Guest Tyler H Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) I'm posting under 4/9ths of my real name and that's head and shoulders above anyone in your witch hunt. Ummmm. My full and very real name is Tyler Huggins. I consider myself a part of this "witch hunt" Allow me to also introduce you to Bart Cutino. Also a full, real name... also a "witch hunter" Edited November 4, 2013 by Tyler H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Yes I certainly do have proof. I know for a fact all of the money for the skull testing goes directly to her. This has been confirmed by Brian Foerster. If you don't believe me please contact him directly and show us his replies. https://www.facebook.com/Shipibospirit I challenge you to disprove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) Would you be so kind to list the proof and evidence of your " fact"? Edited November 4, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 (edited) I had forgotten about your and Bart, Tyler. I apologize- you sign your name to your witch hunt . Yes I certainly do have proof. I know for a fact all of the money for the skull testing goes directly to her. This has been confirmed by Brian Foerster. If you don't believe me please contact him directly and show us his replies. https://www.facebook.com/Shipibospirit I challenge you to disprove it. So you are upset that the money spent to test the skulls goes directly to the person testing the skulls? How does that work? Edited November 6, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC To remove quoted content and response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 (edited) So you are upset that the money spent to test the skulls goes directly to the person testing the skulls? How does that work? Where is the oversight? Do you really think mainstream science operates it's funding through someone's personal Pay Pal account? Edited November 5, 2013 by BipedalCurious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 (edited) Who is Brien Foerster? Another Todd Standing? Brien is nowhere near a mainstream scientist. Pseudo scientist, yes. Edited November 5, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Where is the oversight? Do you really think mainstream science operates it's funding through someone's personal Pay Pal account? If I say you win will you quit asking meaningless questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Who is Brien Foerster? Sigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 If I say you win will you quit asking meaningless questions? It's not about winning. It's about providing information to people new in this field so that they don't get sucked into the vortex of bad information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 So you provide information by telling people to make phone calls. Alrighty then . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 No. We encourage people to check into claims themselves. Your choice not to do so is yours alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Now who is the "we" you are representing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 We who are involved in something called critical thinking and examination. We are many. We are legion. Expect us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Melba told me recently that no money changed hands and that she never said she "bought" the journal. She then posted the same thing on her FB wall. She stated that she only said that she "acquired" it. But, last week I saw where she said that there was an exchange of money paid for the journal. So, I'm a bit confused about that. I see what you are saying, TimB, when you mentioned, why hasn't Wally taking action to try to recoop his money. But, without knowing his reasoning behind not doing that, I think it's naive to assume that he doesn't feel that he was "wronged" just because he hasn't taken legal action. It may be that he doesn't want the publicity that it might bring him. Perhaps it's not worth it to him. That would mean spending more money, and having to answer questions about why he woud put up money trying to prove the existence of a supposed mythological creature to a "self-taught genticist" (terms taken from her website). Sometimes it is better to just cut your losses. Especially if you can afford it. (And this is just me speculating - I have not spoken to Wally). He donated the money - the project flopped. Maybe he just wants to let it go. He's not the one publicly complaining about it anyway. But just from what some of his friends have said, I'm thinking he's not at all pleased with how things have turned out (again - my opinion) His professional reputation is not on the line. Unlike Mk's - who could resolve the debate about sample 26 by agreeing to have her sample tested, at no cost. That would prove a hugh point (and completely remove any possibility of "switching" samples) and I can't think of ANY reason she wouldn't do that. Well, I can' think of one reason. I just can't understand why it's difficult for some to accept that others have gotten validation that the public statement is legit - yet they take Melba's word for it that the paper was peer reviewed.... even when there's evidence out there that it's not. The email that she is presenting as proof that it was peer reviewed has been proven to be a fake. Does that not make you have any doubts at all ? I don't remember the people who publicized the evidence that brought out the truth about RD referred to as witch-hunters. Why must the folks trying to get the truth out about this be villianized? Well, I take that back. Those people were villianized - by RD supporters. And I'm not buying the jeolousy/conspiracy theory. I was a supporter up until the point that it became obvious to me that something just wasn't right (along with how a certain artist was treated) I wanted desperately for the project to have a positve outcome. The fact that I am no longer a supporter has nothing to do with jeolously and everything to do wtih the facts that have been presented these past few weeks. And I don't think the timing of all of this is a coincidence either - but's that's just more speculation on my part, so I'll just keep that to myself. This whole thng has me really thinking about whether proving BFs existence is really something that would be beneficial. Beneficial to whom? Sure I would like to know without a shadow of a doubt for my own satisfaction. But I'm starting to wonder if that's a good enough reason? To bring validation to all the witnesses who have been ridiculed for coming out with their stories? I'm just not sure. But this whole fiasco sure hasn't done anything to help matters. For them or the BF Community as a whole. I don't think anyone can argue with that. Well, some would probably argue with that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 (edited) Melba most certainly DID say she bought the journal when she originally "published" her paper. Then at some point several weeks later, she changed her terminology to "acquired the rights" to the journal, or "obtained" the journal. This was documented on her fan page - probably long since deleted as she covers her tracks, but if you listen to her earliest interviews about the journal, she says she bought it. She can't delete those soundbites. I bet she wishes she could. I think it's been stated here and elsewhere that Wally just doesn't want to mess with it. If I was his age, with his money, I suppose I would also just cut my losses and avoid wasting precious time with lawyers and lawsuits. But I wish he would go ahead and sue or press charges, though. Seems to me that legal action will be the only thing that ends this sad situation for good. Melba and her minions would be wise to and retract their peer review claims. Scholastica likely also has cause to sue over those faked peer reviews. I'm sure they don't like their name being used in what appears to be clear fraud. But I'm sure Carpenter can get out of that hot water by coughing up the source of those "leaked" reviews. Yessiree, all it takes is someone to file a suit and alllllllllllll of this mess will come out in discovery. As for this thread, I notice that a pattern has formed: Truthers state facts. Deniers challenge facts. Truthers state sources. Deniers challenge sources. Truthers invite or suggest that deniers contact or check sources themselves. Deniers refuse to do so, yet continue challenging the facts. Repeat. Denial is a powerful thing. Edited November 6, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC To remove personal information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts