Jump to content

The Ketchum Report


Guest

Recommended Posts

My common sense tells me that it passed the peer view and is just between there and publishing, that is why she addressed some misconceptions and rumors before they snow balled. in this day and age, people take someone not responding to allegations as true.

I think she is giving it more leeway on the publishing date in case their is mistakes made going from point A to B.

It doesn't make sense that she would jeopardize her 5 yr project while it was still in the review process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There shouldn't be much modern human DNA after a few generations from a single hybrid event.

Maybe the original hybrid was much stronger and survived a bottleneck. Or a few hybrids crossed from Asia to NA without bringing original species with them and then became indigeonous here in NA.

The suspected almasy named Zana supposedly killed her first several newborn hybrid children by washing them in cold rivers until the humans took the newborns away from her after birth. Maybe most hybrids don't survive infancy like these, and if the situation is rare enough - I dont' think human/bigfoot offspring are common- then most often it's a non-event (except to the unfortunate people involved). All speculation.

Still trying to wrap my mind around this.

Edited by madison5716
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was brilliant on the part of Dr. Ketchum to require NDA's from everyone and to keep everything on the low-low for as long as she did. This maintained the status quo of the bigfoot world being perceived as a bunch of crazies by the mainstream media....

Excellent post! I'm in sync with your view here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest gerrykleier

It only requires peers of methodology, whether chemical process or statistical analysis, a review of the underlying science, and that it leads to her conclusions based on her hypothesis (which I guess we now know?). .

If she has novel methodology it can be reviewed as either theoretically viable (many reactions, etc can be predicted well), or actually be replicated by a reviewer, and in this case....there might be that kind of review attention (say a novel chemical process..so a careful Journal might have a reviewer re-create the process to verify, but not necessarily so replicate the entire body of work or conclusion she is seeking.)

So, I can't really speak to all the many opportunities to get DNA analysis wrong, or right, but she has peers, many even more knowledgeable than her in their disciplines within the foundations of chemistry, genetics, and statistics. What they might not have is this whole picture through the many samples except through her work/conclusions.

What will be interesting is if after publication she makes those original samples available to other geneticists. Sykes said the testing is destructive, so quantity matters, and he set up a repository for future testing of left over samples if one so elected, but I don't know if it is to share with other institutions.

I would think so as the whole foundation/massive growth in genetics had been b/c of the intense cooperation between labs and projects contributing to things like Genbank. But, then that has been my view as relates to including the Sierra Kills sample in the peer-review study, given the emotional aspect and also the impact to Justin waiting for a verdict, that those samples should have had a more public path early.

I don't think there was any other practical option but Dr K at the time of the Sierra Kills (presuming they occurred). He could have tried to contact Paabo in Switzerland, say, but would anybody at the other end of the equation paid any attention? Probably not much. Just the amount of research necessary to place the sample in appropriate hands seems daunting. Look at the infighting in Bigfootery! It has to be at least as bad in the realm of Human Genetics. God knows who you would have encountered and what their motives would have been. There's no certainty that the one who took you up on your offer was actually highly respected within the community or viewed as a semi-competent outsider. They might have had their own agenda and clamped down on information even harder than K. Who knows...

I would have liked more Public scrutiny simply because I am a member of the Public and therefore would maybe know more than I do now, but I don't know if there would have been (or maybe even SHOULD have been) more public disclosure at this point if Smeja had tried other routes. He was smart to keep a large portion in reserve. I'm sure all of it will be needed before this is over.

GK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that when Ketchum wrote in her press release that the paper was 'currently' in peer review, that the journal would not let her state that her paper has been accepted. Any reputable journal which is preparing to publish as signal a paper as Ketchum's will understand that its credibility will be put to the test beyond Bigfoot, but extend to every future and past publication. They won't want other authors feeling they can jump the gun either.

Edited by mitchw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GK can't disagree really, it is impossible to say what would have or will work...the inertia and history is massive and the future not yet here

Edited by apehuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When this paper comes out, does anyone see a potential problem with a lot of highly technical information being argued by mostly unqualified folks. Bob Z.... don't get very far away you always make it understandable.

Indie, you said a mouthful and that will be a good day when we all can understand this science. I had my nda done and it gave me a headache until I read it over and over and over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was pretty critical of her antics over the course of time too, but I just can't imagine putting yourself out there like she has, and knowing that she is a Dr., and completely failing. I think she'd have to be holding all the cards in this particular case to say what she has said. Otherwise, she's gonna have to change her profession to dog groomer.

When you consider that she has easily 20 times more mtDNA data than Max Planck institute did when they announced the Denisova genome ,9 billion more nuDNA bases to work with, and a dozen labs, including federal, state and university labs processing it, anaylizing it , and doing their own comparisons to genomes in data bases, it should be clear that Melba has as many cards as one could dream of in terms of DNA proof.

And if it turns out to be nothing, then MM's tweets become gospel. Maybe he's just hedging his bets where he's a winner either way.

Anybody can be ney sayer and be right 50 percent of the time, but I don't think that will make Matt a winner. Bigfoot still is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scout1959

Who is a "Peer" in this situation? If she was trying to publish a paper on Vet Medicine she would have a group of Peers.

She is a DVM with Human DNA research. One who created her own primers and patented them? Who is a peer for that kind of aisle crossing work?

There may not be a single peer out there that fits the bill.

Personally I'd like to see Dr. Francis Collins weigh in on her findings. If he thinks she's onto something then that should be good enough for any of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...