The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

@ cervelo

Wow not sure you could picked a worse analogue LOL

Or a bluff

I know if I got my doctorate in Veterinary Medicine,started my own dna lab, patented (pending) a genetic testing platform, and own a horse/cattle ranch, I would spend a couple of years trying to bluff/hoax the whole scientific community associated and those handful of believers,

this way, when they finally find out I'm bluffing/hoaxing, I will have defiantly ruined my business and everyone of my clients and piers will hate the mention of my name.

WOW ! Talk about A master plan, Dr. Evil is going to be so envious, I can't wait !

[Guest Cervelo]

Just a little friendly banter with SY!

Nice rant though!

[southernyahoo]

Wow not sure you could picked a worse analogy LOL

Or a bluff

I think it's a pretty good analogy to this thread, since it is a game of speculation.

Where do we get this idea that this is going to be on all of the network news. I have seen nothing that suggests this is going to occur. This paper has not been accepted for publication by a scientific journal. That is a fact. Here is another fact. There has been a concerted effort through leaks and misinformation to hype this paper. My favorite is Dr. Ketchum being flown off to Europe. The implication that the folks at Nature or Max Plank institute where stunned and shocked by the paper. This was a complete fiction. Who made this up and why? It was stated several places as fact several months ago that the paper has been accepted for publication and will be published soon. Again, this was a complete fiction. Who made it up and why? I predicted that this thread would reach a 100 pages before anything is published. It looks like I am getting close. Can we come to an agreement that after 200 pages on this thread without ;publication that we will shut down this thread and discuss the topic no longer.

I will call R. Lindsay about this, he will get to the bottom of it!

[Guest gershake]

This paper has not been accepted for publication by a scientific journal. That is a fact.

How on Earth is that a fact?? Source, please.

[Guest]

This was posted last July and speaks briefly about how some things were done.

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=220883627946725

From David Paulides as posted by JC Johnson at Bigfootology:

David Paulides said...

As the Executive Director of the group that started the Bigfoot DNA Project and the person who represents the group with the most specimens submitted, I can guarantee for an absolute fact 95% of what Mr. Fasano states... is complete fabrication (He did get the names spelled correctly in his narrative). He has never spoken to anyone associated with our study, he has never submitted a specimen and has no idea the results of our testing. How this man can attack a credible study like this is absolutely mind-boggling.

It is true that the Olympic Project did supply one tissue specimen and many, many other credible specimens that they did collect. The leader of the Olympic Project, Derek Randles has addressed this point multiple times and he will gladly answer the same questions again, I’d refer to Derek on all issues regarding their specimens. Mr. Fasano, you claim the tissue sample is a hoax, have you seen the DNA report on it? Do you know who did the testing on this sample? Right, then how can you make a 1000’ leap to claim that any sample is a hoax when you haven’t been privy to any results?

I think that Mr. Fasano needs to conduct more research on the background of our study. First, Dr. Ketchum’s science has never been questioned, ever. Early in our organization of this effort we knew that a very few researchers that didn’t take part in our study, believers in the ape theory, researchers that were jealous and unable to find viable specimens on their own and general people in the community that live off bashing/hating others would be overly critical at the earliest opportunity. Dr. Ketchum and our entire team knew this would happen and expected responses such as this would start to creep into the community.

The bigfoot samples were initially screened by a hair and fiber expert when they arrived at DNA Diagnostics. Once the expert validated the sample, they went back to Dr. Ketchum’s lab where they were itemized, logged, photographed and then sent to a variety of other labs for testing. No, Dr. Ketchum didn’t conduct all of the testing on the majority of specimens, independent labs came to the same conclusions of the samples on their own. All pundits please re-read the last sentence, independent labs worked the samples and did the genetic testing and came to the same independent conclusions, is that clear enough?

Nobody in my organization has had any relationship or communication with anyone associated with the Erickson effort. Why Fasano would bulk a movie effort into a three year science study is beyond my logic.

The study has over 100 specimens from dozens of independent people and research groups. The idea that Mr. Fasano can unilaterally make a statement that the study is a hoax is beyond the realm of basic logic. Mr. Fasano, you were a friend of mine on Facebook, you saw my writings about this topic, why not contact me and allow us to discuss your concerns? Why would you publicly try to humiliate people you’ve never met or communicated? You and I have never spoken or communicated in any way, why fall into a realm of hate that does nobody, including your own research effort any good whatsoever?

I’m personally and professionally sorry that my clarifying updates have to continue. It would appear that certain elements of our community continue to be destined to destroy the good faith efforts of some in an apparent effort to gain their 15 minutes of fame, or to continue to propagandize their own hypothesis.

Thanks to everyone who has continued to take a “wait and see†approach to this issue, that is all we are asking. Sally Ramey wrote a great article (Facebook) about the formation of a scientific white paper and why there is an absolute need for NDA’s for all involved and the rationale for the extensive time these studies do take.

Thanks for your patience.

David Paulides

www.nabigfootsearch.com

[Guest mitchw]

On Ketchum's Facebook page, Sally Ramey wrote this reply to @Andy,

• "‎@Andy - Sally here - I think Nature actually publishes on Thursdays, which would shift its embargo to Wednesdays."
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• But we have been hearing that the embargo would end on a Thursday; which fits the Science Magazine protocol.
  Jus' thinkin' out loud.
  

Edited February 22, 2012 by mitchw

[Guest]

Southernyahoo: I nearly spit out ice cream all over my keyboard!

[Guest RayG]

Ray, you are ignoring both the NDA (which differs from the guidelines you are citing) and also the possibility that the substance of the paper may have changed materially during the review process. In either case, there could be no pre-release of information. Plus, there are a number of easily surmised pragmatic reasons to release everything all at once.

First, I've not argued anything about any NDAs. Dr. Ketchum's PR specialist used a specific example (Nature) for why there was no release of information, even though Nature allows information to be released. You truly don't see the point I'm trying to make? I'm saying (again), as per their website, that Nature allows the submitter of the paper "to post pre-submission versions or the original submitted version of the manuscript on a personal blog". It's right there on the website, in plain sight, under pre-publicity.

Here's a screenshot of the relevant portion, which I have boxed in red:

If an NDA is preventing pre-release of information then stick with that, don't be pointing to the pre-publicity page from Nature to try to support the reason for non publication, because that's not what the Nature page says.

Second, you're talking apples and oranges. While it's true that the pre-publicity section doesn't give permission to publish "subsequent pre-accept versions that evolve due to the editorial process", as I've specifically pointed out numerous times, the submitter may post "pre-submission versions or the original submitted version".

Claiming that the journal has imposed some sort of gag order for those versions, or won't allow the release of ANY information remains speculation unsupported by facts.

Regarding your 'victimization': what's not to like about speculative accusations made in ignorance regarding the character of people who do not appear able to defend themselves. In fact it's downright noble.

Pointing out specific pre-publicity policies of a journal is hardly speculative or ignorant, and who's attacking anyones character? I'm pointing out conflicting information provided by Dr. Ketchum's PR specialist.

And I really hope you're not implying that Ms. Ramey, the Public Relations communications specialist, is unable to defend herself against words written by lowly skeptics on a bigfoot forum. If so, she may be in the wrong line of work.

RayG

[Guest MikeG]

Why is this of any importance Ray?

They have made a choice to hang on to everything until publication day. Is that a big deal? Then they appoint a spokesperson so that they're ready to cope with the torrents of requests for information that they'll get. Is that a big deal? They answer what questions they feel they can in terms of their own decision not to release any of the contents of the report prior to publication. Again, is this a big deal? I really don't understand the importance of this line of questioning which you pursue so rigourously.

Mike

[southernyahoo]

Southernyahoo: I nearly spit out ice cream all over my keyboard!

LOL glad someone got it. Edited February 22, 2012 by southernyahoo

[Guest]

This is posted on Dr.Ketchum's new Public Facebook Page. It answers general questions and is their current statement on the DNA Study.

For anyone not aware Dr.Ketchum is a member of the forum and is entitled to the same courtesies afforded each and every other member here.

Grayjay

From Sally ---- Peer Review and Paper Publication Process

** The following is based on my experience working with research scientists who I have assisted during the publication process in a variety of peer-reviewed, scientific journals in various disciplines. This is a long post. - Sally Ramey

When a researcher, or research team, produces results they think are of significant interest to the scientific community, they prepare a paper about the findings and submit it to a scientific journal for peer-review. The research itself can take months or years. Then preparing the paper can take days, weeks or months. Most papers have more than one author, which can add more time. Once at the journal, the paper is reviewed by a team of scientists with expertise in the discipline(s) involved in the paper's topic. They decide if the research was conducted according to standards and practices accepted by the scientific community, and review the findings to see if they pass muster. However, the team not only looks at how the work was done and if the findings make sense, they also look at how the information is presented. The initial review can take a couple of weeks or up to months.......

Continue reading here:

Peer Review and Paper Publication Process

[Guest exnihilo]

From Facebook:

@Mitch - Sally here. Excellent question.

You must call the media that morning before their 9 a.m. editorial meetings and tell them that you have a news conference set for X time (the moment the embargo lifts) and that you will be making a major announcement about a scientific discovery and about which you cannot give them any advance information.

And you're now probably wondering, "Why would they come if you don't tell them what it's about?"

This is where good media relations is important. I have noticed on a BF chat board that my role has already been dismissed as that of a flak and spin artist, which I find professionally offensive. Good media relations is about honest disclosure and respectful responsiveness. Yes, there are "bad" practitioners out there, and practitioners directed to do "bad" PR by management, but that is not how I work, nor how most of my colleagues work. If you maintain a positive, no-BS relationship with your media contacts, then when you call them to tell them you have a major announcement --- they know you mean it and they will show up. If you are a PR person with a reputation for "crying wolf," then yeah, they'll ignore you.

Great work, Ray.

[Guest mitchw]

Here is the first sentence from Science magazine's embargo policy,

"Our embargo policy for original research papers -- which is designed to ensure broad and accurate coverage of author contributions in the press -- can be briefly summed up as follows:...."

I notice that the phrase, 'briefly summed up,' can mean that what is stated on the website may not be the categorical set of rules on embargo.

[Cotter]

Hi Folks:

I was perusing the BFRO site today and found this in the Erickson Thread. Posted by username LouBob. Is LouBob Sally? Posted 2/21/12. I'm a bit confused, but it would explain why Sally seems to know so much about BF behavior (from posts on FB). Can anyone enlighten me?

"Folks,

I have not been here for a long time because I have been very busy. I want to make you aware that I am assisting Dr. Melba Ketchum as her PR person and will be handling much of the forthcoming communications regarding her research paper on BF DNA.

Due to the strict confidentiality of the peer-review process, I cannot discuss the paper, its findings, the journal involved, where the paper is in process or any dates or timelines. However, I am glad to address questions about the process in general so we can all know what to expect whenever the paper is accepted for publication and how an announcement would roll out.

I recognize that BFRO doesn't send inquiries to other sites, but I am willing to bring the info here. The BFRO audience is a significant one and I believe in sharing information as broadly as possible. If Matt or Bossburg or other moderator wants to give me a go-ahead, I can post some info here and answer questions. It is my opinion that a time is approaching when leadership in public education re: this field will be necessary, and the BFRO is well-positioned to take a leadership role.

I also want to take an opportunity to thank David Pardue, Don Tart, Stan Courtney, Olaf Seaman, Dr. Tim, BethinFL, Andy, Mike Green, and my other BFRO friends - my first serious research and first expeditions were through BFRO and had it not been for those experiences, I would not be as involved as I am today in what should be a significant achievement."

[Guest Bipedal Ape]

"so we can all know what to expect whenever the paper is accepted for publication"

guess that means it hasnt been accepted yet?