Guest njjohn Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 This was from March 15th, so seems they are getting their messages mixed up. I talked to Melba just recently, they are having major website problems, don't know if it is a hack or virus or what Irregardless, being that I still have my own hosting server (That I only keep open for old clients that are still active), if you're going to take a site down, you take the entire site down, not just the home page. It's also not jumping to conclusions when it's advertised before it's finished. The donation page is still up, so until they get the proper paperwork and registration, they should take all related pages down or people will come to the wrong conclusions. I still think the biggest issue with the paper is who analyzed the data? Those listed in the paper have all replied that hey did zero analysis. The genome data is going to take months, but that's irrelevant. The claims in the paper came with the data that was released in the paper. Even the paper mentioned the genome data was a future endeavor. The existing claims are still an issue with the existing data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 "For anyone who has seen the Global Foundation on line. It is NOT supposed to be live. There is a problem with the server and it is being corrected as we speak. We cannot release the site until all of our paperwork for the Non-Profit Org is here. Thanks" As someone who works with Web developers every day, this is totally absurd. Web sites cannot publish themselves - SOMEONE has to physically click to publish a site! But if you want to believe this, go ahead. I'm not going to waste my time arguing about it. ... Although, perhaps they really don't have a clue how to unpublish it. THAT I can believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 No you are insinuating fraud. And you surely have proof of this allegation, correct? This is a pretty slanderous, and literal statement. I'm not sure why people keep trolling the people who are investigating facts, and attacking them about issues that are apples and oranges. Melba's entourage seem to struggle with the emotional attacks, instead of using fact-based arguments. Melba should just address the issues instead of coaching people up on what to say to the 'haters' and naysayers. Her antics are pathetic, and ridiculous. Just curious as to the reasoning of why it appears it is believed that MK is coaching people. I feel it can be safely assumed that the coaching statement is in a belief that she needs help in a cover up. I believe this is more of a belief than a verifiable fact. I'm not coach by anyone, I just have an opinion and base that on observe observation of others remarks. I know by reading MK Facebook page she has those who believe she will be vindicated ....regardless of the mess that has been touted about of the way things should have been done...i too have hopes that she will find some solace in a form of being vindicated. Her paper may be a mess (i have to base this only what the "experts" say), but sometimes in a room for of horse crap....one will find a pony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Who she coaching? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Hmmmm. Thom Powell's on record being pro-Melbapalooza. I disagree w/equating self-publishing a book to self-publishing a scientific journal, and the 'group-think' mentality, due to the fact that most people were on-board with her until her antics led people the other way, but it's his own opinion, so it's moot, really. He's definitely intelligent, though, so more power to him, I guess. http://www.thomsquatch.com/2013/03/bigfoot-dna-evidence-redux.html?m=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 26, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted March 26, 2013 So if he and Ketchum are right then Sasquatch has no need to reproduce....... there are no baby Sasquatch; or, they clone themselves or better yet ...... they are immortal and Bluff Creek Patty still walks the Earth contrary to popular opinion. Something to think about....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 (edited) Yup! You're on to something, Bipedalist....They never die!(It would solve the 'where's the bones' question) Except of course, if you happen to dart one with a sling-shot, and then whip out the machete. And regarding the Melba 'coaching' thing....C'mon, fellas! Really? Edited March 26, 2013 by PacNWSquatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david75090 Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Looks like Thom Powell nailed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 "For anyone who has seen the Global Foundation on line. It is NOT supposed to be live. There is a problem with the server and it is being corrected as we speak. We cannot release the site until all of our paperwork for the Non-Profit Org is here. Thanks" As someone who works with Web developers every day, this is totally absurd. Web sites cannot publish themselves - SOMEONE has to physically click to publish a site! But if you want to believe this, go ahead. I'm not going to waste my time arguing about it. ... Although, perhaps they really don't have a clue how to unpublish it. THAT I can believe. I would agree, as I operate my own website. It's a learning curve for anyone new, who's attempting to do their own site. As far as the coaching goes. To say that is one thing, to prove it is another. MK has employees and can have them do whatever she wants, but I wouldn't call it coaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Hmmmm. Thom Powell's on record being pro-Melbapalooza. I disagree w/equating self-publishing a book to self-publishing a scientific journal, and the 'group-think' mentality, due to the fact that most people were on-board with her until her antics led people the other way, but it's his own opinion, so it's moot, really. He's definitely intelligent, though, so more power to him, I guess. http://www.thomsquat...-redux.html?m=1 He did nail this part though: "I was warned ahead of time by prognosticators like my buddy Guy Edwards that a DNA study proving the existence of the sasquatch probably would not rock the world. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is poorly understood by the general public. People want to see a body. I also fully understood that the community of self-anointed ‘bigfoot researchers’ is highly competitive, even back-stabbing. Vocal individuals in that community could be counted on to attack and devour anyone’s claim to scientific progress since it is always seen as a threat to the stature of the other self-important personalities who feel that the media attention is rightfully theirs. Then the ‘group-think’ kicks in. An underappreciated person with a recognizable name becomes critical and launches a blistering attack. The unexamined tribalism of a larger group, who are all in constant contact via the internet and Facebook groups march in lockstep disdain, comfortable in the belief that their collective criticism of the new evidence or new thinking is protected by the umbrella of group consensus, which emboldens the group in the near term but eventually turns out to be based on somebody’s logical fallacy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 (edited) "Is it some evolutionary offshoot of humanity that we have yet to identify in the fossil record? Maybe. But the mysterious sequences are single strand, that is haploid DNA, and all terrestrial DNA in somatic cells (blood, hair, tissue, bone) is diploid unless it is in gametes (sex cells). ~ Thom Powell at thomsquatch Can someone speak to this? I thought the single strands represented places were the DNA was contaminated or damaged? Terrestrial implies it's opposite, extraterrestrial (yes, stating the obvious again, sorry). Hmmmm. I do think this is the best example of a Ketchum supporter's stance, he's a great writer. I personally think there are quite a few important things not addressed in his article, however and that would be the stance of the detractors. Anyone have an example of a detractor's statement that is just as succinct? Edited March 26, 2013 by madison5716 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 And regarding the Melba 'coaching' thing....C'mon, fellas! Really? Seconded. Some people honestly believe Dr. Ketchum, DVM's paper is legitimate. The solution to that isn't to accuse, but to educate. So if he and Ketchum are right then Sasquatch has no need to reproduce....... there are no baby Sasquatch; or, they clone themselves or better yet ...... they are immortal and Bluff Creek Patty still walks the Earth contrary to popular opinion. Something to think about....... So have Ketchum et al now admitted that the Smeja sample did not come from Bigfoot? Or are they claiming that Christopher Lambert is a bigfoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Those listed in the paper have all replied that hey did zero analysis. nijohn, what did Family tree report that they did? Did they report to Ketchum that they had sequenced human DNA, or did Ketchum have to interpret that on her own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest maelsquatch Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Haploid and diploid refer to the number of chromosomes in a cell. The difference between the two is the number of chromosomes. Diploid cells contain 2 copies of each chromosome while haploid cells contain one copy. Most cells are diploid and are produced through mitosis. Sex cells (sperm and ova/gametes) are haploid and are produced via meiosis. When fertilization occurs, the sperm merge with the ova to create a diploid cell which inherits 1/2 of its chromosomes from the father and 1/2 from the mother. This is basic biology that high schoolers should know. Neither haploid or diploid is used to describe DNA but are used to describe cells. I don't know why Mr. Powell used these terms in that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Thank you, I know what the composition of cells are and all that! I just couldn't wrap my mind around how the cellular terms were being used to describe DNA. That didn't make sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts