The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest Tyler H]

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?

.... 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.

We do have physical evidence - whether it is circumstantial or direct is another question, but we do have physical evidence, AND much of it is circumstantial.

[TimB]

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

What's the name and qualifications of the person that made that list, Squating?

[Guest Tyler H]

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.

Wow - very controversial, your bold courage to ruffle feathers.

OK - Level playing field - I used this before, and I'll use it again - please rebut it:

"I have a claim - my claim is that I have completely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that MK's study is completely 100 percent, demonstrably false. Where is my data you ask? Well, here it is: "I think Melba's study is wrong." But wait!! That is only one percent of my data - so if you don't like, it, or do not think it is valid, or credible, then please ignore that data. Please wait for my really good data that will undeniable prove my theory that Melba's claims are false. Furthermore, please don't even try to refute or argue my claim at this point, but rather, please wait indefinitely for ALL of the proof, and backers and credentialed corroboration that I will one day release to the public. In the meantime, just accept my claim - "Melba's study is wrong"."

THAT my friend, is a level playing field. If you say we can't argue that Melba's claims don't hold water, because we need to wait for her to release more data, then quid pro quo, you can't argue that my claim doesn't hold water. You'll have to sit there mute, and wait until I say "It's OK to critique it now, I have no more data to release."

Is that the sort of level playing field you are looking for?

The critics make no extraodinarly claims. Melba wants to claim extraordinary claim upon unfathomable claim, upon ludicrous claim, and does not even have pedestiran proof!, let alone extraordinary proof! The critics merely have to show why she is wrong, via logic, and accepted principals of biology. If I take 5 years, and then claim that the universe is actually made out of marshmallow, no one has to take 5 years and multi-disciplines to prove me wrong, they can do so in 30 seconds, and it's just as valid.

Here is another Mk anaolgy - please rebut it as well: "Mr. Teacher, Please don't grade the paper I handed in - I know it is incomplete, but that was the best data I had at the time... but... I mean, um, NO, no, it was not the best data - that's why I don't want you to grade it. Please give me an indefinite extension, and some day I may tell you that I give you permission to grade my paper."

Sorry Mulder - she handed her paper in - it's been graded with the data she provided. If she wanted more data to be used in the grading of it, she had the power to do that. SHe didn't - because that was the best data she had. It flunked ... time and again, it flunked.

[Guest]

Having seeing a BF for myself and knowing that they're real, I don't think there is any evidence out there that can't be faked, as of now, even though I don't think a lot of it is. Tracks can be faked. Sounds can be faked. Hairs can be misidentified.

So, based on tracks that could or couldn't be faked, sounds that could or couldn't be faked, and hairs that can be misidentified, there is enough evidence to claim that BF is real? I'm not a scientist, but I'm a pretty reasonable person, and don't feel this is enough to claim anything yet.

I have a tough time believing the cripple foot tracks were faked, because what kind of genius does it take to decide to hoax a mythological beast with a lisfranc injury? Yet, it is still a possibility.

Going through all the extra effort and difficulty creating Patty as a female w/breasts seems so odd as a hoax, that I can't personally believe it was a hoax, nor does it appear to be one IMO, but it's still a possibility.

I also think the Sierra Sounds guys would've been way ahead of the game to be hoaxing whoops, chatter, and knocks in the 70's, but it's a real possibility. My hunting partner, and I had an approximately 5 minute encounter with 3 subjects knocking, whooping, grunting, and vocalizing w/one another that sounded similar to the Sierra Sounds audio. I believe the SS's are real BF audio, but a reasonable person could easily dismiss it, and rightfully so. Derek Randles also found tracks that corroborate our story down in the timber in the general area, but the story, the sounds, and the tracks all could've been hoaxed. I find it highly unlikely, but it still leaves enough doubt that a reasonable person could easily dismiss it.

When it comes to everyone bringing up all of this circumstantial stuff as proof, you've gotta realize that 70% of the public(if those #'s are correct) doesn't believe BF exists, and the evidence isn't compelling enough to change a reasonable person's mind, who doesn't believe in BF in the first place. Gotta find better stuff to bring forward. It's not science that's the problem....It's the lack of solid evidence that is.

[Guest]

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

What's the name and qualifications of the person that made that list, Squating?

Here's one

http://people.auraria.edu/Jeffrey_Beall/home

Here's an interview with him

http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/on-predatory-publishers-a-qa-with-jeffrey-beall/47667

And one more

http://ucdenver.academia.edu/JeffreyBeall

[Guest njjohn]

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

What's the name and qualifications of the person that made that list, Squating?

That's easy. He's Jeffery Beall. He's a professor at University of Colorado and is published in that exact subject. Here's a complete list : http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=EtHsEcMAAAAJ

You can read more about him right on the About the Author section of the page that was linked by Squatting Squatch.

Critiquing this paper isn't an attack on Dr. Ketchum. Critiquing it is part of the scientific process. It doesn't go from published to accepted without it. The peer review, journal, etc.. gives the perception of an attempt to skip steps. And that's not how science works. Not only in Academia, but globally on every level.

I'm not anti-bigfoot or pro-bigfoot in my writing. I do take a skeptical approach to everything, because it allows me to rule everything out. I have no ill feelings towards those that support Dr. Ketchum. While we might disagree, it doesn't mean I dislike you. I disagree with friends all the time. I admire people that can disagree and then move onto something else and laugh about it. It's a shame the blanket stereotypes come out whenever there's a disagreement. It's not bias to disagree. It's not an attack to point out inconsistencies or contradicting remarks related to someones work. Professionals have to abide by a standard or anyone could do it.

And Mulder, the work was done by Dr. Ketchum over that time. It was denied twice prior to Denova. Anyone that wants to critique the paper doesn't have to replicate the study because all of the data required to come to the same conclusions is supplied in the paper. BLASTing the sequences doesn't take long at all. Try it, and you'll see how quickly the results come back.

[chelefoot]

Here's one

http://people.aurari...frey_Beall/home

Here's an interview with him

http://chronicle.com...rey-beall/47667

And one more

http://ucdenver.acad...du/JeffreyBeall

Thanks for the links SS. I'm convinced that Mr. Beall is an authority on the subject and knows his stuff.

[TimB]

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

What's the name and qualifications of the person that made that list, Squating?

Here's one

http://people.aurari...frey_Beall/home

Here's an interview with him

http://chronicle.com...rey-beall/47667

And one more

http://ucdenver.acad...du/JeffreyBeall

Wow, Squating- you were able to cite your source and back up your argument with a person with a name attached. I'm genuinely impressed! In my mind you have now risen above the ranks and become a thoughtful well-informed participant in the conversation. Nicely done!

His argument is compelling- I'd like to see others also share his concern academically before I jump on board.

Again, I"m genuinely impressed!

Edited April 11, 2013 by AaronD
to remove yapping jackals

[southernyahoo]

What's equally interesting to me is the discussion below the interview in the links above.

Firstly, your normalised use of the phrase “predatory publishers†is unwarranted, and serves merely to yoke you (perhaps unfairly) to Beall and his flawed arguments. If he knows of particular instances of fraud, then he should make them known, and not use innuendo and generalisations. The statements made in this article are a bad enough; those made on his blog are laughable.

Secondly, you are fully aware that this is not simply an STM publisher vs. a journal on library cataloguing, but I’ll join the dots for you:

Beall is on the editorial board of a journal published by Taylor & Francis (T&F). T&F publishes hundreds of academic journals, including STM journals. Because T&F is a commercial enterprise, Open Access (OA) journal publishers, especially STM publishers, are T&F’s direct competition.

This competition is small, but is growing, and is taking market share from T&F, and threatens to eat into T&F’s profits. If T&F suffers financially, one obvious recourse is to cut journals. Beall’s journal on library cataloguing is at risk.

More directly, STM may be the obvious starting point for these OA publishers. If they are successful, there is no reason for them not to branch into other areas, including library cataloguing; unless, of course, they hit a wall of prejudice.

Now, it is true that Beall does not attack all OA publishers; such attack would show his bias too openly. It is also true, however, that the only publishers he does attack are Open Access.

And so, we return to the main issue. Academic librarians are trusted by academics around the world. By speaking out against competitor publishers, and not disclosing his link to T&F, Beall is breaking that trust.

There's always various angles to look at things, it doesn't mean you can see absolute truth with any particular one.

[Guest]

You want proof that someone is an expert and therefore, qualified to make observations about the situation .... but then you use the person's qualifications to insinuate that they are biased because you don't like what they say?

Wow! With that kind of double-standard at work, why should anyone bother exposing themselves publicly by providing names/credentials? Such info won't matter because DENIAL is at play here, NOT logic.

[TimB]

What's equally interesting to me is the discussion below the interview in the links above.

There's always various angles to look at things, it doesn't mean you can see absolute truth with any particular one.

I appreciate ol' Squating at least citing his sources and proving that he knows the credentials of the people he references. It's refreshing and unusual in this thread. Perhaps others can emulate his good example. Kudos!

[Guest]

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.domaint...novojournal.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.co...lishing-1.12666

Mulder, I am curious how you arrive at your conclusion.

Because I cannot analyze her work myself I am dependent on peer-review to provide the stamp of credibility. It is the heart of the issue, is this accepted scientific work?

In this case I believe she actually failed peer-review with probably Nature (or one of similar prestige), and I am thinking of Dr. Naish's (sp?) blog....

She only claims to have passed peer review with a never published journal, which could not risk her ground breaking work and she felt compelled to purchase it, and rename to publish her work.

She can't demonstrate that it passed any peer-review, except she says it did, and offers the strangest story....

If you read the diligent posts and citations many have brought here a rather haphazard and messy trail emerges relating to that FAZE/JAMEZ virtual call for papers.

It leaves me thinking the worse actually, it leaves me thinking she failed a review through the first virtual Journal and it was not a truly arm's length transaction...either in it's inception or transference ( if that occurred at all, or if it was just closed down). Rather it seemed to me an attempt to get real peer-reviews on her own through a straw-man, Casey Mullins and this new virtual journal. But, failing that she was forced to create a new journal, DeNovo, with no record of poor reviews......(an alternative theory would be it was arm's length, it failed, and she purchased to lock up the reviewer's in NDAs...too hard/too costly/not enough time to pull off given trail of web registrations)

I don't think that is an unreasonable suspicion given the events, and her inability or unwillingness to provide any more information about anything that counts.....I would like to be proven wrong. But, until then, this idea of passing peer-review is a fiction IMNSHO. I am seriously disappointed in how this has developed and if events in the future do change my mind and lighten my thoughts it would be welcome.

.

Edited April 10, 2013 by apehuman

[southernyahoo]

You want proof that someone is an expert and therefore, qualified to make observations about the situation .... but then you use the person's qualifications to insinuate that they are biased because you don't like what they say?

Wow! With that kind of double-standard at work, why should anyone bother exposing themselves publicly by providing names/credentials? Such info won't matter because DENIAL is at play here, NOT logic.

The tactic is used by both sides of a debate, happens all the time. Concerning that underlined part, haven't we heard the cry for names of the independent reviewers of Ketchum's data? Same standard right?

[Guest njjohn]

It was rejected by three journals before the entire Denova mess. I believe the first was a straight scientific journal, the second was a forensic journal, the third was Nature which asked for the nuDNA genomes, and then rejected, and then the final failure to publish then purchase by the fourth. Unfortunately, the only people that have seen any of these are people that signed an NDA.

Even when I supported waiting for the data, there was enough suspicious aspects of this paper that made me want to take a deeper look. I would still love to see all of the data analyzed, but because all of the data needed to support the hypothesis is included in the paper by her own claims, it has to judged based on what's there.

[southernyahoo]

It was rejected by three journals before the entire Denova mess. I believe the first was a straight scientific journal, the second was a forensic journal, the third was Nature which asked for the nuDNA genomes, and then rejected, and then the final failure to publish then purchase by the fourth. Unfortunately, the only people that have seen any of these are people that signed an NDA.

Even when I supported waiting for the data, there was enough suspicious aspects of this paper that made me want to take a deeper look. I would still love to see all of the data analyzed, but because all of the data needed to support the hypothesis is included in the paper by her own claims, it has to judged based on what's there.

nijohn, since you are attempting to be as accurate as possible in reporting the facts, do you think the Journal named by Ketchum should be spelled correctly? It's not Denova it's DeNovo. Sheesh !!!! Or is it meant as a personal slight towards Ketchum?