The Ketchum Report

[Guest BartloJays]

Her lab doesn't and never did do whole genome sequencing. That is done by expensive machines these days. So go ahead and believe what you want, It's all posturing at this point. When the cards get played, I think you'll be folding.

You really think I'll be folding if she were to succeed ha?

Really, why? Because I don't want discovery (life passion) to happen more then anything, as I enjoy being in on the little bigfoot secret and hope that the mystery (to my immediate's) lasts the rest of my life? Because I want to see those whom I care about tremendously with monetary, emotional or physical investment who went through lot of hard work obtaining samples have to go through a headache or disappointment? Because I didn't think the people (peers and friends) who share parallel interests and objectives are humbled enough and another public embarrassment is desperately needed at this time? Because my year and a half involvement, time spent etc.... in investigating the Sierras case (that brought forth potential circumstantial evidence she examined) means little to me? Think....asinine insinuation with respect to me.

At the end of the day (all facts out), she's successful etc.. for those that didn't see value in the decisions we've made based on information we've had, and understand the necessity and insurance of independent substantiation, I'll happily eat a little crow just for them...in between serving mountains of it to my family and friends.

I hope you're right but I think you, as someone who's emotionally & physically invested and have made defintive statements in support without your own substantiation, should be concerned what may not be in the cards. You really don't know firsthand what her lab has done or not done, because you've only been told, right? As a submitter, have you directly spoken to the outsourced parties and confirmed their participation? How about the cute little NDA I read a few months back, happen to sign that? I I think you should check your own cards before worrying about what hand you think I'm playing.

Don't think of me as your adversary (I want you to be right), think of me as like your cop brother that's over-suspicious for your taste sometimes, but who does care.

Let's see how it plays

How is asking a question a demand? I am pretty sure some of the testing done on Smeja's samples are complete, at least enough at this time for Bart to draw his conclusions. So he comments on red flags, you better believe I can ask why, they probably aren't any different than the ones I have based on my knowledge of the processes involved, but no one told him he had to answer, including me. I take his previous epistles about insider knowledge as just that, more "blah, blah" no different than Igor, RL, Stubstad and the rest of the crowd's contributions. It plainly says in the guidelines that extraordinary claims.......well you know the drill. I've explained ad nauseum why I have the opinion I have. Can't say the same for everyone else, but if you come here to set us all straight there is no reason to assume that your word alone is good enough. I see the "entitlement" factor being more your issue than mine whether anyone else agrees, or not, suit yourselves.

CTFoot-

You didn't ask, you demanded, tried to insult me and purposely misinterpreted my position and what was said. I clearly stated why I popped in here (like to periodically) answered a few questions here and stated my position. In reality, you can take it or leave it as I'm not here looking for some support.

From the beginning when we announced what we're doing as a precautionary measure with other positives (like transparency and roadmap for other researchers to expedite process), I stated when we receive lab reports, we will then immediately consolidate everything and write brief summaries absent any conjecture or interpretation (not our job or area of expertise) and share them. I expect everybody to hold us to that btw.

I also said I will not update results prior to us receiving conclusions because I think it's irresponsible. And no, I don't think it's irresponsible to state my position when I'm repeatedly asked, by understandable, perceived association, and that can be addressed in one intended blanket statement. I'm not shy about my position and don't owe you or anybody else anymore information or details then I've given right now. Of course, some are going to come out of the woodwork and feel entitled to know information, try to read through my statement and speculate etc... again...I didn't come here to set you straight.... because of your attitude and insinuations, now I'm having to set you straight.

[southernyahoo]

Let's see how it plays

Oh we can do that, but without the back biting. I understand the sense you have about double checking things, but also see that it is as much about being in the know, as it is making sure there is real science going on for you. You have two labs or three working on a double check, but on one sample. Remember that Ketchum has alot more samples, and a bigger picture to look at. It would be much easier to see the cogency of evidence that would approach the level of proof. Some of those initial red flags you may see in the evidence or interpretations may be the very things that make the samples unique and very interesting, if not inexplicable.

[Guest]

It's what I've been saying since I started posting, but you know, who the hell am I? If you make a claim back it up, if you don't believe or understand me when I qoute GenBank and other reputable research maybe you'll believe someone who does this for a living everyday and is considered "the expert" who puts it in laymen's terms. This should put an end to this nonsense.

I enjoy reading your posts because you seem to be very knowledgable on this subject.

[Guest]

Hey Mulder. How about this for a reason to doubt credibility?

Feel free to tear this guy apart. Might want to read up on his CV first.

Disotell spells it all out right here:

http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/12/dna-experts-view-of-the-ketchum-bigfoot-dna-claim/

IMHO, Disorell, must hacked most of his "in the dark" opinions ( speculations ) from excerpts already hashed out on this forum.

[Guest]

That would be very convenient for you wouldn't it.

[Guest slimwitless]

It might be a good time for one or more of the supposed 10+ co-authors to make an appearance. On the other hand, if they really knew the paper was on the verge of publication, why would they subject themselves to ridicule. See how that works? The peer review (or illusion thereof) is fueling all kinds of speculation on both sides and keeping us from getting at the truth. The prevailing wisdom in the media is that this is either a hoax or Ketchum is crazy. It's too long-winded and well-orchestrated for a hoax. Stubstad thought she was (perhaps) a bit eccentric but on the level. The leaks of nine months ago are in the press release. Was that planned in advance to add authenticity? There hasn't been any grumbling from the sample providers. Are they all so willing to believe? If the idea was to bilk Hersom out of a small fortune, why bother with a press release? A sudden need for attention after five years of relative silence? It doesn't make sense. If she's out of her depth, the paper would never be in peer review in the first place and if it's not in peer review, we're back to hoax. Is there a gray area? A real paper with enough meat to be considered but enough questions to prevent publication; maybe a serious effort that veered into Biscardi country? It's perplexing.

It's late and I don't have any answers. Part of me thinks the press release was a last-ditch effort to light a fire under the journal and if it doesn't work, we'll see the paper on the NABS website with a long diatribe about how scientists are too afraid to deal with the subject. I hope I'm wrong. I'm sure I am.

Maybe we should put Disotell in contact with Rob Lowe.

[Guest]

Think Russia.

[Guest]

Part of me thinks the press release was a last-ditch effort to light a fire under the journal and if it doesn't work, we'll see the paper on the NABS website with a long diatribe about how scientists are too afraid to deal with the subject.

I had the exact same thought's today. Igor's supposed leak I do not believe was accident at all. Totally orchestrated and planned. I also think they are playing the angle of "if the American's don't want this the Russian's will beat you to it". As I stated before. My money is on it being in a Russian Journal.

[Guest]

I'm not sure if Bart, DR, or Smeja can answer this, but why is there such a disconnect in everybody's opinion with the study? It seems as if they are all good buddies, and are privy to most of the same information, yet they all have differing opinions. Like, for instance, you have Bobo referencing the Ketchum study on his media blitz, as if there is something of substance to the study. Then you have Bart saying something altogether different, and he is boys with Smeja, so he'd probably know something that maybe we all don't, and then you have DR, who seems to know things too, and is friends with all these guys. And MM seems to have a completely opposite opinion than Bobo. What gives?

Edited December 6, 2012 by PacNWSquatcher

[Guest]

Well that was a few minutes of my life I'll never get back..........Anyway, is this thing going to publish today? It is Thursday today. I'm going with probably not.

[Guest slimwitless]

Now this is interesting. A distinguished microbiologist whose "name is known all over the world"?

LINK

Well that was a few minutes of my life I'll never get back..........Anyway, is this thing going to publish today? It is Thursday today. I'm going with probably not.

Sorry, I have a philosophy minor.

[Guest Renie]

Prob. not today or not at all according to Igor

http://bigfooteviden...a.html?spref=fb

Igor Burtsev

Yes, the paper of Dr Ketchum is under reviewing. And it is worth to be published. Just the situation now remindes me the war between North and South in the beginning of USA history... There are a lot of her supporters as well as a lot of her opponents and even some enemies...

The problem is that some people absolutize the science. Unfortunately science now is too conservative. One third of the population of the USA believes in BFs existing, but academic science even does not want to recognize the problem of their existing or not, just rejecting to dicuss this question. In such a condition this subject is under discussion of the broad public. We can't wait decades when scientists start to study this problem, forest people need to be protect now, not after half a sentury, when science wakes up.

Re the paper: the reviewed journals in the US refused to publish the paper. That is why Dr Ketchum has sent it to me to arrange publishing in any Russian reviewd journal. And I showed to our genetisits and understood that it was a serious work. I gave it up to the journal, now it's under reviewing.

Anyway, I informed public about the results of the study. The public waited for this info for more than a year, a lot of rumors were spreading around. And the public has the right to know it nevertheless "science" says about it.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Renie

[Guest TH68]

Shawn Evidence just posted a comment from Tim Fasano saying that Dr. Ketchum's paper was rejected. No peer review. Dr. Burtsev said it will be submitted to a Russian Journal.

First we have to consider the source. If true this is disappointing but not surprising. Remember Galileo.

OK it is time for action. Mr. Smeja, please roll out the body. Failing that, Texas, time to step up and produce one.

this will be an interesting day.

[Ronnie Bass]

I found Shawn's blog and he doesn't quote Fasano but someone else.

If true it got rejected then if you have to wonder if its the data or the theory she might have been pushing, if the latter then she might have made a hugh error in not letting the data speak for itself.

[Oonjerah]

Hi-res video?