Cotter Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 29 min's ago from DMK's FB Page, in response to folks pressuring her about the 'fake' papers referenced. "It is NO a hoax and the science proves it." 36 mins ago regarding the data used in her paper: "There is plenty of data there. The paper is based on Hard true science." Should I be posting links to her FB page along with these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 "It is NO a hoax and the science proves it." Who's science? Hers or established science? So far she hasn't proven anything - other than she made a lot of mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 The true science. Another quote from within the hour: "The true is going to be proven and it will match the paper !" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) 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. I think people should talk to the bioinformatician, listed as coauthor to find out what his input was, not Pat W. and for the record, You were challenging people under nda to reveal coauthors names, and how they supported her assertions in any way. That was something nobody owed you, and would be against good ethics and professionalism prior to publication. You realise that right? Edited February 25, 2013 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Now I know why MK said "buckle up" - a major crash was about to happen. Any survivors? I can think of one who will not recover. As for the Bigfoot community, I think we can be lucky that this never went main stream. But it has done the job of setting the bar even higher for the next brave soul. I fear that a lot will be lost in reference to the submitted samples and whatever data was being held back (even if it is flawed, there may be some way to mine it). I once proposed shopping her remaining data around for a qualified collaborator, but I doubt any would take the challenge after this fiasco. I don't know if there was any intent to defraud or if what was said behind closed doors or in phone conversations. I suspect she thought she could be king of the BF mountain, making a fortune (off of her publications, journal, proprietary BF identification kits), having fame and celebrity, and tried to push this out, largely as a solo effort, despite others being named as co-authors. I imagine she believe everyone would be so impressed with the conclusion that they would not care how this came to be. Or that she never understood the details of the work in the first placed and just accepted it blindly. I just can't see how this patient can survive this. But I see this as a setback, not the end. More samples will be collected, more DNA will be extracted and analyzed, and one day we will know where in the evolutionary chain they fit in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 But I see this as a setback, not the end. More samples will be collected, more DNA will be extracted and analyzed, and one day we will know where in the evolutionary chain they fit in. Prior to Ketchum taking in samples for DNA extraction and announcing it publicly there was no such thing as an collaborative effort among this community to find BF DNA, Fahrenbach had given up, and Disotell would wave away any "human" results as primate as that is. I doubt he ever looked at the morphology and said "something's wrong". Hope that mistake doesn't keep repeating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 I have a question regarding the submission of a sample hypothetically, to say a major university. Assuming I pay their fee for the analysis can I dictate the parameters of the testing? I havent dealt with dna labs, I'm sure some of you can give me a pretty good answer even if its a generic one for non specific university or whatever. Can after i submit sample tell them to disregard mito dna and give me a species identification using only the nuclear dna. Or would they laugh at me, or roll their eyes or just tell me to have a good day? thanks P.B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 There are certainly others much more qualified to answer! But my take is DNa analysis doesn't work well with complete unknowns. Most research deals with identifying sub-species or variants of knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Bill Munns just clobbered the Matilda footage over in the Matilda thread. It's a Chewbacca mask. Funny how they didn't show the mask portion of the video to support the Ketchum report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 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. Adrian Erickson claims to have spent more then $3m on this, and Wally Hersom, over $400k... some people might think it's worth the risk to do what she's done. Or, she may just be inept enough to have really believed in everything she was doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 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? Oh you betcha, I wouldn't let anything get past him. I don't like speaking for him as Wally is very laid back, but he cares about the truth, more then any investment and wanted to see for himself where the chips fall and most importantly, how data is viewed by the credentialed people who matter (qualified to pour through data). I respect him for that and as his friend just want to make sure he was never blindsided and always updated. I'd also be lying if I said I didn't take this personally to some extent because I took it very personally. I took it personally on behalf of bigfoot community and especially Wally. As I've said, Wally made my dreams come true because without his contributions and support at key times, I don't have my 2007 thermal sighting to know for myself, or this footage from last Aug in the Sierras many of you have seen already. Basically without him, I only have some great potential interactions to share and no visuals. even the tree destruction video Leiterman and I got in 2011 was attributed to Wally supplying Robert with the camera and NV attachment. Basically..without him, I really wonder where my level of skepticism would stand today in regards to "existence," let alone skepticism on an individual case by case basis, which will never change. When I wrote this in early December: http://www.bigfootbuzz.net/researcher-bart-cutino-speaks-out-on-ketchum-dna-project/ My point was that even if she succeeded (which would've been great) it doesn't change where I stand based on principles and I want to prevent being accidentally associated with the "winning team" if she was successful. Based on what I believe whole-heartedly she tried to do.... succeed or not, it's not justifiable, excusable or forgivable. Had our labs come up with results suggesting anything near what her conclusion was, my issues with her would've been just personal and from an ethics standpoint. Would've loved to have seen it turn out that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Bill Munns just clobbered the Matilda footage over in the Matilda thread. It's a Chewbacca mask. Funny how they didn't show the mask portion of the video to support the Ketchum report. Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Bill Munns just clobbered the Matilda footage over in the Matilda thread. It's a Chewbacca mask. Funny how they didn't show the mask portion of the video to support the Ketchum report. Familiar with the work, but can't find the thread... can you post a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 So how big is this purported consipiracy supposed to be? How many people would have to be in the know and culpable? Sorry, as critical as one might be of the circumstances, I find it unlikely that all of the people involved in all of the related efforts are manufacturing false evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts