Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Melissa, I did not mean to imply you where hammering at anything, it was just the way the topic was going. Melba has been dealing with leaks, and constant inquiries ever since the very first leak. Character assassination, attacks on her professionalism, even her love life for goodness sake. As I stated earlier in this thread, the things she has said, actually said, not purported to have said, only hurt her case, if they are not true. Considering provenance will be part of this, some of the claims skeptics consider so devastating or wild, may turn out to be some of the most eye opening. Even her latest release was prompted by a Russian scientist sort of forcing her hand, and the skeptics immediately extrapolate that it will be a Russian publication. Lets wait and see, how her, and her team of professional, privately funded(and that is a very key point), handle all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I find it amusing that you didn't seem to see anything that need criticizing up until "he" made his sarcastic comment. I find it irrelevant. My point isn't about how well or poorly handled the PR was (I've said before she could have done it better), nor how Dr Meldrum chose to express the same concern. My point is that Dr Meldrum doesn't deserve the crap being flung his way because he isn't immediately jumping into line with the Ketchum study. Melissa pointed out that she thought it was about to get ugly. I agree. There is at least one person, (Lee Berger) who claims to be a paleoanthropologist who is calling Ketchum a fraud repeatedly on Twitter, claiming that she was never Treasurer of the AFDAA (which can be refuted by it's own website) and that her lab does not exist (which can be refuted from public records). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Becareful what you wish for folks. http://www.mnn.com/e...dna-study-finds I called this more than a year ago.. And here we go. The "contamination" talk has already started. I heard talk that Melba may be publishing in Russia.. Can anyone confirm this? Contamination comes out in the wash, and there are ways to check for it. So I'm expecting explanations to the effect of how it is ruled out. One would be that random contamination would not give you repeating novel mutated sequences and indicating a single type of donor. Also, the contaminator would be a "known" species which could be isolated. Premature assumptions about the work, is not scientific review. I would be wary of annonymous folks making a play on lay peoples simplified understanding of the real facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Like I said Sasfooty - she may have already addressed this concern. But the media will speculate until the full paper is released. This is why I have been saying - just write the paper and keep the people around her quiet. Now, it's just going to be a mess until, when and IF, her paper is published. Also, now that it's into the media - we all better pray she gets published and her "science" is sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Reading all this, I feel a need all of a sudden to post something for the JREF types and kneejerk naysayers who may be trolling here. Blaming an animal's nonexistence on the people searching for it is not science. It's worse than pseudoscience. If you would like to know the truth so much, isn't there enough bandwidth being wasted on this back and forth who struck John that the proper thing for you to be doing would be encouraging the mainstream to step in, take up the cudgel, and settle this for good and all? Thanks for listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 If all the bleevers and proponents would have been objective about MK and her "Science" antics, this would have been over long ago... we don't need MORE stigma, thank you very much. Blame yourselves. She is only giving you what you want. The only way she can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Melissa pointed out that she thought it was about to get ugly. I agree. There is at least one person, (Lee Berger) who claims to be a paleoanthropologist who is calling Ketchum a fraud repeatedly on Twitter, claiming that she was never Treasurer of the AFDAA (which can be refuted by it's own website) and that her lab does not exist (which can be refuted from public records). Oh heck, if you think this is bad - just wait till the press gets a hold of the other things she has said - or that have been said came out of her mouth.... This could be a bad time to be a bigfooter. I might take up Nessie hunting for a while.... LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbhunter Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Well, we could start a "speculation" thread, but what good would it do? Basically, we do have to wait and see. Either way it is interesting and a good chance to see what kind of press this gets. There will always be doubters and there will always be advocates for the paper. KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 If all the bleevers and proponents would have been objective about MK and her "Science" antics, this would have been over long ago... we don't need MORE stigma, thank you very much. Blame yourselves. She is only giving you what you want. The only way she can. Are you prepared to show that there 1) either IS no study or that 2) 109 samples yeilding 20 mtDNA chains and 3 complete genomes processed by multiple independent labs somehow ALL frakked up the proceedures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/yhr/tuesday/557851-8/sasquatch-does-dna-say-its-human Both Paulides and Dr.Ketchum were interviewed and this should lay some of the speculation to rest. QUOTE- “Some people out there have said we’ve used this word, ‘angel DNA.’ That is not true,†said Paulides, a former police officer in San Jose, Calif. “But there is some very unusual aspects to that male DNA that cannot be explained right now.†Ketchum’s Texas lab didn’t do all of the testing. She said 13 labs — at universities, state-run forensive labs and private-sector facilities — were involved in the process, which included blind studies “and repeatability on most of it.†She said the labs tested 109 samples of all kinds — hair, tissue, blood and saliva. “And all of them had the same results,†Paulides said. “If someone pooh-poohs it, they either haven’t read (the study) or they just refuse to believe it.†Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I have a Ph.D. and have been an academic research scientist for almost 25 years. Science moves forward when one scientist publishes or otherwise reports their data and conclusion, followed by other scientists trying to "tear apart" the experiments, data, interpretations, assumptions and conclusions. It's simply a longstanding method for refining methods and ideas. Scientists are rarely nice about tearing apart other scientists' work. Scientist either develop a very thick skin or they move to another profession. I think Meldrum's comments were fairly restrained compared to some of the comments I've received over the years. Genes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo 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. The end game is near, and if Ketchum is right, published or not, the genome will likely go "online" somewhere. From there, Sykes will be able to compare his data, along with numerous other newly interested geneticists. It will fly like an eagle or crash and burn. There could be a silver lining in the early release in that the interested scientists will have wetted apetites for the truth of the matter and will be able to seek it independently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Lights Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Reading all this, I feel a need all of a sudden to post something for the JREF types and kneejerk naysayers who may be trolling here. Pardon my ignorance, but what does this mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) What GenesRUs said above is true. Anyone hear about the death threats going back and forth between climate researchers? Scientists can be way rougher than this field of research. Which is why I might be going on vacation to wherever Nessie is.. LOL. Edited to add - does anyone remember this? Link Uploaded with ImageShack.us Edited November 27, 2012 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Time Traveler Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/11/like-omg-scientists-have-sequenced-bigfoot-dna/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts