TimB Posted October 29, 2013 Posted October 29, 2013 They don't have to be, obviously- I just find little meaning in feelings. I'll keep checking back.
Guest Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Is there anything besides your feeling that leads you to this conclusion? I'm looking for facts here. Just the obvious.
TimB Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 So nothing specific just your feelings and opinion. Shoot- I was looking for something objective. 1
chelefoot Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Tyler went on Melbas FB page and suggested that in order to put the debate of Sample 26 to rest, that she have it independently tested by an outside lab of her choice. If Melba is so sure of her findings and that there was something fishy (sample swaping) going on with the testing done by the 2 labs that Bart and Tyler sent the "steak" to... I see no reason she wouldn't want to have her results validated. 1
Guest Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Just the obvious. She ain't got it.... It's so easy to be a skeptic, you never need to explain your opinions, but be ready at the drop of a hot to express them. Really makes for an informed fact filled discussion.
Guest Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Apparently it's just as easy to be a geneticist and to prove the existence of a new species. You don't have to release any data or back up your claims.
Guest Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 So nothing specific just your feelings and opinion. Shoot- I was looking for something objective. How about this? http://www.faze-jamez.org/
TimB Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 That took so long for you to find I forget what we are talking about- let me go back and read... I remember now- we were talking about the deep, dark, disturbed plot by Melba to fool the world. I guess I have some questions regarding your evidence here. Okay- any idea who the actual person/people involved in this statement are? When was this published? Don't you think that since there is no name involved in this it's probably a hoax designed to fuel the fire of people who aren't interested in veracity but in proving their opinions or feelings right (present company excluded of course)? Gosh- I wish this was able to be verified in some way- just another unprovable piece of information. Anyone can publish anything on the internet- wasn't her site just hacked to reflect something similar? I sure hope we can come up with some established fact in this.
chelefoot Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 We need a member of the media/press to verify or debunk this. There's a media/press link at the bottom of the page. It says it will only respond to media/press. Anyone here?
Guest Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 That took so long for you to find I forget what we are talking about- let me go back and read... I remember now- we were talking about the deep, dark, disturbed plot by Melba to fool the world. I guess I have some questions regarding your evidence here. Okay- any idea who the actual person/people involved in this statement are? When was this published? Don't you think that since there is no name involved in this it's probably a hoax designed to fuel the fire of people who aren't interested in veracity but in proving their opinions or feelings right (present company excluded of course)? Gosh- I wish this was able to be verified in some way- just another unprovable piece of information. Anyone can publish anything on the internet- wasn't her site just hacked to reflect something similar? I sure hope we can come up with some established fact in this. If Dr. Ketchum wants to lawyer up I am certain she could sue the owner of that website for libel. She would have to of course back up everything that she has claimed including that she bought the JAMEZ journal and that her article did indeed pass peer review. Ball is in her court now. Her lack of action will be telling.
TimB Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 I beg to differ. You haven't even verified that this is legitimate. Again, there is no person attached to this. There is no legitimacy to this. People are bent on destroying Dr. Ketchum with lies- this seems to fit right in the pattern. For whatever reason, people keep attacking her online. Why would they do that? Since the popular opinion is her paper is a failure, why not move on? This just doesn't add up. Have you found anything that proves this is legitimate or are you just accepting it at face value? Oh--- and isn't the "we'll respond to press only" clause just a little convenient? 1
Guest Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Well then I guess we will see based on her actions won't we. Your mind is obviously made up already. The website that page is on was created in January of this year and has already been a topic of discussion.
Guest Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Bigtruth 3 hours ago · Our person at the genome center is attempting to upload the three whole genomes to GenBank. Wish us luck now that we have a species name to apply. If not, we are going to try to upload to UCSC.
Recommended Posts