Ketchum DNA report revisited

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Creating a fake study using contaminated samples and self-publishing that study isn’t a difficult thing to do.

 

The problem with her supporters was usually that they were either clueless or that they were biased, which would lead to cherry picking (focusing only on information that supports what one wants to be true), which would then lead to a very poor overall analysis.

[hiflier]

4 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Creating a fake study using contaminated samples and self-publishing that study isn’t a difficult thing to do.

 

The problem with her supporters was usually that they were either clueless or that they were biased, which would lead to cherry picking (focusing only on information that supports what one wants to be true), which would then lead to a very poor overall analysis.

 

Thank you, LeafTalker, for the continued encouragement you bring to this investigation. As you can imagine, there's much in the way of opportunity for me to really "step in it" if you know what I mean. I'm trying to not do that  

 

Hi OntarioSquatch, thanks for your thoughts on this. With all due respect, and I mean that, I do not see the study as fake. Faking a five year study with double blind samples sent to 12 reputable labs simply doesn't read fake to me. Also the contamination factor doesn't make sense when all in the chain of custody and handling were filtered by individual DNA testing to rule out the chance of misinterpreting the results.

 

Supporters may have been naïve and I can see where that is a likelihood but being somehow clueless doesn't support what I stated above. And too, having hair samples that morphologically aren't Human but that test as BEING 100% Human in their mtDNA and at least 90% Human in the nuDNA testing kind of rules out contamination. WHY? Because there is no way a non Human hair sample would test 100% Human even if the nuDNA tests came back odd.

 

Think about it for a minute and see if you can find an answer to that conundrum. Because in the end it all comes down to non-Human  hair samples testing Human- with no match to anyone who was in the chain of custody being represented in those hair samples. Are you maybe then implying that some OTHER OUTSIDE Human was brought in as a ringer of some kind and then told to touch ALL of the samples in order to contaminate them so that the Human contamination couldn't be traced??

 

At least some of my argument has a good strong element of logic to it which, by the way, isn't meant to exonerate Dr. Ketchum from any wrong doing. It's more to illustrate what might have to happen in order to perpetrate such a hoax if it was in fact a very costly five year effort to hoax this community. For instance, I'm sure these 12 labs used in the double blind study didn't do it for free so that Dr. Ketchum could simply pocket the money. Adrian Erickson, the chief financial supporter, along with all of the rest would want an accounting and therefore a paper trail for every cent invested in the study. One might think they would be the FIRST ones to cry foul. Did they?

 

And also, along with that timeline I posted previously, hiding and juggling money just seems like a awful lot to handle for one small veterinary geneticist to accomplish just to perpetrate a private scam. Reading every word and every link in the Sasquatch Genome Project's website doesn't really smack of some kind of grand scheme to pull the wool over the eyes of so many. It's possible she may have learned a few things as a geneticist when folks were maybe trying to scam owners and buyers of thoroughbred horses but I doubt Dr. Ketchum would or could plan such an elaborate scheme.    

Edited October 1, 2017 by hiflier

[bipedalist]

She juggled her business taxes, had peculiar standing with the Texas Sec. of State office registering businesses, had a poor BBB rating and she juggled the accounts of prior samples BF researchers shared with her prior to her SGP study.  That still proves to me she was less than above-board and has a track record of same.  Anybody could have checked in on these statements with those involved with her or those Texas state websites verifying same. 

On 9/11/2017 at 10:15 AM, MIB said:

 

Yep, thus the need for bleach to make results that would have contradicted her claims go away.   Without Tyler and Bart to assist Justin with having his piece retested independently, we might not know what a fraud Ketchum truly was.   The ironic thing is, Justin's account of what happened, the timeline, etc. provided Ketchum with an "out", all she had to do was have the integrity to report the results back honestly as bear.  

 

MIB 

 

Goes without saying and fits the modus operandi

Edited October 1, 2017 by bipedalist

[hiflier]

12 minutes ago, bipedalist said:

Anybody could have checked in on these statements with those involved with her or those Texas state websites verifying same.

 

I suppose you're leaving all that for me to do  I might do that if you tackle this:

 

20 minutes ago, hiflier said:

having hair samples that morphologically aren't Human but that test as BEING 100% Human in their mtDNA and at least 90% Human in the nuDNA testing kind of rules out contamination. WHY? Because there is no way a non Human hair sample would test 100% Human even if the nuDNA tests came back odd.

 

Think about it for a minute and see if you can find an answer to that conundrum. Because in the end it all comes down to non-Human  hair samples testing Human- with no match to anyone who was in the chain of custody being represented in those hair samples. Are you maybe then implying that some OTHER OUTSIDE Human was brought in as a ringer of some kind and then told to touch ALL of the samples in order to contaminate them so that the Human contamination couldn't be traced??

 

Edited October 1, 2017 by hiflier

[LeafTalker]

38 minutes ago, bipedalist said:

She juggled her business taxes, had peculiar standing with the Texas Sec. of State office registering businesses, had a poor BBB rating and she juggled the accounts of prior samples BF researchers shared with her prior to her SGP study.  That still proves to me she was less than above-board and has a track record of same. 

Really? And of course -- if true -- that couldn't all just mean she was indifferent to recordkeeping when it came to finances, but a good practitioner of her craft?

 

I'm very meticulous in my work, but you wouldn't expect that if you saw how messy my house was. I'm not good at keeping my accounts, either. 

 

You're making a lot of assumptions (and you're not the only one who does that). You're assigning motives to her that you're in no position to know. 

 

Edited October 1, 2017 by LeafTalker

[Branco]

Hiflier: Do a web search for,"Presidential Memo of March 9, 2009". Then spend  a few months - like I did - finding what each department of government - and ANY ENTITY receiving a dime of federal funding - had to abide by before their department's required responses to that memo were accepted. That memo is very pertinent to the fact that Dr. K was so d so viciously attacked by other scientists. That memo  apparently had something to do with all those DNA tests done by Dr.S that showed typical wild animals - even the "bipolar bear" which could have been quickly identified under and optical microscope - when he met with the feds at the  F&W lab in Oregon. (The memo itself contains nothing; it appears to be a benign directive.) Its what the departments were obligated to do before their responses were accepted that are the kickers. That obligation was basically that no scientist would do anything to distract the people's attention away from the Prez that issued the memo. Remember, it will take a long time to find and read all the department's accepted responses, and remember the date of that memo in relation to Dr. K's work.

Folks may think this post is balderdash because they don't believe our government would do such things. If and when they are 84, they will consider this a minor example of the government's devious actions in subjecting the public to the mushroom treatment.

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2017 by Branco

[Incorrigible1]

I've gotta fix my account. It only posts in black.

[hiflier]

Me too Inc1 so I can only hope the message gets through anyway  

 

Branco, I have read that directive several times back when you first brought it up and created the tread for discussing it. And you are correct, on the surface it looks pretty benign and without teeth but, if I'm correct, it basically states that decisions along scientific lines made by the President (I assume through the Presidential Science and Technology arm) that everything must go through certain hoops to be accepted by science with the final decisions on the direction science take mandated by the President.

 

Essentially, it is a directive that instructs ALL scientific endeavors to adhere to the directive by making sure no one deviates from the directive. Yeah I know, it sounds circular but then that's what it's supposed to be: not leave an out for pursuits that the President deems would upset apple carts- like for instance the Sasquatch Genome Project if I read your post correctly. And yes, the date and timing of the memo is an interesting curiosity WRT Dr. K's work.........and results.

 

I think it good to remember the most pertinent aspect of the whole thing: it is that Dr. Melba Ketchum, in the middle of the Project, would suddenly have to adhere to the directive which BY MANDATE would completely change what she would be allowed to present to the public.......but she did the paper and presented it to the public ANYWAY. So what does that say about her convictions regarding the results that came in from the 12 independent labs? Labs that were also suddenly affected by the directive as well to include any scientist who might support the findings. I think it safe to say that anyone and everyone would have no choice but to cut her loose as a rogue under the memo's wording.

 

Do I have this about right? 

[Branco]

Yep, that pretty well pegs it. (The memo, and the resultant control of science by government, will also be a boon to shyster drug companies, chemical manufactures, and of course, to the "climate control"  bozos.) 

[hiflier]

So the question now is would this directive effectively close all scientific doors to her paper having ANY chance for peer review by mainstream science? IMHO the answer would certainly appear to be 'yes'- all doors to peer review would be closed under the mandate issued in the directive. If this is true then she would have no choice but to promote her findings on her own and be forced to self-publish.

 

My understanding is that the publication that she purchased, and renamed 'De Novo' backed out of publishing a peer review of her study in the 11th hour. So in order to publish her paper she purchased the journal and renamed it accordance to guidelines issued by C.O.P.E which itself had addressed a similar publishing situation. She followed those guidelines correctly and so published according to those guidelines..

 

This post isn't directed at you specifically, Branco, but written only as a thought to the general membership for the sake of continuity.

Edited October 1, 2017 by hiflier

[bipedalist]

My understanding is the website for the journal was created out of thin air for her and by her minions and then she "purchased" it.  

 

This was all documented in domain name registrations, etc. and bloggers documented the purulent history of the charade.

 

It never published a blessed volume or issue number until she created the one and only issue to date. 

 

That is what I remember.  

[hiflier]

"Minions", "purulent", charade"..........must everything you say have such a negative slant? I do understand your abhorrence of the whole thing but I'm at lest trying to be respectful even when posting the negative aspects of the subject. Mistakes were made but I, sorry to say, still wrestle with whether or not any of it was an intentional hoax. So far the attitude of many say it was all an intentional hoax. From what I have read and researched the 'hoax' scenario was simply too elaborate for her to pull off on many levels. I see it as she was hell bent on getting the results published against all odds.

 

Did she go about things in a way that was acceptable? Apparently not but to circumvent mainstream with the Sasquatch subject that we all know mainstream has always rejected across the board even before the Sasquatch Genome Project ever existed what was she supposed to do? What would anyone supposed to do? mtDNA and nuDNA on samples that weren't Human but tested Human demanded publishing......period. And that's what she did in the face of total rejection by mainstream.

 

The 'memo' that Branco reminded us of has put the whole thing in a new light so now anything posted to date needs to be seen through government efforts to disallow such research to enter the public domain. It would appear then that Dr. Ketchum's study may be larger than everyone once thought. It also demonstrates the necessity of the effort to get the study's results out to the public in spite of any mandates that such studies be actively squashed by mainstream science in the interest of adhering to that mandate to science to self-police itself.

 

There are many who won't see it this way of course and I can respect that.

[bipedalist]

You know when this stuff is constantly retreaded, refurbished, repackaged and such for years with few people ever investigating the then current historical referents, or hesitating to go back and do the hard work,  I think you would be using adjectives of differing import too.  

 

It is quite convenient to use gov'ment to rescue bad science. 

[hiflier]

Perhaps you are right BP. But there are still points that I have presented that surprisingly (or not so surprisingly depending on one's mindset) seem to get ignored a bit in the general dialogue within this thread. Yes, convenient to blame government- especially when here is a mandate involved that few understand. But it's also convenient to skip over the hard questions and hold onto a one-sided viewpoint- something I'm trying to avoid. So since you brought up the bad science part, everyone can read this: (spoiler alert- it's a long article):

 

https://bigfootclaims.blogspot.com/2014/11/sample-26-smeja-kill-independent-lab.html

 

And while we're at it, may as well read the COMMENTS section that follow below this article:

 

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34395/title/Bigfoot-DNA-is-Bunk/

 

I'm still not at home. Been visiting friends in Tahoe for a while but will be hitting the road on Tuesday to make my way back to Maine via Bryce Canyon, The Arches, and Mesa Verde. It means I will be off and on this thread for about two weeks or more. I'll try my best to continue research into this topic but the thread will probably be slow for a while sorry to say.

Edited October 2, 2017 by hiflier

[JDL]

That presidential memo probably had a big impact on climate science.