TimB Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Sounds like we understand well where each other is coming from Biped. Have a good evening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 All you gotta do is reread the last few pages Bpc and take notice of the questions Tim has asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 OK TMan I am not going to play games like this. When you want to get back to the point and state your questions let us know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Well then I guess there's nothing left to discuss, huh? I haven't been convinced either way yet. There are too many leaps of faith needed to get to the idea that anything has been proven definitively. I'm sure I'm not the only one. It just seems that those who are convinced are EXTREMELY vocal and intolerant of different points of views. I won't speculate as to why. I'll just wait for something well-documented. TimB How much more well-documented would you like, than Bart's OK lab, and my Trent University Lab's results? Sykes has said the same thing - only he had NO human contamination even. (I realize his results aren't out yet - once you see those results, will that Trifecta suddenly become credible to you? How many reputable labs need to point out the error of her assertions, before you start to believe them?) I guess it comes down to different levels of proof required to convince me of something. I've read this entire thread- nothing Ketchum has stated has been proven in my eyes. Nothing the anti-Ketchum movement has proposed has risen to the level of proof in my eyes. During my education I was taught that if I was going to propose an idea in a conversation I needed to be able to prove my position with facts. Were I to say, "I believe it- you need to make a phone call to confirm this for yourself" during a conversation, it would indicate to the other participants in the conversation that I didn't have grounds to support my claims. That's the way an educated discussion works. I was under the impression that this was a discussion board, not an advice for research board. Perhaps I'm wrong? Para/point #1 - then you didn't read the lab reports in part 1 or 2 of this thread. Para/point #2 - Are you kidding me? You're telling me that your education told you that your own words asserting some unsubstantiated facts, should be more compelling than having a person call the source directly and hear it with their own ears? If someone can talk about it on the phone but refuse to commit to the same information in public permanently, it's suspect. You mean, like when someone says they have 3 full genomes, yet only offers up .01% of any genomes? And then they say "oh, no, it's ALL there... we're not holding back any data"? I've seen enough on OTLS's website to doubt their credibility. I won't be taking their word on anything. You've SEEN ENOUGH TO DOUBT OTLS's credibility, but have NOT SEEN ENOUGH TO DOUBT MELBA'S? And you want us to think you are objective and rational? You're holding your own quite well Tim. As usual, any of the questions you've posed have gone unanswered. Typical of circular reasoning without admission. From the king of getting answers to his own questions, and answering none posed to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 You guys can call names and cherry pick what you respond to, but if the JAMEZ people won't go on record in a public forum with the info but require each individual to call them to verify their story then there is something suspect to what they are doing. All of which only matters if you make your living trading in the Bigfoot soap opera world. In other words this is all foolishness. The study failed. Move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) OK TMan I am not going to play games like this. When you want to get back to the point and state your questions let us know. It's your game. Posts 302 and 387 come to mind. Edited November 4, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) The study failed. But her promotion of it and continued use to gain financially has not. Dr. Melba KetchumOctober 31 The university genome center has also agreed to sequence the whole genomes on the Peruvian Mummies. We would like to sequence several. Anyone interested in donating so we can get more of these done asap, contact Brien Foerster or me. And guess where those donations go? Not to a university, nor a lab, but straight to Dr. Ketchum. Edited November 4, 2013 by BipedalCurious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 So what? Either you are missing something with her effectiveness or whoever is paying for it is not vetting their vendors. Again, so what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 TimB, you say "so what?". The reason I am an advocate for the truth to come out is because I think it is a shame that many researchers put in hours upon hours of their time obtaining samples that quite possibly could have been wasted on a trash study. Then there's all the money paid out by donors (Wally). There's enough lying and backstabbing in the BF Community as it is. The last thing needed was for someone to step up and want to take the title the one who proved the existence of BF through DNA- to further blemish the reputation of this community. The truth needs to come out, IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 So if the truth is available by phone call on an individual basis then why can't it be published and attached to a name so that it has some credibility. This is all smoke and mirrors. If Wally is so in need of championing by the masses then qjy isn't there a legal battle to recoop this money? Obviously the movement thinks it has all the info necessary. Why complain anonymously on a message board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Proving the existence of Bigfoot was never the goal here; she knows that samples like the ones submitted by Janice Carter and Smeja aren't really from Sasquatch, yet she passed them off as confirmed bigfoot hairs and got Wally to pay for every one of them. What could be the motivation for something like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) one thing for sure,there is not a scientist in the world of genetics that will ever seriously touch this subject with a 10 foot pole(not talking about Skyes,)even if they did find an anomaly in a sample,they will pass it off as contamination or a human error occurred while testing the sample.The only thing that will prove they exist, is a body. If you have samples of hair,blood,video,audio,footprints,etc.. you might as well throw it away,it's worthless. Edited November 4, 2013 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 When you post under your real first and last name you can throw stones at others who don't. Until then..... I'm posting under 4/9ths of my real name and that's head and shoulders above anyone in your witch hunt. I'm also not accusing anyone of anything but making unfounded accusations. And perhaps some attention seeking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Hunt for the truth is not a witch hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) But her promotion of it and continued use to gain financially has not. And guess where those donations go? Not to a university, nor a lab, but straight to Dr. Ketchum. Do you have proof of your claim? But her promotion of it and continued use to gain financially has not. And guess where those donations go? Not to a university, nor a lab, but straight to Dr. Ketchum. Do you have proof of your claim?When you post under your real first and last name you can throw stones at others who don't. Until then.....Is bipedalcurious your first and last name? Or are you on a sandy beach? Edited November 4, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts