The Ketchum Report

[Guest parnassus]

Dr. Melba S. Ketchum grew up in Texas City, Texas. She attended Texas A&M University where she received her doctorate in Veterinary Medicine after five years at the university. She had a mixed veterinary practice until she founded DNA Diagnostics. Dr. Ketchum is the president and founder of DNA Diagnostics, Inc. d/b/a Shelterwood Laboratories. Established in 1985, DNA Diagnostics has become a leader in all types of DNA testing including: human and animal forensics, human and animal paternity and parentage testing, disease diagnostics, trait tests, animal and human identity testing, species identification and sex determination. Most common species of animals are tested at DNA Diagnostics.

What is a Doctorate in Veterinary Medicine?

It is a degree of the highest study in Veterninary Medicine. To do a Doctorate, you must first do a Bachelor Degree ie. the first level of degree, then a Masters (second level of degree), then a Doctorate. To complete a Doctorate, you must write a book on your subject matter and have it approved and published. This is the product on what your degree will be graded and awarded. Once you have achieved a Doctorate, you can place the abbreviation of Dr. before your name.

I'd say she qualifies as a Scientist.

you can say whatever you like.

Get your facts straight.

You are being deceived by the word "doctorate". I dont know who wrote that but it is deceptive. After high school she went to Texas A and M for (apparently) five years to get an undergraduate degree that says Doctor of Veterinary Medicicine. She basically has an undergraduate degree.

That isn't a doctoral degree aka Ph D, which requires 5-7 years after undergraduate school. And it isn't like Medical doctors who generally attend Medical school after graduating from undergrad.

If you don't believe me, call her and ask.

[southernyahoo]

Ketchum has contributed, or claims to have contributed a new methodology for testing DNA, that seems to get people the resutls they want. She can own that methodolgoy... patent it, license it, sell it, whatever. She does NOT own the project. She may own any "report" on her DNA methods, but that is it. She will not (or should not) own any Sasquatch report/project/documentary. She has been paid handsomely for her testing, and that is it. She can try to own whatever she feels she owns, in line with that role that she was hired for.

I don't know where you get this new methodology from watcher. Maybe you could elaborate on that.

You should consider though that she would have to protect herself in publishing results from so many clients. A legal release would have to be done, one that gives her control over publishing rights and ownership. She couldn't afford to deal with people who wouldn't do that, and it would compromise the integrety of the study to have so many hands on the steering wheel so to speak. I wouldn't expect to see results in this paper that wasn't fully released to her.

[TimB]

In many, many scientific endeavors these days, a DNA technician is needed. It NEVER makes the given project become the project of the DNA testing contributor.

It's like saying climbing Mt Everest was the project of the guy who supplied the oxygen for the climbers.

Has Melba pioneered some methodologies in DNA testing? I dunno - she certainly claims to have... but that remains to be seen. Let's say I could agree to that statement. Sure - no problem

Are all the projects of Sasquatch researchers who have contributed DNA to Melba to apply her testing techniques suddenly no longer owned by the Sasquatch researchers? Absolutely not.

She is a hired technician, used for her expertise in ONE area. That area is not integral to Bigfoot research - anymore than forceps, plastic bags, cameras, infrared, night vision, peanut butter and tents are integral to Bigfoot research. Someone who pioneers a new tent tht lets people look through one-way glass, does not become the owner of the project in which a Sasquatch was filmed! They are just contributing one TOOL for the research - no matter how invaluable that tool may be, they are still only a contributor of the tool. They are not the researcher, and they do not become owner of the project or all the work associated with BF research.

Ketchum has contributed, or claims to have contributed a new methodology for testing DNA, that seems to get people the resutls they want. She can own that methodolgoy... patent it, license it, sell it, whatever. She does NOT own the project. She may own any "report" on her DNA methods, but that is it. She will not (or should not) own any Sasquatch report/project/documentary. She has been paid handsomely for her testing, and that is it. She can try to own whatever she feels she owns, in line with that role that she was hired for.

I'm fairly certain the majority of the people involved in this conversation have a very different view than yours, "Watcher". Perhaps you can help us understand how you got to you understanding of Dr. Ketchum's role in this. Is there someone in your mind more qualified to be presenting this study?

Tim B.

[Guest HairyGreek]

So we have gone from attacking Sas, to attacking the story, to attacking the messengers...and now to character assassination. It would appear the skeptics are getting nervous.

[Guest HairyGreek]

So we have gone from attacking Sas, to attacking the story, to attacking the messengers...and now to character assassination. It would appear the skeptics are getting nervous.

http://www.sasquatchthequest.com/dnatesting.html

Sounds like a scientist to me. But what do I know since there are apparently some secret levels involved. Maybe a secret handshake.

[Guest slimwitless]

According to sources I deam credible, I believe it is.

That's good news.

I recently stumbled on the JREF forums. I wonder how they'll handle it if this actually pans out.

[Guest bsruther]

I don't see how it really matters if the person submitting a paper for scientific peer review is a "scientist" or not. IMO, it's just semantics.

My daughter in law is a scientist. Next time I see her, maybe I'll ask her how that works.

I'm afraid she might ask me why I want to know though.

[Bill]

bsruther:

"I don't see how it really matters if the person submitting a paper for scientific peer review is a "scientist" or not. IMO, it's just semantics.

My daughter in law is a scientist. Next time I see her, maybe I'll ask her how that works.

I'm afraid she might ask me why I want to know though."

A good way to explain it would be to say that in a forum discussion, a devious and manipulative attempt is being made to discredit a scientist by narrowing the definition of what a scientist is, to deliberately disconnect the scientist under discussion from being qualified as such. So the word "scientist" is being re-defined (through games of semantics)for the express purpose of excluding a person from that description.

Just an idea.

Bill

[Guest]

BBF Members- As far as Mrs. Ketchum goes, the wat I undrestand it is that the due deligence takes a long time. IMO if the review was debunked then it would of been rejected right off the bat. Also I don't know how many peer reviews Mrs. Ketchum has done but the papers just may need a little adjusting so that all the ducks are in a row. The journal (if there is going to be one, and I think there is going to be one) has to conform to producal completely. IMHO the longer the prosess takes I feel the more chance there is that something is really there, but it just needs to be right. For myself since my encounters in 1961 and 1963 this little more wait time seems small in comparision to all the unbelief I have skepticism and redicuale over the last 50 years. We are almost there so lets just see this out and try not to credisize Mrs. Ketchum and see where the chips fall. Ptangier

[Hairy Man]

you can say whatever you like.

Get your facts straight.

You are being deceived by the word "doctorate". I dont know who wrote that but it is deceptive. After high school she went to Texas A and M for (apparently) five years to get an undergraduate degree that says Doctor of Veterinary Medicicine. She basically has an undergraduate degree.

That isn't a doctoral degree aka Ph D, which requires 5-7 years after undergraduate school. And it isn't like Medical doctors who generally attend Medical school after graduating from undergrad.

If you don't believe me, call her and ask.

According to the Texas A&M website, a DVM is listed as a degree under "graduate" degrees - it is clearly not an undergrad degree. Undergraduate degrees in Vet Med

Here you go: Graduate Degrees

A DVM is listed as "Veterinary Medicine" - last time I checked, the word "medicine" clearly implies science - so she's a scientist. Check here: DMV . Ph.D.s are listed seperate, so it's not a Ph.D. as we know it, but clearly it's a level of study that earns the title of "Dr.".

I know of no requirement that a "scientist" have a Ph.D. People publish often with mere B.As, B.Ss, M.As, and M.Ss - such as myself. No publication that I am aware of only accepts papers from certain "types." If the science is solid, it's accepted.

Edited August 2, 2011 by HairyMan

[BobbyO]

"SHE IS A SCIENTIST, & saying otherwise shows a serious lack of knowledge about the subject!!"

Have to disagree. Saying she is not a scientist is a willful attempt at character assassination, a blatant attempt to discredit a person of scientific standing who may offer some evidence that may support the idea BF/sasquatch does exist.

Typical of the "critical thinker" who knows how to be critical, but does not know how to think.

Bill

Amen Bill..

[Bill]

Another thing which concerned me about this discussion is the following remark about Dr. Ketchum:

"but is she is a self employed for profit businessperson"

Now I can't read the mind that made the remark, so I can only try to figure out why it was offered by sort of deductive reasoning. I figure the options are:

A. Such a description is an admirable distinction, and if so, Dr. Ketchum is being paid a compliment.

B. It is a subtle but disparaging remark (as in, "She's just in it for the money and has no integrity because of that motive", for one hypothetical example) in which case Dr. Ketchum is being criticized.

or

C. It is irrelevent to her capablity of conducting a DNA study, and the one making the observation likes to say irrelevent things (which does make us wonder about the reasoning capacity of one who offers irrelevent information to a discussion).

Or maybe

D. It is a sly inuendo which was hopefully intended to discredit by implied suggestion rather than direct criticism?

Not sure which. But any way you look at it, it doesn't seem like quality dialogue to help us reach an informed and well-reasoned conclusion of the matter. Sorta looks like a cheap shot, in my opinion. If I'm wrong, I welcome anybody who wants to correct me.

Thanks,

Bill

[Guest parnassus]

So we have gone from attacking Sas, to attacking the story, to attacking the messengers...and now to character assassination. It would appear the skeptics are getting nervous.

It's not character assassination. It's a discussion of her training and qualifications, and what she has on her website and what it means. No one has said anything about her character.

[gigantor]

Bill,

You forgot to add E) the source may be a communist or socialist.

Edited August 2, 2011 by gigantor

[Guest parnassus]

According to the Texas A&M website, a DVM is listed as a degree under "graduate" degrees - it is clearly not an undergrad degree. Undergraduate degrees in Vet Med

Here you go: Graduate Degrees

A DVM is listed as "Veterinary Medicine" - last time I checked, the word "medicine" clearly implies science - so she's a scientist. Check here: DMV . Ph.D.s are listed seperate, so it's not a Ph.D. as we know it, but clearly it's a level of study that earns the title of "Dr.".

I know of no requirement that a "scientist" have a Ph.D. People publish often with mere B.As, B.Ss, M.As, and M.Ss - such as myself. No publication that I am aware of only accepts papers from certain "types." If the science is solid, it's accepted.

I think you are misreading the site. There is no requirement for an undergraduate degree to enter the vet school. She apparently did not have one. There are graduate (MS and PhD) programs in the vet school http://vetmed.tamu.edu/graduate/admissions-process Dr. Ketchum did not do those programs.

Again, if you don't believe me, call her and ask her. The word "doctoral" on her website does not mean she has a Ph.D. She's a vet with a lab business. She has to know some science. If you want to call that a being a scientist, you are free to do so.

Edited August 2, 2011 by parnassus