Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 So, do you think she just did a search for any papers with the words "Sasquatch, Bigfoot or Yeti" and put them on the list??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Melissa, the only thing I have heard about as far as comments from the "co-authors" is what Calwaterbear posted on the JREF forum. Pat Wojtkiewicz (listed as second author and credited with writing and editing in the acknowledgments) said that he was aware of an earlier version of the paper but hadn't see the most recent. He tested a few samples for her but didn't get any DNA and helped he format a couple of images. Thomas Prychitko said he had does some testing for her and was aware there was a paper, but he didn't have anything to do with writing it. If CWB, got any other responses to his inquiries, I'm not aware of it. Good night Irene.... Has Melba released a statement of any kind about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 She said she had a paper.........people cried, there isn't one. She said she used other labs..........People cried BS it's all lies. She said she had whole genome data.........People said there is none. She said the paper was in review..........people doubted it, but swear it was rejected by Nature and others. People wanted her to self publish, then blasted her for doing just that. People say the raw data will never be vetted, and she's hiding from peer review, in spite of their admonishments, they also claim this is being done on this very forum. Petty kids!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) At this point Southernyahoo -- you might have to come up with something better than that list of complaints about those of us who are upset with Melba's work... I PERSONALLY have stayed out of this, and asked people on my blog to give her the time to finish. Be patient - I said...... 5 years ---- for this?? I can't even express how disappointed I am. That's on Melba - not those who are pointing out the flaws in her paper. I am reading this stuff on a Bigfoot Message Board - and I can't find any reason to hold out hope.. The one place where, I would think, someone with knowledge of DNA, might be able to give me some hope that she truly has something - but nothing but mistake after mistake after mistake - on Melba's part... I don't understand how this happened. I can't even imagine how Wally feels. Edited February 25, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 So, do you think she just did a search for any papers with the words "Sasquatch, Bigfoot or Yeti" and put them on the list??? If she did that is considered a type of Plagiarism. Just one more reason it would never have been considered by a peer review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Good night Irene.... Has Melba released a statement of any kind about this? Not that I've heard about, but I'm not on her FB page or anything. If she has I'd love to see it. Better yet, I'd love to hear what any of the "co-authors" have to say about it. I imagine they're hoping it will all go away as soon as possible. If she did that is considered a type of Plagiarism. Just one more reason it would never have been considered by a peer review. Well, it's not plagarism. She was just citing them as references. But she was citing them as examples of serious peer reviewed research on BF. She probably saw the titles and skimmed them but didn't realize they were not serious BF studies. She said she had a paper.........people cried, there isn't one. She said she used other labs..........People cried BS it's all lies. She said she had whole genome data.........People said there is none. She said the paper was in review..........people doubted it, but swear it was rejected by Nature and others. People wanted her to self publish, then blasted her for doing just that. People say the raw data will never be vetted, and she's hiding from peer review, in spite of their admonishments, they also claim this is being done on this very forum. Petty kids!!!!!! I think you are misdirecting your anger at the wrong target. SY, I know you submitted your samples to her in good faith and it's got to be awful to see things end like this and I truly am sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Not that I've heard about, but I'm not on her FB page or anything. If she has I'd love to see it. Better yet, I'd love to hear what any of the "co-authors" have to say about it. I imagine they're hoping it will all go away as soon as possible. Well I can tell you - I looked just a short while ago - and nothing.... What a disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Agreed Theagenes - in the case where she used the citation but incorrectly - that isn't plagarism. However, to do a search for articles with catch words and place them on a list as a source of citations just to boost credibility - but not use the source within the paper - that is a type of plagiarism. If that is what she did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 . The one place where, I would think, someone with knowledge of DNA, might be able to give me some hope that she truly has something - but nothing but mistake after mistake after mistake - on Melba's part... At times it is getting difficult for me to believe it was just multiple mistakes on Melba's part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Paulides is the one who brought Ketchum into study and appeared with her, requesting samples. He has a relationship with Wally. He has supported the Ketchum study on his NA Bigfoot Search site. I think many people will be interested to hear what he has to say. Hey MitchW. glad you brought this up as there's alot of false assumptions about Paulides and Wally having any relationship, contractual or otherwise, as many have assumed (maybe from Lindsay) Wally has even funded Paulides. I can tell you 100% this is false as Wally and I talk at length about an average of 2-3 nights a week, I would know. He's maybe met Paulides once and their is no relationship, other then maybe some of Wally's funds paid for testing that wasn't the Sierra's genome. That last part is a logical assumption based on where hundreds of thousands of dollars went, I do not know that for a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Were the blind studies done? Do we at least have that? Is there any way to salvage raw data and appoint someone else to examine it. I've seen enough now. She needs to be excused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Agreed Theagenes - in the case where she used the citation but incorrectly - that isn't plagarism. However, to do a search for articles with catch words and place them on a list as a source of citations just to boost credibility - but not use the source within the paper - that is a type of plagiarism. If that is what she did. I think you hit the nail on the head Ginger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 @ Bart. What is Wally saying? Does he still have an interest in funding research? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 I think you hit the nail on the head Ginger It's certainly dishonest. It's implying that she did research that she didn't actually do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Well, whatever wind was left in my sails (it was barely a breeze) has completely gone. Unbelievable. I have no idea how one could recover from this unless the data is replicated. I've not much confidence in that happening. Question - how in the WORLD would ANYONE think they could even get something like this out of the garage? Much less up to highway speeds? Farce citations? WHAT? Has anyone asked Justin or verified that he himself has not bred with a BF? Perhaps the Sierra incident was a family reunion gone domestic n'all? Would help explain why his DNA showed up! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts