Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Melissa, Melissa, Melissa,......... you're a good person, but it's your word against hers. So I would be inclined to accept Melba's findings over someone who has never been involved with the whole event. With due respect leisureclass, I will wait and hold my conclusions until the final paper is released, and when a true comparison can be initiated to prove your opinion. Thermalman, the final paper was released!! I paid 30 bucks for it!!! This was not some draft... the paper should stand (or fall on its own). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Thermalman, the final paper was released!! I paid 30 bucks for it!!! This was not some draft... the paper should stand (or fall on its own). Agreed, if it was the final draft? And how does it compare to what some are refuting about it in this thread, assuming the posters here are 100% accurate in their rebukes? Edited March 1, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Melissa, Melissa, Melissa,......... you're a good person, but it's your word against hers. So I would be inclined to accept Melba's findings over someone who has never been involved with the whole event. With due respect leisureclass, I will wait and hold my conclusions until the final paper is released, and when a true comparison can be initiated to prove your opinion. I don't think this has anything to do with me - or whether I am a good person - but thanks for the vote of confidence. You can think whatever you want. That is up to you. I have never told you to think anything. I have complete faith in the analysis of Melba's paper (thus far - minus the actual raw data) from those who have the education and experience like GenesRus, Ridgerunner and Theagenes -- also the countless others in the scientific community who are pointing out the very same problems that are being discussed here. Thermalman said: Agreed, if it was the final draft? Seriously.. Is there a chance Melba may release another - final/final draft?? Or are you just being argumentative? or would that be "Final Draft Part 2" Edited March 1, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Seriously.. Is there a chance Melba may release another - final/final draft?? Or are you just being argumentative? or would that be "Final Draft Part 2" Isn't the Raw Data missing or has never been publically published? I don't see why Melba would state anything other than what's been proven by the Raw Data? Otherwise, knowing it could, some day, come back and bite her if she strayed from the results? Edited March 1, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 The skeptics have to be sitting back, laughing their butts off, the whole Bigfoot community fight and bicker with each other. How can possibly believe anything that they say,they even bury people that are trying help prove why they are out looking for . Even if you don't agree with it, wouldn't it be better off talking about what is right with it. And if you feel she has nothing right, say nothing, because anybody that does a separate study has anything that matches her study, will not even be considered to be correct. The way it's going, theier going to have to change it to the Anti-bigfoot forums, "come argue with people that believe in Bigfoot" This is a horrible idea. If bigfoot believers are to maintain any credibility, they cannot allow bad science, poor reasoning, and illogical conclusions to stand unchallenged. The worst thing believers can do is remain silent -- or even worse, defend -- nonsense just because it comes from someone on their "side." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Leisureclass said: This is a horrible idea. If bigfoot believers are to maintain any credibility, they cannot allow bad science, poor reasoning, and illogical conclusions to stand unchallenged. The worst thing believers can do is remain silent -- or even worse, defend -- nonsense just because it comes from someone on their "side." I happen to agree with this. We should demand better. I mean - do we take this seriously or not?? I know how I feel. I personally wish Melba had better results - and a paper you couldn't drive a Mack truck through. But, that's not my fault.. I hoped this would be "beautiful science" ---- and I don't see that. We will pick apart a witness like their is no tomorrow - but we should be hands off with those who interpret what we collect as evidence? I don't think so. P.S. On the issue of Melba helping to identify the World Trade Center Victims... Scroll down this page http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/tag/dna-diagnostics-inc/ to the article update for Update Jan. 18, 2013 If they are wrong - and this email exchange never happened - shame on them. If they are right ------------ Edited March 1, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 This is a horrible idea. If bigfoot believers are to maintain any credibility, they cannot allow bad science, poor reasoning, and illogical conclusions to stand unchallenged. The worst thing believers can do is remain silent -- or even worse, defend -- nonsense just because it comes from someone on their "side." I wish I had a plus to give you (again). You nailed it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 This is a horrible idea. If bigfoot believers are to maintain any credibility, they cannot allow bad science, poor reasoning, and illogical conclusions to stand unchallenged. The worst thing believers can do is remain silent -- or even worse, defend -- nonsense just because it comes from someone on their "side." You are absolutely correct leisure. Now if someone could just get Matt Moneymaker to follow your advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) If believers are to remain credible, then they have to stop posting assumptions, presumptions, and hypothetical thinking about issues they don't know anything about? It's that type of quesswork that promotes retalitation from others who are requesting and sticking to the facts, as they become available. Melba took this testing on, and has come under attack from both believers and non-believers, 99.5% of whom know nothing about the facts, but unfortunately, still feel they have a right for an opinion on the event. This is contamination at its worst, IMHO, which only feeds the skeptics. This is a horrible idea. If bigfoot believers are to maintain any credibility, they cannot allow bad science, poor reasoning, and illogical conclusions to stand unchallenged. The worst thing believers can do is remain silent -- or even worse, defend -- nonsense just because it comes from someone on their "side." Only if the conclusions are based on the final truth and factbased evidence, and not any sooner. Other than that, we are the skeptic's best salespeople. You are absolutely correct leisure. Now if someone could just get Matt Moneymaker to follow your advice. A lot of the posters are no different than MM, unfortunately. Just as MM is guilty of declaring "squatch" everywhere and everything, Melba refuters are just as guilty declaring she is a fraud at every turn. Both types of declarations are made without supporting evidence and only prove our ignorance on the subject. Edited March 1, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I don't see why Melba would state anything other than what's been proven by the Raw Data? Otherwise, knowing it could, some day, come back and bite her if she strayed from the results? Why hasn't she released the raw data? Why hasn't she released anything except her own interpretation about what she thinks the raw data says? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 This is a horrible idea. If bigfoot believers are to maintain any credibility, they cannot allow bad science, poor reasoning, and illogical conclusions to stand unchallenged. The worst thing believers can do is remain silent -- or even worse, defend -- nonsense just because it comes from someone on their "side." Agreed. This occurs because people get emotional with this issue. An attack that is often used as argument by skeptics is character assassination. This causes believers to naturally feel defensive and protective of their "own" so to speak. And I believe that a lot of the emotion and frustration in this is from people being ridiculed or told what it is they saw. Derek Randles has a good tact and that is to keep an open mind and try to take emotion out of the equation. You try and challenge the analysis and evidence and not the person. Everyone is at each other's throat in the BF world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Why hasn't she released the raw data? Why hasn't she released anything except her own interpretation about what she thinks the raw data says? Good question. I admit I don't know the answer, but someone will surely come up with something, true or not! Edited March 1, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Cornelius said: Derek Randles has a good tact and that is to keep an open mind and try to take emotion out of the equation. You try and challenge the analysis and evidence and not the person. That is good advice. Thermalman said: Melba took this testing on, and has come under attack from both believers and non-believers, 99.5% of whom know nothing about the facts, but unfortunately, still feel they have a right for an opinion on the event. This is contamination at its worst, IMHO, which only feeds the skeptics. Melba had to know this would happen. It happens in the scientific community also - not just ours. Why do you think she posted, "Buckle up" the day (or day before) she posted the paper on her "journal".. Edited March 1, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 The sasquatchgenomeproject.org...... NOTICE: This domain name expired on 02/27/2013 and is pending renewal or deletion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 If believers are to remain credible, then they have to stop posting assumptions, presumptions, and hypothetical thinking about issues they don't know anything about? It's that type of quesswork that promotes retalitation from others who are requesting and sticking to the facts, as they become available. Melba took this testing on, and has come under attack from both believers and non-believers, 99.5% of whom know nothing about the facts, but unfortunately, still feel they have a right for an opinion on the event. This is contamination at its worst, IMHO, which only feeds the skeptics. This 99.5% is on both sides of this argument. But I feel both are entitled to their opinion. MK put her opinion out there as her publication - why should not everyone else who cares to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts