TimB Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Again, I have to take his word on that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 I don't know how to say this without being blunt- there are a lot of role players online. I have a hard time taking the word of someone who only goes by an online monicker. If you are going to put yourself out there as an expert, yet refuse to back it up with your reputation, then there's something suspect there. For me- obviously, this is just my opinion. Fair enough, but that is the way we play here, is it not? You should be critical of anything we say - and accept our comments or not. I have disclosed my qualifications to a couple of people on this forum who I trust, but several interactions and comments I have received from others makes me feel I would rather not have my identity disclosed. Indeed, this is not the proper place to formally argue the deficiencies of the paper, but I don't know if DeNovo would publish my "Matters Arising" critique of their only paper - and whether they would charge people to read it. So here we are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Again, I have to take his word on that... Have you seen Melba addressing anything about the concerns raised in this forum? She is a member. Why isn't she here defending her work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 About GenBank, Ketchum says GenBank wouldn't allow her to upload the data because its unknown. We've heard from several scientists that GenBank doesn't have a problem doing that. Then Ketchum Says she can't upload it because its human and she has to get written permission from the bigfoot people before GenBank will except it. She claims she has documentation of all this run around from GenBank, but won't release it. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) First- when you first posted it didn't show up- then I got busy and came back and it was there. I did read it. I still can't find where the report you posted asked for more data. I'll look again. First you have to define "we". Then you have to show me why my opinion would matter regarding what should be released and when. I gotta say, Tyler, the personal opinions you have so clearly referenced regarding Dr. Ketchum's integrity and capabilities make it hard to consider having a rational discussion with you. The fervency you and yours have regarding Dr. Ketchum is not professional or polite and it makes it hard to entertain your arguments. All that being considered, I haven't been convinced that it should be released to anyone but people in the professional field. Look at how many hatchet jobs are floating around posing as legitimate evaluations because of personal feelings about the author? I've yet to find someone qualified that hasn't had an agenda. Finally- I think it all should have been released, but apparently she attempted to and wasn't allowed to. I don't know how you compensate for that. Does that answer your question? Or would you just like to write the answer you want and have me copy and paste it? I'm not sure why you expected that the pdf I posted would be 'asking for more information' - it does not do that. It takes the info that Melba has hand-picked for public release, and it analyzes some of that data - as noted on its first page, sample 26 in particular. I'm not sure how whether this little pdf asks for more data or not, is relevant, but yes, it is doing its analyses on ONLY the data Melba has released. The data Melba has released is only something like 1% of the full genome she claims to have... so yes, some scientists have asked to see all the data. Why do I have to show you why your opinion should matter. You are the one asking that your opinion be considered. Your opinion seems to be that the rest of us "Melba attackers" are being unreasonable in forming opinions on the data she has released to date... So, my simple question to you is "If you think we are being unreasonable in our opinions and/or expectations, please provide your opinion as to what a reasonable timeline would be for expecting to see all her data, or, inthe absence of that totality, being 'permitted' to form opinions on the ONLY data that she HAS released?" How long should she be impervious to any critical opinions? You say my personal opinons about Melba are unprofessional, and make it difficult to have a rational discussion. I disagree, but let's accept your position. To that, I say "Fine, then please debate it with the fine "neutral" folks such as Genes, Ridge, Theagenes, etc, etc, who have been very politely reserved in their opinions of Melba's character, and have relegated themselves to commenting almost exclusively on her data." Not sure how you can say you have yet to find someone qualified, who doesn't have an agenda. The translation of that seems to be "Once I have a scientist who supports her, I will accept that they don't have an agenda." Your stance seems to be fairly clearly defined by "Anyone who disagrees with Melba ipso facto has some sort of nefarious agenda." The only credentialed people who have weighed in with opinions, all challenge her conclusions and her science. Agendas don't change tthe validity or veracity of arguments. "Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, or their ulterior motives negate their logic."... that should be your signature. She hasn't been "allowed" to release all her data? Huh? please clarify. Have the informatio n-police stopped her? "Does that answer your question?..." Ummmm - no, as far as I can tell, you actually did not answer the question. That's not my opinion, that is fact. If you want to say you have no opinion on that, that is fine... but you have not even said that much. "Or would you just like to write the answer you want and have me copy and paste it?" Excuse me for saying so, but your charge that I am the one who wants only answers that fit my preconceived notions... well, I just have to say "Pleased to meet you Pot... my Kettle brethren and I will just keep plugging along with our closed-minded, elitist views I guess." But just to be clear, I want to make sure that you think the questions are the same as I think they are: How long should people wait, before people such as yourself think it is "reasonable" for them to formulate opinions on the data Melba has released, or to form opinions on the fact that said data remains absent? Second... Again, what are your thoughts regarding the data and implications of said data, in the pdf I posted? I don't know how to say this without being blunt- there are a lot of role players online. I have a hard time taking the word of someone who only goes by an online monicker. If you are going to put yourself out there as an expert, yet refuse to back it up with your reputation, then there's something suspect there. For me- obviously, this is just my opinion. So then, put out a modicum of effort, find a university student, or a PhD out there who will side with you in supporting Melba's conclusions. Post their opinions here - I did this, others have done this. As someone without the "proper credentials" I defer to those who DO have proper credentials, and therefore post their conclusions rather than just my own. Why can't you do the same? What makes you qualified to question the conclusions of people who (ostensibly) know what they are talking about and have the credentials to back it up? I didn't feel I was qualified to question Melba on my own, and thus I contracted a lab. Why can't you show similar consideration for the opinions of others who clearly know more about this topic than you (or i) do? Edited March 9, 2013 by Tyler H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) Thermal Man: Everytime you and others ask me questions - I answer them. Time and time and time again... But for some reason, when I ask very simple questions, they often get dodged. I answered your questions - pleae do me the courtesy of answering mine - they were not intended as rhetorical. I will copy and past them again, below: "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 (and the complete whithholding of actual raw data?") I've stated before in earlier posts, until the total raw data is released, and we have 100% of the results in hand, it's all speculation. Rome wasn't built overnight, so it's on her time. Unfortunately, many posters are happy enough to get by with the character assassination of MK. You seem to ask a lot of questions? You need to answer the ones posed to you. Show us where exactly MK actually used the term "angel DNA", if it wasn't the media? I am really starting to think all these obvious hoax apologist for freezer boy, Melba, Matilda et al. Do not have one logical bone in their body or have hidden motives for what they post. Tyler and Bart you guys have the patients of saints. Saints is a very kind word. My agenda is to make sure the science that is put out there is critically evaluated. I truly wish I was able to critically praise this report instead of finding major scientific issues. How can one have an opinion without the full report to evaluate? I don't make business decisions based on half the facts. I don't know how to say this without being blunt- there are a lot of role players online. I have a hard time taking the word of someone who only goes by an online monicker. If you are going to put yourself out there as an expert, yet refuse to back it up with your reputation, then there's something suspect there. For me- obviously, this is just my opinion. Absolutely correct! Anyone can be anybody on the net. Edited March 9, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 No, it's not all speculation. Justin is the owner of the sample. That same sample has come back bear in two other DNA reports. If Melba's report is true, it proves his story, not disproves. She's the one making claims that he swapped the samples. So prove it and release the data. Prove the claim. Based on what she did release, the only speculation is in her paper. I've asked tough questions of both sides. Tyler's gotten frustrated with my questions plenty of times, so i'm not being one sided here at all. I want the truth. I paid for a paper with a hypothesis and nothing to back it up. I didn't pre-order a paper to be released at a later date. If she has it, she needs to put it out, offer refunds. Because we weren't given what she said she was giving us. The party that has to back up her claims now, is hers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Have you seen Melba addressing anything about the concerns raised in this forum? She is a member. Why isn't she here defending her work? If she's a member, why haven't the rules applied to the posters who are posting derogatory comments about MK? We've seen a rampant disregard for MK by many? Again, I have to take his word on that... No you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) I've stated before in earlier posts, until the total raw data is released, and we have 100% of the results in hand, it's all speculation. Rome wasn't built overnight, so it's on her time. Unfortunately, many posters are happy enough to get by with the character assassination of MK. You seem to ask a lot of questions? You need to answer the ones posed to you. Show us where exactly MK actually used the term "angel DNA", if it wasn't the media? How can one have an opinion without the full report to evaluate? I don't make business decisions based on half the facts. Thermalman, you go beyond testing patience. You are saying I ask a lot of questions? I've answered 100x the amount of questions I have asked. You show me which questions on this forum i have not answered. I have answered your questions. Now I have asked you a very simple question (or 2) - for a change, I asked that you stop questioning, and take a stand and make a reasonable suggestion/answer as to what verdict you think people should have from the data that has been released, and how long people should wait, before crying foul on her resistance to releasing 'all' her data. SHE and SHE alone chose what data to release. Now you want to fault people for forming opinions on that data?! Good grief man. It's like a student handing in a term paper, asking to be graded, but then, if the grade is not acceptable, saying "but wait, I have more... you can't grade me until I give you the rest of it"... to which anyone would say "how long should I wait for the rest? And in the meantime, here is my impression of what you have handed in to me. (which would supposedly be the best that you have.)" Have you seen a Sasquatch Tman? Do you believe in them? Prove it. People can't tell you that they don't exist, just like NO ONE can tell me that Melba has not used that term. Just because they haven't heard her say it, or seen her type it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I have witnessed direct evidence of Melba using "Angel DNA". Some of that proof is under confidential agreement. I'm sure you would agree that people have no business telling people who have seen a squatch, that squatch don't exist, just because they have not see one themselves. I don't know why anyone cares about this - it has no bearing on her data. If people stop asserting that she hasn't said it, I'll stop correcting them. Just like you might tell your friends "if you stop asserting Sasquatch doesn't exist, I'll stop trying to convince you that he does." This topic has NO bearing on the evidence being debated. Now, quit dodging the real, simple and reasonable questions I have asked you. I've answered any and all "science based" questions put to me. Your turn to answer a very simple couple of questions, directly related to your critique of us who doubt Melba's results. You don't like our stance, so suggest the appropriate one: from the evidence that Melba hand-picked to release, (and perhaps the subsequent, insightful critiques that credentialed people have made available to us), what opinion/stance do you think people should be allowed to form? how long should people reasonably have to wait for "all the data" before they are allowed to form opinions on the ONLY data that she has released? Or, in the continued absence of said data, at what point can they form an opinion on the fact that she has not released more data? If I were you, I would feel quite embarrassed to continue posting on this thread without showing the sourtesy of answering these two simple questions. No, it's not all speculation. Justin is the owner of the sample. That same sample has come back bear in two other DNA reports. If Melba's report is true, it proves his story, not disproves. She's the one making claims that he swapped the samples. So prove it and release the data. Prove the claim. Based on what she did release, the only speculation is in her paper. I've asked tough questions of both sides. Tyler's gotten frustrated with my questions plenty of times, so i'm not being one sided here at all. I want the truth. I paid for a paper with a hypothesis and nothing to back it up. I didn't pre-order a paper to be released at a later date. If she has it, she needs to put it out, offer refunds. Because we weren't given what she said she was giving us. The party that has to back up her claims now, is hers. Actually Nijohn, I think you have taken a couple of my answers as being frustrated with your questions, but I don't remember actually being frustrated by them. I've enjoyed all reasonable, logical questions - even when some people (not you) weren't respectful, I still answered all reasonable questions. Tman doesn't want to answer my simplist of questions. Edited March 9, 2013 by Tyler H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) @Tyler "from the evidence that Melba hand-picked to release, (and perhaps the subsequent, insightful critiques that credentialed people have made available to us), what opinion/stance do you think people should be allowed to form? how long should people reasonably have to wait for "all the data" before they are allowed to form opinions on the ONLY data that she has released? Or, in the continued absence of said data, at what point can they form an opinion on the fact that she has not released more data?" This is my answer.........again, I've stated before in earlier posts, until the total raw data is released, and we have 100% of the results in hand, it's all speculation. Rome wasn't built overnight, so it's on her time. I'm not Melba, so I can't answer for her. We wait as long as we have to, until she decides to release the other 99% of the data. How hard is that to comprehend? You're acting like collection agency associate, and this is the third time I've answered the same questions. So no use you trying to bully your way for an answer, that only you want to hear and approve of. Edited March 9, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) So say within 5 years from now Melba still hasn't released the full data but still claims she has proven sasquatch is a walking, talking entity, yet still can't release the full data(for what ever excuse) that's all good for you? 10 years, 20 years, what is it and why would you give her that much leeway when any other scientist publishing a manuscript of this importants not be given the same pass on withholding this information? Edited March 9, 2013 by squatting squatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Absolutely correct! Anyone can be anybody on the net. ohh yeaaa the days of longtabber, lol, if anyone remembers chicken anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 9, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted March 9, 2013 Question: who among BFF members has ever PM'd Melba on the BFF and received a response? Let's start there. If anybody cares to share. Don't need any details of correspondence, she has made at least a couple posts here IIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest J Sasq Doe Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 They are on this forum. Have you not been reading ? I have indeed been reading, but it is possible that I missed it in all of the needless anti-Ketchum fluff in here. I am also fairly certain that if I did miss the names and qualifications of acknowledged experts that have received all of Ketchum's data, and disproved Ketchum's results, then there would be quite a few members here trumpeting those very names, often and repeatedly. I don't recall a single such posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Njjohn- from speaking personally with Justin and asking him this question"who owns the sample you sent to Ms. Ketchum" and his reply was that his submission samples were signed over to the OP. So if Ms. K needs permission I would think that it would come from the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts