Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) So, the question in my mind is this.. I am going to pray this does not violate any rules of the forum.. But, here goes. What is the end game? I honestly don't think this is all about a clothing line.. But, if the paper is as bad, as those in-the-know say it is, why would she have even published it? That seems strange to me. Grammar aside, what could she stand to gain by publishing a paper even those close to her say only 1% of the data is represented? Does she have the option to add material to the paper? Does she publish a new paper with the rest of the data? I am trying to figure out what the end game is - I hope it's not about cool t-shirts and accessories.. Good questions. If the science held up, even 1% could have brought fame and fortune. But even from having just the 1%, there is just too much wrong with the nuDNA and does not support her own conclusions. The three samples can not be the same species, and are too far removed from any biological sample to fit in with any theory of evolution and are simply not human, period! She could add more data to the paper (I have never seen it done before though) - she has full control of the journal, and could modify it as she pleases. I think the end game, besides what Cornelius stated, was her foundation. If enough money comes in, she can pay herself as founder/director and do as she pleases. I think the paper and claims will just fizzle out. No more data, as that would likely negate her conclusions. No corrections, no retraction. She will continue forward until someone definitively proves her wrong, which will likely require someone proving exactly what BF is. And that could take a while. If Sykes is focussing on the mtDNA he may come up with the same results... human mtDNA... but does that make them human? And does this finding totally, or even partially validate her study, if she got the nuDNA so wrong? She could have just picked up human contamination. Re-reading her methods, they used HUMAN SPECIFIC PRIMERS for their amplification and sequencing of the mtDNA, probably because their cytochrome b results came back as 100% human. But if there was something else there, they may have missed it with their choice of primers. Or will Sykes mtDNA come back as something else? I think there will need to be some nuDNA evidence to nail this down, and as SY has eluded to, the Y chromosome will likely be the key to unlock it all! Edited March 18, 2013 by ridgerunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 If Sykes gets human DNA he will say "The samples are human", he will not make up some hybrid scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 ^But he hasn't, and instead has planned a trip to the PNW to visit a BF researcher, no? Perhaps Melba did indeed have some BF samples that she simply, completely, and utterly botched? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest J Sasq Doe Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 But, if the paper is as bad, as those in-the-know say it is Who exactly are "those in-the-know", and what exactly have they said about the paper? Surely you'll be able to point this all out to us, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) One can prove false positives. And bigfoot skeptics are decades behind the curve on that. It does one's intellectual standing no good to toss brickbats that add nothing to the discussion. But this has been a bigfoot-skeptic specialty for a long time now. I thought I saw your usual smoke rising from yet another thread. Yep, I was right. One can also prove the existence of a large animal. It's happened countless times to date. Bigfoot proponents are decades behind the curve on that. Yet you think we should spend our time disproving some report lodged at some point in the past. How about just one..one..out of the how many current high profile BF efforts pan out first? How about something concrete from TBRC or Wood Ape club or whatever they are called now; or from one of your heroes, Meldrum et al? Or maybe Sykes? Why don't they have to produce? Yet you actually expect the side without the claim and therefore the burden of proof to do your dirty work? Yeah, sure. We'll get right on that one. Edited March 18, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 If Sykes gets human DNA he will say "The samples are human", he will not make up some hybrid scenario. Do you have a source for this knowledge or do you "just know"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) Who exactly are "those in-the-know", and what exactly have they said about the paper? Surely you'll be able to point this all out to us, correct? I respect your right to not listen to, accept, or even outright ignore the opinions of those who downloaded this paper (for 30 bucks) and gave their own opinion based on their knowledge and expertise from within this community and outside of it. But, it is also my right to listen to them as well as Melba, and make up my own mind. Question for anyone.. Has Melba's CV ever been posted for public inspection? Anyone ever seen it - or can someone point me to it online? Edited March 18, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) Gossip is like a "tasty truffles". We like to hear it and share it with others because it 'taste" good. Gossip is rooted in our need to feel good about ourselves. As we bring other's down, we gain the illusion that we are moving upward. ....now I don't know if she (MK) did anything wrong or not. Even if I did, I wouldn't be doing as I'm seeing done. Just my thoughts.....carry on. ...edited for spelling. Edited March 19, 2013 by treadstone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Who exactly are "those in-the-know", and what exactly have they said about the paper? Surely you'll be able to point this all out to us, correct? J Sasq Please find us one credible geneticist who supports Melbas conclusions. I challenge you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 So, the question in my mind is this.. I am going to pray this does not violate any rules of the forum.. But, here goes. What is the end game? I honestly don't think this is all about a clothing line.. But, if the paper is as bad, as those in-the-know say it is, why would she have even published it? That seems strange to me. Grammar aside, what could she stand to gain by publishing a paper even those close to her say only 1% of the data is represented? Does she have the option to add material to the paper? Does she publish a new paper with the rest of the data? I am trying to figure out what the end game is - I hope it's not about cool t-shirts and accessories.. I think the end game is she believes she is right about what bigfoot is. She did the work and put her conclusion out there. People may blame her for damaging the credibility BF once had , Yeah right! , but if she is right, other people will prove her right regardless how poorly done people think her paper is or her data. This is the only way she comes out ahead in this, and she's counting on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 @ treadstone, Is it wrong to question her science? Should we take her findings on faith? If I look at her science and find it seriously lacking with conclusions not based on evidence, should I stay quiet? I hear some of the comments are not focussed on the science, but then her own methods and handling of this whole affair are far from any scientific norm. And this brings into question her motives for it all. Just my thoughts too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I won't be staying quiet for long.... article in the queue. I think the perceptions might have to be readjusted some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 @ treadstone, Is it wrong to question her science? Should we take her findings on faith? If I look at her science and find it seriously lacking with conclusions not based on evidence, should I stay quiet? I hear some of the comments are not focussed on the science, but then her own methods and handling of this whole affair are far from any scientific norm. And this brings into question her motives for it all. Just my thoughts too. I'm no one's judge, but it is how we do things in our method of questioning, our attitude-per say....that defines us. One can question what they think is wrong with the equation (or the findings)....but, only that should be called into question. Not the motives of the individual that led to the question in the first place. Scientific norm is changed all the time, history has proved this. It just takes time to adjust to it. Mankind, science scholars of that era, thought for absolute certainty that the earth was flat. Does anyone called into Seven Hawking's findings as "marlarkly", he himself proved himself wrong. ...it would be my hope, that MK does as she says, and announces the findings of the others...as to whether she was wrong or not. This is not me agreeing one way or the other that her science findings....even as suspected in her approach to it.....are correct or not. I believe the science can be question. Faith is what we put into anything, no faith was ask for....perhaps implied, granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Who exactly are "those in-the-know", and what exactly have they said about the paper? Surely you'll be able to point this all out to us, correct? You keep asking variations of this question. People keep answering it. If you read back through the thread and catch up, perhaps people won't have to keep repeating themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Question for anyone.. Has Melba's CV ever been posted for public inspection? Anyone ever seen it - or can someone point me to it online? I haven't seen it, but if she actually has testified as an expert witness, it would probably be somewhere in the docket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts