The Ketchum Report

[southernyahoo]

If it is important enough to you BFR maybe you could find a list of labs that did work the 911 DNA samples.

Edited July 27, 2011 by southernyahoo

[Sasfooty]

I have talked to her on the phone a few times, & she seemed honest & unpretentious. If she said she did work on WTC DNA I believe her.

A Google search for "melba ketchum DNA world trade center" turned up several links with her name & World Trade Center in the same link. I didn't have enough interest to check them out, but I did read one short article she wrote for a science magazine about some forensic work she had done on a murder case.

[Guest Thepattywagon]

It would seem kind of silly for someone running a DNA lab to claim something as sensitive as having done work on 911 victims if it were not fact. Surely it would be obvious that a claim like this could be disproved, and that would not be good for business.

[slabdog]

I'm sure she can clarify it quickly.

I'd also bet there were a lot of labs who were working as subcontractors to the Govt to identify DNA after that tragedy.

[Guest HairyGreek]

She still is not mention in your link as well as per her own bio, she was not associated with any of those listed. Do you have a problem with raising eyebrows? Thats whats being discuss here about the whole dna issues and who what and where thats in question. Now if someone can show her role in the 9/11 dna research as she stated, please bring it forward. I can't find any, but maybe someone else can.

Like I said in my post, if you are so overly concerned with her statement, do your own research and call the agency listed and ask if they used her. Wow. I don't mind when people raise eyebrows about the big guy or research into him; but when people start throwing others under the bus without any verifiable evidence to go on...that's just plain wrong. Not many folks would lie about their involvement in an event that heavy. I think that is just disrespectful to do that just because her name doesn't jump out of a google search for you. If you can't see that, sorry for you.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Depends on what your "it" refers to. If you mean "the ability to determine if there was bias in the peer review process" then yes, that would be a subjective call. The most objective way I'd know to approach the question would be to have complete transparency in the review process, which is something we don't have unless we are the editor of the journal that publishes the paper. That's also the only way I'd know to determine if there was bias in the review of a paper that was rejected for publication.

Thanks Saskeptic. What is the best way to avoid that from happening? Submitting to more than one journal? Can you do that? I just would like to put it to bed. I am afraid that all the DNA tests in the world won't help until they see a dead or captured body. Of course, if they are real and this paper is taken seriously, perhaps more experienced wildlife experts will not feel their careers threatened enough to go after them in a more humane way. Whatever that is...

[Guest slimwitless]

Notgiganto, if you read the previous sentence in the blog, you'll see that Steve's writing a "hearsay vs. fact" statement.

As in:

HEARSAY:"The Study is not out for peer review."

FACT:"In reality it is now as we sit here."

So, he's saying it IS out for peer review now, just as he stated on the shows Sunday night.

Hope this helps.

I listened to the MN.B.R.T. radio program from July 25 (Monday). The guest was Alex Hearn. He was insistent that the paper is NOT out for peer review. JC Johnson called in and didn't seem to disagree. This flies in the face of what we've been hearing elsewhere.

I have to wonder if anyone other then Dr. Ketchum knows the status of this thing.

[Guest parnassus]

Depends on what your "it" refers to. If you mean "the ability to determine if there was bias in the peer review process" then yes, that would be a subjective call. The most objective way I'd know to approach the question would be to have complete transparency in the review process, which is something we don't have unless we are the editor of the journal that publishes the paper. That's also the only way I'd know to determine if there was bias in the review of a paper that was rejected for publication.

Perhaps it is worth repeating that contrary to what is posted here all the time, the scientific community and journal editors would.love it if Bigfoot were real( and would love to have proof of it published in their journal).

Prestige, publicity, grants, promotions...a real Sasquatch would be great. A valid Sasquatch paper would be great.

Those who try to say otherwise are just making excuses and trying to find scapegoats.

[southernyahoo]

I have to wonder if anyone other then Dr. Ketchum knows the status of this thing.

I think Dr. Ketchum is the only one who "really" knows where the paper is and it's status. We can only take her word on that when she gives it.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Perhaps it is worth repeating that contrary to what is posted here all the time, the scientific community and journal editors would.love it if Bigfoot were real( and would love to have proof of it published in their journal).

Prestige, publicity, grants, promotions...a real Sasquatch would be great. A valid Sasquatch paper would be great.

Those who try to say otherwise are just making excuses and trying to find scapegoats.

That's good news to me if true. I am happy to hear it. I doubt it, (call me a skeptic if you will Parn) but we shall see.

[southernyahoo]

I 'm a little bit skeptical of that too HG, I think in one way, everyone looks at the BF phenomenon with facination and wonder, and are seduced by the mystery, They think it would be way cool to prove it. The flip side is that when they think about teaching their kids about wildmen who live in the woods, psycologically it doesn't sit as well with them.

Can we handle the truth! Now there's a good thread title.

[Guest]

What is the best way to avoid that from happening? Submitting to more than one journal?

Nope, double-dipping is a big ethical no-no in science.

While I don't want to create the impression that bias in the peer review process is never a problem, worries about it are vastly overblown and tend to be perpetuated by people who simply refuse to admit that the "great discovery" they can't get published is neither of those things. If Ketchum's paper is rejected that does NOT mean that the editors were biased against the topic; it only means that the paper was rejected and we won't know why unless we are privy to the original submitted manuscript, the comments from reviewers, and the letter of rejection from the editor.

Parnassus is correct: If there is verifiable evidence of a new, extant (!) Hominin in North America - or anywhere else on earth for that matter - the journals will be tripping over each other to be the first to publish its discovery. We scientists live for stuff like this, and the sentiments I read here about stuffed shirt scientists locked into their "in the box" thinking are way off the mark. That perception simply comes from the fact that we like to be really really sure of what we have before publishing such discoveries. The discovery is awesome, but a retraction is an embarrassment. That's why unambiguous physical evidence is so important in science.

So yes, we can handle it. In fact, we'd LOVE to handle it. It's just that, so far, there's no "it."

[Guest]

Like I said in my post, if you are so overly concerned with her statement, do your own research and call the agency listed and ask if they used her. Wow. I don't mind when people raise eyebrows about the big guy or research into him; but when people start throwing others under the bus without any verifiable evidence to go on...that's just plain wrong. Not many folks would lie about their involvement in an event that heavy. I think that is just disrespectful to do that just because her name doesn't jump out of a google search for you. If you can't see that, sorry for you.

First of all I did research and could not find anything “listed†about “her†or her “DBA†involvement with the world trade center disaster. They normally publish their names and or company that did the work. Now as I mention before if anybody has something please post it, this is not asking to much. Also I did not throw anybody under the bus, I raised a question about her own statement. It appears to me that you might have a problem with people asking questions about peoples statements. Now if its true that she did not work on the WTCD then this would bring in about her creditability to the subject matter on doing Bigfoot DNA projects would it not? As to your comment about not many folks would lie about their involvement in an event that heavy, I think you need to look around the country and see just how many people do lie every day about huge events such as our debt ceiling just to mention one. And don’t be sorry for me, I know that I might not be the greatest Google searcher in the world, that’s why there are forums where one could ask for help and not be ridiculed.

Edited July 28, 2011 by grayjay
Got personal

[southernyahoo]

Now as I mention before if anybody has something please post it, this is not asking to much.

What if nobody ever posts any information on this? What would it prove?

Edited July 28, 2011 by grayjay
Got Personal

[Guest]

And back on topic we go....

While Dr.Ketchums work on the 911 tragedy is commendable, it also is not Bigfoot related except in a very pheriphial way. The lab chosen to process any alledged Bigfoot DNA was decided upon by the folks who wanted the work done. The issue of qualifications apparently wasn't a problem for them. It could be said in all, they have the right to engage the services of whomever they chose in a free-market situation.

Now, back to the OP.

Grayjay