Home Forums Sasquatch Forum Melba Ketchum’ s Response to the “Scientist Explains DNA”Episode

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 79 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #188933
    Denise F
    Participant

    I wonder if this wasn’t purposely set up to see if Melba wouldn’t get ‘fired up’ and come on to clear things up? 😉

    Surely not, but that would be an interesting 💡.

    #188938
    John A
    Participant

    What an extraordinary discussion!

    #188940
    Pete D
    Participant

    Just to clarify, was this Dr John who was critiquing Dr Ketchum’s work the same guy who supposedly got peed on by a bigfoot in a treehouse?

    #188942
    Debbie S
    Participant

    Yes, he was.

    #188945
    John A
    Participant

    I’m not on Facebook. Did Dr Ketchum mention building on her work with further research? I’d like to hear Dr Ketchum defend her work if not on the podcast then at a scientific meeting or other meeting. Does she have a speaking engagement calendar?

    Also Wes is the interviewer and asked both parties to respond on his podcast. Thank you Wes! – I applaud him for starting this discussion.

    PS I am new and a senior – so I’m still learning my way around this site.

    Peace to all.

    #188946
    John A
    Participant

    PS. FYI
    I could not find the genome in GenBank which is not surprising as you have to have a classified species. I will look in ZooBank and see if I can find it.

    #188947
    John A
    Participant

    This may be of interest to many in forum

    It is very technical but many members may find it interesting.

    The RELICT HOMINOID INQUIRY 5:8-31 (2016)

    DNA AS EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF RELICT HOMINOIDS
    Haskell V. Hart*
    Canyon Lake, TX 78133
    ABSTRACT. DNA sequencing methods available to the wildlife biologist or forensic anthropologist are briefly summarized. Their recent applications to potential relict hominoid samples are critically reviewed. Guidelines for sample collection and transport, analytical method selection, and interpretation of results are presented. None of the six published DNA studies to date have yielded any credible evidence for the existence of a relict hominoid.
    KEY WORDS: sequencing, bigfoot, sasquatch, DNA, analysis

    #188948
    m99
    Moderator

    @John A ~ You may be surprised at the amount of people here that DO understand the above statement. If someone is non-technical in scientific research (such as myself) there are (including the moderators) many who will step up and correct, instruct and converse about the subject, helping to generally understand the issue (s), which is welcome. This site is About Learning.

    #188950
    John A
    Participant

    Cool M99! Someone earlier referenced this citation. It’s very interesting. I hope this line of research continues and I’m looking forward to further studies.

    #189057
    Knobby
    Moderator

    John A, you wrote, I’d like to hear Dr Ketchum defend her work if not on the podcast then at a scientific meeting or other meeting.

    That sounds to me like you are unaware of her many rebuttals to these debunking scientists who repeat each other, saying the same things, and never acknowledging her answers to these scientists, none of which are geneticists themselves, including Dr. Haskell Hart, but are in other fields of biology.

    These scientist debunkers and those that entertain them only give one side, and people listening to them and their scientific jargon think they must know what they are talking about.

    So, here is one of many videos where Dr. Ketchum is interviewed about her findings and addresses these biased scientists who approach the subject that sasquatch does not exist and go about knocking down Ketchum on little technical issues, whil3 themselves false statements, and what not in support of their bias.

    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by Knobby.
    #189059
    Knobby
    Moderator

    You quoted Haskell Hart None of the six published DNA studies to date have yielded any credible evidence for the existence of a relict hominoid.

    That’s his and his ilk’s opinion. There have been scientists who are open to the possibility of Ketchum’s findings, and at least one study outside of Dr. Ketchum’s that replicated her findings, according to Dr. Ketchum, but they have not as yet gone public.

    You wrote,I could not find the genome in GenBank which is not surprising as you have to have a classified species.

    Of course, before sasquatch would ever be a recognized species in GenBank there would need to be a type species. Mainstream science will never accept their existence without a body (dead or alive).

    #189066
    John A
    Participant

    Knobby
    I didn’t quote Haskell – I just gave the reference for the forum’s participants. It doesn’t represent my viewpoint.

    I didn’t expect it to be in GenBank but as I’m familiar with the databases I thought I’d check to see if there have been any interesting submissions.

    #189067
    John A
    Participant

    Also I believe there have been many bodies. What I’d like to see are the autopsy reports.

    #189068
    John A
    Participant

    Also I’d like to hear and see Dr Ketchum. I’m aware of her rebuttals. I’m interested in if she is moving forward with further studies.

    #189072
    Knobby
    Moderator

    Knobby
    I didn’t quote Haskell – I just gave the reference for the forum’s participants. It doesn’t represent my viewpoint.

    Haskell V. Hart’s name was attached to the abstract you posted about no credible evidence for the existence of a relict hominoid. That doesn’t say its your viewpoint.

    If you begin listening at the 16:30 minute mark of the video I posted she talks about the team of peer reviewers who didn’t take her paper seriously even before looking at it.

    On another note, as I’ve commented previously, one of the reviewers released items it asked Dr. Ketchum to add to the paper, things not included, and that’s what these non-believing sasquatch debunking scientists repeat among themselves to attack her paper, to say its poorly written, etc.

    Its not uncommon for peer reviewers to send papers back for clarification, which was the case for her paper. She resubmitted with the asked for information and the paper was accepted. But these debunking scientists all harp on what that original reviewer made public, repeating each other. Dr. Ketchum has repeatedly had to correct these debunker’s claims of what the paper is lacking, stating it is in there. It was included in the final submission. But they are still at it, and this John XZ is just repeating the same dribble.

    These scientists start from the premise that sasquatch is a myth, and treat her paper as such. Gullible people hear these debunker’s one sided spill that sets out to destroy her paper and think these experts must know what they are talking about, and go about stating how Dr. Ketchum made a mess of it.

    Forget about Dr. Ketchum going on Sasquatch Chronicles. She’s not interested.

    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by Knobby.
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 79 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.