Guest BartloJays Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 "Sorry, you lose, woman! LOL...Be careful Tyler, that just doesn't sound "politically correct" and you're inviting Ketchum supporters to come in and write a five paragraph post creating a misogynist straw man to derail the thread Come now, OS, you have to see that for every scientist quoted saying this paper was a fail there is one that says it wasn't. I'm fine with saying the jury's still out. Anyone that says there's anything conclusive about the validity is listening to a group of people who are repeating themselves over and over hoping their opinion will be taken as fact. I still don't get the agenda for that but I have a hunch based on conversations I've had with people. You have a right to believe whatever you want, however, all you do is complain about the people who question MK, and how they are just "so hard" on her and how they must have all these secret motives. I think it's pretty obvious as everybody in this thread that takes issue with her manuscript, ethics, tactics,etc... has been fairly upfront why. Why don't you stop hinting and have the guts to say what's really on your mind.
Guest J Sasq Doe Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 J Sasq. Ketchum disagrees with you. Dr. Melba Ketchum March 24 To those that arent finding all the data in the paper: The data is with the paper. It is in the Supplemental data files that can be downloaded with the paper. Had you read 2 lines further in the same paragraph, she writes: "The entire 3 terabytes of whole genome data is impossible to put out with the paper" “Well, Justin, I got special ways of testing stuff. I got special ways of making things seem different than they really are.†http://seesdifferent...rn-human-being/ “All right, how about this: you don’t even have to destroy the sample. You can keep the sample. But I’ll teach you how to make that sample read something different than what it is.†“Because, I just told you, that when another place tests this it comes back as like, a regular animal ’cause they don’t understand how to do it, because like there’s a special way that we test it.†Given what we know, I don't find these quotes hard to believe. Yes, so true. I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Smeja did say those things. Anything he (or his handlers) attribute to Ketchum though, is fictional, unless he has some sort of recording or signed affidavit from Ketchum.
Guest Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 Of course, there are terabytes of data, which is why it is STANDARD, EXPECTED PRACTICE to provide all of the data with the paper through GenBank OR similar service (GenBank is not the only option), which she has not done. However, SHE herself has ALSO said that all of the data was in the paper .... so which is it? Is she really a forensic scientist? I read what seemed to be well-researched articles that brought into question the degree to which she would even qualify as a "Dr." by normal standards. She seemed to have taken a track to her Phd that was abbreviated by two years of study. First of all, she does not have a PhD - she has a DVM, and that is not equivalent to a PhD. Some do not even consider it equivalent to an MD, depending on where you went to school. I have heard the same thing about her doctorate program being abbreviated. However, gifted and/or motivated students can graduate early. And there are short programs. But it would require someone to contact Texas A&M to find out about their program back then, and to get confirmation of Ketchum's degree(s) and year(s). It used to be easy to get basic degree info because it's required for job references, but Texas A&M's policies under FERPA might require her written permission. But even if we cannot confirm her degree, we can certainly find out what kind of vet med program they had in the early 70s. All that said, I don't think her doctorate in vet med is an issue. I think what is at issue is the additional training she got so she could switch fields. She did not go back to school for additional degrees. I've been told by PhDs and an MD who have seen the training programs listed on her resume that she is a lab tech, which means that while she was certainly capable of conducting/managing the TESTS involved in the study, she was not qualified to do the DATA analysis she attempted in the paper. (This is why it is so troublesome that her coauthors are claiming no involvement in the data analysis, either.) Today's students are getting degrees in criminology or related fields so they can pursue careers as "forensic scientists." Ketchum came into the field as a second career without additional degrees, but with training from lab equipment manufacturers and some experience in a university lab, from what I'm told. I think it would be up to other forensic scientists familiar with the field's minimum-required training and terminology to say if she is legit in calling herself one. I have always accepted her self-definition as a forensic scientist, but because she is self-employed, there is no one who can verify anything she says or hold her accountable.
Guest Tyler H Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 (edited) J Sasq. Ketchum disagrees with you. Dr. Melba Ketchum March 24 To those that arent finding all the data in the paper: The data is with the paper. It is in the Supplemental data files that can be downloaded with the paper. Had you read 2 lines further in the same paragraph, she writes: "The entire 3 terabytes of whole genome data is impossible to put out with the paper" “Well, Justin, I got special ways of testing stuff. I got special ways of making things seem different than they really are.†http://seesdifferent...rn-human-being/ “All right, how about this: you don’t even have to destroy the sample. You can keep the sample. But I’ll teach you how to make that sample read something different than what it is.†“Because, I just told you, that when another place tests this it comes back as like, a regular animal ’cause they don’t understand how to do it, because like there’s a special way that we test it.†Given what we know, I don't find these quotes hard to believe. Yes, so true. I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Smeja did say those things. Anything he (or his handlers) attribute to Ketchum though, is fictional, unless he has some sort of recording or signed affidavit from Ketchum. Well then, if Justin can't be trusted, and anything he says is fictional, then I guess his story is false, and therefore, MK's assertions about her results are completely false (and seemingly, knowingly so.) "Sorry, you lose, woman! LOL...Be careful Tyler, that just doesn't sound "politically correct" and you're inviting Ketchum supporters to come in and write a five paragraph post creating a misogynist straw man to derail the thread Alright, I'll accept that that statement may be viewed as misogyny... but only if "Sorry, you lose, Man!" is viewed as misandry. Edited April 12, 2013 by Tyler H
Guest Tyler H Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 (edited) J Sasq. Ketchum disagrees with you. Dr. Melba Ketchum March 24 To those that arent finding all the data in the paper: The data is with the paper. It is in the Supplemental data files that can be downloaded with the paper. Had you read 2 lines further in the same paragraph, she writes: "The entire 3 terabytes of whole genome data is impossible to put out with the paper" OK, so is this a fair interpretation/amalgamation of those two statements?: "People don't need ALL the data to draw their conclusions about my work - the data is with the paper - the Supplemental data files provide enough information to back what I am claiming, the entire 3 terabytes of whole genome data are impossible to put out with the paper." I know for a fact that for at least one peer review, ONLY the data that currently accompanies the report, was submitted for that review - NOT the 3 TB she references. Therefore, she MUST think that this amount of data was sufficient to support her paper to the degree necessary to pass peer review. So I think it is ENTIRELY fair that conclusions about her work be formulated from JUST the data that she has chosen to provide (both during the peer review process and now publically. Tman, JSD, and other MK believers - If you DON'T feel this data was sufficient, and still feel that our conclusions need to wait on more data, then you have to explain to me why Melba herself felt it was sufficient for PhD peers to review, but it is not suffiicient for your own personal layman's standards. Edited April 12, 2013 by Tyler H
Guest thermalman Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 Tman, JSD, and other MK believers - If you DON'T feel this data was sufficient, and still feel that our conclusions need to wait on more data, then you have to explain to me why Melba herself felt it was sufficient for PhD peers to review, but it is not suffiicient for your own personal layman's standards. I'll tell you what, why don't you ask her yourself? Fair enough? BTW, neither is your supporting analysis from "supreme ruler of the galaxy" Phd., sufficient in your rebuttal of MK's report. Si.
Guest Tyler H Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 Tman, JSD, and other MK believers - If you DON'T feel this data was sufficient, and still feel that our conclusions need to wait on more data, then you have to explain to me why Melba herself felt it was sufficient for PhD peers to review, but it is not suffiicient for your own personal layman's standards. I'll tell you what, why don't you ask her yourself? Fair enough? BTW, neither is your supporting analysis from "supreme ruler of the galaxy" Phd., sufficient in your rebuttal of MK's report. Si. LOL, So, it seems that you are proving my theory correct - Melba's followers now believe in her and her claims more ardently and illogically than she herself does. The lay-person followers won't even accept her own standards anymore, now that those standards have been met. She has been found wanting by the standards that she herself, and the rest of science, found to be sufficient. I really must cease arguing this now - it is a demonstrably unwinnable argument in the face of such desperate and irrational belief. If you won't accept the standards set by the person you are trying to defend, then you are just too far gone. It's becoming increasingly obvious that this thread will never see an end - in my view, it should be closed.
Guest thermalman Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 (edited) If by knowing more than what can be revealed, then yes, some of us are guilty of defending her reputation against the repeated hypothetical assaults. It's called confidentiality. Seriously though, you should be directing all your queries to Dr. Ketchum for the answers you seek. Otherwise, I'm sure she reads these posts and will get a lifetime of laughs from them? Edited April 12, 2013 by thermalman
Guest Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 (edited) Analyzing her data is not hypothetic. It is actionable analysis. And if she is reading these posts why won't she defend her work? What does she hide? If this is your army why does it go??? Edited April 12, 2013 by BipedalCurious
Guest Tyler H Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 (edited) If by knowing more than what can be revealed, then yes, some of us are guilty of defending her reputation against the repeated hypothetical assaults. It's called confidentiality. Seriously though, you should be directing all your queries to Dr. Ketchum for the answers you seek. Otherwise, I'm sure she reads these posts and will get a lifetime of laughs from them? You misunderstand, Tman - I have no question for her. Patently, she feels the data she has supplied is sufficient for forming opinions about the validity of her work. My question is for you and your ilk: "Since Melba is of the opinion that it is a sufficient amount of data to formulate conclusions about the validity of her work, and felt it should be sufficient for SCIENTISTS, why do you now as lay-persons, feel it is NOT sufficient for your lofty learned standards?" PS - I don't believe you answered why "Supreme Glaxy of the universe" is a pseudonym that no one should trust, and how you could assert that he should not cowardly hide behind an online handle, but should instead use his real name (such as I am) and yet you do not reveal yourself. Nor have you answered why other standards applied by yourself and the rest of society are acceptable in every other circumstance, but why those same standards should NOT be applied to MK. I'm curious (well... no, not really, since I already know the answer): Do you choose to argue only the points that you feel are the soft-ball questions? Do you cower from answering questions that point out arguments that you cannot win? You consistently dodge questions that pin your irrational logic to the ground, and consistenly apply double standards. It's like trying to wrestle with a phantom snake that follows no rules, and calls "time-out!" when it gets pinned. Edited April 12, 2013 by Tyler H
Guest J Sasq Doe Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 how can you justify the paper not being a total failure? Aren't you one of Smeja's handlers? Or at the very least, involved with the Trent U bear sample fiasco? Don't you think that maybe you have a conflict of interest with Ketchum's study, and perhaps you should declare your bias? 1
Bonehead74 Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 Fiasco? Bart has been very open about his "bias" from the beginning.
southernyahoo Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 I think now more then ever, especially for those of us that do "know," we should promote elevating our collective standards rather than foolishly thinking the world and science should lower theirs. AMEN! :clapping: :clapping: Yeah, like drag a Phd into this to look at some highly contaminated salt water washed boots!!!!!!!! Maybe we should start with evidence that hasn't been drug through every contaminant there is for a starting point?
Guest thermalman Posted April 13, 2013 Posted April 13, 2013 (edited) If by knowing more than what can be revealed, then yes, some of us are guilty of defending her reputation against the repeated hypothetical assaults. It's called confidentiality. Seriously though, you should be directing all your queries to Dr. Ketchum for the answers you seek. Otherwise, I'm sure she reads these posts and will get a lifetime of laughs from them? You misunderstand, Tman - I have no question for her. Patently, she feels the data she has supplied is sufficient for forming opinions about the validity of her work. My question is for you and your ilk: "Since Melba is of the opinion that it is a sufficient amount of data to formulate conclusions about the validity of her work, and felt it should be sufficient for SCIENTISTS, why do you now as lay-persons, feel it is NOT sufficient for your lofty learned standards?" PS - I don't believe you answered why "Supreme Glaxy of the universe" is a pseudonym that no one should trust, and how you could assert that he should not cowardly hide behind an online handle, but should instead use his real name (such as I am) and yet you do not reveal yourself. Nor have you answered why other standards applied by yourself and the rest of society are acceptable in every other circumstance, but why those same standards should NOT be applied to MK. I'm curious (well... no, not really, since I already know the answer): Do you choose to argue only the points that you feel are the soft-ball questions? Do you cower from answering questions that point out arguments that you cannot win? You consistently dodge questions that pin your irrational logic to the ground, and consistenly apply double standards. It's like trying to wrestle with a phantom snake that follows no rules, and calls "time-out!" when it gets pinned. The burden of proof lies with your DNA report rebuttal, as you claim it's sound, but still insist on withholding the author's "true" identity. You really need to ask Dr. Ketchum the questions you feel you need answered. Simple as that. Edited April 13, 2013 by thermalman
Guest Posted April 13, 2013 Posted April 13, 2013 (edited) I still find it quite ironic that the Erickson Project and the Olympic Project both have not posted any of the press releases or any links to the DeNova Journal supporting the release of the paper. It seems like they have distanced themselves from Ketchum the way Obama avoided Sharpton and Jessie Jackson during his first run for office. Even Paulides seems to be moving on from BF as the MK payoff isn't happening and besides his 411 books are apparently more lucrative then the big guy these days. Has anyone heard any rumblings of lawsuits brewing against MK for fraud by the two primary investors, Wally and Erickson? As no real news media is buzzing on Melba Ketchum, I wonder if they ever read threads like this and what thier thoughts must be? Wally and Erickson's money would have been better spent going to St. Judes Children's Hospital or the Make a Wish Foundation IMHO. What a friggin shame. I am editing to add the following- I asked my wife to make a $30.00 donation to St. Judes just yesterday which she promtly did. This was the $30.00 I would have paid if the report was released in a real journal like Nature. I would suggest anyone else to do the same in support of a good cause and in protest of the circus that has passed through town. Edited April 13, 2013 by Polypodium
Recommended Posts