Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I hate to be the barer of bad news for so many - but the sad fact is - even if Melba gets her paper published it still will not be science fact. Science does not have to accept anything. Also, if she does publish in Russia first - I gotta ask why?? I am sure American scientists will ask - "Why did she go to Russia?" What I don't know about are the standards for publishing a paper of this sort in Russia. Personally - I think she may have spoken too much about her work - and that is why she isn't publishing here - because she can't. I sure hope she has left out all her "personal experiences" and has just stuck to the facts of the work. Also, I really wish people would calm down. Even if Melba publishes - that is not the end of this.. People will still call us crazy. We might get a few more academics interested within the scientific community - but we will still face the same things we deal with now. I always say - be careful what you wish for. I have a feeling it's about to get ugly for all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 And the fact that both deserve to be criticized means nothing to you? And boy it should mean plenty. This animal is fake. It's a myth, the product of people's imaginations, that lives only through the desire of the gullible to believe. Dancing around it is a four-ring circus of quack scientists, practicing pseudo-science. You are up against that. And you do this. Procedure isn't important in science, people. PROCEDURE IS SCIENCE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Sheesh, there is no evidence or suspicion of contamination yet about half the article is about this alleged contamination, interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Sheesh, there is no evidence or suspicion of contamination yet about half the article is about this alleged contamination, interesting... One possibility is that most of the evidence, to most people who have reviewed it extensively, doesn't point to something human. Another possibility is that the provenance of the samples is so, well, shrouded in mystery. When you're leaking like a machine-gunned raft, but this is one thing nobody knows....well, then speculation starts running rampant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 If these samples are coming up human - in any way shape or form - someone needs to explain how they collected the samples and how they guarded against cross contamination. That is VERY important. Melba can not vouch for how these samples were collected - and the very fact that she is saying "Human Female" -- well, prove it's not her.. This is the problem. Maybe the samples are not contaminated but this is a good question I hope Melba can explain in her paper - and most likely has. Whether it will be to the satisfaction of those reading during the peer review process is an entirely different matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 "There is nothing "purported" about the samples. You cannot extract DNA sequences from thin air." Well, when all I have is dueling press releases....everything is purported. That's the problem. And as I've noted, scientists don't do this, and when it happens, it's not going to lend confidence in the integrity of the (purported) results Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 One possibility is that most of the evidence, to most people who have reviewed it extensively, doesn't point to something human. Another possibility is that the provenance of the samples is so, well, shrouded in mystery. When you're leaking like a machine-gunned raft, but this is one thing nobody knows....well, then speculation starts running rampant. But Ketchum is the first person to extensively examine the DNA, so who else better to point to BF being a human/hybrid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 And the fact that both deserve to be criticized means nothing to you? I find it amusing that you didn't seem to see anything that need criticizing up until "he" made his sarcastic comment. Example: After all, she's only human... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Isn't this were the Erickson Documentary was supposed to come in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 But Ketchum is the first person to extensively examine the DNA, so who else better to point to BF being a human/hybrid. Well, we have her word on that, anyway. Given the brickbats that are coming this way already from the skeptical community, we might as well clean house. (As I frequently tell people, all the significant debunking in this field has been done by the proponents.) We don't have to lose our heads or get angry at people. But learning lessons about what science expects from scientists, that would be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I am pretty sure Dr Ketchum, and the people she works with know what science expects from scientist. I am also pretty sure she is well versed on contamination, and provenance. I realize there has been an extended hack campaign going on against her,and as time goes on its easy for some of us to buy into that way of thinking, after all, they hammer at it constantly. However, she is a professional, bottom line, even if the non professional hacks don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Good point. PR, Facebook, etc aside. This woman has a PhD. There are only a handful of people on here that can even comprehend what kind of commitment and intelligence that requires. I don't think she is a slouch in the slightest, just new to the whole BF and new species ID arena. When this whole thing pans out, I'd like to ask her what she'd do differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 JohnC - I am personally not "hammering" at anything - but lets be clear about something. I don't know all there is to know about scientific publications - but I do know rule number one is - your not supposed to discuss the work until the paper has passed through peer review and has been published. She may have sunk her own boat here in the USA. Why? It's pretty interesting how things quiet down - then all the sudden we have leaks coming out of the Ketchum camp. People close to her say - this and that - then we have the comments about her "personal experiences"... Then we have this same type of frenzy within the community. I wish she would have just did the work, and published. Now, she is publishing in Russia. Why? I am going to venture a guess here, but I would bet most scientists want to publish here in the United States. Ketchum never should have started talking - other than to request the samples. She should take a page out of Syke's book. We can't ask science to care - then not care about how they do things. They wont change for us - or for Melba Ketchum. I just hope Sykes keeps his work quiet. Geesh, what a mess this has turned into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I don't know what to think about Meldrum and this PR person. We simply don't know what she told him. Was she putting him on? Did she make a reveal because she was speaking with *the* Dr. Jeff Meldrum? The man has a pleasant demeanor and he's a near celebrity to the BF faithful. More worrying to me are this person's qualifications and history. Shouldn't a discovery of this magnitude warrant a seasoned public relations professional? Sally Ramey was a true believer but at least she had some PR credentials. What do we know about this person? No offense but it doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Maybe the subject is so taboo that Ketchum has to solicite help from sypathetic followers. I have no idea but if that's the case, I nominate David Paulides. Look, the media will continue to relentlessly mock this press release until the paper is published in a respectable journal or someone with some scientific "cred" steps up and admits to being a co-author. That...or Sykes (or one of Smeja's labs) publishes first with a compatible finding. The jury is still out but I think the verdict is near. Let's just say I hope Paulides is right because "very, very soon" can't come soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 If these samples are coming up human - in any way shape or form - someone needs to explain how they collected the samples and how they guarded against cross contamination. That is VERY important. Melba can not vouch for how these samples were collected - and the very fact that she is saying "Human Female" -- well, prove it's not her. It's easy to prove it's not her, her lab employees, & the people who donated the samples. Their & our DNA is easily obtainable to check for a match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts