Guest Tyler H Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 She ain't got it.... It's so easy to be a skeptic, you never need to explain your opinions, but be ready at the drop of a hot to express them. Really makes for an informed fact filled discussion. I'm not just a skeptic. I got testing done similar to what Melba got done - Same goes for Bart Cutino. We put our money where our mouths were, and we subjected ourselves to public scrutiny and skeptics. Only differences are that: we were totally transparent in our efforts, we made no false claims that were later disproven, and no one with any scientific credentials doubted our results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I beg to differ. You haven't even verified that this is legitimate. Again, there is no person attached to this. There is no legitimacy to this. People are bent on destroying Dr. Ketchum with lies- this seems to fit right in the pattern. For whatever reason, people keep attacking her online. Why would they do that? Since the popular opinion is her paper is a failure, why not move on? This just doesn't add up. Have you found anything that proves this is legitimate or are you just accepting it at face value? Oh--- and isn't the "we'll respond to press only" clause just a little convenient? Melba can sue the person for defamation or libel. The person who authored that page is explicitly claiming that Melba is lying. If that is a false claim, then the author is open to defamation and/or libel charges. Melba has threatened to sue dozens of people over the years, for much less. If she doesn't sue this person, then that is very telling. Melba should sue. Melba WOULD sue, if she could. If she doesn't, then the claims must be true. Bigtruth 3 hours ago · Our person at the genome center is attempting to upload the three whole genomes to GenBank. Wish us luck now that we have a species name to apply. If not, we are going to try to upload to UCSC. This should be fun. Every PhD that has looked at her complete data says that she has less than 1% of a full genome, despite having claimed from the beginning that she had full genomes... I now doubt that there has EVER been any single complete full genome from her study. Let's see her prove me wrong. Don't worry - I'll admit it if she does! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 We need a member of the media/press to verify or debunk this. There's a media/press link at the bottom of the page. It says it will only respond to media/press. Anyone here? Njjohn is a reporter, is he not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Doubtful News: Journal board tells Ketchum to knock it off http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/10/journal-board-tells-ketchum-to-knock-it-off/ "The former directors of the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology – JAMEZ – have warned Melba Ketchum to stop saying she bought their journal and obtained peer review for her Bigfoot DNA study." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I'm not just a skeptic. I got testing done similar to what Melba got done - Same goes for Bart Cutino. We put our money where our mouths were, and we subjected ourselves to public scrutiny and skeptics. Only differences are that: we were totally transparent in our efforts, we made no false claims that were later disproven, and no one with any scientific credentials doubted our results. I would not think you and I are on opposite sides as I have no fight with you…. MHO about your testings and the item you tested is that it is not the same as what Melba tested. That's not for argument, thats IMHO. Believe me, when the egos get out of the Science ….. that will be known, Please restate your results, and your problem with Melba getting results from her "Three Genomes". If you are not in this together, scientifically then IMHo you are in to obstruct true results.. from being published. That would not be a professional scientific posture.. it would be an opinion, and possible vendetta, and would not be worthy of being discussed more than once on this thread. I am a believer with several encounters….. Science results cannot disrepute what I know,,,,, only support my knowledge, or IMHO it is not being done with due diligence. Several Bully mentalities on this thread that constantly TRY to change opinions….. Thats dumb… You can't change knowledge with opinions. The only thing you can continue to do is ATTEMPT to baffle others with BS…. Some mentalities don't like that ….. some mentalities are just inherent BULLIES… no facts just denial of your facts and bomb the thread with their opinions. I can pick a Bully out in the first sentence, that is usually as far as I need to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Tyler only stated the facts. I see no indication of bullying. Tyler went to Melba and offered to have HER sample 26 independently tested to put to rest the debate about "Switching" of the samples he and Bart had tested. Justin wants his sample to prove he is telling the truth. To switch the sample to show a bear finding makes no sense other than to attempt to explain away why they came out with a different result. Melba has not responded to Tyler's offer to have her sample retested by another lab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Well then I guess we will see based on her actions won't we. Your mind is obviously made up already. The website that page is on was created in January of this year and has already been a topic of discussion. How is my mind made up? I'm just interpreting the facts that are available. I'm open to more information in the future. Again, doesn't it seem a little convenient? Damning info posted with no verification? Discussion about groundless evidence isn't very valuable in determining truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I can't say I disagree with you on that because I can't verify that it's true but you can't verify that it's false so the end game here is what Dr Ketchum is going to do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I don't think it's a given that this or any forum is owed an explanantion on a timetable established by the posters. There is no other area of science that has to comply to popular thought in order to be credible. I think sometimes those of us that participate in these discussions lose sight of our relatively insignificant roles in the process. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) I would not think you and I are on opposite sides as I have no fight with you…. MHO about your testings and the item you tested is that it is not the same as what Melba tested. That's not for argument, thats IMHO. Believe me, when the egos get out of the Science ….. that will be known, Please restate your results, and your problem with Melba getting results from her "Three Genomes". If you are not in this together, scientifically then IMHo you are in to obstruct true results.. from being published. That would not be a professional scientific posture.. it would be an opinion, and possible vendetta, and would not be worthy of being discussed more than once on this thread. I am a believer with several encounters….. Science results cannot disrepute what I know,,,,, only support my knowledge, or IMHO it is not being done with due diligence. Several Bully mentalities on this thread that constantly TRY to change opinions….. Thats dumb… You can't change knowledge with opinions. The only thing you can continue to do is ATTEMPT to baffle others with BS…. Some mentalities don't like that ….. some mentalities are just inherent BULLIES… no facts just denial of your facts and bomb the thread with their opinions. I can pick a Bully out in the first sentence, that is usually as far as I need to read. Man, I REALLY don't want to get sucked back in to this rabbit hole again. In my opinion, my results, Bart's results, Syke's results, other biologists and geneticists' comments on this forum, etc etc have all disproven Melba's claims. Collectively the data have shown that: Her results are contaminated Her results are known animals Her claims of having 3 FULL genomes have never been proven - (she has only released .01% of each of three genomes, yet says all her data is in her release) Her claims of Justin switching samples don't hold up under any scrutiny Her claims of testing the DNA of all the submitters (to rule out contamination) are false She refuses to do testing in the same sort of transparent manner that Bart and I did Melba has profited far in excess of reasonable amounts (Donations seem to be around the $1m mark just from Adrian E, Wally H and Richard Stubstad) She claims a charitable status in the U.S. that I am not familiar with, but she has provided no proof of (Which effectively dishonestly took EVEN MORE money out of the pockets of her benefactors, once they found out they could not claim the donations as tax breaks) We have provided MORE than enough objective, transparent data for open minded people to make their minds up and see the issues with Melba's claims. However, we will never convince all of her die-hard supporters. So I'm not going to keep beating my head against that wall. It's interesting that you mention Egos getting out of the science. That is what I recently implored from Melba - for us to let our differences be put behind us, and for the good of her reputation, the good of the community, and the GOOD OF THE FOREST PEOPLE SHE OSTENSIBLY WANTS TO PROTECT, and for the love of whatever you want to name... to PLEASE put our egos behind us, and allow transparent, independent 3rd party testing of her remaining samples. I even offered that our team could look after the costs. She won't have any of it. Science Critic - Bart and I are both very vocal promoters of Sasquatch. We have both seen them, and are both convinced by evidence, that they exist. Don't misconstrue our results. We only claim that Melba's results are not scientifically sound, and that Justin's sample unfortunately turned out to be bear. Ironically, we still scream it from the rooftops that we believe Justin shot a sasquatch, but that unfortunately the tissue he recovered weeks later was from a bear kill. Re your statement "I can pick out a Bully in the first sentence" ..... Sentences like that allow me to make the following informed opinion: "I can pick out people who make their minds up quickly, with very little supporting evidence, by their statements that brag about how fast they can make their mind up about a situation." That mindset is NOT the mindset of science. Science dictates allowing ALL the information and facts to be presented before you make your mind up about anything. In Meyers Briggs personality typing, it is demonstrated by the "J" vs the "P". You have made your judgments quickly, and are not open to looking at the scientific results from any sources other than those touted by Melba. Edited November 1, 2013 by Tyler H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Chain of custody of the samples is the flaw in your logic, Tyler. We have to go on faith that Smeja is telling the truth about the samples. I don't think he's represented himself in a way that guarantees a sense of veracity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Chain of custody of the samples is the flaw in your logic, Tyler. We have to go on faith that Smeja is telling the truth about the samples. I don't think he's represented himself in a way that guarantees a sense of veracity. So you are accusing Wally Hersom the financial backer of the study of purposely destroying the study?? I think that is a much bigger flaw in logic. Or how about the fact that Melba never got a sample of Justin's DNA yet claims the sample was not contaminated? It's ok to go on faith about her claims right? Very hypocrical Tim. Very. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Chain of custody of the samples is the flaw in your logic, Tyler. We have to go on faith that Smeja is telling the truth about the samples. I don't think he's represented himself in a way that guarantees a sense of veracity. Logic is the flaw in your logic, TimB. Why on earth would Justin mess with the samples, to undermine his claims? We (particularly Bart) have shown time and again how 'almost impossible' it is that Justin switched the samples, given the timing of Wally receiving samples, etc. I won't go through those lengthy arguments and details again. But I WILL assert that Justin was horribly disappointed in my results, Bart's results, and Sykes' results. He WISHED Melba were correct. He continues to go to unreal lengths to find proof for his story. So no, it's just not LOGICAL that he swapped samples to undermine Melba. Again, if he DID, Melba can put this to rest by allowing TRANSPARENT, mutually agreed upon 3rd party testing of her remaining sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Anyone want to retest my sample? There are some witnesses that could be vindicated if from a real bigfoot. Sykes only wants one real sample people, just one. If he acknowledged it would that verify Ketchums results/ conclusions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Anyone want to retest my sample? There are some witnesses that could be vindicated if from a real bigfoot. Sykes only wants one real sample people, just one. If he acknowledged it would that verify Ketchums results/ conclusions? No of course not. Bigfoot existing wouldn't verify Melba;'s conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts