Guest Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 (edited) FB/FB asked Ketchum's PR person and it was confirmed they did complete genome sequencing on five samples, which included three individuals, both male and female. Please keep us advised. I was back probing and found this. They did complete genome sequencing on 5 samples, which included three individuals, male and female. So where are the other two? so we have complete genome sequencing on 5 samples, which included 3, but the other 2 are super secret so subtrated 2, so that gives us 3 for the Melba report, minus 1 for the Justin bear dna, which leaves us at,......I don't know. Nothing? Awesome!!! Or maybe one sequence, ummm the enquire wants to know. Edited January 19, 2013 by squatting squatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 19, 2013 SSR Team Share Posted January 19, 2013 This is not rhetorical. Is their anyone out there that actually thinks anything is going to be published? If it does or if it doesn't, i don't see the issue as if it does get published and is positive it would probably validate the species, i don't know. But if it doesn't, it doesn't mean the species isn't any less real and out there. If it does or if it doesn't, i don't see the issue as if it does get published and is positive it would probably validate the species, i don't know. But if it doesn't, it doesn't mean the species isn't any less real or not out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Usually you aren't supposed to submit to more than one journal at a time...... x2! Thought that was pretty strange myself. Must be a pretty important paper if you just hand it over to a couple of different journals, and let the rat race determine the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 So back when 9/11 happened New York just allowed anyone that had experience with DNA to wander in and start trying to ID victims? Maybe they had a sign-in sheet at the door. Hopefully someone in the Medical Examiners Office in NYC can go to their filing cabinet and look up the folder that has the sign-in sheets for the people that made themselves available and see if MK ever signed in. Is this what you really believe happened when the largest DNA lab in the country found itself unable to handle an unprecedented volume of work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 (edited) why would you not double check OTLS report? No need to take OTLS word for it. Just click the link! It is a paper in a forensics journal by authors with first hand knowledge (and involvement) with the Id of 9/11 victims. The article was provided by Mark Devine, the head of the team at the NYMEO that is responsible for all the IDs of 9/11 victims (still active). The paper lists each of the labs vendors involved, and specifies their specific contributions. And to answer your question: in my opinion, Yes Dr Ketchum needs to respond! and heres why! She has that claim on her DNA diagnostics website. She has made that claim on national radio shows, but the NYMEO is pretty difinitive in that she was not involved! So why would she make those claims? Her responding and proving that she was involved would be a huge step in establishing her credibility. because right now, it sure looks like she was telling a bald faced lie, and repoeating it several times over many months. If she is not credible in that claim - well it casts a pretty dark shadow over any other claims she makes - as far as i'm concerned! Well put. My "can't/won't" is about me, b/c if this is true, even "puffery" about her involvement in 911, then it will be the last straw for me. BF Discoverer or not, paper of not. Some things we just don't lie about. ...like claiming to have been a player in the tragedy/clean up of 911. Exploiting people's emotional feelings about 911 would be extremely low, lower than "just" resume puffery. So? Well, I haven't thought my opinion means anything to Dr. Ketchum anytime prior to this, and my determined plea, my call to her Duty as a professional, to report the Sierra Kills apparently fell on deaf ears. Ok, what next? I am not a stake holder or submitter in the study. Just a spectator, who wants it to be solid, and Ketchum to be solid. My motivation to see her fail is zero. But, I can't change facts, or behaviors, i can only moderate my online responses, and so far I have tried to do that. i am afraid if I found out this were an outright lie I might...well, lol, i might have to remove myself from this forum to express myself! What if these bloggers got it wrong, given the atmosphere on the internet, i wouldn't want to be misled...LOL....so? That is the reason for my question, "should she respond if innocent?" it seems an easy thing to do, right? But if it's not true, and the other "stuff" not true, then I could see her ignoring until someone of "worth" asks that question.... I don't know who OTLS! is... but I did notice RL had a comment beneath the blog that is grumpy .from RL? So, I just can't tell.... and feel fairly certain those with a vested interest, or in a better position to do the homework, will tell me... Edited January 19, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 19, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted January 19, 2013 (edited) Usually you aren't supposed to submit to more than one journal at a time...... ^Right it is this and a combination of additional sophomoric errors/gaffs that have made this comedic. Hope we are all going away laughing to the republication of the tree of life after this one still. Not sure what the 911.DNA thing is all about but it takes another puff of wind out of the sails if it is true. Edited January 19, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Oh for goodness sake. I finally found the blog in question and went to the link to the article in Forensic Magazine and what do I find? "To help with these issues, the OCME created a Laboratory Network of both public and private organizations that made major contributions to the identification of WTC victims. Some of these included:" Then it lists six of the biggest contributors to the effort. It's quite clear that it isn't a comprehensive list of vendors. The e-mail OTLS received back from the Office of the Medical Examiner of NY looks to me to be a generic response and directs them to the Forensic Magazine article which clearly states that only some of the organizations are listed. I don't know for a fact that Dr. Ketchum was involved in 9/11 forensic identification, but I do know this doesn't prove she wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Oh for goodness sake. I finally found the blog in question and went to the link to the article in Forensic Magazine and what do I find? "To help with these issues, the OCME created a Laboratory Network of both public and private organizations that made major contributions to the identification of WTC victims. Some of these included:" Then it lists six of the biggest contributors to the effort. It's quite clear that it isn't a comprehensive list of vendors. The e-mail OTLS received back from the Office of the Medical Examiner of NY looks to me to be a generic response and directs them to the Forensic Magazine article which clearly states that only some of the organizations are listed. I don't know for a fact that Dr. Ketchum was involved in 9/11 forensic identification, but I do know this doesn't prove she wasn't. Read it again Scott. Dr Devine clearly states this is a complete list. why not ask Melba about it, she should be able to clear all this up! essentially, on this issue the ball is clearly in melba and the appologists court. Accurate documentation saying all of the vendors that were involved - and her companies - shelterwood and DNA diagnostics are no where to be found (to answer another question here, shelterwood is claimed to have started in 1985, 16 years befiore 9/11) At this point it is up to melba to prove she was actively involved - because all of the fact checking with the proper authoritiys comes back negative! see how thats done, actual checking of facts and information with people with expertise and knowledge to provide correct answers, you ought to try it some time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 I did not see the link to the OTLS blog to check further, my thoughts are that she may not have been one of the initial labs to do DNA recovery. My understanding is that labs are still trying to finish up with this all these years later. Possibly her lab was utilized in some later DNA identifications? Just trying to consider other possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 19, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted January 19, 2013 (edited) ....... There should be some kind of clause on all those NDA's that specifies that if the signer reaches their 80th birthday and the "study" still hasn't made it into print, said NDA and all conditions contained therein shall be null and void. Exactly a sunset clause provision should be one of the foremost considerations every BF researcher should build into their negotiations in the future with these kinds of "efforts". After all, you are significantly contributing to the outcome and deserve equal (or at least fair) consideration in the process. Edited January 19, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 I have not the time or energy to work on it, or really care, but it would be an interesting thing to see a comprehensive list of all the red flags about this study from the beginning. I have said this several times. One thing that grabbed my attention early was her claim that she had no interest or belief in this phenomenon when first approached about this study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 I did some research on her part in the WTC testing way back when this came up the first time in this thread & found a reference to her part in it from the site of a University in Ft. Worth, Tx. It must have been a "trickle down" thing. From what I understood then, the big University labs received huge amounts of samples. There were so many that they were inundated & started sending them out to various labs, that were qualified to do forensics testing to help them. These labs donated their services, & there was almost no recognition for what they did. She never said that she was there, "signing the book" & digging in the carnage. She said she "helped with the testing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Exactly a sunset clause provision should be one of the foremost considerations every BF researcher should build into their negotiations in the future with these kinds of "efforts". After all, you are significantly contributing to the outcome and deserve equal (or at least fair) consideration in the process. In regards to this subject that will most likley get you shown the door real quick IMO Mainstream science doesn't need bigfoot to fund its endeavors, there's plenty of way cool stuff to discover without the burden/risk/reward proposition that a myth is scientifically real/probable would bring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 19, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted January 19, 2013 Yah, but if you stick together as a set of researchers and just go with the bromance, you can impact the world! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 I did some research on her part in the WTC testing way back when this came up the first time in this thread & found a reference to her part in it from the site of a University in Ft. Worth, Tx. It must have been a "trickle down" thing. From what I understood then, the big University labs received huge amounts of samples. There were so many that they were inundated & started sending them out to various labs, that were qualified to do forensics testing to help them. These labs donated their services, & there was almost no recognition for what they did. She never said that she was there, "signing the book" & digging in the carnage. She said she "helped with the testing". Thanks for clearing that up Sas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts