The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

Thank you for responding.

Quoth Mulder:

"1) Please explain to me a viable alternate theory as to where DNA comes from other than a biological sample.

2) Please explain to me how DNA from an undocumented primate (which is the proposed finding of the study) could come from anything other than an undocumented primate."

1: Other than some kind of science-fictiony cloning hoax, a biological sample is the only source of DNA. More to the point though, I haven't seen Cervelo or anyone else indicate that they thought otherwise.

Your side keeps calling for a bone, or a hand or a [insert body part]. My point was and is that DNA IS a body part. If you have a good DNA sample, you can map it's genetic identity and determine the nature of the critter it came from without any other body part.

2: DNA from an "undocumented primate" could be any number of things depending on the specific analysis used to obtain that highly ambiguous result. If the analysis was one that mapped genetic distance among known primate taxa and it indicated something at intermediate distances between those taxa then yes, that would be proof of something unique. If that analysis indicated something fuzzier, like so close to humans that it would fall within the range of Homo sapiens, then that complicates the interpretation greatly. For example, a "new subspecies of human" DNA result would not seem compatible with physical descriptions of bigfoot. The far more parsimonious explanation would be that the novel DNA indicated humans just like you and me who share some unique signature. This is why some are skeptical that the DNA signature alone - given the allegedly leaked information that it indicated a new subspecies of Homo sapiens - would sufficient as "proof of bigfoot."

Rather over-nuanced, but at least it's a response...thank you for it.

There have been 3 serious enquiries into this, including a parliamentary enquiry, a police enquiry, and an independant judicial enquiry (from memory), and they all concluded the exact opposite. There was some shoddy filing practices, but they were absolutely exonerated of falsifying any data. This is one for another thread, but the parallels with sceptics and whatevers on here is interesting. This was a bunch of climate change deniers harassing the UEA for years and years (my first degree was from there, and they were at it then!). The UEA people didn't feel that they had to co-operate with a bunch of people who just make stuff up, so they didn't............and got hacked instead. Please don't misrepresent the actuality........the academics were blameless in this.

Mike

Last post on this:

Who cleared them? Their own academic "bretheren". I read many of the emails when they first were posted. They were pretty clear that they were "adjusting" data (changing it, or in some cases simply making it up). They routinely dumped their raw data, only releasing their "findings", and they talked about going after journals who were publishing papers that debunked their work.

None of that gives me any confidence in the "objectivity" of the Scientific institution.

[Guest parnassus]

If you plan on going through every musuem and every university's collection looking for items catalogued "unknown", examine them, and place them into new categories, I think that you'll probably be looking at a lifetime's work for hundreds of people. Pretty skilled people, too, who can look at an object and assess what it is....where others have presumably failed in the past. That's before you even start on the mis-catalogued items, and then there are the "lost" items, such as the cupboard full of fossils collected by Darwin recently re-discovered in the basement of one of our major museums after being misplaced for a hundred years.

Impossible job, I'd say.

Mike

Jobs, man, JOBS! and jobs for young scientists, to boot! And you'd have to do DNA on every single individual. And not just mtDNA, either, cause rumor has it that the mtDNA is human. And since skeletons tend to be in pieces and often grouped or scattered, you'd have to do DNA on a great many bones, not just "one per skeleton." This could get the economy humming all by itself. I'm all for it. Of course someone would have to pay for it.

Edited April 3, 2012 by parnassus

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Knowing very little about DNA, (I'm talking not even enough knowledge to post a fake paraphrase from Wiki), what are the chances that stuff like this http://www.nytimes.c...enome.html?_r=1 play a role in the results??? (It doesn't have to be that in particular, just.... stuff like that)

Or does stuff like this (meaning mistakes) get ignored because the results wouldn't be favorable in the eyes of some?

Edited April 3, 2012 by FuriousGeorge

[southernyahoo]

Deterioration of the nuclear DNA could easily explain the lack of similarity to anything known. DNA doesn't stay intact generally. Over the centuries most of it would be unrecognizable. The main reason they could identify the mitochondrial DNA is likely due to there being so many copies of it in each cell. This multitude of mDNA makes it possible for most of the dna stretch to be available. nDNA is tougher to sequence because there is only one copy per cell and if it is deteriorated it is useless.

Aliens evolving on a separate world would not be capable of reproducing with humans as they would not have a genetic code in common. Humans would be more likely to produce offspring with fish than with something from another planet. I also can not fathom why an alien would consider hybridising with humans even if it possible. The likelihood of an infant being viable or of any utility is remote.

I'm thinking they want to replicate the nuDNA sequencing multiple times to be sure the sequences are complete and accurate. Whatever the anomalies are after that would simply have to be accepted, regardless of the hypothesis for their origin. They're looking for a benefactor, and towards spending millions on just that alone.

[indiefoot]

Hypothetically, if one were able to map one or more complete Genome of the target DNA samples, how would that affect the ability to compare the results to Hss DNA and find an accurate relationship?

[Guest Cervelo]

Mulder,

What Sas said!

Sorry for the the confusion

I don't know where I have tried to convince anyone that DNA doesn't come from something,

thats your confab to support your contorted argument position.

Other than humans, I've seen no evidence of any primates having existing in the US or Canada.

So I would have to dismiss you question at this time. Would certainly reconsider if any evidence other than from ones imagination where to come forward!

[Guest]

Ed Conrad, Mulder? Really? Just that. Really? Ed Conrad is your example of science against the honest, right and true common man who has stumbled upon a great truth and the establishment ignores and chides him? Really. Ed Conrad.

I'm sorry to say that I can never read your future posts the way I once did.

Edited April 4, 2012 by MikeG
Implied obscenity removed

[Guest parnassus]

Mulder:

There is no "the Scientific institution."

The fact remains that there was no changing of raw data, as shown by three separate investigations by credentialled scientists, and you have no evidence to the contrary: no investigation, no credentialled group of scientists, nothing that trumps those opinions, nor do you have any evidence that those investigating groups were not skilled, serious, fair and accurate. In no other field of human endeavor would such trivial statements in a stolen email set off three such extensive investigations by so many learned people.

p.

Edited April 4, 2012 by parnassus

[Guest MikeG]

Right, guys, we've now covered both sides of the UEA hacked emails discussion. It is always possible to carry on that particular conversation elsewhere in a new thread, but I would rather nudge this thread back on topic, please. We're discussing the Ketchum report, or lack thereof, remember.

Thanks for your co-operation.

Mike

[Cotter]

@Cervelo:

An example of a primate that used to live in the US (definitely not a BF type primate, but anyway).

Just wanted to share.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1280732/earliest_known_north_american_primate_discovered/

[Guest]

I'll beg to differ....While unlike Russia who has a scientific community that is rather more institutionalized, there is ample evidence that in general there is an issue with ''behaviors detrimental to good science''. This is just the latest of numerous articles outlining problems that seem to get ignored by the folks who like to toss around the idea anything will be ''fairly researched and be published on it's merits''. Even previously to 1970 that wasn't the case, since ''out of place artifacts'' have been long ignored.

Ignorance of the state of affairs would , for me, negate the rest of someones argument as also biased.

http://www.asm.org/index.php/news-room/release032712b.html?title=Has+Modern+Science+Become+Dysfunctional%3F

Has Modern Science Become Dysfunctional?

WASHINGTON, DC – March 27, 2012 -- The recent explosion in the number of retractions in scientific journals is just the tip of the iceberg and a symptom of a greater dysfunction that has been evolving the world of biomedical research say the editors-in-chief of two prominent journals in a presentation before a committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) today.

“Incentives have evolved over the decades to encourage some behaviors that are detrimental to good science,†says Ferric Fang, editor-in-chief of the journal Infection and Immunity, a publication of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), who is speaking today at the meeting of the Committee of Science, Technology, and Law of the NAS along with Arturo Casadevall, editor-in-chief of mBio®, the ASM’s online, open-access journal.

In the past decade the number of retraction notices for scientific journals has increased more than 10-fold while the number of journals articles published has only increased by 44%. While retractions still represent a very small percentage of the total, the increase is still disturbing because it undermines society’s confidence in scientific results and on public policy decisions that are based on those results, says Casadevall. Some of the retractions are due to simple error but many are a result of misconduct including falsification of data and plagiarism.

More concerning, say the editors, is that this trend may be a symptom of a growing dysfunction in the biomedical sciences, one that needs to be addressed soon. At the heart of the problem is an economic incentive system fueling a hypercompetitive environment that is fostering poor scientific practices, including frank misconduct.

The root of the problem is a lack of sufficient resources to sustain the current enterprise. Too many researchers are competing for too little funding, creating a survival-of-the-fittest, winner-take-all environment where researchers increasingly feel pressure to publish, especially in high-prestige journals.

“The surest ticket to getting a grant or job is getting published in a high profile journal,†says Fang. “This is an unhealthy belief that can lead a scientist to engage in sensationalism and sometimes even dishonest behavior to salvage their career.â€

Funding is just one aspect of a very complex problem Casadevall and Fang see growing in the biomedical sciences. In a series of editorials in the journal Infection and Immunity they describe their views in detail, arguing that science is not as healthy as it could be or as it needs to be to effectively address the challenges facing humanity in the 21^st century.

“Incentives in the current system place scientists under tremendous stress, discourage cooperation, encourage poor scientific practices and deter new talent from entering the field,†they write. “It is time for a discussion of how the scientific enterprise can be reformed to become more effective and robust.â€

The answers, they write, must come not only from within the scientific community but from society as a whole that has helped create the current incentive structure that is fostering the dysfunction. In the editorials they outline a series of recommended reforms including methodological, cultural and structural changes.

“In the end, it is not the number of high-impact-factor papers, prizes or grant dollars that matters most, but the joys of discovery and the innumerable contributions both large and small that one makes through contact with other scientists,†they write. “Only science can provide solutions to many of the most urgent needs of contemporary society. A conversation on how to reform science should begin now.â€

[Guest parnassus]

Thanks, Mike.

In actual Ketchum news, David Paulides appeared on the Minnesota bigfoot internet radio show a couple days ago (it was a showcase/tease for speakers at the Richland, Washington convention) and said something to the effect that "if the paper comes out in the next two or three weeks" he will talk about it (his topic is sample gathering) at the meeting in Washington the first weekend in May. So to me this further confirms that Paulides is involved in the study, in terms of submitting, and further suggests that he knows enough about Ketchum's project to talk about it. There was a mention of Ketchum being on the program but no concrete statements about whether or not she was actually going to be there. Once again, as at Honobia, the schedule has Paulides and Ketchum back to back.

p.

[Guest]

I don't know where I have tried to convince anyone that DNA doesn't come from something,

thats your confab to support your contorted argument position.

No, that's my response to the repeated insistence that DNA was worthless as a species identifier absent some "body part" (defined as bone or flesh sample, etc).

Other than humans, I've seen no evidence of any primates having existing in the US or Canada.

Didn't bother to do a simple Google/Yahoo/Bing search I take it?

Just one summary:

Some of the earliest primates lived in North America. Richard A. Lovett (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060802-primates.html) and Thierry Smith, Kenneth D. Rose and Philip D. Gingerich

(http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/30/11223) say they may have reached North America from Asia, via Europe, about 55 million years ago. http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/first_primates.htm says that they were adapted to an arboreal way of life in warm, moist climates. Most probably became extinct due to cooler temperatures during the Oligocene (about 35 million years ago), although Dale Cozort (http://members.aol.com/dalecoz/Bigfoot2.htm) mentions a straggler surviving to the Miocene, perhaps returning from Central America.

There is some controversy about whether South American monkeys are descended from primitive North American primates ( see http://members.aol.com/dalecoz/Bigfoot2.htm)or whether they reached South America from Africa.

Dr. Bill Sellers (http://www.leeds.ac.uk/chb/lectures/anthl_08.html)says there isn't a good reason why there are no living primates in North America. I would suggest that, when South American mammals spread north during the Great American Interchange (when North and South America became connected again during the Pliocene), the primates moved as far south as they could considering the suitability of habitat and the risk of competition from other animals, which would be better adapted to the habitats in North America.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Wild-Animals-705/North-American-Native-Primates.htm

Oh, and here:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080303-american-primate.html

Other examples easily available

Ed Conrad, Mulder? Really? Just that. Really? Ed Conrad is your example of science against the honest, right and true common man who has stumbled upon a great truth and the establishment ignores and chides him? Really. Ed Conrad.

I'm sorry to say that I can never read your future posts the way I once did.

Thank you for proving my point.

You don't like Ed Conrad. Fine. Doesn't mean he hasn't made a significant discovery. Read the documentation he's assembled, esp the bit about the infrared scan analysis.

And he is a VERY good example of how Science (in the form of the Smithsonian in this case) manipulated and lied about the situation. It told the investigating Congressman several lies about the nature of their contact with Mr. Conrad, and he was able to demonstrate that.

[Guest Cervelo]

@Cervelo:

An example of a primate that used to live in the US (definitely not a BF type primate, but anyway)

Just wanted to share.

[url=http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1280

732/earliest_known_north_american_primate_dis

covered/]http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1

280732/earliest_known_north_american_primate

_discovered/[/

I stand corrected and thx for sharing !!!!

Maybe it this critters DNA they have, I could believe that more than Biggie.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Cervelo

[Guest parnassus]

Grayjay, you beg to differ with what?

That there is no "the Science Institution," or that the investigation of scientific conduct was not extensive in the case mentioned?

Your quote suggests that scientists police their own. I certainly agree that there have been fakes in science. I uncovered one myself. The infusion of large amounts of cash from pharmaceutical firms and drug equipment companies is probably the biggest single cause, and most major medical schools have adopted strict policies to deal with it, and some have already punished transgressors. The absolute numbers are still small, a fact which is hidden in the article. To get back to how this relates to bigfoot, i will put up science against bigfootery discoveries for true findings, objectivity, lack of hoaxing and honesty of famous investigators any day of the week and twice on sundays. Do you seriously want to go there?

The lack of bigfoot proof in North America for 400 years is not attributable to dishonest, biased scientists, nor to government men in black, or parnassus, or logging companies or to national forests charging a fee to profiteers.

who is ignorant?

p.

Edited April 4, 2012 by parnassus