Ketchum DNA Paper?

Possibly, but no one has come forward and verified it as yet. How many times do I have to explain that the list of labs and technicians could be a fabrication?

The labs are listed I posted them.
You can call them up. That is very easy for you to Verify if you don't want to do it your self. then saying the LABS are Fabrications is your BS excuse.
It has them listed and the address's so open a phone book or search with google.

You really are on a witch hunt to not believe what she wrote.

Your Doubts you can easily verify pick up a phone and call the labs. Stop expecting someone to do it for you.

CMcMillan wrote:You can call them up.

Not without stumping up the money for expensive international calls. But again you are missing the point - I'm just asking a question: 'have the lab citations been verified'? The answer to that appears to be 'no'. I'm sure that in due course someone will check with the labs, but until that happens there is a potential for fraud. It's a concern, not an accusation.

You really are on a witch hunt to not believe what she wrote.

Because I've expressed doubts and asked questions?

Even though I haven't made any accusations against Ketchum or stated that her paper is bogus?

Talk about blowing things out of proportion.

Woodwose wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:You can call them up.

Not without stumping up the money for expensive international calls. But again you are missing the point - I'm just asking a question: 'have the lab citations been verified'? The answer to that appears to be 'no'. I'm sure that in due course someone will check with the labs, but until that happens there is a potential for fraud. It's a concern, not an accusation.

You really are on a witch hunt to not believe what she wrote.

Because I've expressed doubts and asked questions?

Even though I haven't made any accusations against Ketchum or stated that her paper is bogus?

Talk about blowing things out of proportion.

Wood,
The Labs are listed in the Internet,
You can find out if they are real labs, not that hard to do.

CMcMillan wrote:You can find out if they are real labs, not that hard to do.

I don't really doubt that they are real labs. I've explained my concerns above - we don't know if the stated labs were used or if the DNA analysis shown in Ketchum's paper matches that provided by the labs.

We can't just take Ketchum's word for it, so obviously someone needs to check up on this and rule out fraud. This kind of checking isn't uncalled for and it would have been carried out during a proper peer review of the paper.

where are you missing the facts.
You seem to think that she just threw the names of these labs in for her giggles. That she didn't use them in the blind study.
A peer review they don't call the labs up and go he did you do this work.
Peer Review they will read her information and ask her for more Information on the raw data.
Which She has given.
You said prior that the labs could be made up. You specifically said LABS and the people.
That to me says you believe Both the Labs and the people are made up.

Its amazing the amount of hoops you want people to go thru for this paper.

Again the Paper has photos of the DNA, and the samples.

Again several scientists have contacted her to obtain more information to check her findings out.


She is having the paper Peer Reviewed now by several others. If she was making all the labs up sure it would have been out by now.

Ketchum could very well have fabricated a list of labs and technicians from the directories that are freely available. And yes these things would be covered in peer review - peer review questions the authenticity of all aspects of a paper, not just its findings.

How would it look if a journal signed off on a paper that turned out to be bogus and then it was revealed that the journal didn't check the authors references etc. Their peer review reputation would be in tatters.

This isn't jumping through hoops, this is standard practice.

I haven't denied that various scientists are going to look more closely at the paper and look at the DNA. I haven't said that this kind of scrutiny is a bad thing.

I don't understand why you keep misrepresenting what I have said and going on about the same thing over and over again. The paper needs to be checked, verified and tested as necessary. You have agreed that this is the case, so what exactly are you arguing about?

How am I miss reading what you say:

The labs may not even know that they are being referenced and they may not have checked to see if Ketchum has honestly reported their findings.

We only have Ketchum's word for that. Anyone can claim to have sent samples to a lab for testing. As I said before the labs need to confirm their involvement.

I'm not looking for ways to discredit the paper. I'm identifying self-evident issues with the authenticity of Ketchum's findings.

Possibly, but no one has come forward and verified it as yet. How many times do I have to explain that the list of labs and technicians could be a fabrication?

So she made all the labs up and all the Names. Don't think this would have been called out already by now?
Seriously your grasping at straws.

We are going around in circles here. You can't say that the data has been verified until these results are published and the labs confirm that they were involved and that their data has not been misrepresented.

The data is just that. They were hired to just check the DNA and give the findings. She in the paper even says when something came back Normal or not. Its a whole Table in the back.

I'm saying is that we need to see verification of the data and methodology that would ordinarily have been checked during peer review. That isn't asking too much - it's just asking Ketchum to meet the standards everyone else has to meet.

Why do you need to see it, You said your not qualified to see it.
I have already stated several "Scientists" have confirmed they are looking at the Data to check it. So again its being done.

You are the one saying she made this stuff UP not me.
I said the Conclusions are up for debate. The Lab work is valid lab work NOT one of your "scientists" who claim the paper is crap have denied the LAB work.

And you are just parroting Tyler H basically.

Did you not understand my previous post?

Woodwose wrote:Did you not understand my previous post?

Yes I did,
I agree the paper should be reviewed.
But your assuming and making assumptions that she LIED about the Labs that did the work.
Big difference in checking the work and Assuming the labs are not real and the data is all made up.

I have made no such assumption - where did you get that from? I suggest that you are are the one making assumptions and once again you have not paid proper attention to what I have written.

As with any scientific paper, fraud needs to be ruled out, but the author/s are innocent until proven guilty. Checking for fraud is not the same as making an allegation of fraud. I could not accuse Ketchum of fraud or deception without evidence and I have no such evidence.

If I meant to accuse Ketchum of fraud I would have done so in no uncertain terms and put forward the evidence needed to make my case.

Do you understand now?

Woodwose wrote:I have made no such assumption - where did you get that from? I suggest that you are are the one making assumptions and once again you have not paid proper attention to what I have written.

As with any scientific paper, fraud needs to be ruled out, but the author/s are innocent until proven guilty. Checking for fraud is not the same as making an allegation of fraud. I could not accuse Ketchum of fraud or deception without evidence and I have no such evidence.

If I meant to accuse Ketchum of fraud I would have done so in no uncertain terms and put forward the evidence needed to make my case.

Do you understand now?

The labs may not even know that they are being referenced and they may not have checked to see if Ketchum has honestly reported their findings.

That is you accusing her of Fraud.

The Family Tree DNA Genomics Research Centre has a Facebook page if anyone wants to contact them directly:
https://www.facebook.com/FamilyTreeDNA

CMcMillan wrote:That is you accusing her of Fraud.

Nonsense. I was just giving you a hypothetical scenario to consider.

Clearly you don't understand the difference between speculation and accusation. At no point on this thread have I accused Ketchum of fraud. You may believe otherwise, but I can assure you that you are simply mistaken and have not read my posts properly.

You were not saying it was Hypothetical at all in any of your posts.
So when i go off on Hypothetical and even say it is , you jump on my case but when you don't even say your talking hypothetically I just don't understand? Get real.

southernyahoo
Well, you can't just go grab someone's DNA and load it in genbank, the mtDNA sequences are fully human, so they would have to be accompanied by a release from the donor.

Sykes can tell you about how some native american sequences were loaded and studied under scandalous circumtances. It is a real obstacle for loading those in genbank.

If you think about it, showing a full body HD video at close range under the pretense that it is fully human or quasi human might require something similar

Don't know how true the above is but is intresting.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/submit/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/submit_types

Neat article:
http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/sasquatch-dna

You two should exchange phone numbers and hash this out. Just a suggestion.

The big problem is that the only source for all this information so far has been Ketchum herself and she's definitely not an unbiased, independent source. She's got every reason to pitch everything in the best possible light in terms of supporting her hypothesis and everything she presents has been filtered through her interpretation of what happened. I'm not accusing her of outright lying about anything, I'm just saying that she hasn't given us the full story on a whole bunch of elements underlying her paper.

This is why it's absolutely crucial that formal scientific papers be published by independent editors of established journals - it's in their professional interest to check up on everything ensure that it all checks out. Ketchum now has to try and validate everything after the fact which is a major pain in the ass for everyone involved.

CMcMillan wrote:Your Doubts you can easily verify pick up a phone and call the labs. Stop expecting someone to do it for you.

No. If a scientist makes a claim it's not up to anyone else to fill in the blanks, it's incumbent on the person making the claim to supply all the necessary evidence and verifications. If the evidence is inconclusive or incomplete then their argument is incomplete and their conclusions can be dismissed until they present a better argument. "Maybe" doesn't cut it. "I've got all the evidence but I can't show you" doesnt cut it. "That other journal doesn't exist so I can't release their names" doesn't cut it. These are all unacceptable reasons for presenting an incomplete paper.

CMcMillan wrote:You were not saying it was Hypothetical at all in any of your posts.

It was self evident. However if there was some confusion in your mind, you should have asked for clarification.

You really need to learn how to ask questions before jumping to conclusions or making assumptions.

Woodwose wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:You were not saying it was Hypothetical at all in any of your posts.

It was self evident. However if there was some confusion in your mind, you should have asked for clarification.

You really need to learn how to ask questions before jumping to conclusions or making assumptions.

Bull it was not Self Evident and you know it.
Give me a freaking break. Stop back pedaling.

So MM says the Matilda Video is real
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/02/matt-moneymaker-confirms-matilda.html#moretop

CMcMillan wrote:So MM says the Matilda Video is real
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/02/matt-moneymaker-confirms-matilda.html#moretop

I thought you didn't like/Trust Moneymaker?

Squatchmaster G wrote:The big problem is that the only source for all this information so far has been Ketchum herself and she's definitely not an unbiased, independent source. She's got every reason to pitch everything in the best possible light in terms of supporting her hypothesis and everything she presents has been filtered through her interpretation of what happened. I'm not accusing her of outright lying about anything, I'm just saying that she hasn't given us the full story on a whole bunch of elements underlying her paper.

This is why it's absolutely crucial that formal scientific papers be published by independent editors of established journals - it's in their professional interest to check up on everything ensure that it all checks out. Ketchum now has to try and validate everything after the fact which is a major pain in the ass for everyone involved.

CMcMillan wrote:Your Doubts you can easily verify pick up a phone and call the labs. Stop expecting someone to do it for you.

No. If a scientist makes a claim it's not up to anyone else to fill in the blanks, it's incumbent on the person making the claim to supply all the necessary evidence and verifications. If the evidence is inconclusive or incomplete then their argument is incomplete and their conclusions can be dismissed until they present a better argument. "Maybe" doesn't cut it. "I've got all the evidence but I can't show you" doesnt cut it. "That other journal doesn't exist so I can't release their names" doesn't cut it. These are all unacceptable reasons for presenting an incomplete paper.

So explain if Peer Review is to do all this they don't catch plagiarism in papers?
She has Provided the evidence to the Scientists who asked this is not just from her mouth but many of the scientists on Bigfoot Forums.
So again your jumping up and down with out knowing the facts.
People asked her directly for more Information she supplied it. She doesn't have to give it to the screaming mass who want nothing more than to trash her. And not read the paper or take it seriously.

Squatchmaster G wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:So MM says the Matilda Video is real
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/02/matt-moneymaker-confirms-matilda.html#moretop

I thought you didn't like/Trust Moneymaker?

Doesn't matter if I do or don't
I am posting Information on the Paper and the evidence around it.

CMcMillan wrote:So explain if Peer Review is to do all this they don't catch plagiarism in papers?
She has Provided the evidence to the Scientists who asked this is not just from her mouth but many of the scientists on Bigfoot Forums.
So again your jumping up and down with out knowing the facts.
People asked her directly for more Information she supplied it. She doesn't have to give it to the screaming mass who want nothing more than to trash her. And not read the paper or take it seriously.

Nope, her paper was incomplete when she 'published' it so there's no requirement for anyone to ask for additional information before dismissing it. It was a bad paper and therefore her conclusions are bad, end of story.

CMcMillan wrote:Doesn't matter if I do or don't
I am posting Information on the Paper and the evidence around it.

So you accept statements from sources you don't trust as long as they agree with your opinion? Ah, I see. That clears it up perfectly.

Did I say I disagree or Agree with the source?
No I just posted the link.

How is it any different with you or others posting Links to Prove your Side of the story about all the "scientists" claiming her paper is crap?

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.

Seriously your seem to be Trolling

So you accept statements from sources you don't trust as long as they agree with your opinion? Ah, I see. That clears it up perfectly

Show me where I said I don't Trust MM. I may not the way he acts on things.
Just like I don't like how Mike Merchant acts or others. I find some of what Matt Money and Mike Merchant and others say Interesting.
They all have a specific agenda of their own. That is what I disagree with.

CMcMillan wrote:Bull it was not Self Evident and you know it.
Give me a freaking break. Stop back pedaling.

Don't try and blame me for your screw up. Regardless of whether you think I'm backpedalling, what I originally meant should now be explicitly clear.

For crying out loud, can't you just give it a rest? Dragging this out is no better than trolling.

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?