Guest VioletX Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 What happens if the esteemed scientists analysis says that the data is correct, but the interpretation is sketchy? Do we throw out the baby out with the bathwater? What bugs me is that this should be enough evidence of a Sasquatch in our midsts and yet it could be ignored because people are unwilling to full examine it. Hopefully this new analaysis will strengthen her results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 16, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) Dr. Ketchum posted on her Facebook page that the scientists came to her after an outspoken skeptic contacted them. They are someone everyone will listen to. She had heard of them but did not know them prior to them contacting her. She will make public their findings no matter what they are. Yes, it sounds like a double-layer cake of peer review, but this ^ (and keep this thread as pure as K's dna) Edited February 16, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 It cannot get any clearer. She is asking for the peer review after the fact. She want upload to GenBank. She want tell us who the great scientists are who are now looking at the work. Most, if not all the samples do not have proper provenance. Exclusionary DNA samples were not used. The evidence clearly points to contamination as to the novel DNA, and she did, or should have known that. She is just now giving a link to the providers for a free copy of the report. There is reason to believe she has duped every person she comes in contact with out of money. She is doing C2C radio and not CNN. The journal is a joke. A five year study, and several years to write and rewrite the report and much of it is incomprehensible. I could go on all day with this, but want, because it is pointless. It is understandable for all the supporters who wanted this so badly to be vindication, to continue to hold out hope, but Dr. Ketchums is not trustworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 What happens if the esteemed scientists analysis says that the data is correct, but the interpretation is sketchy? Do we throw out the baby out with the bathwater? What bugs me is that this should be enough evidence of a Sasquatch in our midsts and yet it could be ignored because people are unwilling to full examine it. Hopefully this new analaysis will strengthen her results. The data is what it is V, the process of seq DNA is a standard known process. It's all in the interpetation! No kidding it didn't make it past peer review for years now. Then instead of just releasing the data, it appears she bought/acquired/whatever a "journal" to publish it saying its been peer reviewed? Then wants to charge for it? Oh and don't forget the little teaser snippet of Matilda to keep everyone's interest. This is all starting to sound very familar.... That's what should bug you IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ishcabibble Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Oops, sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 16, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) I will say though that if Disotell is heading up or a member of any review team, I might just buy the paper and decide for myself, lol! Edited February 16, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 If the Matilda snippet had been the stunning, conclusive, unequivocal video that it was claimed to be, I think a lot of us wouldn't mind the paper's shortcomings along with the puerile gaffs on the sasquatchgenome website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I was not referring to you (Bart & Tyler) when I mentioned Bigfoot Steak People. Do you think that Ketchum got bigfoot DNA from Justin's sample and Trent messed up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I was not referring to you (Bart & Tyler) when I mentioned Bigfoot Steak People. Do you think that Ketchum got bigfoot DNA from Justin's sample and Trent messed up? For what it's worth, MK included a photo of her piece of the steak in the report. It looked very similar to this piece: http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/01/cutino-issues-challenge-to-paulides-on.html So I don't think her prior claim that Justin sent her a different piece is tenable. I won't post the pic from the report since that probably wouldn't fall under fair use, but those of you who have seen the report can weigh in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Regarding the above sample of skin and hair.... it's sitting on someone's BARE hand. No gloves, no safety precautions with this most precious sample of potential bigfoot flesh that could prove the species exists. No wonder it's coming back testing as contaminated! If this piece was used, it's proven so by this ^ photographic evidence right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TwilightZone Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I am shocked to hear the sleeping Matilda footage was the amazingly clear footage of Bigfoot that was promised with the paper. There is nothing there that indicates Bigfoot other than framing it with the suggestion it is Bigfoot. If someone said look at this video of a puppy, everyone would just shrug. I don't believe anyone would say: holy crap, that puppy sure looks like Bigfoot! Second point, not sure if anyone has made it before: if you managed to get that close, why not walk up and film the face, feet or hands? Why not wake it up and film as it runs away? Totally ridiculous to show us that worthless video after all the buildup. This is nothing more than a blobsquatch presented in stunning HD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 @madison - agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) I am shocked to hear the sleeping Matilda footage was the amazingly clear footage of Bigfoot that was promised with the paper. There is nothing there that indicates Bigfoot other than framing it with the suggestion it is Bigfoot. If someone said look at this video of a puppy, everyone would just shrug. I don't believe anyone would say: holy crap, that puppy sure looks like Bigfoot! Second point, not sure if anyone has made it before: if you managed to get that close, why not walk up and film the face, feet or hands? Why not wake it up and film as it runs away? Totally ridiculous to show us that worthless video after all the buildup. This is nothing more than a blobsquatch presented in stunning HD. The short clip we are seeing is just a snippet of a longer video in which this particular sasquatch (nicknamed Matilda) awakes, stands up, and looks in the direction of the camera. It is alleged the viewer can see unblinking eyes and dark fangs. It is said to look "real," although the fangs give it away, in my humble opinion. Question is: why haven't they released the entire video? Edited February 16, 2013 by jerrywayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Because Ketchum doesn't own it. She never promised to release HD video with her paper. All the HD video is Adrian Erickson's. He just donated that short snippet tease to her study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I was not referring to you (Bart & Tyler) when I mentioned Bigfoot Steak People. Do you think that Ketchum got bigfoot DNA from Justin's sample and Trent messed up? LOL, sorry..and good...there's a lot of things I hope to never be called and the "Bigfoot Steak People" is one of them. To answer your question, I wouldn't bet my life on it but I really think they got it right. In addition, one thing we need to remember is the claim that Justin took a piece off the body or switched samples is bogus, unless you believe Justin did so all the way back in July 2011 (when we got the other half of Melba's piece, which was salted so it would last the 4 day trip) and he managed to find a piece of "bear" that looks virtually identical to the supposed "sasquatch" piece Melba tested. Why would he do this all the way back in July 2011 as no one was talking about independent testing back then? I thought of adding the salted piece (one Jeff examined) about 7 months ago to my secondary lab to tie every loose end. Even if you were to believe the ridiculous suggestion he would sabotage himself, the sample that Oklahoma pegged quickly as bear with contamination was out of his custody for over a yr to even have that opportunity. Looking back in hindsight, I knew it was a good idea but didn't foresee how important testing that salted piece was. Without it, everything would be much more complicated (if that's possible) due to some of the degradations in the frozen tissue that caused such a lengthy testing process. I still think our labs got it right and will unless some big name geneticists peg the Sierras sample and have some come to jesus moment looking at the raw sequence data. That is, if it's ever available Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts