The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

I think Rhett should be commended for coming out on the side of truth.

I agree, and I am suprised he was able to keep from doing so a lot sooner.

[Guest njjohn]

So exactly how much of this 1/2-a-conversation is overly-dramatic colorful descriptions from Ketchum and how much is verbatim statements of her beliefs? Can you make a list of which is which? Since it's out there for the public to view without the context of the conversation, how can anyone not privy to the private side of this information believe this is accurate? I for one am extremely skeptical of this whole bundle of "evidence".

Everything in the PDF is Verbatim. Ontario pulled that statement alone when in the PDF it clearly shows the context in the wording. I simply corrected that one statement because it was clearly taken wrong.

And who's forcing her to release anything? She's the one that said everything was already included in the paper. The only people wanting more are those that keep saying there's more and we have to wait for it.

[Guest]

I stand by every thing I said about how Science should be handling this situation: by debunking the data with data of equal or superior weight and amount.

No, all they have to do is look at Ketchum's data and show that her interpretation is wrong or is not enough for her to make these claims.

Addressing the issue in the abstract: And in order to do that they must marshall evidence to support their contention that is equal to or superior to the original evidence in weight and quantity. That is the only way to demonstrate objectivity.

It is NOT sufficient for a debunker to say "I do not accept" or "[X] is wrong." They must demonstrate with specificity how and why their interpretation is correct. They must, as even grade school math students are reminded "show their work".

As to the "enquirer" type of info in the PDF. Read it again and look back at the statements by others who have had their reputations tarnished the last few years for claiming the exact same things said in the conversation.

You, or someone, needs to provide the unedited transcript of that alleged conversation. Both sides of the conversation, if it even happened at all. The pdf is worthless because the alleged screenshots could easily have been Photoshopped.

Ok, I'll ask the same question I always do: what evidence do you have that the screenshots were Photoshopped? What motive to you ascribe to Rhettman and NJ for coming forward with these screenshots?

Look, bottom line is this: at this point in time, it doesn't matter how much data she has or how good the data might be. She has badly mishandled this study, and turned what could have been a simple, clean paper documenting a new species of primate/hominid into a circus. Whether she did it out of some sort of malicious motive or she simply didn't have the experience to understand that shewas pushing the proverbial "bridge too far" I don't know and won't claim to know.

I do know that it appears that she has been telling one audience one thing and another audience something else, which is a critical blow to her credibility. I also know that the flaming and trolling about her personal beliefs is WAY out of line. It was when Lindsay did it. It's wrong for anyone here to do it (in my opinion, lest I be accused of "playing mod").

In the end, things appear to be unrecoverable at this point. IF, as Tyler and others have claimed, there are scientists out there working to verify the data, great. I don't hold out much hope that it will do any good though.

Have an open mind, and you'd be surprised how much more information is out there. I haven't shut myself down on this story. If Dr. Ketchum can explain everything, I'm all ears. But I'm not closing off possibilities that it's junk science. Just like I'm not closing off possibilities that there's something valid in there.

If she is to have any hope of proving that, then the ONLY possible way forward for her is absolute, complete, 100% transparency. No more NDAs, no more "soon", no more "I can't answer that right now".

She needs to put the full and complete data out FOR FREE. She needs to hold her nose and work with someone like Sykes (on genetics) and Meldrum (on the other evidence), not some anonymous researchers who won't put their names forward.

She needs to put her personal beliefs, and her personal prejudices against certain outside opinions aside.

The question is, can she do all that? The record suggests not holding one's breath.

[Guest]

I feel like a mediator is in order for this situation...as there are some stake holders and others with deep interests that needlessly conflict the BF scene now, after publication...? IMO anyway, and now that the big profit is out of the picture and we are dealing with injuries only...mediation may sound more palatable..no one is coming out big, no one is going to be buried...?

Mediation affords confidentiality of the negotiations (the mediator can hear confidential info both sides...faciiltate a compromise without revealing each's position should they continue to court) and some outcomes....and often results in corrected relationships/behaviors that don't arise with a continuing court case and settlement, or worse, judgment! Or, on the internet Bigfootery wars.. were collateral effects cannot be controlled.

Of course, few seek mediation until real legal threat, or court ordered...but it's usually the best way to handle things...and can have such good outcomes of apparently unsolvable disputes. It is my favorite part of legal practice and some of my biggest wins as both an advocate and mediator. It can be very cheap too, especially if the parties seek a mediator on their own.

Edited April 17, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest Tyler H]

Um... that already happened if you have been paying attention. It's been proven that it was her.

Where is the unedited transcript that would show that nothing was taken out of context, and is indeed accurate? Did I miss that, or am I to take the edited version as gospel?

Why did MK take down her denovojournal.com website? Pretty suspect timing don't you think?

I have no idea. I would suggest that you ask Ketchum herself. She would have an answer for you.

As for Rhettman Mullis, here are his own words:

"I am not qualified to determine the authenticity of genetic science and that is why I turned her paper over to Sykes and Nekaris and both did not respond favorably to the science in the paper. Genetics is not my area of expertise."

So....how about we get back to the data, and move past the enquirer stuff from biased competitors.

Yes, Melba has refused to answer every other question we have asked her... but try this one! She'll answer it!

You ask her JSD - you seem to have an interesting connection to her. You are that one that needs to hear an answer from her. THe rest of us have heard and seen enough.

How many more times would you like to see the data debunked before you wish we were back dealing with the gossip?

BTW - the screenshots that prove the conversation (which link can't be provided here) were provided by a staunch Melba supporter (known as Cathy Mcmillan here) - she posted them to discredit njjohn, and DEFEND Melba. If you want to go dreaming up conspiracies that those shots are doctored to make her look bad... many, your logic just keeps spiraling downwards.

I reread the Facebook conversation and am even more shocked than the first time. Here are a few of my favourite lines

"I am married to Bigfoot and am having his child and it has been very painful..."

"They have govt and elders also, one said to my prophet friend: many try to find me but only once will I meet."

"They are part angel I believe and since angels were with god, they were able to keep their supernatural abilities."

"They have Christian beliefs, did you know that?"

Sounds and looks like a " hack" job? Denovo website taken down and all points mentioned above are controversial propaganda, albeit they're funny. Someone is playing with Ketchum and the public. Very satirical.

LOL.

As to the "enquirer" type of info in the PDF. Read it again and look back at the statements by others who have had their reputations tarnished the last few years for claiming the exact same things said in the conversation.

You, or someone, needs to provide the unedited transcript of that alleged conversation. Both sides of the conversation, if it even happened at all. The pdf is worthless because the alleged screenshots could easily have been Photoshopped.

again, the full conversation screenshots on other websites came from a staunch Melba supporter, and were being used to attack njjohn and his source.

lol

lol

[southernyahoo]

This is such a double-edged sword for me, personally. It's probably for the best that people know what they're dealing when they get involved w/Melba, but I feel the way Rhett went about releasing it is tantamount to a sucker-punch. I already knew that she felt that way about BF, but to delete his contributions to the conversation, so that it can all be taken out of context is a pretty cowardly thing to do, IMO. I don't find anything noble in what he did. She trusted him enough to open up to him, and he violated that trust....Period! He can explain his actions ad nauseum, but it still doesn't change the fact that he had a personal conversation where they were discussing their faith, and he pulled a chicken-manure move, and tries to justify it by putting it on her. If you don't conform, ol' Rhett'll get ya! If he releases his part of the conversation, it's not as egregious, IMO, but it's still tacky no matter how you slice it.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. He wants people to know her beliefs, but this reeks just as much of competition and creating a precedent for bias in her interpretations, which aren't all hers to begin with. I nearly emailed him to send my sample through him to Sykes, but now can't imagine Meldrum or Sykes advocating the action. Meldrum decried it to be unprofessional to announce findings prior to publication, but all they have to do is test samples that have been offered, and hold their own tongues until publication.

[Guest]

It is NOT sufficient for a debunker to say "I do not accept" or "[X] is wrong." They must demonstrate with specificity how and why their interpretation is correct. They must, as even grade school math students are reminded "show their work".

Again if a math student brings in horrible work, all the critic has to do is point out the mistakes, which is what geneticists have done. And before you come back with "where have they been published". Ketchum didn't even publish her work in a good journal in the first place. No repectable journal would publish a paper with a such a balantly flase phylogenetic tree.

[Guest thermalman]

Yes lets wait and refrain from judgement until the end of time.

Can a woman hold her peace that long?

Edited April 17, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest thermalman]

I reread the Facebook conversation and am even more shocked than the first time. Here are a few of my favourite lines

"I am married to Bigfoot and am having his child and it has been very painful..."

"They have govt and elders also, one said to my prophet friend: many try to find me but only once will I meet."

"They are part angel I believe and since angels were with god, they were able to keep their supernatural abilities."

"They have Christian beliefs, did you know that?"

Sounds and looks like a " hack" job? Denovo website taken down and all points mentioned above are controversial propaganda, albeit they're funny. Someone is playing with Ketchum and the public. Very satirical.

LOL.

Are you laughing because you're implying hacking is not possible?

[Guest]

He's laughing at your suggestion that her website is down due to any other reason but her taking it down.

I used to do business with Wix. It's quite obvious she shut the content engine down on purpose.

[Guest thermalman]

Prove it? How do you know that's true? Is hacking not possible?

Edited April 17, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

When is this charade going to finally be over? I bet she won't ever concede, or admit anything because she feels she has pure intentions, and is the chosen one.

Maybe Rhett can give us a psych profile on her, since that is what he's actually versed in, even though he is spear-heading the greatest BF DNA study of all-time. The BF world cracks me up sometimes.

[Guest]

Prove it? How do you know that's true? Is hacking not possible?

Because the web server is still up but the content engine is admin'd down.

Don't go all CathM on me. I used to do dis stuff for realz dude.

[Guest]

If she is to have any hope of proving that, then the ONLY possible way forward for her is absolute, complete, 100% transparency. No more NDAs, no more "soon", no more "I can't answer that right now".

She needs to put the full and complete data out FOR FREE. She needs to hold her nose and work with someone like Sykes (on genetics) and Meldrum (on the other evidence), not some anonymous researchers who won't put their names forward.

She needs to put her personal beliefs, and her personal prejudices against certain outside opinions aside.

The question is, can she do all that? The record suggests not holding one's breath.

YES! This has been one of the biggest problems all along - and based on the recent comments here, something certain individuals are still choosing to ignore. SHE MUST RELEASE THE DATA. This is NOT negotiable. Had she published in a real journal, she would have been REQUIRED to release ALL of her data via GenBank or one of its competing services so that ANY interested scientist would have had ready access to it for study/testing/replication. By self-publishing, she avoided this REQUIREMENT. Heck, at this point, how do we even know she even submitted to a journal? How do we know that she did not plan to self-publish so she could avoid the requirement of releasing her data?

If she does not release her data, no one can ever prove her right. However, if she does not release her data, then no one can prove her wrong, either - and maybe that was the goal. If she allowed her personal beliefs to taint her interpretations of the data, then the last thing she would want is for that tainted interpretation to be proven by the data itself.

If the data is legit, she has nothing to fear because the data will vindicate her.

This is NOT a matter of her choice, as some here seem to think. This is not a matter of forcing her to do something improper, as some people here also seem to think. It is a REQUIREMENT. The entire point of publishing a paper is to present data and what it represents. Without the data, there is nothing. That's why publishing scientists are required to provide it. Ketchum is not above the rules, and the rules say you RELEASE YOUR DATA. (Of course, the rules also say you don't edit your paper or remove co-authors after publication, but I digress.)

I am afraid that we will see no data because the data will prove either:

1) that her interpretations are based on her personal beliefs

2) that her interpretations are flawed due to her not being a geneticist

3) a combination of the above

As I have stated many times, I still have hope that there is some useful data that can be salvaged from this mess.

[Guest thermalman]

Prove it? How do you know that's true? Is hacking not possible?

Because the web server is still up but the content engine is admin'd down.

Don't go all CathM on me. I used to do dis stuff for realz dude.

So hacking into an account, while the web server is still up and running, is a 100% impossibility? I just need clarification because of my limited knowledge of IT terminology and understanding.

Edited April 17, 2013 by thermalman