Guest mitchw Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Thanks for clearing up the connections between Paulides and Wally, Bart. May I infer that Wally has known about the current news for quite some time? Edited February 25, 2013 by mitchw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 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? Cotter - there will be many people that simply don't care about issues like this and will continue to support this and still believe claims of professional persecution and all of the other claims that have been set into motion. Many people don't understand what the actions surrounding the publishing of the paper, and the "mistakes" in the paper really mean. They will continue to support. For those that understand it is clear these are mostly like not mistakes and this puts anything said in that paper in doubt. It makes a mockery of the serious work, certainly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 It's certainly dishonest. It's implying that she did research that she didn't actually do. Agree with you 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 @bartlojays or anyone else....so what next? The boots is the next best bet to resolution of DNA sampling? Submitters are named. Get together and give all "real" samples to Meldrum or someone credible. You have an association. Use it. This project lacked in several things, but Leadership was the big one. One of you step up and pull the crowd together and get the results you set out to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Class action maybe. If I were a submitter I would be furious. My understanding is that most of the submitters did not pay any money, so I doubt it. Wally on the other hand... 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. Southern Yahoo - you need to read that carefully. This was the challenge/charge I made for a long time - that all we knew was that she had names on her paper - we did NOT know what capacity they worked in, or to what extent they supported her conclusions. @bartlojays or anyone else....so what next? The boots is the next best bet to resolution of DNA sampling? Submitters are named. Get together and give all "real" samples to Meldrum or someone credible. You have an association. Use it. This project lacked in several things, but Leadership was the big one. One of you step up and pull the crowd together and get the results you set out to find. This was one of my main motivations for vetting Melba - to stem the flow of good evidence toward her, for fear it would be lost. Of the few submitters I have spoken with, I believe they gave all of their samples to Melba and have none left. I know that when the call went out for physical evidence for Sykes, there were very few responses - (like, well under 20, the last I had heard from Meldrum). So either people had given it all to Melba and had none left to give, or they were told not to share with Sykes, or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) I think you hit the nail on the head Ginger I think it is considered a "grey area" of plagiarism as well to "misuse" a citation within a paper knowingly just as a way to boost credibility of a paper as well. Although that is difficult to prove as the response can simply be that it was misinterpreted by the author. While it would be clear to those questioning the action how could they dispute the claim? However, in this case, it leaves the questions - how could proper research have been done if the paper that was cited was clearly a joke? Was it lack of ethics on part of the author, or lack of experience in research (not reading an entire source you are citing)? Or, was it something far worse - like intent to deceive? For me, lack of experience was my first thought long ago - but too many seriously major things are wrong for me to continue to hold that hope. Edited February 25, 2013 by BigGinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Cotter - there will be many people that simply don't care about issues like this and will continue to support this and still believe claims of professional persecution and all of the other claims that have been set into motion. Many people don't understand what the actions surrounding the publishing of the paper, and the "mistakes" in the paper really mean. They will continue to support. For those that understand it is clear these are mostly like not mistakes and this puts anything said in that paper in doubt. It makes a mockery of the serious work, certainly. True, but to do this, and put herself and her kids in possible danger (I mean, there are enough kooks in the BF world that would take something like this personal).???? Definitely, in many circles the ridicule will follow all of them around for a while. Doesn't seem like a well thought out move at ALL. Money or no money on the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 @bartlojays or anyone else....so what next? The boots is the next best bet to resolution of DNA sampling? Submitters are named. Get together and give all "real" samples to Meldrum or someone credible. You have an association. Use it. This project lacked in several things, but Leadership was the big one. One of you step up and pull the crowd together and get the results you set out to find. Actually I would now say don't do it. It can't be done. You cannot prove the existence of Bigfoot. If you try it will either corrupt your character or bring you great harm in the form of ridicule, lies and personal attacks. They will reveal themselves when they want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 @ Cotter - I'm with you on that. I just don't understand the mind-set of it either. But at this point I think it is illogical to think all of these questionable circumstances happened by accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 ^Absolutely agreed Ginger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Took some doing, but found the images.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqEvTHRFyfI&sns=em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Took some doing? Go look in the Maltida thread in the footage section. These are just stolen from what Bill Munns posted here yesterday. He shows that it is likely a Chewbacca costume that has been dyed. Edited February 25, 2013 by Theagenes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Took some doing? Go look in the Maltida thread in the footage section. These are just stolen from what Bill Munns posted here yesterday. He shows that it is likely a Chewbacca costume that has been dyed. It took some doing to find the images without the added features of the mask. I've seen post #169...I mean 161 in the Matilda thread. Edited February 25, 2013 by treadstone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Correction. Not dyed. He thought the Chewbacca fur was replaced with fur of a different texture and color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 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. I'm not angry at anyone here actually, I'm angry at bigfoot for not having DNA that everyone can find and adore. I'm not attacking valid critcisms of the paper, I just made a short list of unsubstantiated and negative assumptions towards a lady that gave it her best shot. I don't think she is totally out to just take peoples money as I believe that she firmly believes in her own work. On another matter of one of the coauthors Pat Wojtkiewicz , It was said that he didn't get any DNA. Ketchum explained to me that he is very good at tough extractions, he developed novel methods of getting DNA from bones and uses robotics in his methods. She had him attempt extractions on hair shafts that did not have roots, and was unsuccessful. Just a note for further efforts, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts