Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Trust me, from someone who did web design for years for extra cash, the site is ugly and the layout horrid. You'll get no arguments there from me. But they HAD to change the name. The old journal was about zoology. If the new species is a human hybrid, keeping the old name made have made it look even worse. There was a short paper there previously, but not sure if they kept it up. It wasn't anything special. Then why buy the journal at all? I am not buying the logic used by Melba in this purchase. Not one bit. She said she bought it to get the information ----- but the only information she needed was about her own paper. Wouldn't she already have all that? Or do the peer reviews remain hidden from her? They must not be as she noted there were problems that she had to address. So, her reasoning makes no sense to me at all. I know you take issue with the use of the word "Zoology" - but is this the only paper we can expect to see on this site? Will it deny publication and review to others? How many other "Bigfoot Discoveries" does she think there is to make? Does she think this is a whole new "science" separate from the existing fields? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 If she wants any credibility at all, the co authors are going to have to come out and do interviews and also the peer reviewers will need to be named and do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 ^And the hard data needs to be evaluated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 If she wants any credibility at all, the co authors are going to have to come out and do interviews and also the peer reviewers will need to be named and do the same. I don't believe the peer reviewers are ever named. However, if they are people of standing in the field, there is nothing to stop them from coming out and validating this off their own backs - there's no need for them to say they peer reviewed it and it doesn't really matter at this point. However if nobody of note comes out to say "I think she has something here" then I think we can be confident that nobody of note peer reviewed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 If anyone at all did. ^^. It's looking more and more like the purchase/journal/review may be a grand fabrication. Also, there should be a steady stream of info leaking out about the co-authors by now. Were they skeptical at first? Nuetral to bf? Were they weekend bigfooters? Lots of questions need answers Melba, and a few Facebook posts ain't going to cut it. Full disclosure is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Here is a thought. I wonder if the prior owners of this "Journal" signed NDA's about the sale of the Journal and any/all information contained on the site prior to the sale? It's not out of the realm of possibility, where Melba is concerned, and if this is the case anyone could say anything they wanted - and the prior owners could not dispute it - well they could but they would be in violation of the NDA.. Does anyone know who the prior owners of this journal were? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 If she wants any credibility at all, the co authors are going to have to come out and do interviews and also the peer reviewers will need to be named and do the same. On another site they have began contacting the co-authors. 2 have been contacted and and said they are aware of the study, had minor roles, did some sequencing etc. but were not involved in the analysis etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Here is a thought. I wonder if the prior owners of this "Journal" signed NDA's about the sale of the Journal and any/all information contained on the site prior to the sale? It's not out of the realm of possibility, where Melba is concerned, and if this is the case anyone could say anything they wanted - and the prior owners could not dispute it - well they could but they would be in violation of the NDA.. Does anyone know who the prior owners of this journal were? I have no information, but as this journal had no presence anywhere, it could well have been Ketchum's next-door neighbour, or simply anybody. If she won't say who they are, it means she has something to hide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PorkSol Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 I wonder if she had permission to include them as co-authors or if she just included everyone who worked on the DNA without asking them? If I was a professional DNA guy I'd want to avoid being listed as a co-author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 There were a large number of laboratories associated with this study including academic, private and government laboratories in which blind testing was utilized to avoid prejudice in testing. Great time and care was taken in the forensic laboratories to assure no contamination occurred with any of the samples utilized in this study. Does the paper indicate who these "academic, private and government laboratories" were??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Could this have something to do with the now out of business journal? http://97.107.135.119/cfp/servlet/event.showcfp?eventid=28039©ownerid=46245 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PorkSol Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 If anyone at all did. ^^. It's looking more and more like the purchase/journal/review may be a grand fabrication. Yes, unless there is some proof that JAMEZ was at one time an independant, non-Ketchum related journal and peer review was conducted, we shouldn't rely on unsupported statements to that effect. It could have been created by Ketchum, then she could simply have changed the name later. We have no way to know unless there is evidence offered somewhere. We can't assume her statements are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Does the paper indicate who these "academic, private and government laboratories" were??? Yes, they are the institutions that the co-authors work for. Two are university labs in Texas and the rest are various forensincs labs. Again, the co-authors are just the people that were hired to do the testing and sent her the results. They were not involved in writing the paper. Apparently some of them are aquaintences of hers or had done business with her in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 That's kinda the reason for peer review. "I tested a theory of mine and I say it's fact. These people over here also tested it and agree." If they remain anonymous, it's up to the reputation of the journal to stand behind the claims. New journal, no reputation. The reviewers need to come out and explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 We can't assume they're false either. The only thing I'm arguing is keeping an open mind. The mDNA is debatable as we've discussed here. There are possible explanations for the variations. The key is the nuDNA which I don't think anyone here can really weigh in on yet. That info will come out later. The reports about contamination are assuming as well. They say it can't be ruled out, yet they ran tests specifically to rule it out. The arstechnica site says the results came back human, unknown and failure to sequence. The report specifically says unknown, some with minimal human (a mix) or failure to sequence. That's not results coming back human. It's a failure to take all the information into account. The science itself is going to have to be tested and disputed before we know for sure what the real story is. I've always believed that the interpretation is what was going to be disputed and used to try to dismiss the data. Everyone likes to have their own opinion on things. Even the early leaks about the peer review didn't mention problems with the data, but problems with the interpretation. Ape - if you look up the individual co-authors, they have the new patents listed that pertain directly to the procedures used here. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts