Guest VioletX Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 I think it's how one presents the question, it now seems harmless enough but at the time it was an odd question out of left field. True it was a bit random, from what I saw, someone sent her the info on the FB page and she was wanting to see if there was any merit to it and thought someone here might know the answer...I guess no one does, because I do not think anyone has spoken to the original question...if they do know they could always message her at any rate. ; D Apologies however i thought a simple cut and paste of the email was better than editing it to nothing and then posting. My intention is to share information and keep people informed of what I know. I am not some evil mastermind involved in any one 'camp' ready to take down renouned researchers. As i just said to V i'm just a mama that believes in bigfoot. Peace. Much Love. X What? No diabolical plans??? Ah well...back to work then ; D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 (edited) Mwahhahahahaha!!!!!!! (head thrown back in an evil laugh Edited December 27, 2012 by kezra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 (edited) Mulder since you are one of the more vocal proponents of the Ketchum study, I thought I'd ask what your confidence level is in the study as of today? Do you feel she has authentic sasquatch DNA as claimed? What happens if she never releases any paper or results? (as to date she has not) Are you prepared to "eat crow" if this study proved to be a failure as you have asked skeptics to do should this be successful? Also, do you feel like Ketchums results are strong enough to prove bigfoot? My feelings about the Ketchum study are complex, so this will take a bit. I'll try not to meander too much and keep it as simple as I can: Do I think she has DNA from a hitherto unknown N American hominid or primate? I think it very likely. I know quite well they exist (close range, unambiguous sighting), so sooner or later someone has to "get the goods" to make a dispositive case for the Lab Coat boys. Whatever results she has, they're at least good enough for her to put in years, untold amounts of money and risk her professional reputation. I can't see her doing this over "nothing", and I definitely can't see her making the whole thing up. Do I think that her interpretation of that DNA as being a new member of genus Homo is correct? I don't know for certain. If that is what the results show (and they stand up to analysis), I'll accept it, but I admit that I still lean towards the "ape" theory. If that seems out of step with my vigorous defense of Ketchum, see the above. I will also say that I think it would have been much better for her to not have gotten into the "what is it" debate at this point in time and simply locked down the issue of "it exists". I know that I agree with some of the criticisms that have been put out there about the handling of the study from a PR perspective. Ideally, we should have known NOTHING about the study until the results came out and were ready for publication. Maybe that's wishful thinking, given the "gossipy" nature of the BF community (among others). I also think that she may have let her excitement over what she clearly believes is a major discovery get to her. Lastly, there's the issue of "acceptance". Given all that I've seen and read about the very orthodox and change-resistant nature of the "scientific community", I think that any "game changer" theory or finding has a huge uphill battle to fight to reach acceptance. The history of science as an institution bears this out. I could see the study, even with very good base data, being kicked to the curb over interpretation (see my comments above). I know that if there is any wiggle room at all, there will be people trying to dismiss it or ignore it. If I had to lay odds (and I'm not a professional odds maker), my honest assessment at this point would be: ---- She has the goods and the study (as revised) is airtight and cannot possibly be questioned: 1 in 4 She has the goods, but the study, while less than airtight, will wind up starting a fairly serious debate: 1 in 4 She has the goods, but the study will be questioned for one or more factors and also start (continue actually) a serious debate: 1 in 8 She has the goods, but the study will be rejected unfairly: 1 in 4 She doesn't have the goods, and the study will rightly be utterly rejected: 1 in 8 ---- That is as honest an assessment as I can give you right now. I'm hurt I truly am. And I will not address any part of your post except the last one. I HAVE NEVER ADVOCATING ANYTHING OTHER THAN TAKING A TYPE SPECIMEN. Obviously if I'm out in the field and I find a jaw bone or something compelling that would prove it's existence without killing one? I would do my utmost to protect the species from that day forward. Period. End of story. I quote you (from post #12176): Yanno I'm a pretty loud pro kill proponent on this forum, but I'll gladly park my rifle if she has some evidence to back up her claims.......I don't care if it's human, proto human or ape. ---- As you have not with regards to Tontar's participation in a trackway hoax, so what's the big deal? Give it up Drew. I pointed to the same evidence as everyone else (the IP addy). If you chose not to accept the evidence, that's on you. Um, Well, did you see the part of the testing results posted by Tyler that the mDNA was Eastern Europe and the Caucasus and actually matched Justin's DNA? Now, if memory serves - didn't Melba say the exact same thing about her sample - that the mDNA was Eastern Europe and the Caucasus - but without the match with Justin's DNA..... ?? Maybe it's just a coincidence. Because Justin is the only human in the us with mtDNA from Eastern Europe/the Caucasus...right? *shakes head* Reaching, Melissa...really reaching... Ketchum's previous publicist said the shooting sample was in the study. EVERY sample tested is "in the study". Doesn't mean that every sample is claimed to be diagnostic for the "unknown". Gonna keep pointing that out until it sinks in around here. I suppose it could be as some kind of "negative" but that seems unlikely. Why? Of the over 100 samples, only ~20 tested + for the human mtDNA. Of those, only 3 had good enough nuDNA to fully sequence. Derek Randles all but stated he was told the sample was BF. See his account of the shooting on the Olympic Project site and "read into that what you will". So, it's a "he said" situation then. What a mess. On this we absolutely agree. Edited December 27, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 EVERY sample tested is "in the study". Doesn't mean that every sample is claimed to be diagnostic for the "unknown". Gonna keep pointing that out until it sinks in around here. That's not going to sink in here. Comments from Randles, Smeja and Ramey (including a damage control appearance in a blogtalk chatroom during Smeja's first interview) aside, I'm not sure how Ketchum can tell an interviewer just three days ago she believes Justin's story if the sample didn't test out as BF to her satisfaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 I can't prove that Bigfoot does not possess extra sensory abilities so I want try. Here is one of the problems: Dr. Ketchum's publicist thinks that a family of bigfoot, bang on her porch with sticks when she forgets to feed them. She can't take their picture because of these extra sensory abilities. Does this alone mean we can't trust her DNA work? I would think not, but again add all the pieces of information that we know and the picture is not pretty. We are going, I'm sure, to be told it is just the evil scientific community that is out to get her. Whether or not any of her work is trustworthy is for someone else to decide. She is her own worst enemy, and it it hard to believe it took her so long to figure out who the kooks, hoaxers, and numbskulls in the Bigfoot community were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 (edited) That's not going to sink in here. Comments from Randles, Smeja and Ramey (including a damage control appearance in a blogtalk chatroom during Smeja's first interview) aside, I'm not sure how Ketchum can tell an interviewer just three days ago she believes Justin's story if the sample didn't test out as BF to her satisfaction. It's possible to believe Justin's story and still find his submitted sample doesn't support it, slim. I also should point out that she explicitly stayed AWAY from the story in the recent C2C interview. Would not talk about it. Edited December 27, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 "I'm not sure how Ketchum can tell an interviewer just three days ago she believes Justin's story if the sample didn't test out as BF to her satisfaction." Where did she say this? I missed it. Was in on the C2C interview? If so what part? Thanks, SW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 ^No, in the C2C interview, she explicitly would not comment on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 It's possible to believe Justin's story and still find his submitted sample doesn't support it, slim. I also should point out that she explicitly stayed AWAY from the story in the recent C2C interview. Would not talk about it. I can understand why she wouldn't talk about it. In her Calgary AM appearance, the interviewer seemed knowledgeable and pressed her several times about the "tissue" in her study. It was obvious she didn't want to go there (other than affirming the question) and the interviewer backed off. She has enough problems without publicly revealing one of her samples came from a purported Bigfoot shooting. That revelation *will* be another firestorm. And yes, it's possible Randles is being deceptive and Ramey was in a blogtalk chatroom telling people how to pronounce Smeja's name for a minor "negative" sample, but I happen to think it's highly unlikely. If I hear thunder and my dog come in soaking wet, I'm going to assume it's raining. ^No, in the C2C interview, she explicitly would not comment on it. Not true. I'll find it after I pick up my kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoLd Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 My feelings about the Ketchum study are complex, so this will take a bit. I'll try not to meander too much and keep it as simple as I can: Do I think she has DNA from a hitherto unknown N American hominid or primate? I think it very likely. I know quite well they exist (close range, unambiguous sighting), so sooner or later someone has to "get the goods" to make a dispositive case for the Lab Coat boys. Hi Mulder, I don't know if you have posted the details of your sighting on the BFF or elsewhere, but if you had posted it on here then I must have missed it. I would love to read the account, if it is available online please share a link or a website. To me the most compelling evidence is the thousands of eye witness accounts, and this more than anything else, keeps the possibility alive for me. Thanks, GoLdD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 ^"One of her samples" that NO ONE can demonstrate she has EVER said that tested positive for her "unknown". Lots of claims that she said it, but not one person has linked to any proof that she did. As you point out, she steers clear of the issue in interviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Hi there, I've just listened to the C2C interview and Dr. Ketchum says she believes the Justin Smeja story. Best. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Here you go Kezra, a link to Doubtful News where it mention's Robin Lynn Pfeifer's presence in Russia about half way down the middle of the article: http://doubtfulnews.com/2011/10/american-bigfoot-scientists-and-researchers-felt-hoodwinked-by-russian-yeti-event/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 (edited) Thanks, Lee. I missed it. Can you tell me approximately where (minutes/seconds mark) where she said it? Edited December 27, 2012 by Thepattywagon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 (edited) Hi there, I've just listened to the C2C interview and Dr. Ketchum says she believes the Justin Smeja story. Best. Lee Which isn't the same as saying (as some are implying) that the Smeja sample is one of her "unknown" samples. Thanks, Lee. I missed it. Can you tell me approximately where (minutes/seconds mark) where she said it? At about 1:53:00 Edited December 27, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts