Guest Silent Sam Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 A tell-all Sally Ramey interview sure would be interesting right about now. This could easily make for a Lifetime movie. "Sally Here... The Sally Ramey Story" staring Daphne Zuniga as Sally Ramey with Christy McNickel as Dr. Melba Ketchum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Cathy McMillan - you say that Bart and I, and also Melba have horses in this race. The difference is that our claims are nothing - nothing new. We would love to be around for the day when someone can declare that we have some great physical evidence... but as of yet, this does not seem to be a credible claim. Melba on the other hand HAS profitted hugely from her claims and hopes to profit a whole bunch more. I really would like to know what people think Bart or I stand to gain, by debunking Melba? Are our names going to go down in history? Nope. Even the scientists who eventually parse her data and either validate it or discredit it are not likely to be remembered. Are we going to get huge royalties from a book? Hardly. First, I have no deal in the works with any books that are planned, whereby I get any monetary consideration. If i DID, I suppose it would be with Mike Green... He'll do a great job and his book might sell 8000 copies, and I would gte $100.00 or something. Woohoo! that would make all this work worth while! You see, the only thing that can motivate the amount of effort and Bart and I have put in, in the absence of ANY financial reimbursement, and the absence of any notable "fame", is PRINCIPLE. We are doing what is right. We are protecting this field, and protecting some good people involved. We have told the truth. You die-hard Melba supporters are seeing red flag after red flag after red flag.... First about her, then about her conclusions, and now, finally, about her SCIENCE. And yet you still want to faul the messengers as all being "out to get her." You seem sincere Cathy. Either view the evidence with an open mind, or sit back and wait for this latest claim of "scientists examining her information" to pan out. Anything else you and I can say is likely a moot point anyway, at this juncture. I don't see what would prevent Melba from now telling the world, what "team of scientists" is presently vetting her data... so let's see if we can get that divulged instead of waiting another 5 years for that. Aside from that, I think I've said most things I can say about this whole debacle, and am going to try to spend less time declaring the things I know, and more time back at procductive research, and with my family. The only thing really left to do at this point is to wait on the names of the scientists vetting her data, and wait on their conclusions. Maybe my objections will stand, or maybe they will fall, or maybe it will be somewhere in the middle, where Justin's evidence is what I say it is, but other evidence is actually valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 I do have an open mind. I Question Melba and I Question your Data as and Evidence as Well. Are you are are you not part of the Sierra Kill Project do you support Justin's story? So yes you do have a bit of a claim in something. You say I am a Melba Supporter. I found the paper interesting read. I have seen people claiming that the labs weren't real she just put them in to make her look good. So the anti-Melba crowd is all over the map as well on this. I have not seen a full write up from any scientist that they looked at all her information. I may have missed this I admit. I listen to her responses some of it makes sense to me. But I am already skeptical about Science and how they would accept Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Aside from that, I think I've said most things I can say about this whole debacle, and am going to try to spend less time declaring the things I know, and more time back at procductive research, and with my family. I am grateful for your contributions and comments, so don't leave for anything I have said, I wouldn't want to discourage opinion or insight, please! In general, on declaring the things we know? LOL well, there is a real tension between helping and not...and I have never personally found that balance...the older I get the less people want me to declare....I do know that! The Bigfootness of this arena makes it even harder. to know what to share or not...and just leaving the info in small groups doesn't work either...these forums are the best alternative so far for some of this... But, yes that is my personal goal as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 A tell-all Sally Ramey interview sure would be interesting right about now. She was signed on and reading this thread the other night so you never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 I do have an open mind. I Question Melba and I Question your Data as and Evidence as Well. Are you are are you not part of the Sierra Kill Project do you support Justin's story? So yes you do have a bit of a claim in something. You say I am a Melba Supporter. I found the paper interesting read. I have seen people claiming that the labs weren't real she just put them in to make her look good. So the anti-Melba crowd is all over the map as well on this. I have not seen a full write up from any scientist that they looked at all her information. I may have missed this I admit. I listen to her responses some of it makes sense to me. But I am already skeptical about Science and how they would accept Bigfoot. There was one on her facebook page that said he did a blast of her sequence (or what ever you would call it) and he said he can confirm her finding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 There was one on her facebook page that said he did a blast of her sequence (or what ever you would call it) and he said he can confirm her finding. You mean David Swensen the former biochemistry professor turned recycling consultant who does reviews for hire on the side: http://www.greenresourcesredux.com/644366 And he basically got exactly the same results as Ridgerunner. Of course he was a little more charitable to her conclusions since she's a client. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 26, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted February 26, 2013 These are not good analogy's. One my life would be at risk. With citations like she used her life is in no danger. She already had a bad reputation from many peoples feelings. Now lets not forget that even if Sykes confirms her findings several people over at JREF have already said they would place him in same boat as Melba being a crazy person.so how is this suppose to be skepticism if people are already ready to bash Sykes on something he hasn't said yet. I have no idea what you just said. But it sounds like BS to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 I'm with you BIP, WT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 It really is a shame the way this so-called scientific study has played out, but one silver lining might be the that several researchers have been through the fiasco, and now will be more selective with the next inevitable study... I don't think it's over for the science in this paper by any means. If Melba is right, her results will repeat no matter who hates her, no matter how poorly her research is intimated in her report, and no matter how badly people want it to fail. The samples are just as real as they would be in any other study. The submitters will find more samples, and if they were like me, didn't send all they had, knowing the repeatability has to happen several times. According to her study, it does take about a dozen or more hairs with good tissue tags on the roots to get sufficient DNA and target nuDNA. The nuclear DNA though being quite novel particularly in the Amelogenin locus seems to cause consistent amel X drop out significantly more often than in human control samples even with very good samples. This would be an obstacle for even someone like Sykes to sort out, as this is also where proprietary primers were used by both DNA Diagnostics and an outsource lab using their own primers. So selection of a lab for a prime sample might benefit from knowledge gleaned from this report and it wouldn't surprise me if Sykes does just that if he has any trouble getting a read on the amelogenin locus. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) (Read GreenQuote below.) What color is that? Edited February 27, 2013 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I see denial takes many forms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/02/watch-this-biologists-speak-out-turns.html OK, folks. Here's breaking news from zoologist Nadia Moore regarding Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA paper:"Update: Breaking News! Real Geneticist who has analyzed the available Ketchum "Sequencing" says it is a combination of human chromosome 11, cat, dog and panda bear, amongst other things, and is the result of contamination/mixing and poor technique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Panda Bear? No zebra? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I think in Tyler's report there was mentioned something about panda genomes in genbank.I need to go read it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts