Sunday, May 5, 2013

DNA Study - Dr. Kethcum and Dr. Swenson have interesting FaceBook Exchange


I found this exchange in response to my previous post "Scientist Announce Support for the Ketchum DNA Study" on Dr. Ketchum's FaceBook page. Dr. Swenson and Dr. Ketchum comment on institutional bias and the lack of fact based criticism of the DNA Study:


  • David H. Swenson Robin, the statements of scientists is not proof. I merely require that people look at the data, as I have done. To critics: If there are errors, please bring them to Melba's attention, and do not waste our time with unfounded opinion. Thanks for posting this, Robin.
  • Greg Nichols Will we ever know if there were scientists who did not agree with the journal and the explanation as to why ?
  • David H. Swenson Most won't touch it for fear of their "reputations."
  • Greg Nichols No, I understand that sir, but we would be able to understand more about were we stand at least with the science community if we could have some sort of tally. 8 against and 2 1/2 for, then we could at least say "what the hell man".
  • Melba Ketchum There have been no critiques of the science. It is the results that main stream science can't handle
  • David H. Swenson True, Melba Ketchum! Science is not based on vote or debate, but on data.
  • Melba Ketchum I haven't kept up with numbers, it doesn't matter. There are others supporting the data that can't come forward due to their jobs and how outward support of this project might affect their credibility. One of them is a geneticist that ran a genomics lab. He BLASTed the data and confirmed it. He is catching heck from his superiors though and at this point can't go public. These ate the types of problems we have encountered.
  • Melba Ketchum lol Can't type on this phone! are...
  • David H. Swenson Why does he/she want to continue to work with that sort of people. Have these "supervisors" do their own BLAST analyses.
  • Greg Nichols Thanks Melba, Just trying to get some clarification. David sometimes life and the situations we find ourselves in mandate that we swallow our principles
    and our pride in order to insure a paycheck...unfortunately.
  • David H. Swenson I understand. I have left places with no integrity. It works out for the best.
    I find the following statement form Melba very insteresting:

      ...There are others supporting the data that can't come forward due to their jobs and how outward support of this project might affect their credibility. One of them is a geneticist that ran a genomics lab. He BLASTed the data and confirmed it. He is catching heck from his superiors though and at this point can't go public. These are the types of problems we have encountered.
    And Dr. Senson's statement:
     Science is not based on vote or debate, but on data.
     
    It appears that even reading the NABS/Ketchum DNA study is "career killer" for "mainstream" scientist. Why? If the DNA paper "lacks probative data" and is nothing more than "human contamination" why not do a scientifically based critique of the paper pointing out these flaws and then publishing it? I would think the "powers that be" would applaud and support a fact based debunking of the DNA study.  
    Could it be that the empirical data is solid and "mainstream science" does not want to take a serious look at the paper?  What are they afraid of ? I thought the ultimate goal of science was "the pursuit of the truth". It appears that those who control "mainstream science" are more worried about politics and protecting their world view. Any empirical data that contradicts this must be suppressed, discredited, or destroyed.   

    Pioneers like Lloyd Pye and Jim Viera have run head long into the "wall of bias". In light of this bias and out right hostility toward any evidence that contradicts the "scientific status quo" I would question any thing "mainstream science" says or does. I now do my own research and draw my own conclusions about a variety of subjects from the origin of man to global warming, uh I mean global cooling and the impending age age, no that was in the 70's, oh yea now its called "climate change". 

9 comments:

  1. Scott,once again I find myself in total agreement with your post. There are many brilliant folks out there,and some of these are finding absolute proof,in the way of hard evidence,that shows the status quo,in many areas,ESP history,are wrong,or not as substantial as they should be. Jim Veria,as you mentioned,I really enjoy his articles and posts. He's found so many interesting things all over America. And if I'm recalling correctly,he,as of now,is the only individual to be removed from the "Ted Talks" series. Well,IMO that says something. That says quite a bit!!!
    And I agree with your comment about doing our own work,and research. Results should speak for the data found,and not personal opinion,bias,political affiliations,etc. When someone investigates,researches a subject,and puts 1 percent of anything other than the facts about the data,info learned,etc,,then it may be deemed as flawed later on. Hell,i barley passed high school.but I can grasp this concept. Lol. It's amazing the level of nonsense,and all the forms of foolishness that so many "intelligent" and "learned" of the main stream science community has recently slunk into over this DNA Study. IMO,that's saying a good bit as well. As In perhaps there is certain largely motivated and highly influence able party's behind these scenes,that want this legacy of bigfoot to stay a myth at all costs. I hate to look at this that way,but some days,it just reeks of it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No surprise here. But is there an agenda - behind the facade?

    Is there a core Elite who know the TRUTH? Because, my my, the TRUTH is strange. Is there an Elite who are using, let's say, the Smithsonian to hide the truth? That only a few know the TRUTH and the rest depend upon an adherence to LIES - otherwise their financial support gets pulled? IF Sasquatch - often related with Hyper-Dimensional activity is REALITY - isn't Hyper-Dimensional universes a REALITY? Then what is the TRUTH - and what are they hiding? In Iraq - what was in the looted Museum - clay tablets of knowledge - knowledge that was the key to unlocking the keys to controlling the processes of life and creation itself! The secrets to the Hyper-dimensional physics that controls creation itself and is the key to understanding the Universe that was before - the Asteroid Belt - the remains of a Planet that was blown up in a Cosmic War millions of years ago?

    Hoagland's Mars and Hyper-Dimensional Physics

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVgFWsfRKAA&feature=player_embedded

    STEALTH MISSION CURIOSITY

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_M0DhIA4p30

    This is an excellent book I discovered at my local public library. Highly recommended. You will note that the Smithsonian is also involved in some of the research.

    http://www.amazon.com/Axis-World-Search-American-Civilization/dp/1931882819

    Finally... if it you can accept that the TRUTH is being hidden core of Elites - here is the evidence:

    Breakaway Civilizations; http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ouJdvOijvUc

    ReplyDelete
  4. 13 inches of snow in Minnesota, in May. 12 inches rain
    St. Louis. I don't see bigfoot shedding his winter coat
    yet. Global warming? Those who are in position control
    the data. That's power, not knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Its warming,just a few degrees is screwing up the weather everywhere,look,even a hack scientist like Melba accepts global warming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well there is no empirical evidence it is caused by man, or any activity we do. It is not "Man Made" and it was a huge hoax IMHO

      Delete
    2. In my useless opinion ( nobody listens ) the
      so-called climate change would happen even without us mere mortals present. The path the
      earth takes around the sun and the amount of sun
      spot activity has more to do with climate, than me cutting grass. I guess I could stop cutting
      grass just to see what would happen.

      Delete
    3. Or stop burning mad amounts of CO2 producing coal,and thats not opinion my friends

      Delete
  6. From what I have read about publishing a scientific paper. You submit your manuscript. It is then reviewed by reviewers (expert scientists) who offer suggestions for changes supposedly to make your manuscript better or more understandable. What happened to that? Sounds to me like that did not happen here. Then there are the editors of the journals who deem the paper is important or not. So a lot of obstacles to jump over. Do you suppose the denials are due to President Obama's sequester which is expected to take a significant toll on scientific research, with numerous federal agencies and organizations now facing the possibility of huge cuts to their budgets?

    ReplyDelete