bipedalist Posted March 10, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) @ridgerunner Don't you remember you can't print out 2 TB of data in a paper silly. Therefore it is too much trouble to discuss with peons that don't cough up $30 bucks waiting for the next "installment" will probably be more "expensive" so to speak. Edited March 10, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I'm not a scientist, so I have refrained from commenting too much in this thread since the technical details are way outside my personal knowledge or expertise. Having said that, though, it doesn't take a scientist to gauge reaction to something, and the reaction to Ketchum's study has been pretty negative. Again, no scientific background required to see where some are so biased and so vested in this thing being right that they refuse to see what is so obvious to most, scientists or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 How can one draw a conclusion of any sorts from 1% of the total given facts of a report? I say it's impossible, but you seem to think one is capable of doing so. Any person, in their right mind, wouldn't come to a conclusion on any deal with only 1% disclosure. In the absence of any other data, how can you not? At the worst, you would have to call it a "preliminary conclusion" As such, it's in Melba's court (so to speak) to make the effort to overturn the impression that her data has left. Quote Tyler H: "Well little lady ..." "Well little lady," ... male chauvinist much? I'm being misquoted here... the judge said it, not me. The judge of public opinion is often chauvinistic. I think the anti- Ketchum sentiment is so thick with some people that they'll use public opinion of her release rate to convince themselves it's evidence of nefarious deeds. once again, NOT using public opinion. 100% of public opinion could disagree with me. All I require is evidence such as this, that you have yet to refute, TimB! visual representation of contamination Genbank results.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Meh, little lady, young man..very common idioms. Nothing to get your grapes in a bunch over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) @ RR, We know for certain there is more. The conclusion I've come to is....wait and see, not whether it's right or wrong. My point is that MK should not be writing a scientific paper that is not complete. All of the data that is required to reach the conclusion should be presented at the time the paper is published. Not at a later date. This is not acceptable to the scientific community - it is simply not done that way. She could have put this information out as a blog and a "work in progress" if she needed to add information at a later date. Or held off until she could make the data available. When published, any paper should stand on its own. She wants this to be a scientific paper? Then treat this as a scientific paper. And I agree, time will tell one way or the other! Edited March 10, 2013 by ridgerunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Indeed Tim. Mind boggling isn't it, if that's all they're hanging onto as a rebuttal. @ RR, We know for certain there is more. The conclusion I've come to is....wait and see, not whether it's right or wrong. See the courtroom discussion I posted above. The court of public opinion has formed it's impression. Tell me ONE other arena, other than this one, TM, where you think that people can give only parital information, withhold the rest, but then expect NOT to be judged on the partial release. This is not a rhetorical question - Can you name me an arena? Work? Romance? School? Courtrooms? Then, if you can't tell me another arena in which this would be acceptable, please define why you think this situation should be treated as an exception. Edited March 10, 2013 by Tyler H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Thermalman said: How can one draw a conclusion of any sorts from 1% of the total given facts of a report? I'm sorry.. I can't help but think you are discussing Melba's paper.. Are you quoting Melba here? I don't remember her saying that to be honest. To hear her speak - every bit of the information necessary to form a conclusion or even a scientific conclusion is in the paper as is.. Or have you decided only 1% of the facts were provided? I'm sorry if I missed a quote by Melba.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Great Point, Melissa. Yes, she can't believe people aren't accepting the paper as irrefutable proof. So, if she thinks it is sufficient to formulate a conclusion, why don't her defenders here? Also, TMan, you said to me 'Sorry Tyler, but that's just the way it is - you don't have all her data, and you can't compel her to release more, so just accept it, deal with it, roll with it." Well, I say, "Public opinion has been formed on the 1% of her data that she chose to release. It's now up to her to refute that opinion with more data, or remain silent and accept that opinion. That's just the way it is - you don't have all her data, and you can't compel her to release more, so just accept it, deal with it, roll with it." Edited March 10, 2013 by Tyler H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Well, if only 1% of her "beautiful science" is represented in that paper --- maybe she shouldn't have published it. It's that 1% that's KILLING the 99%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silent Sam Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 If the 1% is beautiful the 99% that's been withheld must be bag over the head ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted March 10, 2013 Moderator Share Posted March 10, 2013 Well, I say, "Public opinion has been formed on ... I believe you say wrong. BFF does not represent the public. Here, some opinions, plural, have formed, but there is no consensus. If/when the story hits major news, all that has been said here is ... nothing. "Dust in the wind." We delude ourselves with assumptions of relevance in the larger picture. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 ^^ I disagree very strongly. The BFF lens tends to favor the proponent in almost every discussion on this board. If you think the "world at large" is going to be kinder to Melba, you have a very rude awakening in store. Seriously, if Melba and her beautiful science can't meet muster on a forum dedicated to Bigfoot, do you really think it's going to fare better outside of here? Really? This is where it needed to get off the ground, before anyone else would even consider it, and it didn't do that. It's dead. D E A D ...dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) The entire time I was holding out for the possibility of Dr. Ketchum's DNA report being legit, I was ignoring the red flags. It's now become a valuable lesson for me though. I will no longer support anything that lacks honesty and a fair level of professionalism. In a way, I almost feel free now Edited March 11, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 melba's paper is basically the blobsquatch of scientific reports. those who will see BF in anything will accept it. those who are a little more discerning are asking for a clearer picture. same as it ever was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TwilightZone Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I'm not a scientist, so I have refrained from commenting too much in this thread since the technical details are way outside my personal knowledge or expertise. Having said that, though, it doesn't take a scientist to gauge reaction to something, and the reaction to Ketchum's study has been pretty negative. Again, no scientific background required to see where some are so biased and so vested in this thing being right that they refuse to see what is so obvious to most, scientists or not. Also a background in science is not required to judge the ridiculous HD video of a carpet, or the references to April Fool's joke papers, or the made up journal, or the fact that the beautiful data was not included, or the $30 cost. Only common sense is required to smell a rat here, but I fear the Melbonians are so blinded by their devotion that common sense has become quite uncommon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts