Guest Tyler H Posted November 1, 2013 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? SY You've likely addressed this before, but when Sykes was gathering NA samples here, were you not able to provide him anything from yours?
TimB Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 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. First- why are you attacking me, Bi? I have done nothing but offered my opinion. Why call names? Second- chain of custody involving Smeja is flawed with all samples he sent in. The entire story and subsequent product is suspect. That means ALL of it. I didn't just say the second sample. Best not to assume. Logic is the flaw in your logic, TimB. Why on earth would Justin mess with the samples, to undermine his claims? Depends on what Justin's motivations are. I am not convinced anything involved with him is on the up and up. It's been suspect from the beginning for me. You can do a search if you doubt me. There is simply no way to verify your conjecture so it will always be suspect. It's a great argument- it is just unprovable. 1
Guest Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 Speaking of unprovable it looks as though it has been proven that Melba's study was never peer-reviewed. It looks like Scholastiqia is backing up exactly what JAMEZ is saying. http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/texas-dna-specialist-writes-that-sasquatch-is-a-modern-human-being/
chelefoot Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 The link is a must read for anyone who wants to know what's going on. This isn't the first I have heard that information. I really hope her supporters will put some thought into all of this.
Guest thermalman Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 How about this? http://www.faze-jamez.org/ Looks like you infringed a copyright. "Please do not print or distribute this notice; it is intended only for this website. If you chose to reference the information on this website- please provide a link with proper citation. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this notification, e-transmission, and information, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. This communication should not be kept in or with any archived record, except for the owners and operators of the website. We reserve the sole right to utilize this information, if necessary, in litigation."
Guest Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) Looks like you infringed a copyright. Uh not really. You didn't happen to notice the large print at the top of the website that said PUBLIC STATEMENT. Linking to websites is not considered copyright infringement nor is using their content when it's labeled as PUBLIC. If that the only response you have to Ketchum's house of cards falling down? Edited November 2, 2013 by BipedalCurious
Guest thermalman Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) Ketchum has her issues. But the copyright clearly states the obvious. A public statement does not give the right for anyone to repost or publish elsewhere, where it is stated: "Please do not print or distribute this notice; it is intended only for this website. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this notification, e-transmission, and information, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful." Pretty easy to understand. Edited November 2, 2013 by thermalman
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 Posting the URL isn't infringing copyright.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 I think they don't want anyone copying and pasting the content without a citation.
Guest thermalman Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) Which would include the page stated from the URL, right? Otherwise the warning would be mute. Edited November 2, 2013 by thermalman
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 From what I understand it's asking people to post the website's URL when referring to the content. They just don't want anyone printing the content or copying and pasting.
Guest thermalman Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 I suppose someone needs to ask the site about their copyright criteria to be sure.
sheri Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 Your not copyrighting if your just putting up the url. People can't read it unless they go to the site. Your not supplying the information just the site. That's not copyright infringement.
TimB Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 I think they are worried that someone is going to steal their extremely professional and entertainment graphics. And yes you can here the dripping of the sarcasm when you read that from me. Interesting source to cite. Doesn't exactly speak o credibility...
Recommended Posts