Guest Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 (edited) Sasfooty, look up Arthur J. Eisenberg. He was director of the UNT HSC Center for Human Identification and served on the Kinship and Data Analysis Panel that was established days after 9/11 to help establish the protocols used by Robert Shaler and the OCME. I still can't establish Dr. Ketchums involvement but UNT's is documented. BTW, slowstepper, Mark Desire was not in charge of the investigation as you suggest. That would be Robert Shaler, the fellow that wrote in the Forensics Magazine article that the list contained only some of the organizations involved. Edited January 19, 2013 by ScottG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Thank you, ScottG! I remember finding her name on either the UNT website or in an online journal of some kind, while trying to find documentation a couple of years ago. I think there was a list there of geneticists that had been involved, but I don't remember if I saved a link to it. The UNT site seems to have been done over since then & it's likely that it's no longer there anyway, if that's where I saw it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 SweetSusieQ is apparently on the inside with the DNA insiders. Perhaps she can clear this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Scott, here's something that I found at the time, but I don't remember if I ever pursued it. 233 - NCSTL Aug 22, 2010 – ... Bulbin Sunar-Reeder, Elen Ortenberg, Melba Ketchum, ... Identification of World Trade Center Victims • 63(3) Theoretical ... 1261 International Congress Series 24 • April/2004 • http://www.sciencedirect.com /science? ... www.ncstl.org/search/.../878E8EFCF92477D7B54F714030C39C4E?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Even in your worst case scenario, people can lie about one thing, and still be good at another. Tiger Woods lied to his wife, and was the best golfer of all time. Lance Armstrong doped up and lied about it, and generated hundreds of millions of dollars for cancer research. Manti T'eo may have hoaxed his girlfriend, but was the best defensive player in the country. So maybe Melba Ketchum lied about working on identifying WTC victims (no proof of that yet), does that make her bigfoot research invalid? She may be a horrible person for all you know, or she may be an absolute angel, either way, who cares? Is it a requirement that someone lives up to your moral standards for you to accept their research? Or are the A's, C's, G's, and T's all the same regardless of who is working on them? Isn't that what makes science great? Her study is going to be exposed as legit or phoney and there is no in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 (edited) Even in your worst case scenario, people can lie about one thing, and still be good at another. Tiger Woods lied to his wife, and was the best golfer of all time. Lance Armstrong doped up and lied about it, and generated hundreds of millions of dollars for cancer research. Manti T'eo may have hoaxed his girlfriend, but was the best defensive player in the country. So maybe Melba Ketchum lied about working on identifying WTC victims (no proof of that yet), does that make her bigfoot research invalid? She may be a horrible person for all you know, or she may be an absolute angel, either way, who cares? Is it a requirement that someone lives up to your moral standards for you to accept their research? Or are the A's, C's, G's, and T's all the same regardless of who is working on them? Isn't that what makes science great? Her study is going to be exposed as legit or phoney and there is no in between. I don't think we will ever see the ACGT, this is the plan, delay forever and try and stay a pseudo-bigfoot celibrity doing the footer talk show rounds and conventions based entirely on your unproven hypothesis. Manti T'eo had an invisible girlfriend, Dr. Ketchum has an invisible paper, maybe it's just Bigfoot that's invisible. Edited January 19, 2013 by LTBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Scott, here's something that I found at the time, but I don't remember if I ever pursued it. 233 - NCSTL Aug 22, 2010 – ... Bulbin Sunar-Reeder, Elen Ortenberg, Melba Ketchum, ... Identification of World Trade Center Victims • 63(3) Theoretical ... 1261 International Congress Series 24 • April/2004 • http://www.sciencedirect.com /science? ... www.ncstl.org/search/.../878E8EFCF92477D7B54F714030C39C4E?... All you showed with this is how you are able to trim/skew information to suit your agenda. The interesting part here is what exactly does the ... between Ketchum, and Identification.. represent? Answer? A load of other articles. The article with Ketchums name attached to it is titled "A Low-Cost, High-Throughput, Automated Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Assay for Forensic Human DNA Applications". The article referencing WTC is titled "Issues and Strategies in the DNA Identification of World Trade Center Victims" and does not list Ketchum as an author. Source: http://www.ncstl.org...By=URL&page=294 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 (edited) 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". I too came upon this same information when this matter was first questioned back when. I am trying to find the starting link and retrace my steps, but I came away after reading the info with the same conclusion that Sasfooty did above. Edited January 19, 2013 by people booger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Thanks, PB. I knew I didn't just imagine it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 I don't know why Dr. Ketchum is mum these days, and while she said too much before, now I am uncomfortable with her silence. ... Two Questions: 1. Is she still posting on FaceBook? 2. I feel her publicist, Robin Lynne, has some responsibility here. Does anyone agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Agreed 100%, going quite now seems odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted January 20, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 20, 2013 I am not so sure how legit this sight might be but if what it says in this blog or report it might be the reason why they could be silent.Here is the link which is updated to January 18 2013: http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/texas-dna-specialist-writes-that-sasquatch-is-a-modern-human-being/ you can read it and make your own judgement.Like i have said before it does not bother me one bit since i have personally encountered these creatures myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 I am not so sure how legit this sight might be but if what it says in this blog or report it might be the reason why they could be silent.Here is the link which is updated to January 18 2013: http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/texas-dna-specialist-writes-that-sasquatch-is-a-modern-human-being/ you can read it and make your own judgement.Like i have said before it does not bother me one bit since i have personally encountered these creatures myself. That's what people have been talking about for the last 3 pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) I don't know why Dr. Ketchum is mum these days, and while she said too much before, now I am uncomfortable with her silence. Funny, b/c you are voicing what many of us feel, and also see the irony in: if she speaks it isn't enough, and if she doesn't it's suspect! The paper published would change that focus IMO. I want to thank Sasfooty and Sunflower for taking on this discussion and finding information that supports Mk's claim. I kind of feel bad these nice people are the front line here, and wonder where all the others went. Weren't there more (back say a year ago?) that would speak to the critics here, or deliver news from the inside? Did we chase them off? This should be the training ground for what they may face with the Public awakening JMHO. But, I do miss Science Critics unbridled optimism (or even Parn's determined minimizing! Where did he go..?).. I do not like that the many have gone quiet either, and feel like I am one who hasn't gotten the memo that this is over, or with a pub date! I think in terms of peer-review it is over? When I ran the possibility by my family the reaction was: I should have expected this outcome! (aren't all BFers insane?) And yet it made me angry/sad... because I have held deep hope that objective data would be released...oh, a year ago or so...and still holding out that hope...fading though! So, that's how it goes from BFdom to society.. I lose track sometimes of just how ingrained a denial of BFs existence is entrenched in the popular culture..or my kids! How long does one hope for a paper to be accepted, how many Journals to submit? Do the many submitters have any say? I have avoided reading any published NDAs b/c I don't want an opinion on their efficacy...but each person who holds one should have answers to any questions they have about it..... (with 100 samples there must be about 30 or so submitters?). When things take an unexpected route contracts written with a certain view often become unworkable, and the avenues to change that are many.. Otherwise if I didn't get the memo on this please enlighten me.. I tend to remain loyal to ideas or hopes long after the obvious...sometimes it pays off, mostly it just keeps me a few paces behind...which is Okay too.... not much I can do about anything, Edited January 20, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Apehuman I understand how you feel . I to had high hopes for this study . If you think the people that don't believe/know are irritating on this forum , try a forum very removed from the subject . When it is brought up there it enough to make a person unhinged .The best part of the naysayers here is they are informed as well as we are on the subject . IMHO opinion all that separates us from them is a personal experience . Don't get too down . The information I have found about MK's integrity makes any hope of results from her study , a bad bet imho . Look at the Sykes study instead . The only reason I visit this thread from time to time is to read your posts . I admire the way you think . I also admire your sense of honor . There are even times I feel guilty for all of the lawyer jokes I tell . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts