and that Derek Randles would want to get it tested separately. Edited October 22, 2017 by OntarioSquatch
hiflier Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 (edited) I would like to bring up two points. 1) I've mentioned several time the issue of hair morphology that is not Human but tests as Human but no one so far has commented on it. And this second point I think is of the utmost importance and I'm only going to bring it up this one time so read carefully, please: 2) There were Law Enforcement criminologists on the Sasquatch Genome Project's team. IMHO it makes no sense for Dr. Ketchum to have these people on the team if she was running a scam. Like this guy who at the time had 30 years in the biz: "Dr. Patrick Wojkiewicz Pat Wojtkiewicz is the Director of the Shreveport Laboratory of the North Louisiana Crime Lab System and the Technical Leader of the DNA section. He has been employed at the crime lab since 1977. His first position was in the serology department where he worked in body fluid identification, blood typing, and hair and fiber analysis. In 1991, he moved to South Louisiana to pursue a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cellular Biology at Tulane University. While working on his dissertation, he was involved in forensic DNA analysis and training. He returned to the North Louisiana Crime Lab in 1995, as Director of DNA Research and Training. The DNA Analysis Unit has developed into a premier facility in the country, utilizing the latest techniques to analyze DNA evidence. At the North Louisiana Crime Lab, DNA analysts and student interns are involved in applied research to improve and develop methods in DNA analysis. Dr. Wojtkiewicz has presented numerous talks and posters concerning DNA methods and evidence collection, and has co-authored several articles on DNA. He has served on the Governor’s Commission for Post-Conviction Testing by DNA Testing and the Legislative Commission for Sexual Assault Investigation. Dr. Wojtkiewicz has been involved in numerous workshops for training law enforcement officers and forensic DNA analysts. He is also currently an adjunct Assistant Professor of Chemistry at North western State University (Louisiana" Now you can't tell me that thi expert would allow himself to be duped by a veterinarian who was bent on duping him for five years into helping her pull off a 'hoax' as large as this study was. I would say that if he ever caught wind that she scammed financial investors, or tainted the samples in any way, or didn't follow proper DNA procedural protocols that he wouldn't know about it? If he ever suspected her of foul play and used him and his credentials to do it she would have been indicted so fast it would make her head spin. But such investigations and indictments take time so maybe there's one in the works for all we know. But so far there has been no apparent word of any such action. If I were Dr. Wojkiewicz and ever even minutely thought that I was used as a patsy in such a scheme I would not stop until an indictment was handed down. I mean it's not like no one hasn't accused her of amazing dishonesty right? On the flip side if Dr. Ketchum WAS running a scam and I knew about it but said nothing because of my embarrassment at being had then I would be guilty of duplicity and somehow I doubt Dr. Wojkiewicz (among others with impeccable reputations to protect) would choose that route. Some of you may concede that this second point has high merit and some of you may not but regardless the point deserves some extremely deep and serious consideration. So does anyone think that with all of the scientific and Sasquatch proponent backlash over the past few years that A person with 30 years of DNA criminology would simply let Dr. Ketchum go free? Does anyone think that Dr. Wojkiewicz STILL does know that he was duped, along with all of the other members of the team (who each possessed amazing credentials BTW) into helping Dr. Melba Ketchum run a scam? A fraudulent scheme to bilk investors out of a half a million dollars right under the noses of Law Enforcement people?..........Think about it. Edited October 22, 2017 by hiflier 2
bipedalist Posted October 22, 2017 BFF Patron Posted October 22, 2017 14 hours ago, norseman said: The pictures I saw the "steak" had 90 degree corners. Which is valid....the guy IS a poacher!;) His actions are not that of someone who is trying to crack the bigfoot mystery at all costs. And I think its because there was nothing there to begin with. Which is my cracked way of making a point too..... agreed. You do not change the mindset of a poacher, most of them even if busted are recidivists. Not sure what is going on with this quote feature that I can't delete? 14 hours ago, norseman said: On 10/20/2017 at 0:54 PM, norseman said:
hiflier Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said: If you’re into blindly buying into peoples words, I have asked several times in this thread to leave me out of the dialogue. This isn't and never will be about me. So, again, please refrain from any personal jabs whenever and wherever possible. If I've lost a bulb in the chandelier, believe me, I'll let you know Thank you. Edited October 22, 2017 by hiflier
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 You’ve been asking how Melba’s study could have gotten non-human nDNA from human hair samples. What you don’t understand is that the non-human DNA is from a mix of very different animals that couldn’t have hybridized, as they’re neither biologically compatible or geologically grouped together in some cases. The fact that the sequences are from such a wide variety of different species serves as very strong evidence that the DNA results are due to intentional contamination. As a counter to this, you claim that Melba made sure that the samples weren’t contaminated. The problem with this is that this is just Melba’s word, and is clearly false given the DNA sequences she provided. You also claim that because multiple labs did DNA testing for her, that it somehow supports her study. The problem with this is that they could all have received contaminated samples. One can’t rule that out, as Melba made it clear that she won’t ever release any of the data other than that small portion that she provided with her paper.
hiflier Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, OntarioSquatch said: The fact that the sequences are from such a wide variety of different species serves as very strong evidence that the DNA results are due to intentional contamination. I see. Intentional contamination. And not one person in her entire team of experts- to include Law Enforcement people, one at least with 30 years under his belt, ever picked up on it? No one caught that the samples HAD to be contaminated? They just all rolled over in the face of what would appear to be impossible results from the testing and said nothing? And none of those people on her team, if they were so duped, has ever come forward to accuse her? It's been five years since the paper came out and none of the team has cried foul? Please, your comments are welcome on this. Now I'm no expert on DNA, the animal kingdom, hair morphology, or much else but I don't have to be. The logic in the argument within just this post tells me that it makes no sense to say that everyone on her team was blind (never mind me) so can anyone explain what went on in order for Dr. Ketchum to get away with not only the financial ripping off of her supporting investors but in also running such a scam under the very noses of veteran individuals like Dr. Wojtkiewicz and expect to get away with it? With all of the scientific repercussions that have slammed the study how is it that there has been no backlash from any members of her expert team? It makes no sense if the whole thing was simply a five year effort to hoax everyone and steal from her investors when there hasn't been one peep from Law Enforcement officials some of who were directors of their labs. Also, if it wasn't for the fact that the mtDNA, which tested 100% Human but was morphologically NOT Human, passed the preliminary investigation the DNA would have never made it to nuclear DNA testing in the first place. Standard procedure from what I have read: check the hair samples first to see if they match anything. Edited October 22, 2017 by hiflier
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 (edited) The paper was mainly written by Melba S Ketchum. Those other individuals were paid to do testing for her, and provide her with results. The biggest problem with it is that the data doesn’t support her theory. If it did, we would get exactly what she said, which is the DNA of a novel primate. Instead, we get DNA sequences that are degraded, and belong to a wide variety of known species. She had to put out something so that she doesn’t get sued by the individual(s) who funded the study. From what I can tell, that was the main purpose of the paper. Edited October 22, 2017 by OntarioSquatch
hiflier Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 16 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: The paper was mainly written by Melba S Ketchum. Those other individuals were paid to do testing for her, and provide her with results. And 'those other individuals (as in more than one) couldn't tell if a sample was contaminated? In their 'normal' jobs it was vital to know if a sample was contaminated- especially when a case went to trial. In the real world so to speak. 19 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: The biggest problem with it is that the data doesn’t support her theory. If it did, we would get exactly what she said, which is the DNA of a novel primate. Instead, we get DNA sequences that are degraded, and belong to a wide variety of known species. Yes, and the Study provided a list of those species based on hair morphology. Those samples were tossed. They never made it to DNA testing. Only the ones where the hair didn't match a know species went on to testing. Like I said, SOP. The reason they didn't match was that the samples were outside the normal animal parameters. And yet the subsequent mtDNA came back Human. But the experts that did the testing somehow MISSED the contamination part? Sounds like that what you are saying is that NO ONE picked up on the contamination? Not one person when their jobs on 'the outside' is to not make such beginner mistakes? 26 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: She had to put out something so that she doesn’t get sued by the individual(s) who funded the study. From what I can tell, that was the main purpose of the paper. Well from what I can tell that wasn't the main reason she put out the paper. She had no detractors to the paper from her team or the labs they used. That tells me that the likelihood of her being sued by anyone was zero. Everyone knew what she was going through to get published- investors not withstanding. Why isn't anyone suing her now? I mean, since she has had so much accusation of running a scamming hoax on everyone and stealing their money and on top of that using people and labs by giving them contaminated samples; which they somehow couldn't tell were contaminated? I suppose everyone now is going to accuse her of only picking labs easily duped because they were owned and run by stupid incompetents? In my world, none of the above makes a lick of sense.
NatFoot Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 Hiflier, you started off saying you wanted to unbiasedly get to the truth in your in-depth research of this study. Given your recent responses and unwavering defense of everything Ketchum, it makes it hard to believe you are coming at this without bias. JMHO. 3
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, hiflier said: And 'those other individuals (as in more than one) couldn't tell if a sample was contaminated? In their 'normal' jobs it was vital to know if a sample was contaminated- especially when a case went to trial. In the real world so to speak. Their job was to do the testing, and provide Melba with the results, which are confidential. They’re not responsible for the interpretations that Melba makes from it as part of her paper. Quote Yes, and the Study provided a list of those species based on hair morphology. Those samples were tossed. They never made it to DNA testing. Only the ones where the hair didn't match a know species went on to testing. Those are simply Melba’s word, and I don’t know of anything that can confirm any of it. Do you? Edited October 22, 2017 by OntarioSquatch
hiflier Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 (edited) Thank you NatFoot as it certainly does appear that way. There is a logic issue to this though that has been missed. I'm not defending Dr. Ketchum in any way by taking this approach. I'm trying to point out that the landscape in which this subject finds itself has been tilted BECAUSE logic has become somehow unimportant. My last post brings up some of the salient points that logic presents and since no one else besides myself is on this thread to present this kind of logic it sure does look like I'm defending Ketchum. Try to see that I'm also defending those individuals that ran those test results too as their reputations are on the line as well. And since contamination of the samples was apparently missed by all of those people and their labs why should anyone else use them- especially when it comes to a place like the North Louisiana Criminology Lab in Shrevesport, LA. They just built a new and more state-of-the-art facility and opened it last April and Dr. Wojtkiewicz is STILL the Director. He, with his now 35 years in the position should KNOW when a sample is contaminated and yet not a word from him about it- or anyone else involved, nor from the financial supporters either. This isn't defending Ketchum. This is asking why nothing has moved, changed, no one been sued, indicted, disbarred, fired, or any other such action? These are questions that no one has been asking themselves but should have been asking themselves all along. Where is the fallout that should be and should've been taking place against someone who got away with at least half a million dollars and used reputable labs to do it? 22 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: Their job was to do the testing, and provide Melba with the results, which are confidential. They’re not responsible for the interpretations that Melba makes from it as part of her paper. No, of course they aren't. So I'm looking into whether or not that confidentiality becomes moot if it is found out that there has been any wrong-doing. You might be able to do the same? I want to KNOW if non-disclosure agreements are binding even if the party that requires it is involved in duping the public out of their money. Usually non-disclosure agreements are binding over a certain time period and so if the ND had expired then the labs and their directors should be able to speak out. Heard anything from any of them? I haven't. Edited October 22, 2017 by hiflier
hiflier Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, OntarioSquatch said: Their job was to do the testing, and provide Melba with the results, which are confidential OK, this works. From here: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/4339/when-can-an-nda-be-legally-broken "The Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition recognizes a privilege to disclose trade secrets in certain circumstances like public health/safety and commission of a crime or tort. Section 40, comment c: The existence of a privilege to disclose another's trade secret depends upon the circumstances of the particular case, including the nature of the information, the purpose of the disclosure, and the means by which the actor acquired the information. A privilege is likely to be recognized, for example, in connection with the disclosure of information that is relevant to public health or safety, or to the commission of a crime or tort, or to other matters of substantial public concern In Lachman v. Sperry-Sun Well Surveying Company, 457 F.2d 850 (10th Cir., 1972) the court cites the Restatement of Contracts, § 577 A bargain, performance of which would tend to harm third persons by deceiving them as to material facts, or by defrauding them, or without justification by other means is illegal." So, it would appear that any attempt to deceive, or defraud anyone breaks the non-disclosure/confidentiality agreement which then becomes non-binding. In other words, the labs may not have been aware of Ketchum's interpretation of the results until the paper was released but once it was then the content would have exposed her as a fraud and therefore ALL data would be open to the public and the courts. And since some of the 'team' was Law Enforcement there would have been a responsibility even greater than normal to expose any wrong-doing by Ketchum in the way of deception, fraud, illegally acquiring money, and basically running the scam that she has been so often accused of running. So far, and I'll say it again, SO FAR deception and fraud do not appear to be a reality. Mis-interpreting the results? Sure I can see that but anything else implies pre-meditated illegal intent and that's what I don't see. If that was the case she would have been deep in litigation and retribution by now. There's no hint of any of that and I truly think her own 'team' would have been the first ones to turn on her once they understood her supposed deception. Does anyone disagree with this? Edited October 22, 2017 by hiflier
Sasfooty Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 1 hour ago, NatFoot said: Hiflier, you started off saying you wanted to unbiasedly get to the truth in your in-depth research of this study. Given your recent responses and unwavering defense of everything Ketchum, it makes it hard to believe you are coming at this without bias. It appears that in order to qualify as unbiased, Hiflier is expected to concur & conform with the lynch mob. Something about that expectation seems a little.....biased.
Recommended Posts