hiflier Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 (edited) Hello Martin, I'm not sure if I understand the broken clock analogy and how it compares to testing by a independent lab. If you'd be kind enough to clarity I'd be very appreciative. Edited September 28, 2015 by hiflier
Guest Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 Just to be clear I welcome the questions from Jayjeti and anybody else. Challenges are very welcome too. Dropping out of a discussion does not imply that the person has acknowledged any sort of submission to superior argument. I had to be reinstated because I had not been active for awhile. People come and go. Taking time to think through the issues before responding is desirable. Also, using capital letters for emphasis should not be taken as an attempt to control. It's an open discussion, not a lecture.
Martin Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 Hello Martin,I'm not sure if I understand the broken clock analogy and how it compares to testing by a independent lab. If you'd be kind enough to clarity I'd be very appreciative. I guess it depends on what duplication means. As far as I know they aren't working on the same samples so it can't mean an exact replication of her work. Duplication of her conclusion of human hybrid would only mean Melba's theory was right from the start even though her actual study was flawed for various reasons listed here and elsewhere. If an independent lab confirms hybrid (12:00) it doesn't validate Melba because her clock is broken even though it reads 12:00.
ShadowBorn Posted September 28, 2015 Moderator Posted September 28, 2015 Yes, two different specimens one result. Yea I get it AM or PM same time two different parts of the day. The only bad part who will get the credit for finding it first and how well will it be written so that there cannot be no flaws. Like the saying goes "loose lips sink ships". This is exactly what happened with DR. Melba and that they jumped the gun when they should have held back. People learn from mistakes and I am sure that it will not be made again until their DNA is recognized. Dropping out of a discussion does not imply that the person has acknowledged any sort of submission to superior argument I just do not believe in this that there can be a superior argument. since if one is willing to learn has the ability to win any argument as long as they have access to that knowledge.
hiflier Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 Hello Martin, Hello Martin,I'm not sure if I understand the broken clock analogy and how it compares to testing by a independent lab. If you'd be kind enough to clarity I'd be very appreciative. I guess it depends on what duplication means. As far as I know they aren't working on the same samples so it can't mean an exact replication of her work.Duplication of her conclusion of human hybrid would only mean Melba's theory was right from the start even though her actual study was flawed for various reasons listed here and elsewhere.If an independent lab confirms hybrid (12:00) it doesn't validate Melba because her clock is broken even though it reads 12:00. Thanks for your patience, I understand now. Nice post and much appreciated
chelefoot Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 Yes, I asked Hart here because Jayjeti had questions, and some of the answers that were coming in seemed very uninformed and lacked actual facts. If wanting the facts brought forth makes me anti-Ketchum in the eyes of her supporters, so be it. 2
Guest SDBigfooter Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 So HH is full of facts? I'm not so sure about that. Maybe they are facts for you. There is probably not an authority who would spend the time to clear up the facts in this subject. HH is not a professional. I'm pretty sure he said so himself. He would also say no one has proven him wrong. I'm not sure anyone who is credible has tried, or will try (please don't mention Disotell). HH is now a celebrity so that strikes me as a bit odd. Maybe MIB knows who he's working for? (sorry had to after that jayjeti burn) HH, no offense, but your papers are not professional and you are very cocky. I can't say if your analysis is correct. I would have to blindly accept because I don't have the time/knowledge to sort through all that you have offered. I get where you are coming from though so hopefully time will tell. Ketchum had her issues as well, which means I can't have confidence in her either. So I wait and see and hope for someone better to come along!!!
chelefoot Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 Have you read the Ketchum threads. HH is not the only one who analyzed her results. I had no idea HH was a celebrity.... And why not mention Disotell? He is a professional. If HH and Disotell supported Melba's findings, would you still dismiss them? I wouldn't. 2
Guest Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 SDBigfooter, I am a professional scientist with a PhD, which is in chemistry, not genetics. However, as I have said before one does not need a genetics degree to compare four letters in two strings. Neither Ketchum or any of her coauthors are geneticists. Some use canned genetic analyses in forensics. My work is in the form of blogs, not peer-reviewed papers, but that does not make it unprofessional or by your implication inaccurate. However, I hold myself to the same standards of truth, if not to format and style as a professional paper would require. I am confident (call it cocky if you will) because I know that my results will hold up to anybody's scrutiny. Four geneticists, two very famous, have reviewed my work and agreed with my findings. I work for nobody (Who do you suggest?). I worked independently with the hope that Ketchum had bigfoot DNA, but after some learning, found otherwise. Haskell Hart
chelefoot Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 What Ketchum supporters seem to forget...we wanted Melba to succeed. I was part of the Preservation group and one of the ones who got blocked and banned because we knew the truth. We knew that she did not have the entire genomes of the 3 samples. We knew that she herself had posted those ridiculous claims that she now says she never said (which were scrubbed from her pages). We knew she was lying about her paper being peer reviewed and the manner in which she published it. So, she got rid of us. So, yes, I think her latest claims about a there being a new lab who is going to validate her findings, is hogwash. What are your reasons for supporting her and having hopes for her latest claims? Because you want them to be true? That's not enough for me. Not when it comes to Ketchum. 2
southernyahoo Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 It depends on what labs might be involved in testing under this new study. Meldrum was collecting samples not so long ago, and NYU was his lab. I sent him samples, so if that lab is involved, there would be the chance that the results could match what Ketchum found, though that might not also come with the same claim of a new species. I look at all the evidence there is for bigfoot, and the only gaping hole (aside frome a body) is the unique DNA that proves it's a new species which sould be the easiest thing to obtain for all the sightings and knowledge we should have about where they live. I know how she arrived at the idea or hypothesis of a hybrid hominin, and it was before she ever did the whole nuclear genome sequencing, which was not her forte'. But when she got the mosaic of human and other it fit the hypothesis. Those samples got rushed through and shouldn't have. Her claims of validation may not be aimed at her nuclear results, and someone may have found something that affirms her conclusion, but with very different nuclear results. Just have to wait and see. 1
masterbarber Posted October 1, 2015 Admin Posted October 1, 2015 What Ketchum supporters seem to forget...we wanted Melba to succeed. I was part of the Preservation group and one of the ones who got blocked and banned because we knew the truth. We knew that she did not have the entire genomes of the 3 samples. We knew that she herself had posted those ridiculous claims that she now says she never said (which were scrubbed from her pages). We knew she was lying about her paper being peer reviewed and the manner in which she published it. So, she got rid of us. So, yes, I think her latest claims about a there being a new lab who is going to validate her findings, is hogwash. What are your reasons for supporting her and having hopes for her latest claims? Because you want them to be true? That's not enough for me. Not when it comes to Ketchum. She's been totally and thoroughly discredited in the field of BF/DNA research- mainly by her own actions. Anyone still waiting for legitimate results from this "study", may as well by tickets to the next RD sideshow. 3
Guest Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 Hair shafts don't have any viable nuclear DNA. not true. Absolute misinformation. I can and have taken hair samples from myself and several other animals, and gotten lots of viable DNA. Not hard, just have to use the correct kit and methodology, and then understand what that DNA is.
chelefoot Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 Hey slowstepper! Good to see you posting. I hope you will keep your eye on this in case this independent lab does produce something that Melba attempts to latch onto. We need informed opinions. 1
Guest Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 Well, the website nabigfootsearch.com (NABS) has a blog section in it that has a lot of posts about Dr. Ketchum and her work. However, the last post that mentioned Dr. K was March, 2013. You can read what has been going on regarding her work on the website for your self. I do find it strange there gave not been any new blogs entries since 2013.
Recommended Posts