Guest njjohn Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 You're right I typed the name wrong. If you look again, I quoted the correct name. And the comma wasn't a typo, she removed an author from the paper after it was published, which isn't done. Once a scientific paper is published, you don't edit.
Guest njjohn Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 Rayford Wallace. I just said I typed the name wrong and then read it wrong in your post. I've been going in contact with so many people, I am perfectly fine saying I got Rayford and Raymond mixed up for a minute. A typo isn't a contradiction though. A contradiction is would be if I said he was a doctor, and then later said he wasn't a doctor. You can go look at the article though. A typo in a forum post as opposed to errors and contradictions in a scientific paper are completely different things. Do I make mistakes? Absolutely. The difference is I own up to mine. 1
Guest thermalman Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 @ SS "And also including at least one known hoaxer, Janice Carter Coy, who provided multiple samples that were included in the study." Do you have proof of what you claim? @ SS "Chain of custody has nothing to do with what the sample is or any information regarding it. It simply establishes who has an item and who comes into possession of it (or works with it). I'm sure Family Tree knew who sent the samples, and I'm sure they knew (or thought they knew) who they were sending the samples back to. But with no chain of custody there is no accounting for what happened to the samples or who came into possession of them." Could you please tell us why the chain of custody was never mentioned as an issue or concern with Bart's and Tyler's samples, and only with Melba's? We are listening with keen ears. Apples to apples is only fair. @SS "Family Tree's statements directly contradict this statement." Have you actually talked to Family Tree about what they said?
Guest njjohn Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) Why would I edit it? It's still there, so it says Raymond in the posting and Rayford in the quote. You'd also see the *edited by me at time - if I had edited my post, like it does with yours. My mistake is right there in the open. As to chain of custody... it is because Dr. Ketchum claimed it was done with up to forensic standards that it is brought up. Bart and Tyler never claimed that. That's the difference. The claims raise the expectations. Edited April 3, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC To remove response to removed content
Guest Silent Sam Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) @ SS "And also including at least one known hoaxer, Janice Carter Coy, who provided multiple samples that were included in the study." Do you have proof of what you claim? Absolutely. Table #1 lists samples and contributors by name. I would imagine I'm not allowed to post the entire pdf, but the relevant information is as follows. Mary Green is listed as a co-contributor on samples 83-88, and 91-93. She is listed as the sole contributor on sample 90. Janice Carter Coy (she is listed as Jan Carter in the pdf) is a sole contributor on samples 101, 102, 105, and 106. She is listed as a co-contributor on samples 103 and 104. @ SS"Chain of custody has nothing to do with what the sample is or any information regarding it. It simply establishes who has an item and who comes into possession of it (or works with it). I'm sure Family Tree knew who sent the samples, and I'm sure they knew (or thought they knew) who they were sending the samples back to. But with no chain of custody there is no accounting for what happened to the samples or who came into possession of them." Could you please tell us why the chain of custody was never mentioned as an issue or concern with Bart's and Tyler's samples, and only with Melba's? We are listening with keen ears. Apples to apples is only fair. I can't speak for anyone else and I won't attempt to. If Bart and Tyler made the claim "They were treated as forensic samples and cataloged to maintain an appropriate chain of custody" then I would fully expect them to live up to that claim or else be held accountable. That's the beauty of a standard. It applies to everyone equally. @SS"Family Tree's statements directly contradict this statement." Have you actually talked to Family Tree about what they said? I was satisfied with the response I received and did not feel it warranted further correspondence. If you feel like there might be more information available I would encourage you to contact Family Tree directly, and would hope you would share any additional information you receive. Edited April 3, 2013 by Silent Sam
Guest Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 So much for Melba's puny extra comma mistake? Making a boo-boo of someone's first name is a far cry from deleting a coauthor after "publication" of a "scientific paper." Apples and oranges.
Guest thermalman Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 (edited) @ SS "I can't speak for anyone else and I won't attempt to." Really? You don't seem to shy about questioning and picking apart MK and her chain of custody probabilities? Hypocritical answer on your part, and your posts prove it. @ SS "I was satisfied with the response I received and did not feel it warranted further correspondence." The response you received, was it directly from Family Tree, or via the "grapevine"? Making a boo-boo of someone's first name is a far cry from deleting a coauthor after "publication" of a "scientific paper." Apples and oranges. Really? Where then, is the credibility of stating the credentials of someone, who's name doesn't even appear on the MK report. And then, applying the same credentials, as valid, to correctly named person on the report? I believe that's called deception? @ SS. "Absolutely. Table #1 lists samples and contributors by name. I would imagine I'm not allowed to post the entire pdf, but the relevant information is as follows. Mary Green is listed as a co-contributor on samples 83-88, and 91-93. She is listed as the sole contributor on sample 90. Janice Carter Coy (she is listed as Jan Carter in the pdf) is a sole contributor on samples 101, 102, 105, and 106. She is listed as a co-contributor on samples 103 and 104." Ridiculous claim! MK was testing over a hundred samples, from who knows how many different people? Where the samples came from is totally irrelevant! A sample, is just that,.....a sample! BTW, what were the results of the tested samples from your suggested hoaxers above? Edited April 3, 2013 by thermalman
Guest njjohn Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 TM - I think you might be confused. Credentials weren't swapped. Dr. Rayford Wallace is the editor of the paper, and he's the one with a minister degree. The name Raymond Wallace was my mistake, which I've said repeatedly now was a mistake. I quoted Rayford's own words back in that original post, so it's obvious Raymond wasn't what I meant. Let's go over this again. It was a typo which I agreed with you.I would never deny making a mistake. A contradiction is when two points being made go against each other, so it's not that. A conflict of interest is where I have some stake involved in how the facts turn out. Since I will report the facts whichever way they are revealed, it's not that. Deception is when someone is trying to cover something up or stop the truth from coming out. I agreed that I made a mistake, so it's not that. Everything I've reported on so far is public information. It's all easily available for anyone to find, it just requires time. I sincerely apologize if the truth isn't what you want to hear.
Guest Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 Really? Where then, is the credibility of stating the credentials of someone, who's name doesn't even appear on the MK report. And then, applying the same credentials, as valid, to correctly named person on the report? I believe that's called deception? I have no idea what on earth you are trying to ask here. I only pointed out the illogical comparison you made of John's admitted boo-boo regarding Wallace's first name to Dr. Ketchum's questionable deletion of a coauthor. I didn't say anything about anyone's credentials.
Guest Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 Kudos to njjohn, shboom, ridgerunner and many others that have exposed the many inconsistencies and problems with the NK paper. As a scientist I ultimately look at the data, regardless of chain of custody and other issues. The data is laughable, and frankly, embarrassing. I feel bad for those who submitted samples to the study because I am fairly sure that some of the samples were bona fide BF. When I submit a manuscript to a journal, and the reviewers ask for more data - I give it to them. In fact, I bury them in new data to make sure that the manuscript is accepted and published. MK publishes a snippet of the data she claims she has (I don't think she has more data). She refuses to release the complete data set (because it probably doesn't exist). She claims the full data is being analyzed by a team of experts (cherry-picked and paid for positive comments), and support for her conclusions is forthcoming (not exactly the way other scientists do it). Clearly, only experts in genomics and phylogenetics (landscape architects at Ancestry.com and ministers) can decipher the complexities of MK's data. Co-author's have been removed from the paper (because they didn't want to be associated with shoddy science), and highly regarded forensic labs distance themselves from the paper (because they didn't want to be associated with shoddy science). Her paper doesn't even qualify as "science." The Nobel Prize winning physicist, Richard Feynman, would have called it "Cargo Cult Science." It has all the trapping of real science, but no substance! Actually, that's too generous - the MK paper lacks most of the trappings of real science. My BS meter is pegged at maximum. Genes
yowiie Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 Great post Genes, hopefully a few contributors to this thread will take some sound advice
Guest Cervelo Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 ^^^^^ Thst would be "game, set, match" IMO! That
Guest Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 So, hypothetically, if there were no more data, would this be considered a hoax, or a gross misinterpretation of the available data?
TimB Posted April 3, 2013 Posted April 3, 2013 In fact, I'll help you: Tom: helixtom@wowway.com Andreas: holzen@tamu.edu David: (214) 920-5952 Douglas: (817) 293-4304 Pat: (318) 227-2889 Aliece: (817) 553-6565 Fan: Fan.Zhang@unthsc.edu Sarah, Ray and Ryan appear to be former employees of DNA Diagnostics and are virtually impossible to locate online unless you pay for online people-finder services. DNA Diagnostics has employed no one since Dr. Ketchum closed the lab last year. So in your world, it's reasonable for me to track down hearsay from a biased source? Yet you take the arguments of people who agree with you at their word? I don't get it... Do we just believe what is posted as long as it agrees with our stance and only track it down only when we don't agree with it? Or do we check everything? This is extremely confusing- I thought we just look at the source of information to make our decisions on it's validity? Isn't that what this whole thread is based on? When did we start verifying everything? Or is it only the stuff from JREF?...
Recommended Posts