Guest Theagenes Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 So where is Justin Smeja in all of this. His sample was the center piece of the study. Dr Ketchum said she was able to analyze the skin. So if it is not bear and is Sasquatch what are the skeptics talking about? "A small sample of skin with underlying structures from Sample 26 was submitted to the Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory at Texas A&M University for the purpose of evaluating the sample for degradation and structure. Subsequently, the slides generated from this examination were submitted to Huguley Pathology Consultants for further evaluation. A detailed report of the histopathologic findings was generated from the second examination. The report confirmed the Texas A&M findings and revealed that there was little degradation observed and that the structures in the sample were visible and could be reviewed. There was no pathology present in sample 26, however the histology was deemed inconsistent with human skin. Examination revealed lesser numbers of eccrine glands and even sebaceous gland/pilosebaceous gland units than normally seen in human skin. Abnormalities such as abortive hair shafts and various alopecias were detected and hair follicle addition or extra follicles, clustered and deeper in the dermal region were noted. The clustering of follicles at a deeper level in the dermis than where most skin appendages usually occur was unusual and not generally associated with hair follicle loss as is seen with alopecia. (Figure 8, Supplementary Data 1)" Skin inconsistent with human but with signs of alopecia = mangy bear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 My take, so far. Just some random observations: 1. The initial reviews of her report are poor. Not many seem excited by the results. Rather, they are critical of her methods and conclusions. 2. Buying the online journal, then renaming it and publishing herself was a bad decision that smacks of scam to the Scientific Establishment. It would have been better to publish it as an online 'white paper'. The fee hasn't helped either. 3. Her Hybridization theories seem to get no positive response whatsoever. 4. Proof in the pudding would be the nuDNA results. The data has not yet been made available. Until it is, negativity will grow. There ARE Geneticists etc who are interested in her study and would look at the data. How much longer will they stay interested? 5. As questions grow, she should be prepared to respond to her critics. Hopefully, not by Press Release. It won't be pleasant, but it will have to be done. Better to have all your data out there before you face your critics or you will be picked apart piecemeal. 6. None of the Scientists are interested in the 'Save the Sasquatch' angle. They are focused on proof only. Better to drop that line of attack completely and take care of business. Probably best to back off the hybridization angle too and concentrate on nuDNA proof. The rest will take care of itself. 7. Time is of the essence. At this rate, the whole project will be tarred and feathered within a couple of days. Time to fight back with data. 8. Kudos! for releasing the study! I had begun to think it would just slip into darkness and be forgotten! GK Gerry these are all great observations. There is a big problem though. She can't back away from the hybridization scenario because it's the only she can say she has BF mtDNA that is 100% human and nuDNA that is partially 100% human and partially "novel." She's really painted herself into a corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Throw the Hail Mary pass, release the nuDNA data. The excuses for not uploading the data to GenBank have been shot down. Maybe there is something there, if she will not show the data, one more reason to scream foul, or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) "A small sample of skin with underlying structures from Sample 26 was submitted to the Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory at Texas A&M University for the purpose of evaluating the sample for degradation and structure. Subsequently, the slides generated from this examination were submitted to Huguley Pathology Consultants for further evaluation. A detailed report of the histopathologic findings was generated from the second examination. The report confirmed the Texas A&M findings and revealed that there was little degradation observed and that the structures in the sample were visible and could be reviewed. There was no pathology present in sample 26, however the histology was deemed inconsistent with human skin. Examination revealed lesser numbers of eccrine glands and even sebaceous gland/pilosebaceous gland units than normally seen in human skin. Abnormalities such as abortive hair shafts and various alopecias were detected and hair follicle addition or extra follicles, clustered and deeper in the dermal region were noted. The clustering of follicles at a deeper level in the dermis than where most skin appendages usually occur was unusual and not generally associated with hair follicle loss as is seen with alopecia. (Figure 8, Supplementary Data 1)" Skin inconsistent with human but with signs of alopecia = mangy bear? The last part of that quote says it showed unusual signs not generally associated with alopecia. Also if this were definitely bear wouldn't they be able to easily detect this rather than make so many human comparisons? It just seems a little strange. Edited February 15, 2013 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 15, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted February 15, 2013 http://www.researchgate.net/post/Melba_Ketchums_Bigfoot_DNA_study--the_ethics_of_skipping_peer-review_for_monetary_gain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 ^ Hindenburg!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 I see the DeNovo Scientific Journal has another paper(?) scheduled for release Sunday: The Dawn Of Novum Speciese Discovery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 At $30.00 a pop for this paper as well? If her BF DNA paper was in a real journal I would glady have paid $100.00 for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) But in truth what was glaringly absent is a second or third author that did make substantitve contributions. That was a little surprising. When the number two spot went straight to one of the testing labs and not an academic (whom I would have thought she would have enlisted to help her with the writing at least) that did raise an eyebrow. Heck, I would have expected some one like Burtsev or the like in the number two spot. (even better would have been Bindernagel or Hadj-Chikh), but it seems she preferred to go it alone and we're seeing the unfortunate result of that. Hey - I'm still catching up on all the thread so not sure if this has been corrected, but I've seen you say this (or versions of) a couple of times. It was one of the first things I was looking for, so I'm not sure how so many people have missed it: Author Contributions: M.K., P.W., D.S., A.H., S.B., R.S., and R.S. performed experiments. M.K, and F.Z. analyzed the genetic data. M.K., A.W., and P.W. wrote and edited the manuscript. A.H. analyzed and wrote the EM portion of the manuscript. D. S. analyzed and wrote the hair analysis portion of the manuscript. D.T. analyzed and wrote the histopathology portion of the manuscript. A.W. also researched pertinent additions to the manuscript and helped with data collection. M.K. distributed samples, collected and combined data from the blind studies. I personally would have tried to go with more well known names, but at least it does appear that she didn't "go it alone" in the writing. This also shows ridiculousness of the JREF'ers in instantly assuming that none of the listed co-authors would be aware of the content - and yes, that is exactly what several of them said. Beyond this, I agree with a fair bit of what you've been saying. Edit to add - as soon as I hit reply I then see this has been addressed, sort of. Yep I didn't read the acknowledgments. I don't have the full list handy--can someone post it? Three of those are her employees. AW is listed as a contact right? So makes sense she would have some involvement. Remember too that the reports she got back may have had methodology and conclusion sections that she would have copied or paraphrased, particularly things she isn't an expert in like electron microscopy. Cut & Paste? That's a bit of an assumption. And weren't you criticising her earlier for not using experts to co-author bits she's not speecialised in? Seem a bit both ways. As for the JREF'er confirmations... well, they're always suggesting that we don't take people's word for it, so I'll wait for "P.W." to make a statement of his own, un-JREF-filtered... Edited February 15, 2013 by forestguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reelback Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 The lack of uploading to GenBank Self publish Buy a journal without credible review No promised video $30 a shot Clear problems with research ............. Buckle up? I'm undoing the belt. This is either a real craphole of pretend science or a hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 http://www.researchg...r_monetary_gain I am pointing out the second commenter to the article at the researchgate link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 DATA? So for $30, you get her hypothesis without any evidence? No raw sequencing data? No Data. No Data. No Data! I am too ladylike to say things that will get me banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Didn't we already get the hypothesis in the press release on Black Friday? What do you get for the $30.00? I am not opposed to spending money I just want to know that there is going to be some value there. Honestly, I think I enjoyed Ed Smiths lies more so then the mixed messages and circus antics of the Ketchum Project. I wonder if Adrian and Wally are doing shots at the bar. I would buy them both a round if I had the opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 It's not very ethical for them to publish their own paper in their own journal. But apparantely the science isn't good and the subject is something that is considered mythical so I can see why none of the reputable journals would want to even review it. To be honest I can't imagine the same paper being published in Nature. It would be like suicide for their reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 If the data was evident & sound then science would support it regardless of where it pointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts