Ketchum 2.0

[Huntster]

23 minutes ago, norseman said:

Sure! Nature magazine would work.👍

 

Actually, that's Y O U R  job. Here's the review questions and the SGP replies:

 

http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/author_responses_to_referees__first_review.pdf

 

http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/author_s_response_to__reviews2.pdf

 

http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/authors_response_to_passing_reviews.pdf

 

If this is incorrect or incomplete, please consider yourself welcomed (and challenged) to reply with some sort of evidence. In fact, a published statement or rejection from the Journal Nature on this manuscript appears to be a most basic requirement for you supporting your position..........no?

[norseman]

16 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Actually, that's Y O U R  job. Here's the review questions and the SGP replies:

 

http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/author_responses_to_referees__first_review.pdf

 

http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/author_s_response_to__reviews2.pdf

 

http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/authors_response_to_passing_reviews.pdf

 

If this is incorrect or incomplete, please consider yourself welcomed (and challenged) to reply with some sort of evidence. In fact, a published statement or rejection from the Journal Nature on this manuscript appears to be a most basic requirement for you supporting your position..........no?

Hey! I got an idea! Let’s shut down the BFF, and celebrate that Bigfoot aka Sasquatch IS A REAL CREATURE! 🎉🎊🎈🎈🎈🎈

 

WE DID IT! YAAAH! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[hiflier]

8 minutes ago, norseman said:

Hey! I got an idea! Let’s shut down the BFF, and celebrate that Bigfoot aka Sasquatch IS A REAL CREATURE! 🎉🎊🎈🎈🎈🎈

 

WE DID IT! YAAAH! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

 Read every l detail that the Washington nest site has made public and ask your self honestly if modern Humans as we know modern Humans to be could have done all the things reported to have occurred at that location, and under the circumstances at that location. If you do that then you may be able so see the truth of what you're saying in your post.

 

It's simply too easy to ignore ALL of the facts related to the nest discoveries odd dynamics and then couple in those dynamics with Dr. Disotell's announcement. Because as far as his announcement goes? It doesn't jive one bit with what was found there. Unless what was there and what built the nests isn't a modern Human. That;s the only shoe that fits. Especially since there is a Patty type being on film to back it up. I've always said one needs to look at ALL the elements of the whole Sasquatch picture in order to arrive at a conclusion and not cherry pick individual items to debate. The truth lies in the collective body of evidence and within that body of evidence one needs to plug in the PGF as well as the major and minor details of the nest discovery.

 

And then top it off with all of the DNA studies done and hair samples that have been looked at over the years. Ant footprints. Roll it all together and you'll have your answer on what we've been dealing with. Because it isn't just Ketchum...it's ALL of it. Everything. And after all these years and all of the separate discussions and debates? It should be obvious what the conclusion is: There is indeed a Sasquatch in North America. And only rolling everything in the subject as a whole together will show that to be true.

[Huntster]

41 minutes ago, norseman said:

Hey! I got an idea! Let’s shut down the BFF, and celebrate that Bigfoot aka Sasquatch IS A REAL CREATURE! 🎉🎊🎈🎈🎈🎈

 

WE DID IT! YAAAH! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

 

But everybody already knew that. In at least some reports, sasquatches are likely men in monkey suits, or misidentified wildlife.......and thus, "real creatures" This is what skeptics repeatedly refer to.

 

Margaryan claims to prove that a reported almas was, indeed, a Homo Sapien sub-Saharan slave. I've read his publication.

 

Ketchum claims that there are humans out there that are "100% human" in their mDNA, but that a "novel" primates nDNA can be isolated in a number of the samples she and several other labs tested, several of those labs testing blindly. I have provided a link from her of these claims. I believe your position is that the Journal Nature rejected her manuscript for publication.

 

Please provide evidence of that rejection, including why they rejected it.

 

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

But everybody already knew that. In at least some reports, sasquatches are likely men in monkey suits, or misidentified wildlife.......and thus, "real creatures" This is what skeptics repeatedly refer to.

 

Margaryan claims to prove that a reported almas was, indeed, a Homo Sapien sub-Saharan slave. I've read his publication.

 

Ketchum claims that there are humans out there that are "100% human" in their mDNA, but that a "novel" primates nDNA can be isolated in a number of the samples she and several other labs tested, several of those labs testing blindly. I have provided a link from her of these claims. I believe your position is that the Journal Nature rejected her manuscript for publication.

 

Please provide evidence of that rejection, including why they rejected it.

 

That’s YOUR job!

[Huntster]

25 minutes ago, norseman said:

That’s YOUR job!

 

It's my contention that Nature did not reject Ketchum's manuscript.

 

Prove me wrong.

[MIB]

5 hours ago, norseman said:

“Peer reviewed” would not be a link to her webpage Huntster….. nice try.

 

Correct.    Also, buying a journal .. which has still not published another "peer review" article .. for the sole purpose of claiming her study had been peer reviewed .. when established journals rejected it because the presentation was invalid and she refused to fix it .. is not valid science nor valid peer review.     It makes a mockery of valid peer review.    As I understand the rejection, it was not based on it being about bigfoot, it was based on improper format: not sure how many of ya'll arguing this have actually done scientific research for presentation.    There are sections of a paper and they must be connected.    In specific, the lab results and the conclusions drawn must relate.   Melba Ketchum did not do that, she presented SOME results, then went on a rambling essay in her conclusions which was not particularly connected to the data presented, it was just an opinion piece on her views about bigfoot, NOT what her data showed about bigfoot.    She was given multiple opportunities to correct the mis-presentation, more than would have been normally given for a "regular" topic, but she refused to fix the problems.    She knows better.   She's been peer reviewed before.    Nobody was out to get her.   She did this to herself.

 

That is FACT, not opinion.   

 

If she had limited her presented conclusion to what the data showed, her paper would have been published.   Plain and simple.   Anyone who doesn't "get" this has never done work in the sciences for publication.   

 

Understand this very clearly: I am not saying her WORK was wrong or the other labs' work was wrong, I am saying her PRESENTATION of her work was wrong and when given the chance she was unwilling to correct that.   

 

MIB

[norseman]

8 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

It's my contention that Nature did not reject Ketchum's manuscript.

 

Prove me wrong.

Sure they just MISSED the largest Biological discovery of the century…..

 

The animal is NOT recognized by science. You claim that it was. There fore? The burden of proof lays firmly on your plate Huntster!

[norseman]

9 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Correct.    Also, buying a journal .. which has still not published another "peer review" article .. for the sole purpose of claiming her study had been peer reviewed .. when established journals rejected it because the presentation was invalid and she refused to fix it .. is not valid science nor valid peer review.     It makes a mockery of valid peer review.    As I understand the rejection, it was not based on it being about bigfoot, it was based on improper format: not sure how many of ya'll arguing this have actually done scientific research for presentation.    There are sections of a paper and they must be connected.    In specific, the lab results and the conclusions drawn must relate.   Melba Ketchum did not do that, she presented SOME results, then went on a rambling essay in her conclusions which was not particularly connected to the data presented, it was just an opinion piece on her views about bigfoot, NOT what her data showed about bigfoot.    She was given multiple opportunities to correct the mis-presentation, more than would have been normally given for a "regular" topic, but she refused to fix the problems.    She knows better.   She's been peer reviewed before.    Nobody was out to get her.   She did this to herself.

 

That is FACT, not opinion.   

 

If she had limited her presented conclusion to what the data showed, her paper would have been published.   Plain and simple.   Anyone who doesn't "get" this has never done work in the sciences for publication.   

 

Understand this very clearly: I am not saying her WORK was wrong or the other labs' work was wrong, I am saying her PRESENTATION of her work was wrong and when given the chance she was unwilling to correct that.   

 

MIB

I agree with you 200 percent right up until you gave her a pass on her work…. 
 

Her work is in shambles right along side everything else she represents. There is nothing there worth saving. And funding her?
 

Is just going to give the world more of the same.

[Huntster]

8 minutes ago, MIB said:

........As I understand the rejection, it was not based on it being about bigfoot, it was based on improper format.......

 

I'd love to read that rejection. Got a link?

 

Quote

........That is FACT, not opinion........

 

Then you must have actually read the Nature rejection?

 

Quote

.......If she had limited her presented conclusion to what the data showed, her paper would have been published.   Plain and simple. .......

 

Thus the unknown nDNA exists. Nature just refuses to entertain her "opinion" on where it came from. Correct?

 

Quote

........Understand this very clearly: I am not saying her WORK was wrong or the other labs' work was wrong, I am saying her PRESENTATION of her work was wrong and when given the chance she was unwilling to correct that.........

 

Based upon everything I've been able to find and read on this study, and based upon the results on the vast majority of DNA tests on purported sasquatch DNA, I agree with you.

 

I still seek a link to Nature's rejection of her manuscript. If nobody can provide that, how did all of you read it?

[Huntster]

10 minutes ago, norseman said:

.........The animal is NOT recognized by science. You claim that it was........

 

I did not, and even if I did, my claims would be meaningless. I again claim that the SGP submitted the manuscript to Nature, and they published two rounds of peer review questions and statements along with her answers. I have not read any rejection from Nature. Have you? Thus I state that it doesn't exist unless you can provide a copy. 

 

Sorta' like no sasquatch without a body, Dude.

 

Quote

........There fore? The burden of proof lays firmly on your plate Huntster!

 

I don't have to prove that there is no rejection. The fact that no one can produce one is my evidence that it doesn't exist. 

[Huntster]

18 minutes ago, norseman said:

.........Her work is in shambles right along side everything else she represents..........

 

You have any qualified scientific review that corroborates your opinion?

[norseman]

1 minute ago, Huntster said:

 

You have any qualified scientific review that corroborates your opinion?

It’s not an opinion. It’s a fact. 

13 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I did not, and even if I did, my claims would be meaningless. I again claim that the SGP submitted the manuscript to Nature, and they published two rounds of peer review questions and statements along with her answers. I have not read any rejection from Nature. Have you? Thus I state that it doesn't exist unless you can provide a copy. 

 

Sorta' like no sasquatch without a body, Dude.

 

 

I don't have to prove that there is no rejection. The fact that no one can produce one is my evidence that it doesn't exist. 

The rejection is that her work wasn’t published…. Dude.

[hiflier]

There was also a sort of Catch-22 loop going on. The reviewers wanted Ketchum to tell them what organism the samples originated from. Ketchum, of course, was using the data to prove an unrecognized organism existed. So in reality, she could not provide a scientifically known/recognized organism as the source of the samples and data. It became circular where the reviewers insisted she provide the source of the data, but she was using the data to prove the source of the data existed. The conundrum never got resolved.

[norseman]