Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Ok Mulder ready here is one for you... My Claim: "There is no paper" Proof: As of today's date no paper has been provided, released, shown, documented, etc. Yes. I could be wrong if said paper is indeed released. I actually hope I am. I hope the paper lives up to all the hype and blows mainstream science out of the water. But as of right now my claim is backed up with facts. Right now at this moment there is no paper in that it has not been released. HAHAHAHAHA. Oh **** that was funny. Gotta give it to you on that one. Classic. Yes, but the thing is that the scientist- Dr. Ketchum- has publicly stated that there is, in fact, a paper. For you to "claim" that there is no paper is effectively calling her a liar. There's really no reason to assume any scientist is a boldface liar without some actual SUBSTANCE to back it up, and you especially shouldn't do it here since it's against the rules (as she is a member here). The only reason I can see for you to do that is for purposes of snarktitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 ^ True that. Making the claim, "There is no paper" is not supported by statements from those that have written or read the paper that it does exist. It would be more accurate to say, "The paper has not been published". That's a fact we can all agree on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Bart- though on the outside and looking in, I know the struggles you have been confronting and understand your frustrations. Though this is out of my league, from some of the things I have witnessed MK do/say compells me to truely relate to your stance. However, with that said only YOU (well maybe a few others) can arrive at the opinion(s) you have. Let me just say this, as someone who has met you personally and spoken to you at length, your integrity and stallworth passion should never have to be answered to. I just wish that some of the mindblowing questions I have can be anwered by/ with PROOF from any study work that may apprear and that the soap opera will quit, I for one am sick and tired of it. Lastly let me just say Bart- keep on truck BRO, your on a good course and doing all you can in a respectable and above board manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Mulder- First off, I never said here was no paper and she’s deceiving you. I said question highly if both of those things are happening for **** good reasons I have. That's a big jump by you saying I defintively said differently. I'd appreciate it if you quote me correctly as I don't have time to sit here and clarify your misquotes all day. What “confirmation protocols?†We’re the checks and balances, two laymen, that took the tissue piece to two independent labs (one university & one private, “independent†of each other & Ketchum) first to one that was “blind†in that they initially had no idea what we were assuming the piece could potentially be from. The second lab was from a referral as an additional checks and balances to not only test another sample of the same tissue piece but also the salted piece Meldrum and J Mio examined on site during the remains search in July 2011 (to confirm or not if they were from the same subject species). it's really that simple. If you’re concerned about the reputability of the labs and directors we contracted, in case you’re not happy with the eventual results or vice versa, you’ll be able to perform all the due diligence you wish because the names and communications will be provided for you. It’s really going to be that simple. This also ties in with some of Southernyahoo’s laughable insinuations answered quite nicely by rockiessquatching who seems to get it. I mean, you guys do know the difference between an examination and an actual study right? Tyler and I are not doing a study to prove something exists (for example) or test a hypothesis. We have a vested interest (obviously) to know the origin of the tissue and brought it to two reputable institutions to get it examined because one, we see and saw more red flags then a North Korean army rally, and two, it would be the prudent thing to do anyway, even if Ketchum had not given us reasons to be concerned. Either way, when you put that in context, it’s very telling to me for someone to be fearing potential results. If anything, you should be relieved and embrace the opportunity that “if†there’s any major deviations in results with her paper, they will be addressed and she will be challenged earlier rather than later. Am I missing something? I’ve been investigating this for a year and a half and have much more time, energy, money etc… invested in the Sierra Kills case then both of you (even got unexpected thermal footage from there Aug 23rd, not definitive visually imo, but compelling with circumstances and witnesses) and I don’t potential fear results, I want answers….so why do you? In addition, My comments on Ketchum aren’t based off of her results because I haven’t seen any, have you? Or were you just told everything was looking great? They were precipitated by my disappointment in her using a lame excuse for selfishly going public without any substantiation (a reflection on all of us) and they were based off personal knowledge and experience internally, including as well, many of same things some of you should be questioning (I know many of you do) you should see externally. As rockiessquatching stated, she has leaked out definitive claims from day one. If Ketchum is being honest, she’s doing a “study,†which has expectation standards she’s expected to abide by (amplified with respect to subject matter), like keeping her mouth shut for one and not acting like a facebook queen. My bigger issues stem from behind the scenes and why she has no credibility in my eyes which includes some blatantly untrue and unethical statements & suggestions. Right now is not the time to discuss specifics on that, though the time for me to speak up was now because I want to make it clear my position on her “NOW,†not in hindsight...especially if her work is validated (I get a lot of emails with people assuming the opposite because they don’t pay attention to details). Still, I pray she pulls it off as I would be thrilled, absolutely thrilled for all of us. But that doesn’t mean I will have regrets on a position I’ve taken because you only regret when you would make a different decision under “parallel†circumstances. Her simply following through (and being successful) on what she’s claimed to be doing in first place does not justify regret in me. That would show questionable character on my part and if being on the winning team was so important to me, I probably wouldn’t be such a big Jays and Phins fan. There’s one thing I will defend her on and that’s the cowards that have said insulting comments about her appearance on her recent TV interviews. I think it’s shameful and have no time for that nonsense. With a year or more into what should be a quick ID of a known animal, "meriting red flags" I'm not getting the sense things are going all that well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Tyler and I, with Justin’s urging, [...] unilaterally began getting the sample tested at multiple labs (starting one well before the other). According to the labs, although one of them had no idea what they were contracted to test, they preferred to examine and try and determine the source of the tissue before moving onto the boots. We had no problem with that as we needed to audition the labs as well to make sure they were specialists we wanted to work with and we were getting the attention and communication we expected. Also, keep in mind, and you’ll see for yourself (don’t take my word for it) if you take the time to READ all of the email communications between us and the labs we will be providing (with dates on them) in addition to the full lab reports, that we did not anticipate this to be a 6-month process. Hi there Bart, Are you able to say when you can reveal the results of your own investigations? Apologies if it is written earlier, I've tried to keep up with this thread but it's growing quicker than I can read! Regards, CH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 "We have a vested interest (obviously) to know the origin of the tissue and brought it to two reputable institutions to get it examined because one, we see and saw more red flags then a North Korean army rally, and two, it would be the prudent thing to do anyway, even if Ketchum had not given us reasons to be concerned. Either way, when you put that in context, it’s very telling to me for someone to be fearing potential results." Can you clarify the 'red flag' characterization? In other words, are you suspicious of the tissue 'origin' or the testing procedure employed? Also, who is fearing potential results of any DNA testing being undertaken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Note: She did not deny Burtsev's claims. Are you serious? She absolutely did deny his claims, see bolded. DALLAS, Nov. 24--A team of scientists can verify that their 5-year long DNA study, currently under peer-review, confirms the existence of a novel hominin hybrid species, commonly called “Bigfoot†or “Sasquatch,†living in North America. Researchers’ extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an unknown primate species.The study was conducted by a team of experts in genetics, forensics, imaging and pathology, led by Dr. Melba S. Ketchum of Nacogdoches, TX. In response to recent interest in the study, Dr. Ketchum can confirm that her team has sequenced 3 complete Sasquatch nuclear genomes and determined the species is a human hybrid: “Our study has sequenced 20 whole mitochondrial genomes and utilized next generation sequencing to obtain 3 whole nuclear genomes from purported Sasquatch samples. The genome sequencing shows that Sasquatch mtDNA is identical to modern Homo sapiens, but Sasquatch nuDNA is a novel, unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primate species. Our data indicate that the North American Sasquatch is a hybrid species, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens. Hominins are members of the taxonomic grouping Hominini, which includes all members of the genus Homo. Genetic testing has already ruled out Homo neanderthalis and the Denisova hominin as contributors to Sasquatch mtDNA or nuDNA. “The male progenitor that contributed the unknown sequence to this hybrid is unique as its DNA is more distantly removed from humans than other recently discovered hominins like the Denisovan individual,†explains Ketchum. “Sasquatch nuclear DNA is incredibly novel and not at all what we had expected. While it has human nuclear DNA within its genome, there are also distinctly non-human, non-archaic hominin, and non-ape sequences. We describe it as a mosaic of human and novel non-human sequence. Further study is needed and is ongoing to better characterize and understand Sasquatch nuclear DNA.†Ketchum is a veterinarian whose professional experience includes 27 years of research in genetics, including forensics. Early in her career she also practiced veterinary medicine, and she has previously been published as a participant in mapping the equine genome. She began testing the DNA of purported Sasquatch hair samples 5 years ago. Ketchum calls on public officials and law enforcement to immediately recognize the Sasquatch as an indigenous people: “Genetically, the Sasquatch are a human hybrid with unambiguously modern human maternal ancestry. Government at all levels must recognize them as an indigenous people and immediately protect their human and Constitutional rights against those who would see in their physical and cultural differences a ‘license’ to hunt, trap, or kill them.†Full details of the study will be presented in the near future when the study manuscript publishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Mulder- First off, I never said here was no paper and she’s deceiving you. I said question highly if both of those things are happening for **** good reasons I have. That's a big jump by you saying I defintively said differently. I'd appreciate it if you quote me correctly as I don't have time to sit here and clarify your misquotes all day. What “confirmation protocols?†We’re the checks and balances, two laymen, that took the tissue piece to two independent labs (one university & one private, “independent†of each other & Ketchum) first to one that was “blind†in that they initially had no idea what we were assuming the piece could potentially be from. The second lab was from a referral as an additional checks and balances to not only test another sample of the same tissue piece but also the salted piece Meldrum and J Mio examined on site during the remains search in July 2011 (to confirm or not if they were from the same subject species). it's really that simple. If you’re concerned about the reputability of the labs and directors we contracted, in case you’re not happy with the eventual results or vice versa, you’ll be able to perform all the due diligence you wish because the names and communications will be provided for you. It’s really going to be that simple. This also ties in with some of Southernyahoo’s laughable insinuations answered quite nicely by rockiessquatching who seems to get it. I mean, you guys do know the difference between an examination and an actual study right? Tyler and I are not doing a study to prove something exists (for example) or test a hypothesis. We have a vested interest (obviously) to know the origin of the tissue and brought it to two reputable institutions to get it examined because one, we see and saw more red flags then a North Korean army rally, and two, it would be the prudent thing to do anyway, even if Ketchum had not given us reasons to be concerned. Either way, when you put that in context, it’s very telling to me for someone to be fearing potential results. If anything, you should be relieved and embrace the opportunity that “if†there’s any major deviations in results with her paper, they will be addressed and she will be challenged earlier rather than later. Am I missing something? I’ve been investigating this for a year and a half and have much more time, energy, money etc… invested in the Sierra Kills case then both of you (even got unexpected thermal footage from there Aug 23rd, not definitive visually imo, but compelling with circumstances and witnesses) and I don’t potential fear results, I want answers….so why do you? In addition, My comments on Ketchum aren’t based off of her results because I haven’t seen any, have you? Or were you just told everything was looking great? They were precipitated by my disappointment in her using a lame excuse for selfishly going public without any substantiation (a reflection on all of us) and they were based off personal knowledge and experience internally, including as well, many of same things some of you should be questioning (I know many of you do) you should see externally. As rockiessquatching stated, she has leaked out definitive claims from day one. If Ketchum is being honest, she’s doing a “study,†which has expectation standards she’s expected to abide by (amplified with respect to subject matter), like keeping her mouth shut for one and not acting like a facebook queen. My bigger issues stem from behind the scenes and why she has no credibility in my eyes which includes some blatantly untrue and unethical statements & suggestions. Right now is not the time to discuss specifics on that, though the time for me to speak up was now because I want to make it clear my position on her “NOW,†not in hindsight...especially if her work is validated (I get a lot of emails with people assuming the opposite because they don’t pay attention to details). Still, I pray she pulls it off as I would be thrilled, absolutely thrilled for all of us. But that doesn’t mean I will have regrets on a position I’ve taken because you only regret when you would make a different decision under “parallel†circumstances. Her simply following through (and being successful) on what she’s claimed to be doing in first place does not justify regret in me. That would show questionable character on my part and if being on the winning team was so important to me, I probably wouldn’t be such a big Jays and Phins fan. There’s one thing I will defend her on and that’s the cowards that have said insulting comments about her appearance on her recent TV interviews. I think it’s shameful and have no time for that nonsense. Emphasis added by myself. Woah (that's English for 'stop a horse' (bonus points if you get the reference)) My understanding is that only one piece of tissue was recovered... Are you saying that two disparate pieces of tissue have been recovered, that they appear to have come from two disparate host animals, and that you are testing to ascertain this? Did I miss something entirely whilst following the Sierra Story or did you just let slip something you shouldn't have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 If you could be wrong, then it's not a valid claim of fact. Talk about trying to twist things around. Really? Dude... did I say it was a fact? Wow, just wow. I have no words. The lack of objectivity is terrifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) Bart's referring to a small piece of the original sample that Justin Smeja "salted" for the cadaver dog(s) that someone arranged (Meldrum?) during the July expedition. I believe Randles said they found some bone and hair on that particular trip though. Edited December 4, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Cheers for the clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) I may be misinformed, but doesn't SY 'KNOW' the results of the paper? I'd have a tough time arguing with people who don't know any better, if that's the case. Edited December 4, 2012 by PacNWSquatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Yes, but the thing is that the scientist- Dr. Ketchum- has publicly stated that there is, in fact, a paper. For you to "claim" that there is no paper is effectively calling her a liar. First off. I think you are using my term claim to mean fact when actually I mean it as my opinion. I am not asserting a fact here just a claim of my opinion. Did I call her a liar? No. I simply stated a claim that there is no paper based on the fact that I have not personally seen any paper. If she claimed there is a paper I certainly wouldn't assume she thinks I am a liar. And as I stated above that right now there simply is no evidence for me to believe there is one and there hasn't been for 2 years. Until such that I do see a paper I still stand by my opinion. And if I am wrong I'll say so. How about this. Why don't we just call it my "opinion". There now. Feel better ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) Well Bart, why are you sitting on your results if you have them back? What's the hold up? We could end all of this right now if you go ahead and make Smeja's test results public. Edited December 4, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Did I call her a liar? No. I simply stated a claim that there is no paper based on the fact that I have not personally seen any paper. I haven't personally seen a lesula however it would be churlish of me to state a claim that there are no lesulas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts