Guest OntarioSquatch Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) I don't know if we can discuss her real motives or anything, but I recommend listening to this if you haven't yet http://www.sierrasit...ears.html#more. It's quite a shocker. The link doesn't seem to be working properly. It's on the website though. Edited March 9, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) 1692 You might be correct. The reference I quoted gave the 1862 date. http://www.mibba.com/Articles/History/5245/Detection-During-the-Salem-Witch-Trials/ Whatever the date, it was a witch hunt. Personally I think the conversation would be stimulating if a very credible qualified entity showed up to take Melba's side. MK touted over and over the multiple PHDs that worked on the paper. Where are they now? Why aren't they coming out to back up the data and it's conclusions. I wholly agree. Although, it didn't help the innocent in Salem. Edited March 9, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Secretly, here's how I wish the Ketchum Report would had have been written about by the media: http://news.yahoo.com/type-bacteria-reportedly-found-buried-antarctic-lake-235152174.html this has it all, "After putting aside all possible elements of contamination, DNA was found that did not coincide with any of the well-known types in the global database," said Sergey Bulat, a geneticist at the Saint Petersburg Institute of Nuclear Physics, in a quote attributed in media reports to RIA Novosti news service. "We are calling this life form unclassified and unidentified," he added. 'If this is real, it is very exciting' I realise this is dealing with ancient bacteria in Water and not an unknown bipedal himinid. But still.... why? just why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest J Sasq Doe Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 I don't know if we can discuss her real motives or anything, but I recommend listening to this if you haven't yet http://www.sierrasit...ears.html#more. It's quite a shocker. The link doesn't seem to be working properly. It's on the website though. Send folks to a site put up by key players in the anti-Ketchum camp, to find out all about Ketchum's motives....yeah, right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) Thermal Man: Everytime you and others ask me questions - I answer them. Time and time and time again... But for some reason, when I ask very simple questions, they often get dodged. I answered your questions - pleae do me the courtesy of answering mine - they were not intended as rhetorical. I will copy and past them again, below: "T-Man, both scientists and laymen alike know that extraoridnary claims require extraordinary evidence. She has made absurdly extraordinary claims (even for the Bigfoot world, which is saying a lot!) and has provided next to NO evidence. What verdict do you think people should have? The most positive thing you can reasonably advocate for is for people to exercise more "wait and see"... but I'm still waiting for someone to suggest how much more waiting is reasonable. In your mind, what time period has to have passed, before people can form opinions based on the (selective) release of some "non-raw" data (and the complete whithholding of actual raw data?") Edited March 9, 2013 by Tyler H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest J Sasq Doe Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Bart and Tyler have engaged several reputuable experts in the field of genetics to review her data and the overwhelming unanimous opinion seems to be that the data does not support her claims. And who would these "several reputuable experts in the field of genetics" be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Did you want to attach the document? Tim B: Am I right to assume that you saw that my post actually DID include the attachment (see my post right before yours - #1256 Tyler H)? Were you able to look at and understand what is being implied there? Can you answer my question, as I did yours? I'll re-post it: "how long do you think we should wait for the rest of that data, before anyone can start to form opinions on the data we DO have, and on Melba's capabilities or credibility? " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 First- when you first posted it didn't show up- then I got busy and came back and it was there. I did read it. I still can't find where the report you posted asked for more data. I'll look again. First you have to define "we". Then you have to show me why my opinion would matter regarding what should be released and when. I gotta say, Tyler, the personal opinions you have so clearly referenced regarding Dr. Ketchum's integrity and capabilities make it hard to consider having a rational discussion with you. The fervency you and yours have regarding Dr. Ketchum is not professional or polite and it makes it hard to entertain your arguments. All that being considered, I haven't been convinced that it should be released to anyone but people in the professional field. Look at how many hatchet jobs are floating around posing as legitimate evaluations because of personal feelings about the author? I've yet to find someone qualified that hasn't had an agenda. Finally- I think it all should have been released, but apparently she attempted to and wasn't allowed to. I don't know how you compensate for that. Does that answer your question? Or would you just like to write the answer you want and have me copy and paste it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 And who would these "several reputuable experts in the field of genetics" be? They are on this forum. Have you not been reading ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spirithawke Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 I am really starting to think all these obvious hoax apologist for freezer boy, Melba, Matilda et al. Do not have one logical bone in their body or have hidden motives for what they post. Tyler and Bart you guys have the patients of saints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Secretly, here's how I wish the Ketchum Report would had have been written about by the media: http://news.yahoo.co...-235152174.html this has it all, "After putting aside all possible elements of contamination, DNA was found that did not coincide with any of the well-known types in the global database," said Sergey Bulat, a geneticist at the Saint Petersburg Institute of Nuclear Physics, in a quote attributed in media reports to RIA Novosti news service. "We are calling this life form unclassified and unidentified," he added. 'If this is real, it is very exciting' I realise this is dealing with ancient bacteria in Water and not an unknown bipedal himinid. But still.... why? just why? This article, like the one I referenced yesterday on this topic, has a number of interesting parallels and contrasts to the Ketchum paper - a novel species with a genome not coming up in the data base: "The 86 percent similarity figure, to Murray, is a plausible indicator that this could be a new type of bacteria. Since all Earthly life is related to each other in some way, anything below about 80 percent would draw concern, Murray added." The Ketchum papers similarity was more like 3%, well below 80%. ""I would caution, though, that this type of 'press release' science is a little dangerous. It really needs to go through the rigor of peer review by other experts in the field before I'll jump on board," he said. "Having others looking at their methods and data will provide support for their conclusions." So here we see scientist being excited but understanding the need for the work to be externally verified. Like it or not, this is the way the scientific community thinks. Both results are exciting, and need further evaluation of the methods and data. We (the BF community) all wanted the "if this is real, it is very exciting" response - and if we were talking 86% (well >99% for cross hybridizing with humans) instead of 3%, I think the response might have been more positive. The data, as presented, is so far out of plausible, it is near imposible. Hence the need for more (unprocessed) data and more evaluation if anyone is to get onboard with this. I too would like some qualified scientists debating the other side of this issue scientifically. But so far, I have not seen any takers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 I've yet to find someone qualified that hasn't had an agenda. How about GenesRUs ? The guy saw a Bigfoot with his own eyes. Twice if I recall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 My agenda is to make sure the science that is put out there is critically evaluated. I truly wish I was able to critically praise this report instead of finding major scientific issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 How about GenesRUs ? The guy saw a Bigfoot with his own eyes. Twice if I recall. I don't know how to say this without being blunt- there are a lot of role players online. I have a hard time taking the word of someone who only goes by an online monicker. If you are going to put yourself out there as an expert, yet refuse to back it up with your reputation, then there's something suspect there. For me- obviously, this is just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 I recall having the moderators be aware of his qualifcations or something along that line. Thought GenesRUs mentioned that. Can't recall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts