Guest Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Question: In Ketchum's last radio show interview on Coast to Coast, she stated that a man gave her hair samples for DNA testing which she later found out that the samples belonged to yet another man who seeemed likeable - was alleged to be a known hoaxer - was disabled - who pleaded to be a part of her study - and who this individual and another man tried to get her to contract with them that led to a dispute over a contract that she never agreed to. Ketchum had also remarked that the original guy who misreresented the samples as his own was now deceased. Does anyone know who these players (deceased or living) might be that Ketchum had referenced??? Robert Schmalzbach and the late Richard Stubstad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 (edited) I've taken to reading science journal articles/reports detailing new species identification, boning up for the hoped for publication of Dr. Ketchum's report. One thing I've noticed it that every report has multiple authors from a variety of disciplines to cover different aspects of the study. I remember very early in this thread there was mention that in an early iteration of the paper the peer reviewers encouraged adding at least one other discipline to the lineup of the authors to lend more strength. Which I still don't get. What is "stronger" than DNA? It is absolutely dispositive. Why do you need pictures, or video, or whatever when you have the sequenced DNA OF the critter? With this study I can see where they would want to have an archeologist, primatologist, and hominologist for starters. A typical "new species" paper will have sections for DNA, morphology, and discussion of environmental niche among other aspects of the discovery. With this paper, based on her press release, there will need to be discussion of morphology outside of an actual specimen (hence the need for video or photographic evidence). Morphology is a common section for discussion of any new species and would need to be addressed. The teams of authors for each paper aren't there to lend duplication of effort in a particular field per se, usually the number of authors are there in order to bring different expertise to bear. Edited December 29, 2012 by BFSleuth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Richard Stubstad http://www.sciencealivenews.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 (edited) Tyler- Very well said partner and right on the nose! It's funny because as much as we talk and have been through together, we still find a couple things here and there where we don't agree or see things differently on... some we never realized. However, the objectives and the prinples (prioritizing truth under any circumstance) are the same, hence it works and I couldn't ask for better. Thanks for all you've done! Edited December 29, 2012 by BartloJays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 (edited) I do support your choice, Justin, Bart and Tyler to do this. And Tyler your approach is one I might of thought to do as well, and in hindsight seen the wisdom of not doing so! Maybe. It is a very difficult landscape to navigate and no one seems to get through without some bruising. I am grateful for your explanations here. Edited December 29, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Richard Stubstad http://www.sciencealivenews.com/ You should start another thread about Stubstad's hypothesis on left and right brain function. It had some interesting points that are worth debating. http://psychology.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=psychology&cdn=education&tm=94&f=10&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2004/04/interhemispheric.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Hey All! Say how's that DNA thing working out ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Hey All! Say how's that DNA thing working out ~ We're still waiting for Ketchum and Sykes. Why do you ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 ****Am I reading this wrong, or are you saying that Justin was never under an NDA with Ketchum? As I thought that he said he was in one of his interviews (with Ro, I think). If he is not, then why not simply tell us what she told him his sample tested as? Thank you Chelefoot as we are almost certain Justin isn't under an NDA and if somehow he is, he was never furnished a copy. I believe when he did the interview, he was unsure as there was a long period he really didn't know until very recently. What he in fact signed was the tissue sample over to Derek so he could get it into Dr. Ketchum's study back in fall of 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 (edited) Hey All! Say how's that DNA thing working out ~ About like a Saturday night turd in a Sunday punch bowl. Edited December 30, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Hey All! Say how's that DNA thing working out ~ need some? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 (edited) Thank you Chelefoot as we are almost certain Justin isn't under an NDA and if somehow he is, he was never furnished a copy. I believe when he did the interview, he was unsure as there was a long period he really didn't know until very recently. What he in fact signed was the tissue sample over to Derek so he could get it into Dr. Ketchum's study back in fall of 2010. ``-Thanks Bart. I had a hard time understanding that if justin was not under NDA why he didn't tell the results of Ketchums findings. Now it makes sense. Thank you for clearing that up for me. And thank you for your hard work on getting us the facts. I appreciate it, immensely. Your time, costs, trouble, etc...is more than most would do and speaks volumes to your character and commitment to the truth. ETA: to fix typo Edited December 30, 2012 by chelefoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 http://youtu.be/_aELcXyjpts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steenburg Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 (edited) Hey All! Say how's that DNA thing working out ~ LOL, Well lets bring you up to date. post 1 said,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Thomas Steenburg Edited December 30, 2012 by steenburg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Thank you Chelefoot as we are almost certain Justin isn't under an NDA and if somehow he is, he was never furnished a copy. I believe when he did the interview, he was unsure as there was a long period he really didn't know until very recently. What he in fact signed was the tissue sample over to Derek so he could get it into Dr. Ketchum's study back in fall of 2010. If Justin is not under a nda what did Ketchum tell him about the sample he sent her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts