Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Mulder, Please enlighten us on scientific protocols and procedure. Should we all assume you have a strong background in the subject or are you just waxing praetorian from the mount. In the case of genetic testing of this type, you do NOT tell the testing lab anything about the sample other than the obvious (it's a blood sample, tissue sample, etc). You do not tell them what you think the sample might be. You do not (if it is a "confirming" analysis) tell them anything about the result you are hoping to confirm. You send it to them "blind", so as to not give them any information that might influence their analysis of the sample. By Bartlojay's own words, of the samples sent out independently, only ONE was sent "blind", according to protocol. That leaves the other labs' analyses open to charges of confirmation bias. And, again , as I said above. I have no problem at all with confirming studies (properly carried out). My objection to what you,Bartlojay, Woodswalker, et al are doing is you utter lack of willingness to proffer evidence that Ketchum is in any way deceptive or acting of sinister motive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 BFSleuth Reveal what? Because I said if there's deviations their could be an issue. I'm didn't come here to reveal anything as we don't have final lab reports yet. I came here to clear some misperceptions thrown about earlier in the thread that had to do with my statement somewhere else... Period. Did you even read what I wrote or just what you or someone else interpreted without reading. Nothing has changed from our original promise of releasing data except that we may decide to share results actually "earlier" (before boots processing) "when" we have them, which it appears we're finally getting close now. My purpose of sharing my feelings on her press release initially were precipitated by her going public, in turn flooding my email and fb boxes with emails from bigfooters, family and friends either congratulating me or assuming because of my researching the Sierra Kills incident there was some understandable (because people don't pay attention to details) association with her. There's not, never has been and I'm not blessed with the free time some others have to frequent the internet all day and preferred a blanket statement which would be much simpler. I shared my thoughts because I was asked quite a bit and I saw some here, unintentionally were confused from their statements made and I came in and clarified and stated my position. Bottom line I hope she succeeds but I don't have confidence in her (something I get asked repeatedly I'm sure you could imagine) and there's reasons for that. Slim- one thing I've learned very quickly and humbly the last 6 months is we shouldn't be assuming anything when it comes to dna processing. I think we all need to be a little more educated in the processes before making blanket time determinations. Im really looking forward to sharing that with everybody through the email communications. I think that will be a good educational piece for researchers in general moving forward. At least to those who are interested in taking the time to read them. Thank you for your clarification. I did read your original post about this matter and give you the benefit of the doubt in terms of trying to clarify misperceptions on the forum. While you are fairly new to the DNA research arena (newer than Dr. Ketchum) I do find it interesting that you are indicating that it takes time to get DNA done, even (or because of?) using independent labs. If Dr. Ketchum sent blind sample sets out to 13 different labs, then the task becomes more complicated and longer. Any thoughts on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I came here to clear some misperceptions thrown about earlier in the thread that had to do with my statement somewhere else... . Um..Excuse me but isn't that basically what MK did when she came forward recently? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Well I certainly wouldn't use the terms deceptive or sinister. But when for the last 2 years you keep claiming "all is well", "it will be out", "it will be out soon", "weeks rather than months", etc. These things tend to wear on the credibility factor a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 This is laughable, you do realize Mulder, by your own standards you just disqualified the whole Ketchum study don't you? "She" first collected the Sierras sample among others, tested them (has said so as first person) and purportedly outsourced them to other labs for confirmation (only coming from one source). *snip personal attack on Ketchum* So why are you defending a breached and bias process? Oh no you don't, Bartlojay. She sent her samples out to the other labs BLIND, unlike what you did. She followed proper scientific proceedure for genetic testing, unlike what you did. I think you should learn the difference between a "study" and "examination," and I don't know, maybe get an understanding of appropriate scientific protocols and apply them objectively to each situation. Looks like it would help you a bit "Study" or "examination", I know what the protocol requires (that the samples be sent BLIND to the other labs), and Ketchum has stated that her samples WERE sent blind, unlike you who only did ONE sample blind (by your own admission). My point is, and I guess the rest of the world would agree, until it's substantiated, it's "nothing." My point is, and it seems that (outside the Ketchum bashers) the forum would agree, that YOU have substantiated "nothing" about Dr Ketchum's competence or motives, despite your vociferous claims to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Thank you for your clarification. I did read your original post about this matter and give you the benefit of the doubt in terms of trying to clarify misperceptions on the forum. While you are fairly new to the DNA research arena (newer than Dr. Ketchum) I do find it interesting that you are indicating that it takes time to get DNA done, even (or because of?) using independent labs. If Dr. Ketchum sent blind sample sets out to 13 different labs, then the task becomes more complicated and longer. Any thoughts on that? No problem, and Yes, I have some quick thoughts, I'm not convinced any lab other then her own has received a sample. I don't know that for sure (which is part of the point) but I'd be lying if I said didn't think this was possible. Right now and "here," is not the time or place to disclose why I have strong questions about this, but I do and they will be shared eventually. Regardless, forget reasons I may suspect, I think the bigger question is based on the limited information you have, don't you? And if not what makes you so confident? And I am no dna expert btw, nor plan to be. Just trying to learn enough to be dangerous. With respect to "time," in examinations, I'm correct and will provide evidence of that to go with results when we receive them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Who the hell am I? Somebody that knows a hell of a lot more about DNA than you do and a forum member with equal privileges. If you put it out there then you need to defend it, or not, that's your choice. If you don't you are just one more voice added to the chorus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Mulder- Before even wasting time having a conversation with you, "you" provide proof of your claims that she didn't test, if she did, she's not using her results and she outsourced "blind." if you provide that I'll be impressed and appreciative. In the interim, not wasting time with someone who is behaving biased, and clueless themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pruitt Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Bart didn't claim to be a DNA expert, CT; merely someone who is coordinating the testing of specific samples. That still doesn't qualify you to demand answers or explanations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Ctfoot- No your not (maybe I'm missing something) your CTFoot to me, someone anonymous, I don't know, who's contributed nothing to demand something, in addition to not paying attention to details before commenting based our brief interaction here. equal priveleges here doesn't equal priveleges demanding something outside of here that wasn't even brought up in the conversation. You know more about DNA then me... That's great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Why can't people understand that Matt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Nice diversion BFS. You know what i meant. You are attacking Bart for the same thing you are giving Ketchum a pass on. In particular.... Utter BS! Many of us have said repeatedly that it would have been better all along for her to not say anything other than that she was conducting a study until it came out. The first time we should have heard ANYTHING about the outcome should have been Publication Day. It's not Ketchum's fault that some of the people in on the study couldn't keep their mouths shut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) Who the hell am I? Somebody that knows a hell of a lot more about DNA than you do and a forum member with equal privileges. Edited December 5, 2012 by rockiessquatching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pruitt Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 It's akin to me saying "CTFoot, you claim to know more about DNA than Bart. Prove it. Please post a resume and/or CV for our review, along with an identifying photo proving to all of us that you are who you say you are. Until that time, everything you say should be considered erroneous and deceitful." Obviously, I would never say that. I believe that CTFoot has the education and works in the profession that he claims here on the BFF. I have no reason to doubt that. In fact, I appreciate CTFoot's input; especially given his knowledge and background. I just don't agree with the demands that people place on each other around here. Folks have waited years for Melba's results. I'm sure that waiting just a bit for Bart's won't be too challenging for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 No problem, and Yes, I have some quick thoughts, I'm not convinced any lab other then her own has received a sample. I don't know that for sure (which is part of the point) but I'd be lying if I said didn't think this was possible. Right now and "here," is not the time or place to disclose why I have strong questions about this, but I do and they will be shared eventually. In other words: "Don't trust Ketchum, but DO trust me..." Why should we do that? There are people in this forum who have samples in the study and have received their results. So we have far more reason to "trust" Ketchum than we do you at this point in time. Regardless, forget reasons I may suspect, I think the bigger question is based on the limited information you have, don't you? And if not what makes you so confident? 1) The aforementioned people on this forum who have samples in the study and have said so (southernyahoo being one of them IIRC). 2) The utter illogic of the idea that Ketchum would risk her livelihood by claiming to be undertaking a study, then NOT undertaking a study. I have absolute confidence that a study WAS done. Whether the results ultimately pass peer review or are accepted by the public is another question entirely. Mulder- Before even wasting time having a conversation with you, "you" provide proof of your claims that she didn't test, if she did, she's not using her results and she outsourced "blind." if you provide that I'll be impressed and appreciative. I never claimed that her lab didn't do sequencing for the study. That has nothing to do with the fact that her lab was not the ONLY one contributing to the study. By her own statement samples were sent out to multiple independent labs "blind" to CONFIRM her results, utilizing proper protocols. In the interim, not wasting time with someone who is behaving biased, and clueless themselves Translation: "I'm not going to proffer any evidence to support claims of deception on the part of Ketchum...neener neener neener!" Folks have waited years for Melba's results. I'm sure that waiting just a bit for Bart's won't be too challenging for anyone. I'm perfectly willing to wait for Bart's DNA results. What I'm NOT willing to wait for is Bart's evidence to support his continuing claims of deception on the part of Ketchum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts