The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

^^^^

We have not heard from any qualified geneticists yet. Closest there is, is Kruglyak (sp?), and he hadn't seen all of the data at that time.

[Guest thermalman]

I just realized something: Melba should try to submit to RHI. She certainly would get a fair hearing there.

So you are suggesting that she has been treated unfairly? You support her paper and it's conclusions?

Are you a geneticist with the qualifications to interpret her data?

One doesn't have to be a geneticist to support MK. Most of the treatment she has received thus far had been personal attacks on her. Seriously, people have lowered themselves to the point where they are attacking her "extra comma"! How is that relevant to the science and not a direct flame at MK, who by the way, is a member on this board. She has acknowledged that not all the data hasn't been released, so lets be kind and patient, and wait for it.

Edited April 9, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest njjohn]

The extra comma was where she removed an author from the paper, it wasn't a grammatical mistake. Editing a paper after it's been published is an ethical breach. It's one of those things you don't do. Especially without notes as to why or what was edited. That is a scientific publishing question related to the paper. It's not an attack on her.

Not all the data is released, but all the data needed to verify her findings were, in her own words. So anyone should be able to BLAST the included Data and come to the same conclusion.. or not. There's no waiting necessary. If we have to wait, that would make Dr. Ketchum wrong, wouldn't it?

[Guest]

I have tried to convey this message time and again. When you cannot disprove DNA results with such magnitude, then start to tear apart the the person and process. The level of DNA to convict you to life in prison is far less. The paleo model of North America is so set in stone only a live or dead body will start change. Acedemia have the upper hand especially when it realtes to disproving modern science, anthropology and has religeous overtones. With thousands of PHD, Masters and Professors spilling dogmattic views of creation and the """ theory """ of evolution, they are blinded and continually use a "theory" to base their own findings, and will contourt the message to align with the dogmattic view.

Today, science is about not quesitoning, but getting on the train. Those who dare to question modern science, are doomed to be exiled. Remember this if anything.... a "theory" is nothing more than an abstract idea. TO make this even worse, you have these "academia" writing peer reviews off a "theory", then to create some other "theory" ontop. I call this theory stacking, and in my view is illogical. laws of physics are taken for granted, acedemia thinks it is proven.

When I see astomoners claim some planets not in our solar system are made of frozen methane, or some mineral, then I begin to change the channel. It seems, if we ask these astronomers to physically prove the "theory", they cannot. But, if we say a large upright bi-pedal homonid is roaming almost every coninent and we have physical evidence, we are deemed radical in our statement.

In the big picure, the established high-end acedemia must step aside and allow the researchers and other specialists prove things right or wrong. The bloggers claiming Panda DNA are dogmattic and biased. Open minded "true" science would have solved this yeara ago, but religous views of creation have brain washed society for so-long it is almost not worth proving water evaporates.

I will now, exit the room.

Edited April 9, 2013 by BadVooDoo

[Guest]

As far as the issue of her being treated unfairly, yes I do. Her paper was repeatedly mocked in review, some journals would not even look at it based on topic alone, and we've all seen the initial review you tube video where they spent 95% of the review laughing and snickering rather than addressing the science.

What I'd really like to see is the improper reviews and rejection notices including naming the journals and reviewers. Ketchum has put her reputation publically on the line, and those people who are mocking and sneering at her in review should likewise have the courage to put their names and reputations on the line in public.

[Guest]

I concor with Mulder. Why can't the academia step in and help with the process of re-write or working with the lab process to get to the truth. I have a hunch why but that hunch is not really needed.

[Guest]

Her paper was repeatedly mocked in review, some journals would not even look at it based on topic alone, and we've all seen the initial review you tube video where they spent 95% of the review laughing and snickering rather than addressing the science.

The science was addressed. That's why they were laughing.

What I'd really like to see is the improper reviews and rejection notices including naming the journals and reviewers

Ya know what I would like to see. Her own co-authors coming out to publically support the paper.

WHERE ARE THEY ?

Edited April 9, 2013 by BipedalCurious

[Guest]

1. Sarah Bollinger was removed from the paper's coauthor list after publication - FACT.

2. In removing Sarah Bollinger's name, someone left the commas to either side of her name, creating a double-comma - FACT.

3. The double-comma drew attention to the coauthor list, leading to comparisons of the current and lists, and exposing Bollinger's post-publication removal - FACT.

4. Removing a coauthor post-publication is unethical - FACT.

But here, this unethical action has been repeatedly mischaracterized as a simple comma error.

Minimizing the unethical removal of a coauthor to a simple comma error is like calling a hurricane a slight breeze.

[Guest]

This ^^^^

Too bad she forgot to remove Sarah's name from the Denovo website. I'm willing to bet we see that occur soon.

From 30 seconds ago.

Author(s)

Ketchum, M. S., Wojtkiewicz, P. W., Watts, A. B., Spence, D. W., Holzenburg, A. K., Toler, D. G., Prychitko, T. M., Zhang, F., Bollinger, S., Shoulders, R., Smith, R. (2013)

Why can't the academia step in and help with the process of re-write or working with the lab process to get to the truth. I have a hunch why but that hunch is not really needed.

Because ummmmmm it's not their job and she steadfastly refused to work with academia (Trent University).

[chelefoot]

I need to find the website i saw that showed the list before the name was removed, and then after the name was removed - with the comma still there. It was not just a typo Thermalman. A co-author's name was removed after publication and in doing so, the comma was inadverdently left in place - so if you want to call that a typo, I guess it is. But the reason for the typo is exactly what Shboom described above.

I am not anti-Ketchum. I am Pro-Bigfoot and pro-truth. I was a faithful follower of Ketchum's project for as long as I could hold on. But eventually, it became clear to me that all was not as it should be. I still hope that out of all the chaos, some good will come of it. And I do give Ketchum the credit she deserves for being bold enough to take on the task of attempting to prove the existence of Sasquatch and enduring all of the unpleasantness that came along with it. But man, I just can't understand the reasoning behind some of the ways things were dealt with.

But, at least this has opened some eyes and got some folks in the scientific community at least talking about the subject - even if the talk is not all positive.

[Guest]

Her paper was repeatedly mocked in review, some journals would not even look at it based on topic alone, and we've all seen the initial review you tube video where they spent 95% of the review laughing and snickering rather than addressing the science.

The science was addressed. That's why they were laughing.

Can you point me to their multi-year, multi-disciplinary, peer-reviewed and journal-published study refuting the paper?

What I'd really like to see is the improper reviews and rejection notices including naming the journals and reviewers

Ya know what I would like to see. Her own co-authors coming out to publically support the paper.

WHERE ARE THEY ?

Fair point, but they need a solid critique to come out to counter. So far the laughing hyena "critiques" are all ridicule and little substance.

[Guest]

Plenty of solid critiques on this website and MK refuses to address those.

I wonder why ?

[Guest]

1. Sarah Bollinger was removed from the paper's coauthor list after publication - FACT.

2. In removing Sarah Bollinger's name, someone left the commas to either side of her name, creating a double-comma - FACT.

3. The double-comma drew attention to the coauthor list, leading to comparisons of the current and lists, and exposing Bollinger's post-publication removal - FACT.

4. Removing a coauthor post-publication is unethical - FACT.

But here, this unethical action has been repeatedly mischaracterized as a simple comma error.

Minimizing the unethical removal of a coauthor to a simple comma error is like calling a hurricane a slight breeze.

Does that not depend on WHY the co-author was removed? Do we know if it was at said author's request? Did said author do something unethical themselves leading to their removal from the study?

For example, were I lead on a study and I caught one of my co-authors stealing data or falsifying data on another study I would not allow them to remain part of the study.

For the record, I do not know that the removed author did any such thing, I merely offer it as a situation where it would not only be ethical, but mandatory to take an author's name off the study.

Plenty of solid critiques on this website and MK refuses to address those.

I wonder why ?

I ask you (again) to point me to the multi-year, multi-disciplinary, peer-reviewed and journal-published study refuting the paper.

[Guest]

IT FAILED PEER REVIEW !!!!!!

Nuff said.

[chelefoot]

From what I have read on Publicationethics.org, (http://publicationethics.org/category/keywords/changes-authorship) if a co- author is removed, a letter from the co-author as well as the head author must be submitted to the editor explaining the reason for the omission. The editor would then investigate and determine whether it is a valid reason or if there is any misconduct involved.

But, in the case of the paper we are discussing, I guess that would not be an issue for obvious reasons.