Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 ^ if I had another plus I would give it to you, even though I don't understand it all...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Is it verifiable that the people who listened to the call from Ketchum were Smeja, Smeja's wife, her sister, and the Driver? Or is this just speculation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) A couple of things. 1) Robert Lindsay is the one who reported that Melba Ketchum bought out the Erickson Project, Melba Ketchum never stated that herself. 2) It's abundantly clear that Melba Ketchum strongly believes that she has encountered a great deal of bias with regards to the paper. She hints at encountering elitism and sexism, and true or not, she feels that some type of injustice has occured. It's no secret that the more qualified people here view the work as severely lacking (to be kind), so I am wondering, has anyone thought that this may be somewhat intentional? Maybe she is fully aware that the work is far from complete, but since she has encountered such a massive lack of cooperation from established journals, she had to resort to an unconventional "after the fact" peer review. She put it out, as incomplete as it is, and is getting slaughtered, but whaddaya know, reputable scientists are now contacting her and extending offers to review her work. Maybe after looking at what she has, they can get with her and say, "You know, you're on to something. Maybe your interpretation of the data needs to be adjusted, but there is enough here for everyone to get together and try to figure this thing out." It could end up being a study that is revised in the open, and the peer review played out publicly. I think it will hinge on the quality of samples. If any of them are good, how can that just go to waste? She may have completely botched the analysis, but maybe she did just enough to get some very qualified scientists curious enough to actually look at those samples. If that happens, those people probably won't screw up, and so in a weird way, she could end up being somewhat successful. Who knows. Edited February 16, 2013 by arizonabigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) As I see it--mind you, I actually read it--the Ketchum report is not as conclusive as one would wish and does not provide the raw data needed to enable others to evaluate the results. So this: It's the groundwork upon which others may build. Good luck to Mr. Sykes, then. May his results and his paper bear out what Ketchum said, doing so in a way that proves acceptable to the experts in the field. http://naturalplane....to-ketchum.html Richard Gibbs, one of the key scientists behind the Human Genome Project and director of the Human Genome Sequencing Center at Baylor College of Medicine: “As a scientist I would consider anything.The currency of scientific advance is keeping your skepticism at bay. You have to approach these things incredibly agnostically. As I read the paper I asked, is the evidence here compelling? I don’t know. Is there clear evidence of fraud? That’s not apparent. It’s an intriguing hypothesis. One would need to view more sequencing information before supporting the conclusions.†Specifically, Gibbs said, it’s standard protocol to upload the raw sequencing data which can then be analyzed to determine whether this is a new species, or simply an amalgam of existing species. Only a text file, which is unhelpful, accompanies the paper. Leonid Kruglyak, a Princeton University geneticist: “To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid. Instead, analyses either come back as 100% human, or fail in ways that suggest technical artifacts. They make the bizarre claim that the failures might be caused by novel, nonstandard structure of the DNA (“Electron micrographs of the DNA revealed unusual double strand – single strand – double strand transitions which may have contributed to the failure to amplify during PCR.â€) which would mean this DNA was different from DNA in all other known species. There’s also the strange statement they couldn’t deposit sequences in GenBank because it’s a new/unknown taxon — GenBank does that no problem.†Edited February 16, 2013 by Kings Canyon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Genes- Thank you for weighing in here as I can't emphasize to you enough what an asset you are to this discussion and field. My true passion is the chase and formulating strategies/ being in the field trying to visually document these things at night via thermal imaging. I admittedly feel lost and overwhelmed at times with respect to diagnostic work, concepts and especially, terminology and need to depend on people like you for your expertise. You being a proponent/witness is a nice little bonus for some of us from a personal standpoint as well. I do have a couple of questions (brought to my attention by another reputable geneticist) for you and or others capable of answering them and please tell me if these questions are non-valid or have been addressed regarding her paper and background. 1) It’s my understanding Dr. Ketchum is competent in the Sanger technology for DNA examination (older gen and dealing with small data sets) and has not demonstrated the ability to deal with larger datasets ala Next Gen sequencing? Apparently she generated these large datasets using STR and SNP analysis (both used to look at “individual†variations) of very small pieces of DNA which requires looking at 13 unique locations and comparing differences or deviations. Has she in fact ignored 99% of the data she claimed to generate? 2) As you mentioned, the paper is void of much verifiable data and lacking detail, at least what’s been released and provided thus far, but isn’t a null hypothesis, which is supposed to be the core of every peer review written paper, absent here? 3) I’ve been told by scientist friends reviewing the paper that reasonable estimates for her claimed amount of work, multiple repeats of every test, expensive labs etc..should not exceed $100K and that may include some “padding†if you will. Is this a reasonable estimate based on the work you see here Genes? My personal theory (this is not an accusation) behind the scenes based on what I’ve known and suspected (Justin will share some of that in video) is to exit stage left she would only have to produce a skeleton paper that had virtually no chance of passing and sound just sexy enough from a believer layman’s perspective to place onus on the scientific establishment batting her down for the inevitable failure. Before commenting further, I await at least one…just “one,†independent and reputable qualified individual to comment publicly on her behalf based on the actual data she provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Is it verifiable that the people who listened to the call from Ketchum were Smeja, Smeja's wife, her sister, and the Driver? Or is this just speculation? It will be verified who was present when Justin releases his stmt. "If" you're concerned about possible "collusion" TimB, because of related parties present, I can tell you I interviewed three out of four within 36 hrs and with all the information and "suggestions" Dr. Ketchum provided, I don't buy it for one second and probably either will you with some of the prophetic statements made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 17 plusses for GenesRUs, that's gotta be like some kind of record!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 If the manuscript was sent out for review, as it has been published, I don't think there needed to be any bias to reject it and not even send it out to review. It would likely have had a hard time even if well written, with the data they presented. A well written paper, with interpretable results, I hope, would have gotten a fair review. I am confused why they did not explain things (figures, data, results) much better. It does seem vague for many things, with out clear description of what was being presented. For example, the "supplemental figure 8", which is in the main text (so why supplemental?), appears to be a screen shot, but there is little if explanation of what it is showing. Perhaps, someone who is use to looking at this might be getting something out of it, but you still need to explain it. Given that there should have been no size constriction on the size of the paper (that is imposed on most journals), they could have done much better. Is it being intentionally vague, I did wonder this. But it is now out, and will be looked at critically, so hopefully it there is something truly there, someone will dig it out. Hopefully the raw data will also be made available for analysis. Does anyone have an hypothesis why they did electron microscopy? I can not imagine that they thought they would find. It was suggested by a colleague that this might have been a hybridization study (annealing two different sources of DNA - then look for homologous, ie double stranded, vs no homologous (single strands), but there is no suggestion this was done. Failure of pcr or sequencing is usually because of bad primers, conditions (salts, temperature, time), or repetitive sequences. Their explanation makes no sense to me. Typically, DNA is double stranded from mammalian cells (with the possible exception of telomeres at the ends of chromosomes, partially replicated DNA, or DNA undergoing repair). Perhaps, if there was some single stranded RNA (mRNA) present in the sample, this could account for some of odd structures. I will go back and look at their methods and see if they did any RNase treatment. Oh, and their drill down tree (figure 16) - it would appear that Sasquatch is a set between humans and lemurs! Again, figure is poorly described. Others have already commented that this is not your typical primate tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Check Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Several people mention both in this threaf and elsewhere that the full length 'Matilda video' shows her waking up and walking away clearly, is 6 minutes long, shows a clear face shot, etc. Who's word are we taking for this? It seems everyone has the same 'details' - where are they coming from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I saw an interview with John Bindernagle describing the things contained in the Matilda video. I will try to find that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Having written a few papers myself, I do wish that we were not hearing about flaws in the execution of the paper itself. Sweating the details is so important if you want your argument to be critically addressed. Pluses to the scientists who at this stage are examining both the paper and the underlying research. Hopefully Ketchum has preserved samples left over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ta Sasquatch ansin Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I've followed this story silently for over a year. I would say I can't express my disappointment at what I've heard about the report so far, but I'm sure there are several members here who may be feeling the same way. One positive thing that I have been able to salvage from my experience here has been the chance to read so many of the comments (...and 700 pages is a lot of commentary, I know). There are a number of writers who have shared their expertise and experiences so articulately, that I've never felt I had anything to add. I'm writing now because I know I'm experiencing some version of those classic stages of grief. However, if this report is as bad as some are warning it is, I am glad to hear it from some of the very well intentioned members here, and not from a snarky commentator who might use the occasion to gloat. That would only add fury to my disappointment. I've never had any experiences that have proven to me that sasquatches exist. I was born and raised in the Pacific Northwest, and for some gut reason I believe they do. I should add that the posts of certain members here have only strengthened my belief. Now, If this report is shabby science, it does not make their existence less of a reality. I don't have to feel foolish for my belief, even if the Ketchum Report proves to be something foolish (and I wouldn't dare say that it is. I am the last one with the expertise to make that call) Anyway, thanks to all of you. Based on what I've read here, I've been given me a heads up on the possibile shortcomings of one report. Although it's been an agony of waiting and the report's conclusions may be stillborn, this is only one report, one effort. As they say, this is one battle, not the war. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) A couple of things. 1) Robert Lindsay is the one who reported that Melba Ketchum bought out the Erickson Project, Melba Ketchum never stated that herself. 2) It's abundantly clear that Melba Ketchum strongly believes that she has encountered a great deal of bias with regards to the paper. She hints at encountering elitism and sexism, and true or not, she feels that some type of injustice has occured. It's no secret that the more qualified people here view the work as severely lacking (to be kind), so I am wondering, has anyone thought that this may be somewhat intentional? Maybe she is fully aware that the work is far from complete, but since she has encountered such a massive lack of cooperation from established journals, she had to resort to an unconventional "after the fact" peer review. She put it out, as incomplete as it is, and is getting slaughtered, but whaddaya know, reputable scientists are now contacting her and extending offers to review her work. Maybe after looking at what she has, they can get with her and say, "You know, you're on to something. Maybe your interpretation of the data needs to be adjusted, but there is enough here for everyone to get together and try to figure this thing out." It could end up being a study that is revised in the open, and the peer review played out publicly. I think it will hinge on the quality of samples. If any of them are good, how can that just go to waste? She may have completely botched the analysis, but maybe she did just enough to get some very qualified scientists curious enough to actually look at those samples. If that happens, those people probably won't screw up, and so in a weird way, she could end up being somewhat successful. Who knows. Totally agree, what i cant understand is the negativity by some, just about at a personal level, to take nothing but negative from the report and not even trying to find or convey positive areas of the study, I find it very hard to believe that she did not get one thing right. People are saying that the whole thing is just her interpretation and no one else had anything to do with it, and that is very far from the truth, who does anything without positive input from peers or people in like fields that they are acquainted with. People in general do not behave in a manor where they proceed without acceptance on some level, especially something of this mangnatude, sorry no way i'm buying that. Edited February 16, 2013 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Totally agree, what i cant understand is the negativity by some, just about at a personal level, to take nothing but negative from the report and not even trying to find or convey positive areas of the study, I find it very hard to believe that she did not get one thing right. People are saying that the whole thing is just her interpretation and no one else had anything to do with it, and that is very far from the truth, who does anything without positive input from peers or people in like fields that they are acquainted with. People in general do not behave in a manor where they proceed without acceptance on some level, especially something of this mangnatude, sorry no way i'm buying that. What I'm seeing is that the majority of reviewers of the report seem to be zeroing in on just a certain area of the paper. Is this area the primary and only area that is to be taken as the Holy Grail? It would seem that other areas of the paper hold as much importance too. This targeting of this one area, and nowhere else....other than the charging of $ for the report, certain other areas-where reviewers thought it should be done this way, and "the only way"...I find curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) @Bartlojays, Great questions. Wish I had another few plusses today for many here. I didn't contract with her to produce said study, so I don't know what scope the funder's envisioned truly. I must wait for the full dialogue of experts whether she achieved good science, and at the level of review alluded to by Batlojays that must occur. But, I don't need experts to look at the questions that have not been answered surrounding the Sierra Kills, seemingly once involved-now-distant EP, changing PR spokespersons, confusing inconsistent statments, peer approved with a never published journal that would not publish it and purchased/renamed to DeNovo, a new website not fully functional, yet to upload to GenBank, and just now discovering scientists with qualifications to review (a skeptic sent?), co-authors that don't seem to come forward....... to decide it's prudent to withhold purchasing this paper or linking to it just yet. I guess it won't matter too much in the bigger picture as others like Oxford are already analyzing samples. How many people will pay $30 if a flop before it's known a flop, or if a cult item, or if good in the end ? So it does matter to MK, I do get that, and feel no ill will for dollars earned. The submitters stand independent with their own contributions and any study such as Sykes will validate them generally, and some possibly specifically. It does feel like this study path/outcome reflects poorly on the researchers of Bigfoot right now. I hope that changes. I hope it's just noisy New Media...and this process of discovering and accepting a shared place with BFs elevates the dialogue to both scientists and policy makers and we show we can deal with facts - when we have facts. thanks again those of you who are illuminating the details. Edited February 16, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts