The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest thermalman]

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"..

Good question. Other than assuming she felt she had insurmountable proof, and was expecting a public dissing, I don't know the answer to that. If it was the dissing factor, BF believers should not be part of it because of the lack of interpretational skills, facts and the evidence, to whom only she had personal access to.

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?

Agreed to both sides of the argument.

Just remember though, all opinions are not justifiable, and if they are stated as fact (but are not), then that damages the credibility factor. MK's opinion is based on her findings, nothing else.

Edited March 1, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest crabshack]

The sasquatchgenomeproject.org......

NOTICE: This domain name expired on 02/27/2013 and is pending renewal or deletion.

I checked whois..and the domain has been renewed...for another year and imagine it will be online tomorrow...

[Guest]

...okay, thanks. Only found it down as I was cleaning up some bookmarks on the laptop.

[Guest]

P.S. On the issue of Melba helping to identify the World Trade Center Victims...

Scroll down this page http://seesdifferent...ostics-inc/��to the article update for

If they are wrong - and this email exchange never happened - shame on them.

If they are right ------------

I will go out on a limb and say that I think both Melba and the OTLS could be telling the truth. It's entirely possible that one of the vendors on that list subcontracted part of the work out and Melba got a piece. The number of samples they processed is huge, especially given 2001 technology. I'd be stunned if those firms were able to do all that work in house.

[Guest]

She now says it was a lemur that hybridized with a human to create the bigfoot species. No kidding. Check out the Bigfoot Evidence blog.

[Guest thermalman]

@barncat Did she personally say it? Or the blogger at the website? Big difference.

Edited March 1, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

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."

Like I said, When somebody else does testing and if any of the data matches it will be thrown right right out, just like in a court case, they refer

to previous cases in rebuttal. if you don't think that will happen, think again.

[Guest]

Good question. Other than assuming she felt she had insurmountable proof, and was expecting a public dissing, I don't know the answer to that. If it was the dissing factor, BF believers should not be part of it because of the lack of interpretational skills, facts and the evidence, to whom only she had personal access to.

Agreed to both sides of the argument.

Just remember though, all opinions are not justifiable, and if they are stated as fact (but are not), then that damages the credibility factor. MK's opinion is based on her findings, nothing else.

I too agree that opinions are not facts, and some can be damaging. But as MK's opinion is base on her findings, My opinions are are based on her findings and the underlying principles of biology.

Ok, my opinion about MK only being in it for the money... not so much on her findings or biology. I guess I should insert "scientific" in my statement above. But she did declare no competing financial interests in the paper, yet she is making money off of the sales of this paper, as she is the owner of this journal. I would say that it is a financial interest? And the fact that she is keeping primer sequences proprietary... that sounds more like a company interested in making a profit than advancing science. Just my (regular) opinion, of course.

Edited March 1, 2013 by ridgerunner

[Cotter]

@Thermalman - I believe this is the link where the lemur info may have come from.

http://www.earthfile...ategory=Science

Edited March 1, 2013 by AaronD
to remove quote that was deleted

[Guest]

Like I said, When somebody else does testing and if any of the data matches it will be thrown right right out, just like in a court case, they refer

to previous cases in rebuttal. if you don't think that will happen, think again.

I'm an attorney and this statement makes no sense to me.

@barncat Did she personally say it? Or the blogger at the website? Big difference.

She said it in an interview with Linda Moulton Howe for C2C.

[Guest thermalman]

@ ridgerunner

How MK makes a living, aside from her lab work, is no one's business. If you or I decide to finance her, it's no one's business. Those are personal attacks called backbiting and gossip and are not pertinent to the Ketchum report, which BTW is the title of the thread.

Thanks for the link Cotter.

Edited March 1, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

@ ridgerunner

How MK makes a living, aside from her lab work, is no one's business. If you or I decide to finance her, it's no one's business. Those are personal attacks called backbiting and gossip and are not pertinent to the Ketchum report, which BTW is the title of the thread.

From the manuscript, which is the topic of discussion for this thread,

"Author Information: The raw sequence data utilized in this manuscript from the Sasquatch samples has been provided in the Supplemental Data. The authors declare no competing financial interests."

So I did not bring it up for no reason. Call it tangental. PS, my bolding.

[Cotter]

^ Thanks Cath.

Just wanted to clarify that particular point.

There are a ton of competing groups in 'footery. Over the last couple months, the 'fighting' between them has become quite apparent.

I prefer to think that someday, all of them will come together and row the boat in the same direction.

[Guest thermalman]

From the manuscript, which is the topic of discussion for this thread,

"Author Information: The raw sequence data utilized in this manuscript from the Sasquatch samples has been provided in the Supplemental Data. The authors declare no competing financial interests."

So I did not bring it up for no reason. Call it tangental. PS, my bolding.

It's irrelovent. MK has moved beyond that point above and is now in a position to command financial benefits after the fact.

The lemur link, if reported true, is just stating that the male progenitor genome line is headed towards the lemur family line...... which isn't so hard to wrap your head around.

Edited March 1, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

I will go out on a limb and say that I think both Melba and the OTLS could be telling the truth. It's entirely possible that one of the vendors on that list subcontracted part of the work out and Melba got a piece. The number of samples they processed is huge, especially given 2001 technology. I'd be stunned if those firms were able to do all that work in house.

You could be right - but I would think considering the nature of the work being done, the State of New York would want to know every lab involved - if questions ever arose.. But who knows.