Re: Ketchum DNA Paper?

CMcMillan Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:26 pm

Squatchmaster G wrote:
CMcMillan wrote:So if me posting a Link of MM talking about the video and me not commenting on it. And you jump to the conclusion that I am just posting things to support my case. And I have not said one way or the other if I believe or don't believe MM.

Are you saying this should have been self evident?

So why are you breaking Forum rules by Bating?

Woodwose Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:33 pm

CMcMillan,

Clearly you are incapable of seeing your mistake and couldn't care less about the fact that I have now cleared up any ambiguity about my previous comments regarding fraud.

Presumably you just want the last word....you are welcome to it.

CMcMillan Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:34 pm

Squatchmaster G wrote:
CMcMillan wrote:So why are you breaking Forum rules by Bating?

I didn't consider it baiting, they were genuine questions. If you consider that baiting then that's rather telling since you've done the exact same thing to Woodwose over and over.

There we have it folks, CM admitted she's a troll.

Wow amazing. It is not the exact same thing.
I didn't post anything any comment related to the Link.
You assumed something that you can not backup. you have still failed to prove where.
Wood was going off on his rants with out it being Hypothetical. Its a big difference.

Its amazing how this forum is letting you get away with the crap you do. You are breaking the forums rules. But its ok for you too.

CMcMillan Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:36 pm

Woodwose wrote:CMcMillan,

Clearly you are incapable of seeing your mistake and couldn't care less about the fact that I have now cleared up any ambiguity about my previous comments regarding fraud.

Presumably you just want the last word....you are welcome to it.

Oh yes you cleared it up NOW after the fact. You back Peddled. But that is fine everything you said was all hypothetical got it.
SO next time i present something hypothetically I will know you won't jump up and down and claim it is what i believe.

CMcMillan Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:04 pm

The materials and methods are found as Supplementary Data, Materials and Methods S1 in the Supporting Information due to the length of the manuscript
The raw sequence data utilized in this manuscript from the Sasquatch samples has been provided in the Supplementary Data S3, S4, S5 and S6 in FASTA format. These files were added as supplemental because the sequences were not able to be uploaded to a GenBank® because of their lack of taxon according to GenBank personnel

Look the DATA is in the supplementary files she supplied

The samples were collected from research and sighting locations in 14 states and two Canadian provinces. They were treated as forensic samples and catalogued to maintain an appropriate chain of custody. Table 1 and Figure 6 summarize the locations, the sample collectors and their methodology Samples were subjected to a preliminary screen by utilizing eyewitness interview information, visual and histological examination, and DNA testing. Those samples that failed to present novel visual structure or that matched a documented species were removed from the study

Throughout this project exhaustive precautions were taken to minimize or eliminate contamination. The samples submitted in this study were either dried or fresh without degradation. The DNA was extracted in a clean room using forensic science procedures that minimized contaminant DNA in the samples while maximizing DNA recovery. Samples were also split and DNA was isolated in two separate laboratories to ensure that sample integrity was maintained

But if you all actually read the paper you would see she explains everything she did to control the tests even using a Human DNA as a Control.
But instead you rely on others to tell you what it says.

CMcMillan Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:48 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_Homo_sapiens

CMcMillan Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:41 pm

http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/2013/02/bigfoot-dna-study-update-dr-ketchum.html#more

1. Where are the passing peer reviews and why are they not available for the public?
They never are with published scientific journals. You can be sued for revealing them.

Comments: Some critics are ignorant and do not know that peer reviews are confidential while others critics in the scientific community do know! These critics are using the public's ignorance on the peer review process unethically and unfairly to tarnish Dr. Ketchum and the DNA Study.

Reference(s):

Nature - Peer Review Policy

Anonymity
We do not release reviewers' identities to authors or to other reviewers, except when reviewers specifically ask to be identified. Unless they feel strongly, however, we prefer that reviewers should remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond.

Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice
The Golden Practices

The submission of a manuscript and all the details associated with it must

be kept confidential by the editorial office and all the people involved in the
peer-review process. The identity of the reviewers must be kept confidential.

2. Which amplifier was used was it a standard one or one you developed?
Primers...both

Comments: Below is an excerpt from the DNA Study -Supplement - Materials and Methods

Nuclear DNA from the selected samples, human references, and appropriate controls was
amplified using the Promega PowerPlex® 16 kit20 and an Applied Biosystems™ 9600® Thermal
Cycler according to manufacturer’s suggested conditions. The PowerPlex® 16 is a STR multiplex
system containing primers for the following loci: Penta E, D18S51, D21S11, TH01, D3S1358,
FGA, TPOX, D8S1179, vWA, Amelogenin, Penta D, CSF1PO, D16S539, D7S820, D13S317,
and D5S818. Amplified products were prepared and subjected to electrophoresis according to the
PowerPlex® 16 kit instructions on an AB Prism® 310 Genetic Analyzer or an AB Prism® 377
DNA Sequencer. The samples were also amplified using AmpFℓSTR® Yfiler® PCR
Amplification Kit (Applied Biosystems by Life Technologies) that amplifies 17 Y-STR loci in a
single PCR reaction using 5-dye chemistry. Amplified products were prepared and subjected to
electrophoresis according to the AmpFℓSTR® Yfiler® PCR Amplification Kit instructions on an
ABI Prism® 310 Genetic Analyzer or an AB Prism® 377 DNA Sequencer.

3. Did the study video document their testing?
Some of it but not much since most of it was done outside of my lab and the labs didn't know what they were testing.

4. Why did GenBank refuse to accept her genomes?

I have an email thread where they did (Deny Acceptance) but due to confidentiality issues I can not go public, but I am sending you a copy so you may comment on the validity of my claim.

Comments: I can verify that I have read the email thread. It is authentic and the responses are from an official representative of GenBank. GenBank did refuse entry of the genome after repeated attempts because of the reason that Dr. Ketchum outlined in her interview with George Knapp on Coast to Coast on February 17th, 2013. "Because the species of the submission was listed as "Homo Sapiens" (Human) they (GenBank) wanted signed written permission from the subject (Bigfoot)"

In my opinion it appears that GenBank was looking for any excuse to keep this genome out of the database and away from the scientific review.

Again Dr. Ketchum provides open and honest answers and was as forthcoming as she could be. The general public is ignorant on the procedures and protocols for publishing a scientific paper. The critics are seizing on this fact to try and discredit Dr. Ketchum, and the DNA study.

CMcMillan Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:57 pm

http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/2013/02/bigfoot-is-real-dr-ketchum-has-3.html#more

The "Q30" is a score that tells us how pure DNA is. The manufacture states that anything at or above a score of 80 is pure and NOT contaminated! Again let me repeat the scores were 88.6, 88.4, and 88.7 respectively.

In other words the DNA is:
1. NOT Contaminated
2. All from 3 individuals (Bigfoot) not a mixture or contaminated
3. The results are repeatable
4. The SAME results were returned on 3 different samples from 3 different individuals, collected from 3 different locations, and at 3 different times.
5. The lab that ran the data is well respected, accredited, and independent
6. The results are rock solid and indisputable

CMcMillan Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:40 am

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/02/thank-you-matt-moneymaker-matilda.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigfootEvidence+%28Bigfoot+Evidence%29

Woodwose Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:22 am

Do you not see a problem with the fact that the only source to verify the paper's data is Ketchum herself?

CMcMillan Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:20 am

Woodwose wrote:Do you not see a problem with the fact that the only source to verify the paper's data is Ketchum herself?

Actually you are incorrect.
At least 3 People have verified the information. At least 2 People have verified the E-mails she got from Genebank.
How many Scientists have Claimed the DATA is false? Only 2 that and these 2 keep getting duplicated all over the blogs.
Other people are just bashing Melba and not the Data.
Peer Review IF it was done she can not share WHO did it because its anonymous. (Scientists even hate this but it hasn't changed yet)

So where is all these other Scientists who claim the data is not real? Maybe all the others are Looking at her work still unlike the ones who just jump in and not look into it more.

Unlike you I have read the paper. Because I am interested in it. One can easily verify the places involved with simple e-mails.
I believe her DATA is accurate and she went at great lengths to make sure she was able to rule out any contamination. If you read the paper you would have seen it. Also the Labs tested that the DNA is 87% Pure. 80% is what is required to be classified as Pure. Above posts show you this. I don't believe she is making this up.
But i find it interesting when you look at the people who want to believe BF is some kind of Big Gorilla like APE. Seem to be the ones bashing her findings and data. The BF people who actually treated bigfoots as "people" "tribe" are the ones who are backing her.
We have several people now confirming Matilda is real. Even Matt Moneymaker which is the first to scream on hoax's is saying its real.

Woodwose Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:34 am

In reality there are a few people who have verified that they have seen the verification supplied by Ketchum.

If I can get someone to verify that they have seen an email I supplied which shows that I own the Statue of Liberty, will you buy it from me for $20?

Have you contacted the labs and verified their results and invlolvment? Has anyone? Are you qualified to understand the data analysis in the paper?

To be clear, these are not accusations of fraud. I am simply pointing out issues with the supposed verification that has been claimed with regard to the papaer. Until suitably qualified individuals verify the data and authenticity of the analysis no one cand draw any firm conclusions about the paper.

CMcMillan Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:01 am

In reality there are a few people who have verified that they have seen the verification supplied by Ketchum.

More people have Verified than Disproved her Data so far Melba seems to be on the up and up.

If I can get someone to verify that they have seen an email I supplied which shows that I own the Statue of Liberty, will you buy it from me for $20?

That not the same and you know it. Its a false Argument. since verification to Purchase something is between the Seller and owner. She wrote a paper she used labs. You can E-mail the labs and ask if they did work for Melba Ketchum they may or may not tell you.
She has sourced them correctly in the paper. If you read it you would see. Yes she is selling the paper but it is not the same as the Statue of Liberty or the golden gate bridge or swamp land in Florida.

Have you contacted the labs and verified their results and invlolvment? Has anyone? Are you qualified to understand the data analysis in the paper?

I have not contacted them because i trust her sourcing them correctly. I am not disputing her DATA.
I am not qualified but she wrote the paper in a way to let the layman understand it. I can look at the pictures and I don't understand some of it. But Like i said I was interested in reading it.
You can easily e-mail the labs and see if they were Involved in the paper if you question it anyone can. Since you are questioning it I suggest you do it. Don't sit on your thumb expecting others to do it, for you.

To be clear, these are not accusations of fraud. I am simply pointing out issues with the supposed verification that has been claimed with regard to the papaer. Until suitably qualified individuals verify the data and authenticity of the analysis no one cand draw any firm conclusions about the paper.

Unlike you I believe she had Peer Review. I also believe that many Journals were afraid of her findings. Like they said it is a wrench in the Darwin theories. People are afraid of that. Also people will be afraid to know a "Human" Like creature lives in the woods.
So its a toxic subject for some scientists.
People are now reading it and going to make their own conclusions on it. Some will agree some will disagree.
It has opened the door for it to be discussed even more.

Woodwose Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:40 am

With regard to the first half of your last post, none of what you say confirms verification. We only have Ketchum's word, which simply isn't good enough when it comes to scientific standards.

Secondly, there is no evidence of peer review whatsoever. We will have to wait and see if that situation changes.

Thirdly, Ketchum's conclusions in no way undermine the Darwinian TOE. People may be unnerved by the notion of a surviving or new human species, but that is a matter of personal belief. Science doesn't deal with belief, it deals with facts. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own facts and if science throws up findings that are uncomfortable it's just tough. Science doesn't reject ideas because they are challenging or contrary to personal belief. Scientists on the other hand can be prejudiced, but facts will win out at the end of the day (consider Ketchum's Galileo reference).

To be clear (given your propensity for miscomprehension) none of the above is an attack on Ketchum and I am not refuting the paper. I'm expressing doubts that should occur anyone who approaches this subject with a rational mindset. I am drawing no conclusions about the legitimacy of the paper and I am sitting on the fence.

I appreciate that you believe Ketchum's claims to be genuine, but 'belief' isn't enough. We have to 'know' that the paper is legitimate.

CMcMillan Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:27 pm

Lets look back at someone many people now respect in bigfooting

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/isu2.htm

- Barry Dernovsek

Weirton, West Virginia

Professor Bigfoot

The notion of a big hairy ape prancing about the Northwestern wilderness strikes me as preposterous. But what would strike me as even more preposterous would be the removal of a tenured professor from her/his position in academia just because of their research interests. Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum, professor of anatomy at ISU, has the complete right to perform his farfetched search for Bigfoot. If his tenure were to be revoked because of his research interests, I would have serious misgivings about ISU's otherwise excellent academic credentials.

-Mahendra Prasad

New York City, New York"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110400272.html

Yet he was blasted for his book and his findings.
I read his book many times. He believes the sokum cast is real bigfoot impression. While others don't
So We always take people for their word. Sometimes they can be wrong.

CMcMillan Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:32 pm

Secondly, there is no evidence of peer review whatsoever. We will have to wait and see if that situation changes.

Thirdly, Ketchum's conclusions in no way undermine the Darwinian TOE. People may be unnerved by the notion of a surviving or new human species, but that is a matter of personal belief. Science doesn't deal with belief, it deals with facts. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own facts and if science throws up findings that are uncomfortable it's just tough. Science doesn't reject ideas because they are challenging or contrary to personal belief. Scientists on the other hand can be prejudiced, but facts will win out at the end of the day (consider Ketchum's Galileo reference).

Science may deal in Facts but the Conclusions of said facts is always in question aren't they it?
BS scientists all the time feel Uncomfortable when their "Theory" "Belief" is attacked. Hence the the belief that Dino's had feathers was once Attacked and many didn't believe it who were in the field.
So far the DATA of Ketchum is out. So far no one is questioning the Labs findings. They are Questioning her conclusions BIG difference as you say Facts are FACTS . The Data is FACT

Woodwose Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:05 pm

We only have Ketchum's word that the data is factual. There has been no independent verification. Ketchum is the sole source for both her data and documents that supposedly authenticate the origin of this data. That needs to change otherwise her conclusions are meaningless.

This is going over old ground. The point of today's posts was to establish whether or not you are concerned by the fact that Ketchum is seemingly the only person to verify the origin of her data. Correct me if I am wrong, but your position seems to be that you simply trust her word.

CMcMillan Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:34 pm

You keep missing that others have verified the data. But you don't want to read or see anything else.

In Bigfoot forums some people have done the GeneData Blast as well with her samples.
The Data coming back is correct. You can dispute her conclusion.

You seem to not want do the work to simply E-mail said labs and ask if they did work for Ketchum you want someone else to do it. Yet you won't believe anyone so whats the point of you questioning it. If you can't go and find out yourself?

I believe the labs did the work, NO lab is disputing the work. Not 1 LAB has come up and said they didn't do the Work.
And your expecting me to believe NO ONE knows they are mentioned in it.
Mind you this Journal has been all over the internet Media.

I trust her that she Did the Paper, The labs did the blind Test. Its been confirmed by several people.
Not one Person who is disputing her work is saying the LABS didn't do the work.

Woodwose Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:52 pm

Franky the labs would not be happy if they were bombarded with enquiries from the general public. Consequently I'm waiting for either a qualified scientist or a specialist journalist to do the verification. No one has done this contrary to what you say.

I have not disputed Ketchum's conclusions. I honestly don't know if she is right. My instinct tells me that there is something hinky going on, but I know better than to trust my instincts in this kind of matter.

The labs involved may not know that they have been referenced. If that is the case they cannot deny something they are unaware of.

Repeating the GeneData blast would be meaningless if the samples are contaminated or corrupted.

If you are willing to ignore all these issues because you 'believe' Ketchum then that's up to you. As far as I am concerned beliefs are irrelevant - I want to 'know' that the paper is legitimate. Beliefs are subjective and I'm concerned with objective facts. Beliefs can result in people accepting all sorts of nonsense.

CMcMillan Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:48 pm

So basically you have no desire to verify for your self anything.
SO you are going to take someone else word for the verification and that person could be wrong or making things up like you are hypothesizing Melba is doing.
Sorry even waiting for someone else to verify it would leave you with the same questions.

CMcMillan Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:50 pm

Repeating the GeneData blast would be meaningless if the samples are contaminated or corrupted.

Only 1 scientist has said the Data is contaminated. No one else has come forward.
Also again if you read her and look at the data she uses DNA from the collectors and other dna for baseline on contamination.

Its your failure in not wanting to read the paper.
Much of what you call into question is answered in the paper.

But sure wait on some "official" scientist to back up your belief of what she did and your feeling of her being Hinky.

I assume if Sykes backs her up you will say he is reading contaminated dna as well.

CMcMillan Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:03 pm

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/biochemist-supports-ketchum-sasquatch-dna-study-2/

I did more blast analyses and came up with the same confusion the independent labs had. The genome has some good human matches and some unknowns.

The sequences are not contaminated, near as I can tell. I have not searched for open reading frames, but that is beyond the scope of my tools. The close matches are gapped with sequences that match nothing. AMEL and MY genes match humans in some cases, in others, not. If I am wrong, I would like to be shown with data, not uninformed opinion from “experts.”
David H. Swenson, Ph.D.

Sponsored content