Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 No, Dr. Meldrum is not the enemy, even if he does seem to think BF is a undiscovered species of great ape. If the Ketchum report does come out with the goods, he's not the only one who is going to have to readjust their thinking a bit. It does stretch the mind to consider what she's saying!!! A stance, I will remind everyone, that he has said he was willing to reconsider if sufficient evidence was presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Yes, about the publicist and publicity, not about the science of the study. And again with the attack, albeit a milder one. Meldrum. Is. NOT. The. Enemy. Well, hopefully he and Ketchum can come together to understand and share the wealth of information about Bigfoot that is coming. Edited November 27, 2012 by VioletX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Yes, about the publicist and publicity, not about the science of the study. And again with the attack, albeit a milder one. Meldrum. Is. NOT. The. Enemy. No freakin kidding. Proponents are always "theorizing" about the ultra-sensitve, super-paranormal array of sensory advantages the sasquatch has in order to evade us, as if by magic. Well, it has an invisibility cloak, all right. THAT'S US. When we aren't busy slagging everyone who says they saw one, the people who should be united in common cause are implying motives, slinging cross-accusations, finger-pointing and imagining moral turpitude on the part of every search effort but their own One True Pure Quest. Once again: the animal will remain invisible to the larger society until the mainstream gets involved full-time in the hunt. And Meldrum is the person who has the best chance of hooking mainstream resources. Fighting and slandering him simply engenders the type of response that...well, that the rest of the Bigfoot Circus does from the mainstream. To wit: Forget the ten-foot pole. Let's try 11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Dr. K isn't the enemy either, but you wouldn't know it to read Meldrum's comments. She's as much a scientist as he is, & until he sees the report, (which may be another reason he has his feathers ruffled), he would look more professional if he held back on the sarcasm. Edited November 27, 2012 by Sasfooty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 DWA plussed. Hey, am I alone in thinking FB posts are private? Just for whoever is friended (I think we have a new word..friended..sorry!) , or even if a "public" FB post still within that forum and pulling out is not so cool? I feel old school often with the free flow of borrowed posts and articles trolled...it's convenient! But, I would like to think that FB posts are conversational and not intended for the public.. I did not check his page to see if that was a public comment....anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Well, hopefully he and Ketchum can come together to understand and share the wealth of information about Bigfoot that is coming. That is my hope as well. "Dueling experts" is NOT a desirable scenario, as it will be like blood in the water for the Skeptics. Still not a lot of notice in the media, but some: http://www.livescience.com/25047-bigfoot-dna-human-ancestor.html http://news.yahoo.com/bigfoot-part-human-dna-study-claims-142909433.html http://www.examiner.com/article/dna-study-proves-bigfoot-esistence http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/11/prweb10166775.htm http://www.14news.com/story/20175587/bigfoot-dna-sequenced-in-upcoming-genetics-study?clienttype=printable (NBC affiliate) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Dr. K isn't the enemy either, but you wouldn't know it to read Meldrum's comments. She's as much a scientist as he is, & until he sees the report, (which may be another reason he has his feathers ruffled), he would look more professional if he held back on the sarcasm. Yes, he was also sarcastic about MK's PR person claiming ti have 12 BF on her property, in the article above that Jrid posted. But tell me this, if Bigfoot is an more like an ape like Meldrum has said, don't apes have large families and I am assuming they do not use birth control. He also could have said that he "wished that the report would not have come out prematurely ", instead of calling it "unprofessional", which could have an undermining effect on the study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Dr. K isn't the enemy either, but you wouldn't know it to read Meldrum's comments. She's as much a scientist as he is, & until he sees the report, (which may be another reason he has his feathers ruffled), he would look more professional if he held back on the sarcasm. Show me where he's criticized the actual study. He hasn't. He has criticized the mishandled PR around the study, as well as criticizing the Russians (who have badly burned the field in the past). Yes, he was also sarcastic about MK's PR person claiming ti have 12 BF on her property, in the article above that Jrid posted. But tell me this, if Bigfoot is an more like an ape like Meldrum has said, don't apes have large families and I am assuming they do not use birth control. He also could have said that he "wished that the report would not have come out prematurely ", instead of calling it "unprofessional", which could have an undermining effect on the study. The simple fact is that the Russians "jailbreaking" the information WAS unprofessional. Edited November 27, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Hey, am I alone in thinking FB posts are private? Just for whoever is friended (I think we have a new word..friended..sorry!) , or even if a "public" FB post still within that forum and pulling out is not so cool? I thought that, too, until I looked for his page myself. It must have been public, because I'm certainly not a "friend" & I just typed his name in & got right to his comment. Mulder, nobody (that I noticed) said he criticized the study. Actually, I'd have more respect for his opinion if that was what he was doing, assuming it was justified. But nooooo, he apparently can't find anything to criticize about the study, so he had to settle for finding fault with people involved in it & how the publicity was handled. NOT COOL, IMO. Edited November 27, 2012 by Sasfooty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) @Mulder- Well, everyone knows that what Bursev did was unprofessional, he, Meldrum, did not need to point it out,lol! Besides, we are still not sure what the circumstances were behind the reveal since MK said it was not his fault. I do agree that the scientists need to be able to support each other, if they don't it is bad for everyone involved. Edited November 27, 2012 by VioletX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Becareful what you wish for folks. http://www.mnn.com/e...dna-study-finds There is, however, another, simpler interpretation of such results: The samples were contaminated. Whatever the sample originally was — Bigfoot, bear, human or something else — it's possible that the people who collected and handled the specimens accidentally introduced their DNA into the sample, which can easily occur with something as innocent as a spit, sneeze or cough. No one outside of Ketchum's team knows how this alleged Bigfoot DNA was collected, from where or by whom. It could have been collected by the world's top forensics experts, or by a pair of amateur Bigfoot buffs with no evidence-gathering training. I called this more than a year ago.. And here we go. The "contamination" talk has already started. I heard talk that Melba may be publishing in Russia.. Can anyone confirm this? Edited November 27, 2012 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Bourtsev said the study would be published (although he did not say "exclusively") in a Russian journal and/or its website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Only points up what this "finding" will provide us: an animal invisible to the outside world, that purportedly exists because of this purported sample that could, purportedly, have come from one. Satisfied? Me neither. Neither will the mainstream be. When the provenance of the result is unknown, the result cannot be trusted. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Becareful what you wish for folks. http://www.mnn.com/e...dna-study-finds I called this more than a year ago.. And here we go. The "contamination" talk has already started. I heard talk that Melba may be publishing in Russia.. Can anyone confirm this? Unfortunately, that is part of the equation until proven otherwise. It's the same in courts. Edited November 27, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Mulder, nobody (that I noticed) said he criticized the study. Actually, I'd have more respect for his opinion if that was what he was doing, assuming it was justified. But nooooo, he apparently can't find anything to criticize about the study, so he had to settle for finding fault with people involved in it & how the publicity was handled. NOT COOL, IMO. And the fact that both deserve to be criticized means nothing to you? The "contamination" talk has already started. I heard talk that Melba may be publishing in Russia.. Can anyone confirm this? ~109 samples, 20 mito DNA sequences, 3 FULL DNA sequences checked by multiple independent labs of professional caliber? "Contamination" is a non-starter, as has been pointed out elsewhere. Only points up what this "finding" will provide us: an animal invisible to the outside world, that purportedly exists because of this purported sample that could, purportedly, have come from one. Satisfied? Me neither. Neither will the mainstream be. When the provenance of the result is unknown, the result cannot be trusted. End of story. There is nothing "purported" about the samples. You cannot extract DNA sequences from thin air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts