Guest Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 "WELCOME TO THE GRAND ILLUSION" Just to keep the Styx train rolling. What are the odds to each of these things being True? 1) DNA evidence that is 100% irrefutable, and replicatable, and someone is sitting on this proof. 2) HD videos that will back this up and hold up to scrutiny, and have not leaked. 3) Someone is sitting on bodies or body parts. 4) People are living amongst them, but can't or wan't take pictures. This is not rhetorical, put a number on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 (edited) So she dismissed the Better Bureau bull, the erroneous report of the "mind rape", and lists her scientific credentials. What is there left to complain about except for the release not happening already? Tim B. The only ones complaining, are the ones who don't know anything about what she has. She stated her findings and is awaiting her peer review, which I would not hesitate to state that NO one here would be able to do. She'll be fine in the end. "WELCOME TO THE GRAND ILLUSION" Just to keep the Styx train rolling. What are the odds to each of these things being True? 1) DNA evidence that is 100% irrefutable, and replicatable, and someone is sitting on this proof. 2) HD videos that will back this up and hold up to scrutiny, and have not leaked. 3) Someone is sitting on bodies or body parts. 4) People are living amongst them, but can't or wan't take pictures. This is not rhetorical, put a number on it. If Melba has (1), she doesn't need the others, because body or no body, DNA would prove that something, previously unknown, now exists. For now, they can tag it as BF. Edited December 24, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Go Melba! She gave a good interview and basically solidified the idea that she has confidence in her work. I've never seen her as a scammer, and the interview reinforced this opinion. Reading between the lines, I'd say if the Journal that has the paper in hand does not give an OK (perhaps a pretty QUICK OK at that...) she's ready to release the whole shebang ASAP whether in a Russian Journal, Online whatever... Sounds like she's tired of the work and hassle and wants to be done with it all and go forward with her life, and figures her data will win out in the end. I would agree at this point. A minor niggle. She should stick to talking about the proof/evidence for their existence that she has uncovered through DNA and probably avoid ANY other subject associated with BF. While it's fun to speculate, it's very easy for detractors to seize on an idle musing and trumpet it to her chagrin. Note the still repeated crap about 'Angel DNA'. She veered pretty close to silly statements a couple of times in this interview. Everything she says is going to be closely scrutinized, ESPECIALLY if the report is not released in a peer reviewed US Journal! On the DNA evidence she can speak authoritatively. On everything else, unless she considers herself an expert on the subject she should simply clam up and pass on all the questions and opportunities to speculate. She can cultivate a no-nonsense character in the public eye. Sort of a Melba Ketchum as the Joe Friday of DNA Research. "Just the facts ma'am". Everything else will roll her way in time. Just IMHO, as they say online! GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Speculating, Ketchum has a bit of leverage over the Journal, because if she publishes on her own, then if she names the Journal they will have some 'splaining to do. I wonder how long Ketchum and her team is willing to wait, or if they've discussed among themselves the point at which they'll just stop waiting. (sorry about the underlining, I'm using a tablet from the future. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 That is a great point, if she can't get her paper published and in fact, has the goods, the journal in question is going to look really, really bad. If that journal has a T.V. wing it will not only look bad, but cost them big money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 I find it interesting that one of the lab directors got angry when they found out they participated in a blind study and simply provided their own data/findings. Wonder where that anger would come from? Hmmmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 So now she's doing the journal a favor by allowing her paper to be published? Heck, she should hold out for top dollar then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 She stated, she was never in it for the money, and they even paid for some of the blind studies that were done at the university. It seems you can count out the money aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 Good money says that if rejected the journal will never be named. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 Good money says that if rejected the journal will never be named. If it was me I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 (edited) To what end? No one but footers would bat an eye at a journal for rejecting a Bigfoot study. Course, no one but footers would know anyways since without the journal, the subject is still on the fringe anyways. Edited December 25, 2012 by ScottG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 I find it interesting that one of the lab directors got angry when they found out they participated in a blind study and simply provided their own data/findings. Wonder where that anger would come from? Hmmmmmm. Perhaps being deceived that their findings were used in a study without their permission? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 Well just finished listening to the c2c recording. Very good interview, she is either truthful or a masterful liar. I'm leaning towards truthful and I can't wait to see the report! I found interesting the idea that bf maybe nearly as intelligent as humans. One's mind boggles to think of what maybe coming up in the next couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 (edited) @ ss ....It's no reason to get upset, unless the lab would like to tell someone how to interpret it. That would get settled among peers. When you pay a lab to do a test and report their findings then the transaction is complete when they send it.. If they stand by the fact their results are reliable there is no issue. Edited December 25, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 @ ss ....It's no reason to get upset, unless the lab would like to tell someone how to interpret it. That would get settled among peers. When you pay a lab to do a test and report their findings then the transaction is complete when they send it.. If they stand by the fact their results are reliable there is no issue. I wonder though, if giving results to a client for personal use, in contrast to providing results destined for publication (Bigfoot no less), represents a more compelling reason to be upset? It's Christmas Eve! My guys have an original Nintendo pulled out....hehehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts