Bigfoot News
Bigfoot Evidence
Bigfoot Evidence
RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 



The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Page 1 of 7 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  BurdenOfProof on Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:26 pm

Everyone keeps saying I should read the paper before making any comments on the paper.

Well whats the point in that? Im not a geneticist so the paper would mean nothing to me. Instead the best thing to do is go by what the qualified PHDs are saying after reading the paper.

I have started this thread to keep track of all comments from qualified professionals who have read the paper.

I will start with the following:

From:
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2013/02/what-do-geneticists-think-of-the-bigfoot-paper/


First up is 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.”

....


Next is the view from 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.”) 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.”

“The tree in Fig 16 is inconsistent with known primate phylogeny and generally makes no sense.”

....


Here’s the view from Todd Disotell, a human origins expert at New York University who has previously tested dozens of DNA samples from people claiming to have Bigfoot DNA.


“It’s clearly a fake Vanity Journal with lots of ShutterStock pictures, misspellings and it was only created on 2/4/13. I’ve only read the abstract and conclusion and neither makes any sense.”


...


One of the commenters stated the following:


Will says:

February 14, 2013 at 8:30 am


I have no idea why Richard Gibbs was so charitable. I can only imagine that he didn’t take the time to read any of the paper. I read as much of it as I could until the sheer weight of the BS became unbearable. Yes, I do have a PhD in genetics and do feel qualified to say that the manuscript is utter nonsense.

So there we have it, why should I be paying $30 to buy a paper that experts say is worthless?

If anyone comes accross any more real scientists views on the paper please post them here to keep a record. Im sure there are some howlers out there.
avatar
BurdenOfProof

Posts : 263
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:41 pm

Yesterday afternoon I expressed my opinion, as a layman science journalist, about the validity of new research from Melba Ketchum, a Nacogdoches geneticist who claims to have found Bigfoot DNA. I was not charitable.

Its funny the one Scientist you quoted says its interesting.
It’s an intriguing hypothesis. One would need to view more sequencing information before supporting the conclusions.”


“It’s clearly a fake Vanity Journal with lots of ShutterStock pictures, misspellings and it was only created on 2/4/13. I’ve only read the abstract and conclusion and neither makes any sense.”

why Post this the person didn't read it.

Seriously your "Proof" that the paper is JUNK is not there yet.

avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Squatchmaster G on Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:07 pm

CMcMillan wrote:Its funny the one Scientist you quoted says its interesting.
It’s an intriguing hypothesis. One would need to view more sequencing information before supporting the conclusions.”

That there is one of the main problems with the paper - Ketchum has drawn all sorts of conclusions from her data but since she hasn't supplied the raw data no one can verify her results. We can only take her word that she found what she says she found since she hasn't supplied the evidence to back up her claims.

Presenting the raw data is expected, by the way. Her company has a copyright claim on the genome information so there's absolutely no reason why she shouldn't supply the data for verification.
avatar
Squatchmaster G

Posts : 202
Join date : 2013-01-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:35 pm

And yet has anyone asked her for samples yet?
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Squatchmaster G on Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:38 pm

CMcMillan wrote:And yet has anyone asked her for samples yet?
The standard procedure is to upload the sequences to Genbank and she didn't do that. Until she does then no one can actually check that her conclusions are valid.

I read a post from her somewhere that she claimed that the sequences are **super special** and can't be uploaded to Genbank for some technical reason but another geneticist commented and said that didn't make sense.
Edit: it was mentioned in the first post of the thread:
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
avatar
Squatchmaster G

Posts : 202
Join date : 2013-01-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Squatchmaster G on Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:58 pm

Shawn has reported Prof. Meldrum and Steven Streufert's reactions to the paper:

Jeff Meldrum wrote:The journal was created on a GoDaddy template on Feb 4, by a third party, with a one-year contract. There is no information about who is editing the "journal" or who the members of an editorial board might be. I queried the contact feature on this matter but have received no reply. This does not appear to be a refereed journal. It appears to merely be a front for a self-published report. The sequences have not been uploaded to Genbank.
Link


Steve Streufert wrote:I've said this many times before, and I'll say it again:
Ketchum may indeed have real Bigfoot samples, but she clearly screwed up the scientific process in many ways, and seems to have an extremely naive interpretation of what the data mean. This will become clear when real scientists get a hold of that data. Even then, it is possible that this flawed study could lead to the proof of the possible Sasquatch species. Personally, I would love to see that happen.
Link

Steve adds: "There may indeed be something behind it, within all the mess. Real, earnest, dedicated researchers put their hearts and souls into this. One can only hope it was not all for nothing."


J.R. McClanahan from the Miami University has started a discussion about Ketchum's ethics in self-publishing her paper on www.researchgate.net here. He calls it "gross misconduct" and wonders whether "online self-publication is going to be the new wave of the pseudo-scientific future."
avatar
Squatchmaster G

Posts : 202
Join date : 2013-01-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:19 pm

GenBank Data Usage

The GenBank database is designed to provide and encourage access within the scientific community to the most up to date and comprehensive DNA sequence information. Therefore, NCBI places no restrictions on the use or distribution of the GenBank data. However, some submitters may claim patent, copyright, or other intellectual property rights in all or a portion of the data they have submitted. NCBI is not in a position to assess the validity of such claims, and therefore cannot provide comment or unrestricted permission concerning the use, copying, or distribution of the information contained in GenBank.

See you seem to think this is a MUST do.
Nothing no where says she MUST upload to this place. It is Encouraged too.
She doesn't have too.
Question:
If the science community will not accept her paper. Why would she want to upload her Information to this place?

Sure she should have to allow others to view it. But look at how everyone is trashing her and those who haven't even read the paper.

Yea all those people trashing me I sure wouldn't want to help them.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:20 pm

online self-publication

So according to that one Person.
Anyone who self Publish is not a real writer either.
Guess Amazon should remove all the self Publishing e-pubs.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Squatchmaster G on Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:23 pm

CMcMillan wrote:
online self-publication
So according to that one Person.
Anyone who self Publish is not a real writer either.
Guess Amazon should remove all the self Publishing e-pubs.

We're having a serious discussion here, please stop trolling the thread with these ridiculoius attempts at hijacking the conversation.
avatar
Squatchmaster G

Posts : 202
Join date : 2013-01-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:45 pm

Running the data

Normally, publishers require genetic sequences to be submitted to a public database before a paper's publication, but there's a slight hitch here: the big public database requires a species identification, and sasquatch isn't officially a species. While the research team works on sorting out the species issues, it has provisionally settled on Homo sapiens cognatus. Some of the sequence data from the alleged bigfoot is available as downloadable supplements.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Squatchmaster G on Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:57 pm



Thanks for the personal abuse, you're really classy. lol!

CMcMillan wrote:when 1 so called expert says she didn't load it to the bank you say see its not good science.
Yet she doesn't have too.

No, she really, really has to. Her paper is useless without it since the DNA sequence is the empirical evidence for her arguments. If she doesn't share the data then she hasn't presented any evidence to back up her claims and she's just spinning wild stories without any proof.
Sharing the data is the entire point of her five years of research and the entire reason that people have been waiting for DNA evidence of Bigfoot.

CMcMillan wrote:
Running the data

Normally, publishers require genetic sequences to be submitted to a public database before a paper's publication, but there's a slight hitch here: the big public database requires a species identification, and sasquatch isn't officially a species. While the research team works on sorting out the species issues, it has provisionally settled on Homo sapiens cognatus. Some of the sequence data from the alleged bigfoot is available as downloadable supplements.

That's a terrible excuse, and even if she couldn't upload it to Genbank there's a whole bunch of other ways she could have published the data. There's absolutely no reason for her to have published the paper without publishing the data.
avatar
Squatchmaster G

Posts : 202
Join date : 2013-01-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:03 pm

Its not HER Excuse
Its from one of the EXPERTS you posted from.
Seriously did you even read what your links say>?



No, she really, really has to. Her paper is useless without it since the DNA sequence is the empirical evidence for her arguments. If she doesn't share the data then she hasn't presented any evidence to back up her claims and she's just spinning wild stories without any proof.
Sharing the data is the entire point of her five years of research and the entire reason that people have been waiting for DNA evidence of Bigfoot.

Again NO SHE DOESN'T.
She can say f'u to the whole thing. Yes it is in her best Interest too upload it. But as I showed from one of your own LINKS. They don't have a classification for her to upload it too.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:06 pm

Thanks for the personal abuse, you're really classy.

Just as classy as you are.
Inferring that I am trolling because you don't like the information I am posting.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Squatchmaster G on Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:12 pm

CMcMillan wrote:She can say f'u to the whole thing. Yes it is in her best Interest too upload it.

If she doesn't upload it then no one has any reason to bother reading her paper or take her claims seriously. The paper is useless without the accompanying data.

CMcMillan wrote:But as I showed from one of your own LINKS. They don't have a classification for her to upload it too.
You didn't identify where the quote came from and I've read several hundred articles in the last few days so I can't remember where every single quote comes from. From memory I think they were quoting Ketchum anyway. Post the link (like you should have done in the first place) so we can all find out.

CMcMillan wrote:Just as classy as you are.
Inferring that I am trolling because you don't like the information I am posting.
No you're trolling because you're spamming the threads with a ridiculous amount of posts, you're trying to derail every discussion with irrelevant arguments and you're resorting to personal attacks against posters like me.
avatar
Squatchmaster G

Posts : 202
Join date : 2013-01-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:45 pm

Wow Irrelevant arguments?

The fact is you are trying to assume you KNOW what should be DONE with Ketchums paper or what REAL evidence is.
I am just pointing out your own flawed logic. Even when I post your own sources you argue against it.
I am providing Facts and Definitions to back up my claims you are providing nothing.

Some views on Peer Review:

http://boingboing.net/2011/04/22/meet-science-what-is.htmlhttp://boingboing.net/2011/04/22/meet-science-what-is.html

If a paper is peer reviewed does that mean it's correct?

In a word: Nope.

http://hastac.org/blogs/cathy-davidson/does-digital-publishing-need-peer-review

http://www.linfo.org/peer_review.html
Moreover, it has been suggested that peer review is not always good at detecting fraud, particularly in the case of articles submitted to scientific journals. One reason for this is that the reviewers often do not have immediate or full access to the data on which the articles are based (except perhaps in fields such as mathematics where it is easy to provide the data and attempt to replicate the results). However, longer term peer review (i.e., after the articles have been published) has proven to be much better at detecting fraud.

I can also tell you that Peer Review is not all that its cracked up to be, some of Liebert journals that the authors wrote which were "peer reviewed" had issues with Plagiarizing in them. That somehow wasn't noticed until print.

avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:33 pm

Unfortunately, this is "science" we are talking about, which is a construct of Man, and therefore susceptible to all of Man's short comings.

I myself have had things that were evident, strong, and well demonstrated, but rejected, either due to political reasons of the reviewer (e.g. delay my publication so they could do the same project and publish first, or I was stepping into their territory) or due to the reviewer's own lack of knowledge. The basic solution is to refute the reviewers claims and for the editor to find another. I have heard from Ketchum that so many reviewers treated it as a joke, that the editors just gave up. What good is science when it is being run by children?

Yep, she did buy the journal. I'm not sure what the original name was, but it was supposed to become the American equivalent of Nature, focused on cutting edge, general interest research.

The plan was to continue collecting articles and make a proper publication, but Ketchum became convinced that another paper on bigfoot DNA is coming out on Feb. 15th, and so she rushed the release of her paper. It would be great if another paper is released soon.
Source: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7225-the-ketchum-report/page__st__13920
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:51 pm

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/02/ketchum-is-now-all-in-with-her-bigfoot.html



I have independent analysis of our data going on. If the outcome of what we are doing supports our analysis, then we are vindicated. If not, then I will announce that also. It involves top level scientists that have volunteered after I released the paper. If their findings are the same, they will go public. So, please be patient. They also will assure upload to GenBank and they can make that happen. - Dr. Melba Ketchum
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  BurdenOfProof on Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:58 pm

CMcMillan wrote:http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/02/ketchum-is-now-all-in-with-her-bigfoot.html



I have independent analysis of our data going on. If the outcome of what we are doing supports our analysis, then we are vindicated. If not, then I will announce that also. It involves top level scientists that have volunteered after I released the paper. If their findings are the same, they will go public. So, please be patient. They also will assure upload to GenBank and they can make that happen. - Dr. Melba Ketchum

You know what that sounds like? A PEER REVIEW!! ahaha.

Not sure whats going on now, apparently before hand scientists refused to review it or publish it but now apparently shes has found some that will review it? No names of course. The whole thing is just crazy.

Has anyone heard of any scientists that have good things to say about the paper because I cant find any?
avatar
BurdenOfProof

Posts : 263
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:54 pm

Then your not looking or Reading.

Several People have said the Science seems good.
They don't agree with her conclusions or some find them Intresting.

avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  BurdenOfProof on Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:56 pm

CMcMillan wrote:Then your not looking or Reading.

Several People have said the Science seems good.
They don't agree with her conclusions or some find them Intresting.


Links please, I am genuinely interested and will give them a fair read.
avatar
BurdenOfProof

Posts : 263
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:00 pm

How about you look around on your own.
You really have no desire to look at it objectively.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  BurdenOfProof on Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:02 pm

CMcMillan wrote:How about you look around on your own.
You really have no desire to look at it objectively.

I have looked and read a lot but can not see anything positive?
avatar
BurdenOfProof

Posts : 263
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Woodwose on Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:39 pm

Meldrum finds her conclusions 'interesting' but talks about Matilda having fanged incisors. That alone is pretty damning. A few mammals have fanged (or rather pointed) incisors, but no primates - have fanged incisors.

Your average Joe will often get incisors and cuspids confused, but mistaking incisors for canines is a faux pas that is pretty much unforgivable for an academic in his field.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Squatchmaster G on Sun Feb 17, 2013 12:46 pm

BurdenOfProof wrote:
CMcMillan wrote:http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/02/ketchum-is-now-all-in-with-her-bigfoot.html
I have independent analysis of our data going on. If the outcome of what we are doing supports our analysis, then we are vindicated. If not, then I will announce that also. It involves top level scientists that have volunteered after I released the paper. If their findings are the same, they will go public. So, please be patient. They also will assure upload to GenBank and they can make that happen. - Dr. Melba Ketchum

You know what that sounds like? A PEER REVIEW!! ahaha.

Not sure whats going on now, apparently before hand scientists refused to review it or publish it but now apparently shes has found some that will review it? No names of course. The whole thing is just crazy.

To be fair, if I was a scientist who'd volunteered to review the paper I'd ask for my name to be kept confidential until the review was published after the way some of Ketchum's associates have been hassled this week.

This belated "peer review" might not help much anyway unless the reviewers say that she's completely correct and they're willing to have their names released and they're well known geneticists who are actually independent of Ketchum and Sasquatch research in general. If she doesn't release the full reviews with the names of the reviewers then the reviews will be completely worthless.
The fact that she's arranging the review with them directly and knows who they are will invalidate the review in many people's eyes, especially if their assessment of the data is in any way vague or indefinite.

This entire process a really good example of why it's important to have the peer review arranged independently by the editor of an established journal.

BurdenOfProof wrote:Has anyone heard of any scientists that have good things to say about the paper because I cant find any?

I've read some newspaper articles that accepted the claims but they were pretty much just reprinted Kethcum's press releases without evaluating them at all. I've read a few quotes from scientists who were guardedly neutral but I haven't heard anyone supporting her except Paulides.
avatar
Squatchmaster G

Posts : 202
Join date : 2013-01-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 7 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum