Guest njjohn Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Who said I can't provide proof? I said I have the proof and when I publish it, you and everyone else will see it. You can dislike me because I don't agree with your belief, but that doesn't change the facts. If you even read the context of what you quoted, you'd see I was talking about information not even revealed yet. You don't have to believe a word I say... But will you believe it when it comes from her mouth? Or will that be an attack also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 (edited) Some of you people are not making any logical sense. And why the heck should ANYONE be forced to identify themselves publicly on this forum? One scientist spoke out on this forum and Melba's supporters contacted his organization in a vindictive attempt to have him fired. He then left the BFF. So, I'm sorry, but there is NO reason anyone should be forced to be put at risk for such retaliation. John has been chosen to be a writer for the BFF blog - he has been vetted by this forum. If he's privy to posters' credentials and can vouch for them, I think that should be acceptable. Otherwise, you're essentially calling him and these other posters, like GenesRus and Ridgerunner, liars ... and I think that is against forum rules, is it not? It's bad enough that you're taking such an accusatory tone with him and these guys ... who don't have to spend so much of their time analyzing the paper and sharing their findings here. Edited April 11, 2013 by chelefoot To bring into compliance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 (edited) Some of you people are not making any logical sense. And why the heck should ANYONE be forced to identify themselves publicly on this forum? One scientist spoke out on this forum and Melba's supporters contacted his organization in a vindictive attempt to have him fired. He then left the BFF. So, I'm sorry, but there is NO reason anyone should be forced to be put at risk for such retaliation. John has been chosen to be a writer for the BFF blog - he has been vetted by this forum. If he's privy to posters' credentials and can vouch for them, I think that should be acceptable. Otherwise, you're essentially calling him and these other posters, like GenesRus and Ridgerunner, liars ... and I think that is against forum rules, is it not? It's bad enough that you're taking such an accusatory tone with him and these guys ... who don't have to spend so much of their time analyzing the paper and sharing their findings here. Because, when making claims, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. As Melba was scrutinized, so should those who are making their own claims. Pretty simple logic. Edited April 11, 2013 by thermalman To edit quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 @TM - the point I was getting at was that if I feel someone gets it correct I don't really care what their qualifications are. If someone has a PhD, DVM, MD and gets it wrong, and in this case I think it is VERY WRONG (to a degree I have never seen before), I will question their competency for this type of work. If MK had a PhD and got this so wrong, I would still be posting the same things. Does getting the argument wrong invalidate ones PhD? In this case, I believe this would effectively be so, unless it is corrected or retracted. Scientists make mistakes (again MKs is the biggest I have seen) and can be forgiven, but not if they continue to perpetuate the error. I guess credentials and credibility reflects ones background to accomplish a type of work. MKs credentials and credibility reflects her ability to genotype animals (and more I am certain) - which is an important task for many. Nothing I have seen suggest she has the credentials or credibility to do the type of work she has published. And, imo, the final product shows this. If you have criticism with my analysis, and believe it is incorrect, please let me know and why. I am not here to make a name for myself, but to correct and counter statements I believe are false and misleading. I can shut up now - I have looked at the data, and reported my analysis. I can not make you or any others accept it. But I do hope you consider it and evaluate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Who said I can't provide proof? I said I have the proof and when I publish it, you and everyone else will see it. You can dislike me because I don't agree with your belief, but that doesn't change the facts. If you even read the context of what you quoted, you'd see I was talking about information not even revealed yet. You don't have to believe a word I say... But will you believe it when it comes from her mouth? Or will that be an attack also? Who said I disliked you? It's interesting how all the claims against Melba are based on what little has been released and not (to use your words in defense of yourself) "about information not even revealed yet". Seems ironic, doesn't it, how some can attempt to explain away the same scenario as Melba, while her lack of info gets her nothing but pernicious attacks? Nothing personal, just pointing out the facts as they happened in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 (edited) One scientist spoke out on this forum and Melba's supporters contacted his organization in a vindictive attempt to have him fired. He then left the BFF. Edited April 11, 2013 by chelefoot To edit quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 (edited) @TM - the point I was getting at was that if I feel someone gets it correct I don't really care what their qualifications are. If someone has a PhD, DVM, MD and gets it wrong, and in this case I think it is VERY WRONG (to a degree I have never seen before), I will question their competency for this type of work. If MK had a PhD and got this so wrong, I would still be posting the same things. Does getting the argument wrong invalidate ones PhD? In this case, I believe this would effectively be so, unless it is corrected or retracted. Scientists make mistakes (again MKs is the biggest I have seen) and can be forgiven, but not if they continue to perpetuate the error. If you have criticism with my analysis, and believe it is incorrect, please let me know and why. I have no criticism with your analysis, as I am not versed well enough in genetics. But, to answer your point above, I hope who will uphold the standards you stated towards your own cause, if and whenever you are incorrect in your competency and accuracy? I, for one, hold myself very to a very high critical standard and accountable in my own business world and there is no one harder on me, than myself. @ shboom "So, I'm sorry, but there is NO reason anyone should be forced to be put at risk for such retaliation." Neither should Melba, who is also a member! Edited April 11, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 (edited) One scientist spoke out on this forum and Melba's supporters contacted his organization in a vindictive attempt to have him fired. He then left the BFF. Not surprised. The Ketchum study is like Sylvia Browne now. Many people know the truth while a few still choose to support her. Edited April 11, 2013 by OntarioSquatch To edit quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Because, when making claims, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Coming from someone who doesn't hold Ketchum to the same standard with respect to her hypothesis and manuscript? If you truly subscribe to this philosophy, then based on "today" and what's been presented, how can you justify the paper not being a total failure? if you disagree, no problem, we're all looking forward to you presenting the "proof" to substantiate her claim, because she surely hasn't. name='thermalman' timestamp='1365653135' post='727593'][/b]"@ shboom "So, I'm sorry, but there is NO reason anyone should be forced to be put at risk for such retaliation." Neither should Melba, who is also a member! Actually that's incorrect, you see, it's the real world and she's the self-anointed and apparently nobel worthy, "public figure" and made the definitive claim by releasing a document on the world that I would contend not only needed to have a higher standard (on behalf of everyone associated with it and based on improbability by perception of viability without a physical specimen) but needed to hit a homerun....particularly with the personal updates overpromising . This was akin to a player striking out and then throwing the bat into the stands at an almost empty stadium. The funny part of all this is the irony in it being the complete opposite of science. You know, create a hypothesis, try to make the DNA fit and now not allow attempted replication. Explain how that's like.... not exactly the case here to a tee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Current Academic Scientific Bigfoot Community Thousands of documented reports by folks from all over the world, stating they have had an encounter with Sasquatch…. Bigfoot encounters have been reported since history began Indian “lore†(from all continents) includes Bigfoot interactions since their History began Many of the MK skeptics on this forum have posted that they believe in the fact that Bigfoot is real for whatever reason… ( I do, I’ve had my encounter, that is why I am patiently waiting for the verification that Melba is right. My encounter wasn’t “HUMAN CONTAMINATION†In the history of Bigfoot / DNA testing 1000s of Bigfoot/DNA tests have been performed since the Human genome was sequenced… Until the Melba Ketchum report, The only actual test findings reported to actual tests are: Known ( e.g. Bear, Elk) Unknown or Human contamination 200+ samples sent into DMK for her DNA/Bigfoot study 168 accepted my Melba for testing 111 identified by Melba as Bigfoot Melba says she used a different set of primers and sequencing Melba got different results by not doing the same old thingy over and over The Ancients thought the world was round The scientific Community in the Mid (dark) ages thought it was flat Nuff said about that But what if every previous attempt at the primer and sequencing was done wrong and her primer and sequencing IS RIGHT…. The Current Scientific Bigfoot community is represented by Sykes ongoing Bigfoot/DNA study Sykes has run into problems with his Bigfoot/DNA report The report is delayed… Wonder if Sykes was still doing the DNA the same old way. But has now changed his primer and sequencing process Less we forget….. this is now all about GENETICS and testing not attacks and speculation and insanity A definition of the current Scientific Academic Bigfoot/DNA Community Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Sound Familiar ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 how can you justify the paper not being a total failure? Quoted for relevancy, and while I don't hold this paper as absolute proof, I don't call it a complete failure either. An absolutist's attitude only virtue is to win an argument. Not hitting the home run doesn't mean you didn't get an RBI or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Agreed SY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Please stop trying to lower the bar SY, It won't work. She didn't promise RBI's, she promised absolute proof, a homerun. You yourself promised it. She has, simply, failed. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 That boiled down to what she saw as proof and what others see as less than that. She was looking at all the results, some she generated herself, some from other labs, and how that differed from both known animals and humans. Unfortunately, people can't walk in her shoes just by reading the paper, that's part of the problem. Thats's also why submitters hold back some of their samples, because there will be more scientists willing to try it with their own testing. Should the results repeat and generate the same conclusion or hypotheses, the accuracy of this study will shine through eventually. Not all of the findings have been truely contested, as in the hair samples weren't human, but generated human DNA. That just can't be, right? A hundred or more samples, all seemingly lost the DNA of their true donor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 (edited) The obvious answer, that many here (like ridgerunner ) have pointed out, is she has animal samples (bear etc) contaminated with human DNA. That explains everything about her results. It explains her weird hybrid DNA. It also explains why there is very little similarity among her "new species". Until someone comes up with a reason that that CAN'T be the case, which Melba certainly has not done, I'm afraid that's the obvious conclusion. Now, you proponents love to talk about not giving her a chance and attacking her character, so please, refute the above argument. I'm not attacking her character, and I'm saying that as of now, her paper is worthless because there is no way NOT to conclude she just got multiple DNA readings -- the animal itself and human contamination -- and just muddled it all together. You say the jury is still out on her study. Well, that's fine, but when it comes to THIS PAPER it does not prove Bigfoot exists. Until someone comes up with a reason as to why her samples are not just contamination, that's the logical conclusion. So please, if you're going to quote this post, quote this paragraph and answer that question! Finally, I'd like to point out that plenty on here think the Melba paper is bull, but still believe in Bigfoot. Admitting it was a swing and miss doesn't make your belief less valid, unless your only reason to believe was an upcoming paper. Edited April 11, 2013 by PJam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts