Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Wow, that is brutal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I'm not convinced that she's wrong yet, either, but I don't like what I've read so far from TheAGenes, GenesRus, Ridge, Njj, or some of the public comments made by scientists, but being as I am not versed in anything DNA, I can only go off what is stated, or what the paper, itself, appears to be, which I believe you are correct in saying, a laymans paper. I don't pretend to know any of the submitters emotions throughout this whole timeline, but I know that I, personally, would've been excited beyond comprehension, and probably would've been telling everybody I know that proof is coming soon, based off of what she had been telling everybody. I don't know if the submitters are having to backpedal at all, but it pisses(is that a bad word?) me off that people like Derek have to post things on FB to explain the circumstances of his contribution, so that his good name isn't damaged by being associated with this in any way. She caused it! Nobody else. She shouted from the rooftops that it was a lock, then to fumble on the goal-line like this is inexcusable. I feel as if she owes you all a public apology. There still may be some salvageable data there, but her inability to publish something even remotely professional, in lieu of the hype that she generated around it, is pathetic, IMO. She had five years to lock it up, and it appears as if she put five minutes into the overall presentation. I hope that all of the submitters are vindicated somehow. Not to worry PNWS, I'm sure the data will be shared with other top geneticists, and I hear the head of the Oxford study wants a meeting with Melba. More of my sample stands ready for more testing too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 PNWS, I haven't discounted the paper. From a writer standpoint, yes it could have been written better. It could have expounded on many areas instead of leaving more questions. The criticisms of the paper actually just bring more questions for me. I still have a hard time believing contamination and degradation with identical results from all 12 labs on blind studies of the samples. For ALL 100+ samples. And now that some others are taking a deeper look at it, it seems those same questions are being asked by others. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Bigfoot genome sequenced? There are skeptics If Ketchum wished to initiate discussion, I think she has done so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 And then Dr. Meldrum weighed in: http://www.huffingto..._ref=weird-news Sounds like the same thing Saskeptic and I have been saying for years. How about what Meldrum said in the previous paragraph.....doesn't it have some merit? "I'm certainly not ruling out the possibility that there was a conspiracy of sorts, or a concerted effort to not give this a fair shake, given the controversial matter," said Idaho State University anthropologist Jeff Meldrum, a leading academic and recognized scientific authority on Bigfoot. I believe having the whole picture has its merits to the average reader. What might be considered as selective editing...just don't seem right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 If you listen to the C2C broadcast Sunday night, she address the revisions (criticisms) that were requested.....She did them, and they still rejected out of hand the paper. I can tell you with a fair bit of certainty that she did NOT do the revisions as requested. The files provided in the Ketchum paper are not nearly long enough to contain the complete genome. The longest I could find was only 5 Mb or so. For a 2.8 Gb genome that is wrong. Also, the files are not in FASTA format as claimed. I tried to load them into the NIH "Workbench" program and it would not take them. Perhaps Melba has some explanation. Since she doesn't respond to emails, I have no choice but to post this here. I know the raw data exists, and I know some have access to it. What I don't know, is why it is not all currently available for public download. Erick <Adrian> I believe had the best of intentions but he did a very poor job checking out the credibility of those he was working with, Standing. Brisson, Etc, etc. .... But I think when the truth about certain people was reveled to him it took a lot out of his earlier enthusiasm for the whole thing. He was no different then many others in this field. Hoping that a big break through is around the corner so bad that common sense takes a leave of absence. Only to come back and slap you in the face. Resulting in the wind being taken from your sails so to speak. Just my opinion. I really hope I am wrong but I doubt it. Thomas Steenburg "had the best of intentions but he did a very poor job checking out the credibility of those he was working with" Too common of a refrain in this business. I fear that we keep seeing history repeat itself. I was at the John Green tribute too Thomas, and spke with Adrian there, and a few times since then. He has told me how much $ he has spent (and said it in a way so as to imply that it was spent on Melba). I don't know that he would care if I repeat it, but I'll just say it is many multiple times what Wally has spent with Melba. Both are huge sums of money. If he hasn't become frustrated with some of the people he has worked with, then I don't know how he has kept his patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Ok, I admit it...I was peer reviewer for the "drunken badger" manuscript. Bwahahaha! Thank for the link Squatting Squatch. It's a very entertaining article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I would like to clarify one thing for which I will NOT fault Melba: We were all begging for YEARS, that she would publish her study. We pleaded "I don't care where you release it, just release it - then the data can be "peer reviewed" by any scientist in the world, and the public at large." I said as much to her on the phone. I'm not now going to turn around and say "oh, why didn't you wait for a proper scientific journal and peer review to present it?" Or "why did you choose such a low-level public forum like a website to do this?" I don't care how or when she got hold of the DeNova website. I really don't. I'm glad that she finally put the data out there (or at least some of the data - I mean, we are still waiting on the real "pudding" here - the raw data). In my opinion, since it seems it was never at a level that was going to pass good scientific peer review anyways, she should have just done this nearly two years ago. It's not in the format that anyone has access to the necessary raw data yet, but it's a start. My new critique is "tell us the name of the new "vetting" team of scientists". It just seems like more of the same. Now we have to wait again, and trust her that it truly is now going through a legitimate "peer review" and that she will be transparent about the results. And we have no way of knowing what the credentials of this new team of scientists are. (unless I have missed it somewhere.) This differs very little from what she's been saying for the last 2 years... "scientists are reviewing it, and I will release the information soon"... in some respects we are no further ahead, and will still have a long period of "the world waiting on Melba" - I think she enjoys this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) Well, Masterbarber, I don't think it's a stretch to say there is something else going on with this whole "Erickson Project" - just what I have no idea. But, I totally forgot about DB's blog on this. The description he offers here: Is what I was told about one of the videos - and I was told these things could be seen after the "sleeping bigfoot" woke up. So... Am I correct in assuming that this may not be film owned by Erickson, but the original land owners - who moved? BUT - I was lead to believe that this video would be released and was in Ericksons possession.... I also heard the landowners moved down the road - and took the bigfoot with them.. I'm breaking one of my own rules here by not providing a link....but I know that I read somewhere ( can't find my cliff notes) the landowners took several filmed shots of sleeping beauties (Matilda) group (ma and pa) and that the research team was the ones who got the now released film of Matilda sleeping and waking up, which produced the facial shot. If I recall correctly....and I usually do....the person who shot this particular HD film got close enough by using a ghillie suit. Also on Erickson, the article I read said he did buy the property.....but, the forest residence left the area shortly thereafter. Edited February 20, 2013 by treadstone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 This is what she claims. We have no reason to believe it is true. If this is the revised addition, I would hate to see the early drafts. If she left in the stick structures and the horse braids, is there any doubt that the angel DNA claims are true, and who knows what other nonsense. This paper had zero chance of ever passing any peer review. Your jumping on multiple decks here to support your belief. The original train of though was strictly on the paper. You believe, and I think I can safely say its based on these other items you mention...that has fueled your distrust in Ketchum. I don''t hold to the pretext that if a person is caught in a fallacy (in this case.....suspected of), that all other data from the same person is also considered a fallacy. Each should be examine and judge individually....and not as a whole. Judging as a whole is very biased and any accuracy in facts is buried at the bottom of the pile. Based on what I have researched, I find no case as of yet that she is not telling the truth of the events. She says she has documentation. It would be beneficial (although she has no real reason to release it.....just for some few who disbelieve her) if this time line of events could be viewed....and I suspect that down the road it will be. I've learned once a person has a preconceived idea of a persons character, regardless of what is made to change that....it never does. Unfortunately, we do not know if she addressed the reviewer's criticism to the reviewer's satisfaction. Unless she releases the correspondence between herself and the editor, we will never know. I will give her the benefit of the doubt that she responded and revised the manuscript, but it was likely inadequate to the editor. She said on the show that even after the revisons the paper was pass back to her....in other words rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TwilightZone Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Here's an interesting article about the new Denovo journal: http://www.historum.com/blogs/ghostexorcist/1380-melba-ketchum-s-bigfoot-dna-study-questionable-ethics-creating-journal.html Wow, this stuff is pretty damning. There are serious questions raised about the journal she supposedly bought. I agree with others that suggested she should have just released this as a white paper and then got the geneticists to look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) I'm breaking one of my own rules here by not providing a link....but I know that I read somewhere ( can't find my cliff notes) the landowners took several filmed shots of sleeping beauties (Matilda) group (ma and pa) and that the research team was the ones who got the now released film of Matilda sleeping and waking up, which produced the facial shot. Well - I would think for the amount of time spent on the property with habituated bigfoot - where there is one piece of footage there would be more (no I don't buy it). It's the credibility I question. The Erickson footage has been the longest (as I like to call them) "wait and see projects" I have ever been witness to. If I recall correctly....and I usually do....the person who shot this particular HD film got close enough by using a ghillie suit. Also on Erickson, the article I read said he did buy the property.....but, the forest residence left the area shortly thereafter. Yeah, I heard about the ghille suit too and word on the street is he did buy the property - and when the former owners moved away - so did Matilda and family. Tom Steenburg brings up a good point - Also in the case of the Erickson project, many of the people he was relying on as contributors in the early going were exposed for hoaxing and other shenanigans over time. Erick I be leave had the best of intentions but he did a very poor job checking out the credibility of those he was working with, Standing. Brisson, Etc, etc. Thomas Steenburg Did Melba somehow not know about these two guys? http://www.historum.com/blogs/ghostexorcist/1380-melba-ketchum-s-bigfoot-dna-study-questionable-ethics-creating-journal.html Two words - Oh dang... Edited February 20, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) Thanks, Squatting Squatch! What a PR nightmare! Good thing she has RL(don't call me Robert Lindsay) Forestpeople on her side. At this point, I'm waiting for Ashton Kutcher to pop up on the message board to let us know that we've all been punked. This study should've been named MK Ultra. Edited February 20, 2013 by PacNWSquatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted February 20, 2013 SSR Team Share Posted February 20, 2013 How about Dennis Pfohl and Leila Hadj-Chikh, and the other guys in the EP? Anyone heard their take on this? Are we forgetting Brisson is listed and The Toddster was under the contacts page early on. Hmmm? DP recently congratulated MK on the release of the paper on Facebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Of course, if someone wants to land the big interview, find Mr Wally Hersom and get his take on how this has shaken out. He is apparently the sugar daddy for several Bigfoot groups, and funded the testing of many of these samples. I doubt if "worked out just as planned and was a solid return on investment" would be the analysis from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts