bipedalist Posted February 20, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) Here's an interesting article about the new Denovo journal: http://www.historum....ng-journal.html Awesome find, that blogger earns a hardy +++ from me. It was sort of what I suspected. Like the blogger hypothesized with the delays encountered using a novel technology even, it could no longer be used as an excuse for not releasing some form of paper. About a year ago I was thinking monograph. After that, I was thinking she is going to have to go online publishing if things really were that constipated. Sure enough, the history-blogger strikes paydirt. I certainly hope there is available material to salvage something from the study efforts anyway. And btw, that chronology will probably stand and be more transparent an effort to know "the rest of the story" than anyone will ever know except those "running" the pigskin downfield on the turf. ^^^And, as for Mr. Hersom, yes, it would certainly be cool to be a fly on a wall in his chalet knowing his reaction in reading the link above. Edited February 20, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TH68 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Why doesn't Dr. K release the names of he "other scientists" who are now reviewing the paper you ask? (Generic you.) I believe she answered that on the C2C interview. They don't want to be harassed with inquiries from bigfooters while they are doing their work. You wanted a paper. You got it! You wanted other scientists to review it. You got it. You wanted DNA evidence of a novel extant hominid. You got it. Now if you insist on rejecting findings you haven't read, because you will never accept the existence of Sasquatch, because they don't exist, nothing will ever convince you. Patience grasshopper and all will become clear. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Well I've pretty much given up on the report as it is, but I have to wonder if some of the comments here aren't over the line considering Melba is a member and we're not supposed to bash members. Plenty of these posts seem pretty personal to me and honestly several seem to simply have it out for her personally. I really have to wonder if much of the piling on by some isn't motivated more by their personal dislike than anything to do with the data. Which as screwed up as it might be does still hold some promise imho. At this point if I was a mod I think I'd lock all of the Ketchum threads until more information is released. Nothing productive seems to be coming out of this thread only bashing on Melba. Which whether she deserves it or not is against the forum rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) DP recently congratulated MK on the release of the paper on Facebook. Oh FB, I don't use it well. I went to the Olympic Project site and could find no updated reference to the paper...the pages still look like it isn't released... Tyler..not sure what you mean..you don't fault Melba Ketchum... I do agree the community was desperate for some attention and DNA testing at a reasonable price. But, I can say there was no point in this study if peer-review wasn't the goal...otherwise she could have published well over a year ago, and put out that.documentary right away too. Peer-review was always the goal per her, and what everyone hoped for. It is essential to the credibility of what she and her coauthors claim. We are fortunate that others like Sykes have come forward and will report on it, as have those here. But, peer-review was the goal. On the weird Journal birth/death/purchase.... that was never the goal that I know of...if you can't get published start your own Journal.... maybe such a great opportunity? Nah...totally unorthodox and raises more questions than it answers.. I am trying to figure out how that JAMEZ journal reviewed her paper in just a week or so......and what pool of reviewers..not a name listed anywhere as the potential pool, or on Scholastic ..it looks worse than a White Paper sent to each submitter and posted on their websites.. So, in the end, pass, fail, whatever...Dr. Ketchum, et al are the only ones to fault I find the course of this study approaching shocking . The only other one I might chastise is Wally (or his "broker") for not having more control/transparency over the process/product...but then Wally isn't the scientist, just the money...after that it's the same list..who had any money or power to influence her? So, the only way out of this IMO is a favorable review from several prominent scientists soon, and the replicated results in time. That might go a long way to covering the many missteps and/or ethics issues that seem to keep cropping up.... Edited February 20, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I would like to clarify one thing for which I will NOT fault Melba: We were all begging for YEARS, that she would publish her study. We pleaded "I don't care where you release it, just release it - then the data can be "peer reviewed" by any scientist in the world, and the public at large." I said as much to her on the phone. I'm not now going to turn around and say "oh, why didn't you wait for a proper scientific journal and peer review to present it?" Or "why did you choose such a low-level public forum like a website to do this?" I don't care how or when she got hold of the DeNova website. I really don't. I'm glad that she finally put the data out there (or at least some of the data - I mean, we are still waiting on the real "pudding" here - the raw data). In my opinion, since it seems it was never at a level that was going to pass good scientific peer review anyways, she should have just done this nearly two years ago. It's not in the format that anyone has access to the necessary raw data yet, but it's a start. My new critique is "tell us the name of the new "vetting" team of scientists". It just seems like more of the same. Now we have to wait again, and trust her that it truly is now going through a legitimate "peer review" and that she will be transparent about the results. And we have no way of knowing what the credentials of this new team of scientists are. (unless I have missed it somewhere.) This differs very little from what she's been saying for the last 2 years... "scientists are reviewing it, and I will release the information soon"... in some respects we are no further ahead, and will still have a long period of "the world waiting on Melba" - I think she enjoys this. You aren't waiting for anything Tyler. Her data and conclusions are given, and what don't you know about Sykes that you can't find out? Do you really think he won't get his hands on the data? BTW, did you find the PHd's in her paper you were so concerned about? Did you talk to them? Shifting goal posts? Also, thanks for not being a hypocrite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Maybe since she is a member, she could log in and answer some of these questions that are hanging around her paper. We are not that gullible to agree this thing is peer reviewed in an established journal. If it was Nature or Science this baby would be put to bed by now. But she published in her own journal that was acquired with the sole purpose of getting this paper out. And no editor or staff or peer reviewers identified. The truth shall set you free, but when stunts are pulled like this thing it just bogs her down even deeper than before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 "I just wanted to say thank you to everyone supporting the study and me also. You are a wonderful group of individuals and it is so appreciated. I am honored to have met you here. ." https://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum/posts/571155989563188 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 She'd have been better off to just go on C2C, admit she can't get it peer reviewed and published, and release her data and report for the world to see. Invite anyone else who would like to replicate data to feel free to validate her findings. Welcome other analysis of it. Buying a journal and Vol 1 issue 1 is her own paper is about as bad of a move as she could have done. The only thing that would make her presentation of her study worse would be if it was written in crayon. It's a mess guys. Maybe the data is good? We'll see. But the rollout is an epic disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) "I just wanted to say thank you to everyone supporting the study and me also. You are a wonderful group of individuals and it is so appreciated. I am honored to have met you here. ." https://www.facebook...571155989563188 Oh, i wish I was better with penname recall...i was so hoping this was MK...but your profile says male...too bad ..not that male or being who you are is bad...just was hoping MK showed up here...to answer some of these questions....I dream big.. Edited February 20, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I would also like some more information on some things. Even though it would be easier to just release the paper than pulling a fast one with musical journals, there needs to be a response. This was stated in the chat room last night but it will be repeated, if Melba would have said two weeks ago that the paper was ready but there was going to be a delay until a proper website could be developed, the BF community would have gone ballistic. Now there are people complaining about the haste in which the site was constructed.. There doesn't seem to be much coming out of her camp at the moment even though there is much discussion going on about the paper. I find it odd that she had given more interviews last November when the first leak happened than she is now. One has to wonder if she is waiting on this challenge set forth by the skeptics before she opens up more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 she is only releasing a portion of chromosome 11 in this manuscript - the rest of 11, and the rest of the genome is yet to come. As far as I can tell, the files are PDF files, while the FASTA should be something else - the "<consensus" header is FASTA format. I have not yet found an easy way to convert these PDF to FASTA compatible. Have you tried to copy/paste the text from the PDF into a notepad file then changing the file association to .fas? Assuming you are using the windows platform of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) Tyler, I was one of those people too. I wanted her to just publish the dang thing and let the discussion happen - but I also said "Please stop responding to every criticism out there and focus on the paper". BUT - I didn't think she would do what she did. That was a curve ball out of left field. Her last leak had the study being published in "weeks" and not "months" and the publishing would be in a scientific journal. Then, we all patiently waited. It turned into months (not weeks) and the paper turned up on a brand new website, with nothing other than her paper. I think most of her issues stem from bad PR. I would have told Melba to announce the new journal - before the paper published in it. It would have given her the time to address the questions about why the new journal - before publication. By not telling anyone before the paper published, it allowed another avenue of attack for her paper. She already knew she was going to do it - so why not address it up front and deal with it. People already figured out what she did, before her statement about purchasing the journal. So - it put her on the defensive yet again, and at a time when she didn't need to be on the defensive about anything but the paper. Bad PR.. I'm starting to think she likes being in the position of defending everything.... She does it to herself. HODS said: Now there are people complaining about the haste in which the site was constructed.. At the end of the day - it isn't my work - and as far as I am concerned she can put her paper on an insert for a box of cracker jacks. But I would think if a person put 5 years of their life into something so important, how it's presented would matter. Just my 2 cents. Edited February 20, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 "Thank you all so much for all of the kind words and fervent support. It is greatly appreciated!" - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Didn't she already post that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Almost the same thing, just worded differently... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts