The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest njjohn]

My apologies. I'm sick and it wasn't meant as a slight at all. I simply transposed an O with an A. And that's why I rarely post while on medication.

[Guest]

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?

Not like removing an author's name. Just sayin.

[Guest thermalman]

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.

Couldn't agree with you more!......... Imagine!............ Posting an "official" DNA report signed off with "Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy" Phd! Certainly looks like a desperate attempt towards discrediting MK's report. At least Melba uses her real name and has faced her critics by putting her report out there! Nope, not hiding at all.

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?

Not like removing an author's name. Just sayin.

What have you personally got to offer to discredit Melba?

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.

Would you mind helping us out, by naming the two other journals that rejected her "mess"? Could you also provide written evidence of her rejection from each of the editors of the three journals who rejected Melba's report? Thanks.

Edited April 10, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

What have you personally got to offer to discredit Melba?

I offer you Denovo !!!

Please enjoy.

Edited April 10, 2013 by BipedalCurious

[TimB]

Would you mind helping us out, by naming the two other journals that rejected her "mess"? Could you also provide written evidence of her rejection from each of the editors of the three journals who rejected Melba's report? Thanks.

That's the most obvious question that NEVER gets answered...

[Guest thermalman]

@ Bipc. That's a public publication. I'll ask again, would you have anything, of a personal based experience with MK, that you can give us to discredit Melba, or are your thoughts and comments based on what the band wagon is carrying?

Edited April 10, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

Personal No. This is not personal as much as you want to make it seem like it is.

Is saying that a professional athletes performance in a game was not up to par personal ? Of course it isn't. It has nothing to do with who they are as a person. It is only an opinion on their performance and the results of their performance.

It is no different with Melba's paper. And as hard as you try to paint this as a personal attack against her it is anything but.

Edited April 10, 2013 by BipedalCurious

[TimB]

Saying that professional athletes failed because they are evil and believe in aliens and angels, however, is highly personal and not easily supported. Also, the folks who seem driven to keep repeating their opions in a lock-step or mantra-like way seem fine with the unsupported "facts" about how many and what magazines rejected the paper and why. I would use that evidence to disregard their opinion. But I'm all about facts and don't mind saying that I don't know what happened. I can't imagine why one would speculate so freely and publicly. There's a danger of things unfounded being said so often that those that don't care for factuality start presenting these rumors as fact. That's the problem with some of the arguments espoused in this thread- they are as weak as the paper they are responding to.

[Guest]

Dr. Ketchum's data speaks for itself.

We need no rejection letters, no peer-review passes, no allegations of misconduct or fraud, no more data. It will not change what she has published.

Choose to accept it blindly, support it scientifically, or reject it scientifically, as you wish. It matters not if anyones credentials and names are reported. If their argument is correct who cares if they are a PhD, MD, DVM, or none of the above.

The paper was published, and not as a work in progress, and with very strong conclusions. I have put forth alternative analysis of MKs data. Feel free to offer counter arguments. Or be honest, and say "I just like MKs interpretation better" if you are not able to independently analyze and verify her results.

The data speaks for itself.

[Guest njjohn]

The second paper was Elsevier : http://www.journals.elsevier.com/forensic-science-international/

I don't know the name of the first off hand, I'll go back through my notes and see if I can find it. I have multiple sources that know the information and didn't know that others were talking to me, so it's far from unfounded. I have had people supply me with rumor and i've thrown it in the junk pile.

You don't honestly think it took 5 years to do the work in the paper alone do you? The data was completed back in early 2012. They didn't need the nuDNA until it came to the Nature paper, so I'm also curious how the paper looked with only the mtDNA to back up it's findings. I'm not tearing the paper apart by being curious about it either. If the mtDNA was 100% human, it's intriguing how that would be presented. I understand the morphology on most was different, but with only 1-2 photographs, would any journal accept only that?

I have more proof than I can reveal at the moment because I'm making sure I can verify things before reporting them. You'd be surprised at the amount of things denied are actually true, and I have the conversations to prove it. But I won't out anonymous sources that don't wish to be named or have their information released. So yes, we will be patient and wait.... but if you think I'm doing this to ruin someone, you give me too much credit to think I'd have the power to do that to someone. I'm actually intrigued. Yes, I've pointed out contradictions, but I do have a general curiosity for why and how the conclusions were come too. What is revealed in my next article is controversial but would definitely be interesting if true. The question is does the science line up with the theories? My goal is to get the information out. It's someone else's job to determine what that information means. If there's something to be found in this paper, it won't be found by hiding it or getting mad at those that don't just blindly agreeing.

And the editors won't say they rejected a paper, just like Dr. Ketchum won't reveal the peer reviewers... it's a legal issue. Just remember that people did work on this project that aren't working on it anymore that knew what was going on. And not everyone was under NDA.

[TimB]

Choose to accept it blindly, support it scientifically, or reject it scientifically, as you wish. It matters not if anyones credentials and names are reported. If their argument is correct who cares if they are a PhD, MD, DVM, or none of the above.

So now credentials don't matter now. But they did before.

It's responses like the above that show how emotion is used where logic fails. Disregard the fact that I haven't said anything about the validity of the paper- if I don't agree with the group think then I must be blindly accepting. Interesting "logic".

I'm sorry John but conversations are hearsay unless they have documentation to go with it. I choose to have a higher thresh hold for proof.

Tim B.

[Guest njjohn]

Oh I have documentation. That's why I said I'm not revealing it now. When I get the ok with the next article, it'll be revealed. I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything.

[TimB]

You have the documents that prove the opinions that your interviewees shared with you or did you get documentation that you interviewed them? Those are two very different things.

[Guest]

Choose to accept it blindly, support it scientifically, or reject it scientifically, as you wish. It matters not if anyones credentials and names are reported. If their argument is correct who cares if they are a PhD, MD, DVM, or none of the above.

So now credentials don't matter now. But they did before.

It's responses like the above that show how emotion is used where logic fails. Disregard the fact that I haven't said anything about the validity of the paper- if I don't agree with the group think then I must be blindly accepting. Interesting "logic".

I pre-BOLDED my last post on the hope your would read before responding. I will repeat in capitals this time "IF THEIR ARGUMENT IS CORRECT". If MK had obtained the correct conclusion that was supported by her data, I would not even be posting on this site.

I never said you had to blindly follow. I asked you to do the scientific evaluation yourself perviously. And since you brought it up, do you feel the paper is valid? Does her data support her conclusions? Have you read the paper?

I have read the paper, I have done my own evaluation, and I do not find that her conclusions are supported by her data. Again, accept it as you wish, offer up some other explanation, support it with some of your own evaluation, or whatever your logic dictates.

[Guest thermalman]

Oh I have documentation. That's why I said I'm not revealing it now. When I get the ok with the next article, it'll be revealed. I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything.

After how you and others have been carving up MK's report, for the last 25 pages, with regards to her reference of names, who, are or not listed, you cannot provide any documented substantiation of your claims? Shocking?..........NOT!

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?

Doesn't seem to be?

Dr. Ketchum's data speaks for itself.

We need no rejection letters, no peer-review passes, no allegations of misconduct or fraud, no more data. It will not change what she has published.

Choose to accept it blindly, support it scientifically, or reject it scientifically, as you wish. It matters not if anyone's credentials and names are reported. If their argument is correct who cares if they are a PhD, MD, DVM, or none of the above.

Are you saying a Phd., etc., is invalid if their argument is incorrect, or how would you then argue credentials and credibility? Edited April 11, 2013 by thermalman