The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

Ketchum seems to think so.

[Guest Tyler H]

Lol Melissa. I just like using the term angel. Not so derogatory. I've asked TH to provide his source of MK coining the phrase " angel DNA" but he refuses to state any names, like it threatens national security or something. I had pointed out that it was the media that coined the phrase. I concur that the raw data is important, but I too, do not know the reasons why she has not released it. I'm also, not in a position to ask MK why she didn't. Sorry, I can't be of help with your request, as I too would like to see it released.

Why can't others grasp that?

Thermalman - you are the most circular of reasoners. We keep giong 'round and round on this - every time you ask me for info, I address it. Everytime I pin you down and ask you for info, you dodge it.

The source for seeing evidence of "angel DNA" used by Melba, is (among 5 other people some of whom I won't name) MYSELF TYLER HUGGINS. Now, as I said, I don't give a hoot if she used the term if her science holds water. THe science that SHE provided does not hold water, so let's deal with that. Now, let's not bring up the angel DNA thing again. Ask Derek Randles or Wally Hersom if they ever heard her use the term. Both of whom were big fans at the time that they heard her use it. I'm not going to address this question again. Now, the difference is, I have answered what was asked of me, Melba has not.

Now, what you keep dodging, is the request to address the critique levelled at her, or find a qualified person who is able to do so. I have done both of those things, as have other individuals on this forum. Do your part - find a source to back you, and refute the claims that knowledgable people have made about the data, or borrow a sock from someone.

I live in a free country and have access to free speech, so I'll use whatever references I need to. By not releasing politely requested info yourself, your Ketchum criticism is mute and hypocritcal at best.

Some people need to read here and get the full story about MK's business and work history.

By all means, use whatever references you need to... just make them relevant and analagous - that's all we ask. There is nothing similar to the PGF example.

[Guest]

With what proof LC? Nothing can be totally proven based on a 1% release.

That response is a non sequitur. My point is that her methodological and ethical problems have made the raw data irrelevant.

Edited March 11, 2013 by leisureclass

[Guest Tyler H]

I will refute your implied credibility of the PDF you've posted:

Anyone reading this thread can do this for themselves:

-Go to Tyler H's post #1366 in the Ketchum Report

-download the PDF supplied by Tyler H.

-rightclick on it

-click document properties

-look for the PHD Author's name

-it will be listed as "Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy"

How's that for PHD authentication? Care to respond, although it won't likely matter what you say now?

MK might have not put all her info out there, but at least she has the guts to legitimately stand behind her work, with her name!

Now, why wouldn't it matter what I say now?

Your arguments are getting increasingly illogical, and hypocritical. You said that the arguments about Melba, the critique of Melba should not be about her, it should be about the science. Same here - again, my PhD wants to remain anonymous. His real name is Mr. Cookie Monster... no, wait, Mrs Hello Kitty. What does it matter? Refute the dang science!

Any one of you can go to http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PROGRAM=blastn&BLAST_PROGRAMS=megaBlast&PAGE_TYPE=BlastSearch&SHOW_DEFAULTS=on&LINK_LOC=blasthome

and do the same thing for yourselves.

I will only answer further questions about that data, posed by people who have put the effort in, themselves.

By the way, this continued "we can't judge her on 1% of her data. We have to let her claims stand until the entire thing is proved to be shoddy"... Guess what? I have a report. Here is my conclusion, and 1% of my data. Thankfully, you won't be able to challenge it, until I release the other 99%:

"My conclusion is that Melba's study is completely unbelievable. I have parsed the data completely. I have concluded it is nonsensical and that the science is deeply flawed. As proof, I submit the following 1% of my data: egjerkeh."

Now, nobody can take issue with my above report, remember, because I have only released 1%. Kindly wait until I release the other 99%, and then we can have a discussion. I'm currently out of town on business, so will not be able to reply.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Tyler H

[Guest thermalman]

@ LC I would respond by saying "caveat emptor" when buying into the belief that all the rebuttal data is accurate?

@TH Your credibility and proof is less than MK's 1% release right about now, your data is illogical and falliable, your due diligence is nill, but keep talking if you want?

Nuff said.

Edited March 11, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

Thermalman said:

MK might have not put all her info out there, but at least she has the guts to legitimately stand behind her work, with her name!

1% of the data - and her Name - is not going to equal a scientific win with this paper. The guts to stand behind her work? She isn't answering questions. So, technically it's more like "hiding behind" her work.

Again, I ask you - is this 1% a Melba Ketchum quote or yours? I would really like to know where this percentage comes from.

[Guest]

Again, I ask you - is this 1% a Melba Ketchum quote or yours? I would really like to know where this percentage comes from.

I would also like to know the origin of the 1% claim.

[Guest Tyler H]

@ LC I would respond by saying "caveat emptor" when buying into the belief that all the rebuttal data is accurate?

@TH Your credibility and proof is less than MK's 1% release right about now, your data is illogical and falliable, your due diligence is nill, but keep talking if you want?

Nuff said.

"nuff said" is right.

LOL - You just refuse to deal with the scientific critique that has been put out there, don't you?

Well, quid pro quo, neither shall I bother any more effort in addressing your inane, irrelevant accusations. It's like we're playing chess, and you keep showing up with a bowling ball, saying "oh yeah? show us your bowling skills! What about this? huh?" Come back when you want to challenge the science that has been put forth as critique. I didn't critique Melba until I had the science in hand. I expect the same - nothing more, nothing less... that's my form of hypocrisy.

[Guest]

Thank you Leisureclass. I think it's a reasonable question and one I have asked multiple times now.

[Guest thermalman]

Thermalman said:

1% of the data - and her Name - is not going to equal a scientific win with this paper. The guts to stand behind her work? She isn't answering questions. So, technically it's more like "hiding behind" her work.

Again, I ask you - is this 1% a Melba Ketchum quote or yours? I would really like to know where this percentage comes from.

I would also like to know the origin of the 1% claim.

@ Melissa Neither is a rebuttal paper by a PHd (Phd of what?) with the name of "Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy" see post #1434 and follow the directions. The 1% was relayed to me by a mod who had purchased the initial release.

[Guest]

@ LC I would respond by saying "caveat emptor" when buying into the belief that all the rebuttal data is accurate?

What specific rebuttal data do you think is inaccurate, and why? Please provide details of why they are wrong.

[Guest Tyler H]

I would also like to know the origin of the 1% claim.

The FASTA type data currently available in Melba's released report, supposedly constitutes less than 1% of the sequences/data that should be there in her claimed "full genomes." This is the claim by the scientists who have examined the report and found it lacking. It's like she only did 1% of an exam, handed it in, and then says "you can't grade me on that... it's only 1% complete."

Shouldn't the teacher be using that line as a critique?

What a great defense! "I haven't flunked, I just never gave you my real exam/report/work"

[Guest thermalman]

"nuff said" is right.

LOL - You just refuse to deal with the scientific critique that has been put out there, don't you?

Well, quid pro quo, neither shall I bother any more effort in addressing your inane, irrelevant accusations. It's like we're playing chess, and you keep showing up with a bowling ball, saying "oh yeah? show us your bowling skills! What about this? huh?" Come back when you want to challenge the science that has been put forth as critique. I didn't critique Melba until I had the science in hand. I expect the same - nothing more, nothing less... that's my form of hypocrisy.

You have nothing but a grade 3 animated profile, signed by a PHd (Phd of what?) with the name of "Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy". Yup, that holds immense credibility............yup. Even Frank Burns isn't crazy or gullible enough to believe that one, neither are most of us here.

What specific rebuttal data do you think is inaccurate, and why? Please provide details of why they are wrong.

Read the info posted in post #1434 and follow the directions.

[Guest]

So, this 1% comes from a moderator? Not Melba? I wonder if Melba agrees with your 1% conclusion of her work.

Tyler H said:

It's like she only did 1% of an exam, handed it in, and then says "you can't grade me on that... it's only 1% complete."

Funny, cause that's the exact argument I keep hearing from Melba's supporters. Well, if all she submitted was 1% - it's the 1% she will be, and is, being graded on. She knew that. She had to have known that. I am not a scientist - and I know that..

P.S. I wonder if Wally knows he paid for 1% of the work?

Edited March 11, 2013 by Melissa

[Guest Tyler H]

@ Melissa Neither is a rebuttal paper by a PHd (Phd of what?) with the name of "Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy" see post #1434 and follow the directions. The 1% was relayed to me by a mod who had purchased the initial release.

TMan... see post #1444 and follow the directions yourself - BLAST away.

"What does it matter? Refute the dang science!

Any one of you can go to http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PROGRAM=blastn&BLAST_PROGRAMS=megaBlast&PAGE_TYPE=BlastSearch&SHOW_DEFAULTS=on&LINK_LOC=blasthome

and do the same thing for yourselves."

You have nothing but a grade 3 animated profile, signed by a PHd (Phd of what?) with the name of "Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy". Yup, that holds immense credibility............yup. Even Frank Burns isn't crazy or gullible enough to believe that one, neither are most of us here.

Pleas, by all means - REFUSE TO BELIEVE IT... then go and do it for yourself - BLAST the sequences. lol

BTW, he made it at a grade 3 level, hoping some like yourself may finally be able to follow the critique. Sorry you are still having trouble, I'll ask him to take it down a notch.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Tyler H