Guest Tyler H Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 (edited) While I wish this was all over, I don't think we have heard the last from MK. I don't feel it will be done until MK retracts her paper, and I don't see her doing that. This thread may dry up if MK doesn't say anything inflammatory or outright wrong, but I don't see that happening either. And we are still waiting for her expert reviewers with their independent evaluations and statements of support.... You know, I truly believe that MK has created a following so powerful (as evidenced by the blind support of so many followers here who reject any logic that challenges their beliefs) that even if MK made a full retraction, they would not accept it - they would believe some conspiracy coerced her into retracting it, but that it was still legit. MK herself could not overturn her own following at this point. It has become too powerful. I just realized something: Melba should try to submit to RHI. She certainly would get a fair hearing there. RHI is backed by Meldrum. He has looked at the paper. His dismissal of it would be viewed as "partial" by MK backers. 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. I am familiar with many "snickerers" who have made their names public. Some of the only MK critics that I know first hand to be afraid to release their names, are those people involved in peer reviews, and as such feel MK would go after them for confidentiality issues. 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. Why on EARTH does it have to be multi-year, or multi-disciplinary? If, individually, a geneticist takes issue with the genetics, and a biologist takes issue with the biology, and a bioinformaticist takes issue with the phylogenetic tree, or other interpretations, why is that not sufficient? And if it takes someone an hour to CREDIBLY show why her data is faulty, why is that less legit than someone who takes YEARS to debunk it? Huh?? I guess I'll have to take longer to post logical replies - it appears you think that credibility varies directly with delay... must be why you think Melba is so credible - she is a great 'delay-er'. Can anyone comment on whether a "study" is normally required to properly debunk claims that are never proven in the first place (Such as Mulder is asking for)? To my knowledge, that is just not how it works. Edited April 10, 2013 by Tyler H To bring into compliance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 (edited) Plenty of solid critiques on this website and MK refuses to address those. I wonder why ? Well..... I wouldn't personally address someone with the name of "Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy" Phd. But thats just me. If anyone else wants to.... Have at it! Edited April 9, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 (edited) You won't address the analysis of her data by anyone either so why should it matter what they sign their name. Edited April 9, 2013 by BipedalCurious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 You couldn't possibly know that,....... ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) We know many who are qualified have read it and said it doesn't make sense (both the data and the paper). I think at one point one must ask themself if they are believing and holding on to something simply because they want to (out of bias) or because it really makes sense. There is a difference. It's hard to help those who are of the former. Edited April 10, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) 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. Comparing Ketchum's paper to the type of DNA profiling used in criminal cases is like comparing apples and tomatoes. 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. I'll bite. Which laws of physics are problematic, in your view? 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. No, we don't have physical evidence. There is circumstantial evidence, but it's far from convincing. Edited April 10, 2013 by leisureclass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted April 10, 2013 Moderator Share Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) We know many who are qualified have read it and said it doesn't make sense (both the data and the paper). I think at one point one must ask themself if they are believing and holding on to something simply because they want to (out of bias) or because it really makes sense. There is a difference. It's hard to help those who are of the former. Bold for emphasis is mine. Not really, it depends on what a person is hanging onto. For the sake of argument, I'll allow that the paper seems unsupportable. However, I don't through out the ideas with it. Even with Dr Ketchum's study out of the picture, there are just too many instances where DNA testing was done in the past that came back human and was presumed to be contamination. Until we revisit those samples and dig a bit deeper, I have to consider the probability, not mere possibility, that the flawed study, messed up politics, and general chaos are obscuring what has been the right answer all along. MIB Edited April 10, 2013 by MIB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phillip A. Elwood Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Only one thing will put all this hub ub to rest. Bring one in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 IT FAILED PEER REVIEW !!!!!! Nuff said. It was reviewed, passed, and published in Denovo. You may not like it, but it was. Nuff said unless you have proof that their review process was improper in some fashion. Why on EARTH does it have to be multi-year, or multi-disciplinary? If, individually, a geneticist takes issue with the genetics, and a biologist takes issue with the biology, and a bioinformaticist takes issue with the phylogenetic tree, or other interpretations, why is that not sufficient? And if it takes someone an hour to CREDIBLY show why her data is faulty, why is that less legit than someone who takes YEARS to debunk it? Huh?? I guess I'll have to take longer to post logical replies - it appears you think that credibility varies directly with delay... must be why you think Melba is so credible - she is a great 'delay-er'. Can anyone comment on whether a "study" is normally required to properly debunk claims that are never proven in the first place (Such as Mulder is asking for)? To my knowledge, that is just not how it works. The refutation must be of equal or superior weight to be considered valid. That is the only way to be fair. Is it your contention that a five-year, multi-disciplinary study including independent blind findings by multiple independent labs that passed reveiw and was published can be overturned by a some jeering hyenas who have maybe put an hour or two into skimming the paper and supporting documentation at best? Who have done no lab work OR taken the time to produce a formal report for consideration and debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted April 10, 2013 Admin Share Posted April 10, 2013 Mulder, come on man! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 No, we don't have physical evidence. There is circumstantial evidence, but it's far from convincing. Tracks and other impressions that have been cast showing distinct and identifiable biometric indicators, forensically typed hairs, sound recordings, etc. And that was prior to the Ketchum study. All physical, all documented. And, taken as a whole, very convincing. Mulder, come on man! Come on what? I am demanding no more or less of the Skeptics than they do of proponents. I stand squarely in favor of a level debate playing field. If that ruffles feathers and offends people, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 IT FAILED PEER REVIEW !!!!!! Nuff said. It was reviewed, passed, and published in Denovo. You may not like it, but it was. Nuff said unless you have proof that their review process was improper in some fashion. MULDER !!!! Have you been paying attention at all to the information surrounding this? FACT: IT IS NOT A REAL JOURNAL FACT: IT NEVER EXISTSED ON THE INTERNET BEFORE 2/4/13 (PROVEN BY DOMAIN RECORDS: http://whois.domaintools.com/denovojournal.com) FACT: SHE CLAIMS HERSELF THAT SHE PURCHASED A JOURNAL FACT: THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE THAT IT EVER PASSED ANY SORT OF VALID CREDIBLE PEER REVIEW Highly highly improper behavior which the scientific community should be laughing at. Nature has an article on this exact subject. http://www.nature.com/news/investigating-journals-the-dark-side-of-publishing-1.12666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Wow, denial is a powerful thing, but are you kidding? IT IS A FAKE JOURNAL! OMG! Her steps in staging the entire gimmick are documented here: http://historum.com/blogs/ghostexorcist/1380-melba-ketchum-s-bigfoot-dna-study-questionable-ethics-creating-journal.html Heck, anyone can throw together a sloppy Web site and call it a "journal." That's basically what she did. I'm just stunned that ANYONE fell for this. I think Tyler is right ... even if she was to fess up to the whole sham, her followers would still make excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 I guess if you scream it loud and repeatedly it must be so. Cherry picking "facts" that fit your agenda shows a lack of credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Don't forget her journal making the predatory journal list. http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ Mulder, thanks for the laugh, I about wet myself reading those defenses for Ketchum.lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts