The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

If anyone at all did. ^^. It's looking more and more like the purchase/journal/review may be a grand fabrication. Also, there should be a steady stream of info leaking out about the co-authors by now. Were they skeptical at first? Nuetral to bf? Were they weekend bigfooters? Lots of questions need answers Melba, and a few Facebook posts ain't going to cut it. Full disclosure is needed.

Yup. That's what I was getting at with my letter. Full disclosure is needed soon. I'd also like to see correspondence that demonstrates the bias she has encountered. That may be perceived as an extreme measure but right now, people don't believe in the validity of the study. If it fails on poor science or reasoning, then fair enough but if it failed to even get a look-see because of the perception of Bigfoot, then we need to see that evidence.

[southernyahoo]

<p>

I don't think there will be much if any samples to retest for verification

There will be some.

[Cotter]

Yes, they are the institutions that the co-authors work for. Two are university labs in Texas and the rest are various forensincs labs. Again, the co-authors are just the people that were hired to do the testing and sent her the results. They were not involved in writing the paper. Apparently some of them are aquaintences of hers or had done business with her in the past.

Hold on here a second.

We have a statement by a poster that says "a blog has contacted 2 of the reviewers and they said they only did the testing" or something to that effect.

That doesn't equate to "the co-authors are just the people that were hired to do the testing and sent her the results".

Additionally, we're not even sure of what 'blog' this was. There's a certain level of apprehensiveness that we need to apply when referencing other blogs' comments as fact.

This is what I was talking about earlier bud.

[Guest]

Agree. Keep an open mind. It could be a bad paper following good science. I know several smart people who are terrible at public speeches and they don't sound so bright. But they are. Could be what we have here.

Paper aside--- I want the Erickson project to release all they have!!

[southernyahoo]

<p>

I wonder if she had permission to include them as co-authors or if she just included everyone who worked on the DNA without asking them? If I was a professional DNA guy I'd want to avoid being listed as a co-author.

Even if you saw proof in the DNA? What if you simply ran your tests and wrote up your findings? How would the other findings affect your willingness to stand behind your own work?

[WSA]

Llawgoch....I've no information or understanding of Mr. Sykes' expectations. If you can refer me to any source that would shed light on those, I'd be quite grateful. Thanks.

[Guest]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/bigfoot-genome-paper-conclusively-proves-that-sasquatch-is-real/

[Guest]

She found 16 different "mothers" or more properly mitochondrial "Eves" out of the 20 samples she did a full mtDNA sequence on. And these weren't rare ancient "Cro-Magnon" haplotypes. They are common mostly European types. They are the types that most of us on these boards would fall into.

Those of you that have followed the discussion and speculation on this topic here for the last few months should realize the implications of this. If she had one or maybe two haplotypes (preferable a Native American type or at least one associated with east Asia) she could have made an argument that there was a hybridization event prior to prior to BF migrating to N. America and that all the BF females had the human mtDNA. I have tried on numerous occasions in this very thread to come up with possible (if implausible) scenarios to account for her hybridization theory.

But 100% of the mtDNA came back fully modern human with 16 different human female lineages? From a wide variety of different haplotypes? Mostly from Europe? How do she explain this? Again, here is the relevant passage quoted directly from her paper (and fully within the bounds of fair use):

I challenge anyone to make sense of this passage. It is gibberish. What is she even saying? The dubious Solutrean hypothesis (that Cro-Magnon Solutreans crossed the Atlantic ca. 20-15kya) is based on similar spear points found in Europe and N. America. Is she saying that the Solutreans who are responsible for not only those advanced spear points, but also the amazing cave paintings at Lascaux and elsewhere are actually BF and that they crossed the frozen Atlantic in boats? Or that the Solutreans were made up of a multitude of different mtDNA lineages and crossed the Atlantic to mate with BF over here, but the only females that survived are those that are descended from human-BF mating---no pure BF females survived?

Or is it more likely that she has DNA samples from 20 modern North American humans? You tell me.

Some of you keep holding out for some qualified experts to coming riding in to save day, but yet many of you haven't bothered to buy the report yourselves. Let me be as plain as I can be. I am a professional archaeologist and anthropologist with a federal agency that would be directly responsible for dealing with this creature should it prove to be real. I lean to the skeptical side for sure, but am very much open to the possibility that BF is real and I'm fully supportive of legitimate efforts to get to the bottom of this mystery.

I am the target audience for this paper. I am exactly the type of person this study was supposed to convince.

On the mtDNA portion of her paper I am a qualified expert. And unlike most of you I coughed up the money and bought the paper read it. I didn't ignore it like many of you claim us elite scientists always do. I read it and I found it to be incredibly underwhelming. The mtDNA portion and her explanation of the wide variety of haplotypes is well-within my area of expertise and it is garbage. Not just far-fetched or poorly argued---it's garbage. Superficial, wikipedied garbage.

I'm sorry to be so blunt. There is no way that this portion of the paper would have made it through any legitimate peer review process intact. Maybe there's something magical in the three nuDNA samples but her case wasn't very convincing---at best it seems inconclusive. On that portion I'll reserve full judgement until some of the genetics experts weigh in, but based on the rest of the paper it does not look promising at all. I feel really bad for those of you who put so much of their hopes into this and thought it would bring vindication, but this was clearly the wrong horse to back.

What Melba and many others to come will be dancing around is that hybridization is ongoing...put the farm on it.

[Cotter]

Thx for the link Melissa:

This is probably the most profound and correct statement in it:

"It's impossible to say anything for certain until we can get the sequences analyzed; hopefully, we'll have an update on that before the week is out."

To me, that indicates that ANYONE saying anything for certain is mistaken.

[Guest Theagenes]

Hold on here a second.

We have a statement by a poster that says "a blog has contacted 2 of the reviewers and they said they only did the testing" or something to that effect.

That doesn't equate to "the co-authors are just the people that were hired to do the testing and sent her the results".

Additionally, we're not even sure of what 'blog' this was. There's a certain level of apprehensiveness that we need to apply when referencing other blogs' comments as fact.

This is what I was talking about earlier bud.

It's the JREF Bigfoot DNA thread. No secret.

Also, there's nothing wrong with her listing the people that did the testing as her co-authors.

What's unfortunate is that she didn't get any real help for the sections of the paper that were clearly way out of her area of expertise.

[Guest]

Thx for the link Melissa:

This is probably the most profound and correct statement in it:

"It's impossible to say anything for certain until we can get the sequences analyzed; hopefully, we'll have an update on that before the week is out."

To me, that indicates that ANYONE saying anything for certain is mistaken.

Really? That's the only thing of importance you took from that article? That person makes some good statements for and against.. I guess a week is better than another 5 years. Look she had 5 years to get this right. From all accounts that I am hearing - from those with the necessary backgrounds to analyze a paper like this ---- this is not promising and not what anyone hoped for. AT ALL. And this comes from people who were staying quiet about her paper until it was published...

Sorry, but 5 years is a long time - and people expected results. She promised results - I think people have the right to be a bit miffed right now.

Just my opinion.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Melissa

[Cotter]

I'd be concerned with anything touted as 'fact' over on the JREF regarding the BF phenom without some pretty hard evidence to back it up.

Regarding the co-author, I think some folks would think it a cop out if the lab directors were listed as co-authors with the insinuation that they didn't 'support' the paper, just analyzed data and Ketchum was attempting to bolster the significance by using them as co-authors. Ketchum has enough foibles to deal with, 'perceived' foibles don't need to be introduced.

Could agree with you more on your last statement....see my previous comment on foibles! (got ya plus from me!)

Really? That's the only thing of importance you took from that article?

[removed content for size]

Sorry, but 5 years is a long time - and people expected results. She promised results - I think people have the right to be a bit miffed right now.

Just my opinion.

I think the comments were made should be considered in the context of the statement I quoted. Basically, he said 'I don't know, I'm just speculating'....

And I couldn't agree more, people have waited a LONG time for this. Let's see the goods. This tease n tickle approach should be saved for middle school dances.

I just am trying to 'reel' in comments and what-not that will undoubtedly be forwarded on as fact. In this case, the author, by his own admission, simply isn't sure.

[Guest njjohn]

Melissa - I referenced the article in my above statement but that line Cotter quoted is the most important thing taken out of it. The rest of the article is conjecture. They even misinterpreted the report about the nuDNA. It never says it comes back human. That's very misleading to readers. Even the arguments about contamination point to it as a way of ruling out the results, but nothing about the report showing they ran tests specifically to rule out contamination. It's akin to saying "Bigfoot doesn't exist, so this is what the data really says" and then turn around and say but we'll know for sure once it's really tested.

The paper definitely brings up questions, but isn't that the exact purpose of science? If we prove this, what does that make this? We need to give this time and not take bloggers for critical thinkers. Because critical thinking requires you to go in without bias.

[Guest Theagenes]

Cotter, the list of co-authors and their institutions is well-publicized. Anyone can look them up and shoot them an email. When I saw the list it was pretty clear what their involvement likely was. It's typical to add people who did testing for you as a minor author. Three of the authors are MK's employees who likely assisted with processing the samples and whatnot. Again this is normal. The old articles on which MK herself was listed as a minor co-author likely did so because she performed testing for them.

So there's nothing nefarious about this at all, but people shouldn't read too much into it either. I have a lot of issues with this report but this isn't one of them.

Surely you don't think these co-authors actually helped write the paper?

Edited February 14, 2013 by Theagenes

[Guest]

Well it seems to me Cotter that people on this forum and other "bloggers" from outside sources are all pretty much saying the same things - for and against. My issue is this. The problems being pointed out, do not seem like minor inconveniences. They seem like large hurdles... Hurdles I have to wonder if she already knew about.

It's always been up to Melba to prove her case - I don't know that she really cares to do so. At least I don't see her doing anything to try and explain some of these problems people are finding with her paper. I have to wonder if these issues being pointed out by numerous sources -- are the reason for why her paper was turned down time and time again.. Maybe it had less to do with Bigfoot discrimination - and more to do with the work being presented.

One would think in 5 years - the largest problems would at least be addressed somewhat...

We have no choice but to wait - again. But, I knew once her paper was released that was just the beginning of all this. Now, we will wait for the person who wants to try and duplicate her work. But, I guess whomever that is will have to buy the paper first.

The paper definitely brings up questions, but isn't that the exact purpose of science? If we prove this, what does that make this? We need to give this time and not take bloggers for critical thinkers. Because critical thinking requires you to go in without bias.

So, this "blogger" from ARS is what just some guy sitting in a basement? LOL.

Here is one bio I found on him. Sounds pretty impressive to me.

John is Ars Technica's science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. John has done over a decade's worth of research in genetics and developmental biology at places like Cornell Medical College and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. He's been a speaker at the annual meeting of the National Association of Science Writers and the Science Online meetings, and he's one of the organizers of the Science Online NYC discussion series.