Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Melba was beat down so bad during this project,when she started it,she was 5'6" tall, now she is 5'2" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Academics have been saying this for the entire thread. Yes, but it seems new folks keep joining the discussion so old material must be rehashed over and over. It's a shame chat forums don't have a feature where established information can be displayed for easy reference. That would save everyone a lot of time and aggravation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 when you cut and past a document sent to you via email, you need to remove the line returns. otherwise your posts ends up looking like it did, and people wonder who sent you that information to post! is it possible she released what she did to get her project out there so they have an idea where she was headed with this, then scientist with credentials would contact her directly and release the remaining data on a one to one basis, where she can explain any questions they have, instead of just throwing it all out there like a bunch of bones in a dog kennel, causing total disarray. She has said it hasn't been easy, was threatened , personally attacked, called a fraud,hoaxer, con artist, etc... people have been beyond vicious to her, and the best part is, she has not did anything to them. she didn't steal from them, hurt them, damage there property, etc... and if she did, do the right thing and file a lawsuit against her,instead of belittling yourself by practicing playground justice, witch most have learned, it doesn't solve anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 when you cut and past a document sent to you via email, you need to remove the line returns. otherwise your posts ends up looking like it did, and people wonder who sent you that information to post! shoot again, this time try and put some powder in first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I fail to understand why some folks either don't comprehend - or are in denial of - the fact that most of the data has not been provided. You can't print TERABYTES of data in a paper! That is WHY the lack of a GenBank upload is an issue, and this is WHY she made a big deal over the offer of other folks to help her get it uploaded. Without the complete data, the paper has no basis. It's like sending the IRS your tax payment --- without all of the forms, interest statements, W-2s, property tax statements, receipts, charitable contributions, etc., showing the calculations to back up the amount you put on the check. Melba's given us the "check," but we don't know how she arrived at the amount. This IS a simplistic explanation, but perhaps it will help some folks understand why the paper CANNOT stand on its own. The data MUST be provided. I think this a great analogy. Thanks,Shboom2. I believe I mentioned before that I don't want to see any more data. It's common practice to publish one's best data - the data that best supports one's conclusions. If MK's chromosome 11 contigs are her best data...well... However, if she does release the rest of her data I promise to give it a thorough review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 New people will always keep joining the conversations. It's our duty to keep abreast of the facts and when they ask, give them the information. The Bigfoot world is it's own field. There is no university for it, so everyone is basically home schooled to learn. You have to read up your own, research and read or get out in the field. The only teachers are those that have already done that and share. It's actually a rule to expect people to ask questions and keep answering them no how many times it comes up. It forces us to be a well-informed community. Do opinions sometimes cloud the facts? Sure, but it adds to the critical thinking aspect of it. I bought the paper, read it and thought some of the conclusions could be possible. Of course I didn't understand the data, so I asked questions. And all the answers keep coming back to the same explanation. The data present doesn't equal the conclusions. Could it someday? Possibly, but I didn't pay $30 for possibly. I don't dislike Melba. But I hate a scientific paper that doesn't backup it's claims. Without the data, the paper is a waste of a tree that BF could be peeking behind. RR - The focus is on sample 26, because that is the only sample (that I know of) that has been tested elsewhere, so it has something to compare it to. If she released the data and/or full report that she did and that one of the individual labs did, it could be put to rest. I said the first night the paper was released, I wasn't worried too much about the journal or peer-review, because you can't fake DNA. Now on the flip side, the failure to release anything shows again... you can't fake DNA. What is her delay? The doubt involved only keeps the angst of the community at a heightened state for no reason. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 8, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted March 8, 2013 Good post njjohn but get used to heightened, it is just a part of the turf now. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 RR - The focus is on sample 26, because that is the only sample (that I know of) that has been tested elsewhere, so it has something to compare it to. If she released the data and/or full report that she did and that one of the individual labs did, it could be put to rest. I said the first night the paper was released, I wasn't worried too much about the journal or peer-review, because you can't fake DNA. Now on the flip side, the failure to release anything shows again... you can't fake DNA. What is her delay? The doubt involved only keeps the angst of the community at a heightened state for no reason. I understand the focus on 26 and would like this to be resolved too. But the resolution will not substantiate the paper's findings. If MK substantiates her claim by releasing the report, that still does not improve the papers findings. If she decides not to release any more info, the only thing that comes up is her already questioned ethics of it all. That is what I am saying about it being distracting, to me anyhow. And while you can not (easily) fake DNA (you could synthesize any sequence you want), you can "fake" genomic sequences that are published in papers, either intentionally by concatenating any sequences you like, or inadvertently by incorrectly assembly of the raw data. I just don't know why one would want to - it will catch up with you in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 MK might as well lived in 1862 during the Salem witch trials. Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the verdict here. "One of the most controversial methods used to determine possible signs of being a witch was The Floating Test. The accused was tied up and tossed into a body of water. It was believed that if a person was a witch, she would float; if the person was innocent, she would sink. If a person was "innocent" and did not float, it was likely that she would drown. If a person was "guilty" and stayed afloat, she would be put to death for being a witch. There was no winning with this test, although the people of the time took solace in the idea that the innocent people who drowned would be welcomed to heaven." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 1692 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 I think we may be getting distracted by sample 26. The two other samples, 31 and 140, do not make biological sense either. MK has not released any raw data, just her processed contigs compiled from the raw data. From this processed data, it is clear it is not from anything related to any biological species on this planet. If people want to believe this creature is from another planet or due to an act of God, that is fine. I think the contigs were assembled incorrectly, and have contaminant DNA in them. Without the raw data, no one can prove this scientifically. MK knows this. Normally when a scientific paper is published, the raw data from study is made available, so the claims in the paper can be verified. Honestly, I don't need the raw data to know this is biologically wrong (in claiming this creature exists with this type of sequence, and being able to hybridize with human in the recent past)- I want the raw data so someone can give a accurate assessment of what it actually is. I think njjohn is correct that she is trying to create reasonable doubt by not being forthcoming with all of her data. "MK has not released any raw data, just her processed contigs compiled from the raw data" Thanks RR - I hadn't realized that the realeased data does not actually even qualify as raw data. " I don't need the raw data to know this is biologically wrong (in claiming this creature exists with this type of sequence, and being able to hybridize with human in the recent past)- I want the raw data so someone can give a accurate assessment of what it actually is." Two great points in that statement. MK might as well lived in 1862 during the Salem witch trials. Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the verdict here. "One of the most controversial methods used to determine possible signs of being a witch was The Floating Test. The accused was tied up and tossed into a body of water. It was believed that if a person was a witch, she would float; if the person was innocent, she would sink. If a person was "innocent" and did not float, it was likely that she would drown. If a person was "guilty" and stayed afloat, she would be put to death for being a witch. There was no winning with this test, although the people of the time took solace in the idea that the innocent people who drowned would be welcomed to heaven." Oh brother. T-Man, both scientists and laymen alike know that extraoridnary claims require extraordinary evidence. She has made absurdly extraordinary claims (even for the Bigfoot world, which is saying a lot!) and has provided next to NO evidence. What verdict do you think people should have? The most positive thing you can reasonably advocate for is for people to exercise more "wait and see"... but I'm still waiting for someone to suggest how much more waiting is reasonable. In your mind, what time period has to have passed, before people can form opinions based on the (selective) release of some "non-raw" data (does that make it "cooked" data?) and the complete whithholding of actual raw data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 MK might as well lived in 1862 during the Salem witch trials. Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the verdict here. TM. If this is another attempt at saying she hasn't gotten a fair shake then I might agree with you if a single credible expert in the field of genetics would back up her data. Thus far nobody seems to be stepping up to the plate. The silence is pretty deafening. Bart and Tyler have engaged several reputuable experts in the field of genetics to review her data and the overwhelming unanimous opinion seems to be that the data does not support her claims. Do you have a copy of the paper and the data? If so you should try and find another credible expert to review it and add their opinion. I am not trying to be flip at all. Just suggesting that you and anyone else that disagrees with ridgerunner, generus, and theagenes has the same options available to them to bring in a qualfied expert. Personally I think the conversation would be stimulating if a very credible qualified entity showed up to take Melba's side. MK touted over and over the multiple PHDs that worked on the paper. Where are they now? Why aren't they coming out to back up the data and it's conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Do you have a copy of the paper and the data? If so you should try and find another credible expert to review it and add their opinion. I am not trying to be flip at all. Just suggesting that you and anyone else that disagrees with ridgerunner, generus, and theagenes has the same options available to them to bring in a qualfied expert. Exactly - and unfortunately, this forum is going to have the most favorable mindsets you are going to find amongst most PhD's... even these are not compelled by her data, and most of them either "believe" or "want to believe" (so to speak). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Her conversation with Justin Smeja says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 In what way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts