Guest Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I'm waiting for a picture to surface on Facebook of someone holding a sign saying 'Melba Ketchum told me she'll release her data, and video if I get a million likes.' I wonder if the video she's holding has crystal clear footage of a snipe? Priceless. Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 @ CTFoot: my last may have come across as a bit harsh, but it really is on the people who are claiming that the Ketchum study is "bunk", etc to put up some evidence to buttress that claim. If any of your have actually seen it and are in a position to actually cite from it, then do so. Otherwise your position has no intrinsic merit and the legitimacy of the study rests as it has from the beginning on the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 The Trent study of the Smeja sample used the good 'ole primer method, so quite clearly, not all of the labs out there are using the new sequencing methods. It seems that many geneticists are still quite unfamiliar with the new methods. If Ketchum used one of the new, high-speed sequencing methods, then this might actually cause a problem with reviewers, because they would be unfamiliar with and possibly doubt the method. Remember, bigfoot does not exist, so any evidence proving that bigfoots exist must be flawed, and what better way to create flawed evidence than to reject it due to your own ignorance. A "primer" is exactly that. All it does is latches onto a short section of known genetic code, and gives the PCR enzymes a place to start replicating DNA. The primer does not change the sequence of the replicated DNA, it just chooses which section of DNA gets replicated. Without the correct primer, it may not be possible to get enough DNA to sequence. The new methods replicate everything and sequence everything. Ketchum does a lot of crime lab work, and to explain how sensitive the new techniques are, likes to tell a story about how she once obtained the genetic sequence of a murder from the carcass of a dog that the murderer killed and buried at the same time as he committed the murders. The carcass had been buried for well over a year. The DNA of the murderer likely came from a few, partially preserved epithelial cells that were rubbed off by the fur of the dog, while the murderer was handling the dog's carcass. If a bigfoot leaves a greasy hand print on a window, get out the cotton swab, scrape it over the oily print, and send it in. It may even be possible to collect DNA from a footprint. There are many geneticists who doubt this kind of sensitivity, because they are only familiar with normal, primer-based PCR. They might accept it to send someone to the electric chair, but would never accept it as proof that bigfoots exist. Great post, thanks..and to GenesRus....it's why I like this forum, some very smart people willing to use their expertise to answer BF specific questions! It is a prize really, this forum, in spite of the limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 That is "a" scientist. ........... That is "the Russian Scientist" involved with the Ketchum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I'd like just once for someone to pony up some evidence that Russian scientists are somehow inferior to Western ones. This meme is getting old. How about some evidence that anything from Russia is equal or superiour to anything from AMERICA!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Just as a side note, I seen over on the BE that a Russian governor has offered about 30K for capture or proof of Yeti. There you go Melba, heres your chance to pay some debts-- go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 How about some evidence that anything from Russia is equal or superiour to anything from AMERICA!!! Current space program. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I'd like just once for someone to pony up some evidence that Russian scientists are somehow inferior to Western ones. This meme is getting old. Mulder, I'm sure there are some Russian journals that are respected by the scientific community. I think that, as far as Bigfoot is concerned, there is some merit to questioning the credibility of a Russian journal. Mostly because we have seen some hoaxes that were backed by Russian scientists and media. Remember the recent debacle with Meldrum? However, my personal concern lies with a very simple question. In the even that MK's study is NOT released in an American scientific journal; why would a Russian journal publish it? The obvious answer is they have lower standards or would be willing to publish it for financial gain. Again, I'm not saying all Russian journals have low standards or have issues with corruption. In all seriousness; which do you think would be more reputable, an American scientific journal or a Russian scientific journal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 How about some evidence that anything from Russia is equal or superiour to anything from AMERICA!!! Education? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Almost a year ago Dr. Ketchum anounced on her facebook page that the paper would be published soon. Here we are one year later and no one has confirmed that the paper has been accepted for publication. Comments suggested by the Russian scientist suggests that the paper has been rejected by American Journals. I am not optimitic that this paper will ever see the light of day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 That is "the Russian Scientist" involved with the Ketchum. And that proves that their journals are deficient how? Is he the sole reviewer, publisher and contributer to all scientific journals in Russia? How about some evidence that anything from Russia is equal or superiour to anything from AMERICA!!! Oh no you don't, Darrell...the claim is that Russian Journals are "bunk" and not acceptable venues for publication. Your side makes that claim. Prove it. In all seriousness; which do you think would be more reputable, an American scientific journal or a Russian scientific journal? I think a scientific journal's "reputability" has nothing to do with it's nationality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) I don't know? Maybe it's just me, but I view publishing with a Russian journal as selling out. I, personally, would never settle for lesser standards. Still leaves me scratching my head why, if the data is so compelling, did Nature reject it? If the data is real, it isn't fringe, and journals should be waiting in line to publish it. It's a pretty big discovery, right? Edited January 23, 2013 by PacNWSquatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Well, the pro Ketchum camp is so vested in her study solving the question they are'nt being objective anymore. Personal attacks aside, this woman has made a huge mess of everything she has touched. Why keep apologizing for her and just cut your losses? There are better people to give your trust to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I don't know? Maybe it's just me, but I view publishing with a Russian journal as selling out. I, personally, would never settle for lesser standards. Still leaves me scratching my head why, if the data is so compelling, did Nature reject it? If the data is real, it isn't fringe, and journals should be waiting in line to publish it. It's a pretty big discovery, right? Perfectly said. It is baffling that people are still making excuses. I would think that a reputable geneticist with half a day to study the data would end the debate. If compelling it get's published and is one of the biggest finds in scientific history. It is implausable to believe that it is being sent back again and again for minor corrections. If the data is there, fifty editors get assigned the project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) Education? 'Ra-Ra-Rasputin Russia's greatest love machine It was a shame how he carried on' Edited January 23, 2013 by JackiLB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts