Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) Ketchum has been taking all the hits since she published the paper in her newly born journal, but nobody has questioned Paulides role in this. He's the one that hand picked Melba(claiming no other DNA scientist would touch this subject) convinced people that she is was a courageous crusader for the definitive proof of sasquatch and got the community to send her the best samples they had. Looking back on it, it seems he sought out someone with experience with DNA to promote his pre-conceived hypothesis that bigfoot is another human tribe living in the wilds of America. Melba is responsible for her paper, but who really started this and is now standing on the sidelines watching the wreck he created? Edited March 10, 2013 by AaronD to remove demeaning comments toward another member Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 9, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted March 9, 2013 Well, it is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Looking back on it, it seems he sought out the shadiest scientist he could find with some experience with DNA to promote his pre-conceived hypothesis that bigfoot is another human tribe living in the wilds of America. Melba is responsible for her paper, but who really started this and is now standing on the sidelines watching the wreck he created? Yes. He is an experienced investigator. I think he knew just what to expect from her. I may not be pleased with the outcome ... but he is. And why? What's up in the next Act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 An investigator's experience doesn't necessarily mean he or she is good. Some are technically good and some aren't. Anyone who would hook their chariot to a study that used predominately un-vetted samples is not an investigator in my book. And if the claim is the samples were vetted to a standard of probability, I say produce the paperwork. What I have seen of the vetting documents indicates the samples were vetted as 'biologically viable' and sent by an enthusiast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Looking back on it, it seems he sought out someone with experience with DNA to promote his pre-conceived hypothesis that bigfoot is another human tribe living in the wilds of America. Melba is responsible for her paper, but who really started this and is now standing on the sidelines watching the wreck he created? Is it a wreck? Has the paper been totally unacceptable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 There has been a lot of poo-flinging, sniggering, and dismissalism, but as yet no organized evaluation of the paper (complete with all pertinent lab work) has been released. Rumor has it that Sykes is evaluating the data, but he's keeping mum last I heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 10, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted March 10, 2013 Still at the stage of rumor, shame, shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 He's been exaggerating about the impact of the study. What he said was going to be world changing, turned out to be a laughing stock withing the science community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 @ Mulder I don't see so much poo-flinging, sniggering, etc. I see quite a few people, myself, who honestly feel betrayed. I am trying to be fair & objective. I fail somewhat. So I was glad to see slappy's more charitable view, wherein she is merely in over her head instead of an intentional fraud. there is a phrase in science that i believe applies to ketchum's work: "not even wrong" "Not even wrong refers to any statement, argument or explanation that can be neither correct nor incorrect, because it fails to meet the criteria by which correctness and incorrectness are determined. The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate." http://rationalwiki..../Not_even_wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 ^You just proved my point. Where are the "peer reviewed" documented papers disproving the Ketchum Study? There aren't any, because "scientists" are too busy snickering (see the video review that keeps getting reposted) and dismissing to do their jobs. 5 years, terabytes of data, multiple independent labs doing double-blind tests and reaching confirming results. That's the Ketchum Study. A bunch of poo-flinging, laughing, and no hard data. That's the "scientific" response. I'll take data over mockery any day of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 @ Mulder Apparently, you are the only person besides Dr. Ketchum who has actually seen her data. If others were allowed to see it, perhaps they'd agree with you. As for the snickering, NZ grad students, they offend me, too, because of the rudeness. Ridicule is rotten. In here, many who disagree with MK are mature and polite about it. It's a mistake to let yourself think that bad mannered kids represent the norm. Admittedly, tho, there are a number of newpaper columnists who could teach those kids how to be even more obnoxious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Isn't Paulides currently courting the 'ufo crowd'? Broadening his appeal and potential book sales by interweaving the alien hypothesis into bigfoot lore. Could be a risky strategy however. While I found his Missing 411 research fascinating, this new angle would leave me and many others pretty cold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) I agree Paulides has made a jump to UFOers...a jaded view of that might be he did this for more audience more dollars...but I do think he is totally sold on UFOs/conspiracy/Bigfoot connection. Totally sold on it, as are many and they cite to Ketchum's study as either Alien/Fallen Angel and/or DNA manipulation as that original male.......and she encourages that belief as far as I can tell...it has become a cult, and that is why as noted above some can't hear or see the red flags (or complete rejection by scientists with the skill set) anymore. But, I don't think Paulides is inner circle, they seem to have had a falling out over a year or so ago..he went from point man to invisible man... Mulder.. I had to LOL as your statement you would take "data over mockery: any day"....yeah, that is the problem...no data still.... Edited March 10, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) ahh..which reminds me... over a year ago there was a phantom website on the NABS site...called the Sasquatch Genome Project...or close! Is that still there? Doesn't look like it... but the site has grown.so it may be there ..and YA! look at it, invisibility cloaking....pretty much says UFO as well..., etc... and here is a concern...those who believe alien/whatever..use the study as evidence of it b/c the study hasn't a conclusion science accepts, it's "too forbidden", etc....and "mysterious"......and we see it already, those comparing this to the PG film...as remaining "not disproved" and that is enough evidence in itself for them ... it appears this study shall trouble us until a genome is uploaded for a BF.... and if Sykes only does mDNA...this could go on for some time...maybe forever.....b/c the problem is...her willingness to go to C2C and claime peer reviewed Proof via self publishing and a "anti-evolution" theory makes it all dodgy ...and easy to ignore by the scientific community (and mainstream media!) (is this the thread with the quote from HFarenbach? I loved that quote...choosing not to publish so not to confuse or bias future work....thank you Henner for that responsible view...makes me want to take down my "give-up" blog!) If you can tell, like a few above I feel foolish for allowing myself to put faith in this in spite of some early warnings .... oh well.... Rhett Mullis is meeting Sykes in SF the next few days. He hopes to have some information after that about both Sykes efforts and Ketchum's potential review by Sykes or Nekaris (i don't think her posting those grad students was her review? ) and I think I can wait a few more days before... what? LOL...what shall I do ... regardless of any result not much changes for me truly...that disbelief from friends/family occurred long ago....and those that followed my growing view changed theirs..those that didn't, didn't... ! The public policy that might arise requires solid peer-review to meet any real standard for regulations, etc..... and that body so many seek isn't something I follow or can influence...so, I have to wait and yet expect little at this stage..... and it's OK... camping is on my mind more these days...but, I am making a good choice..researching Kayaks instead of more techie equipment for BF spying! Edited March 10, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 ^You just proved my point. Where are the "peer reviewed" documented papers disproving the Ketchum Study? Where is the peer reviewed Ketchum Study ? The snickering video shows that the study has been evaluated by interested parties within academia. It also shows the response the study receives. The reason's for said response can all be read in the Ketchum thread of course, however the study, such as it is, has been evaluated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts