Guest mitchw Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Ketchum has stated that according to the rules of the Journal she may not discuss the data in her study; but she does still have some wiggle room. Hence all the laughter and joy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 That doesn't mean I wouldn't bet serious cash the current iteration of the paper claims Smeja's sample is BF. If betting were legal, of course. Let's assume, for the moment (laying aside the "is it the same sample" speculation.), that it does. That would be a problem, one that could indicate a problem either with Ketchum's lab work OR the third-party lab's work. The obvious answer would be for all parties involved to agree on a different lab to present one of the other surviving sections of the sample to under strict observation by all sides so that all can agree that no "shennanigans" took place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 George did indirectly in the recent C2C interview. She wouldn't comment beyond saying she "believed" the story. Let people make of that what they will... The ultimate point is that the third-party "bear" finding for Smeja's sample is being used improperly by Skeptics to again attempt to whole-cloth dismiss the Ketchum study. They base that on a claim that Ketchum found that particular sample to be positive for her "unknown". That claim has not been backed with any publicly document-able citation by Ketchum. IF (I emphasize the "if") such linkage can be established, a second look will have to be taken at the issue. As for Smeja's story itself, it is no worse off than it was before. It was not backed by physical evidence before the lab report, and it still isn't backed by physical evidence after the finding. You overlook the fact that other Bigfoot advocates are claiming that Ketchum has indeed claimed privately that Smeja's sample will be included in her study supporting the existence of what we call Bigfoot. Are they lying, or mistaken, or delusional? Didn't Randles say he was confident concerning the samples, based on communication from Ketchum? On c2c, she did say she believed Smeja, but she never mentioned what she concluded from the sample he provided. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 George did indirectly in the recent C2C interview. She wouldn't comment beyond saying she "believed" the story. Let people make of that what they will... The ultimate point is that the third-party "bear" finding for Smeja's sample is being used improperly by Skeptics to again attempt to whole-cloth dismiss the Ketchum study. They base that on a claim that Ketchum found that particular sample to be positive for her "unknown". That claim has not been backed with any publicly document-able citation by Ketchum. IF (I emphasize the "if") such linkage can be established, a second look will have to be taken at the issue. As for Smeja's story itself, it is no worse off than it was before. It was not backed by physical evidence before the lab report, and it still isn't backed by physical evidence after the finding. Explanation sounds within the parameters of belief. Best that i've seen yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 George did indirectly in the recent C2C interview. She wouldn't comment beyond saying she "believed" the story. Let people make of that what they will... Knapp asked what she thought of the story. He should have asked (lurking journalists take note): "Is it true one of the samples in your study is tissue from a shooting in the Sierra Nevada mountains in October, 2010?" and "Can you tell us if you believe the tissue from that shooting is from a bigfoot?" I understand what you're saying about the third-party analysis and it's effect on Ketchum's study but until I see her paper, it's just another data point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 To me, Smeja is a fraud. With a fortune to be made having 2 squatches, he just leaves them there to mysteriously disappear? I'm not buying any of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Slim, she might answer the first part, but I highly doubt the second. That's why her saying she believes Justin's story says to me that his sample tested + for Bigfoot. Of course, I'm reading between the lines, which is apparently a requirement these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) You overlook the fact that other Bigfoot advocates are claiming that Ketchum has indeed claimed privately that Smeja's sample will be included in her study supporting the existence of what we call Bigfoot. Are they lying, or mistaken, or delusional? Didn't Randles say he was confident concerning the samples, based on communication from Ketchum? On c2c, she did say she believed Smeja, but she never mentioned what she concluded from the sample he provided. Why? That's exactly right. Why on earth would she not want to talk about a shooting she could easily dismiss if she thought the tissue came from a bear? Why has she never denied it's inclusion (she's come out and denied less explosive allegations). I can't find her very first post here but I think it might shed some additional light on the subject. Has it been deleted? There's also Paulides. Was it you jerrywayne or someone else on this forum that indicated Paulides said he believed Smeja's story when he was at Honobia? Like Randles, I don't think Paulides would come to that conclusion without some inside information. Mulder, don't think this third-party analysis *and* my belief Smeja's sample is a big part of the paper leads me to reject the study. I haven't read the paper and there are too many variables at play. That said, I'm not waiting forever (knock on wood). Edited December 28, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 It was Col. Mustard, in the conservatory, with the candle stick Prove me wrong This thread is better than an episode of Jerry Springer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Slim, she might answer the first part, but I highly doubt the second. That's why her saying she believes Justin's story says to me that his sample tested + for Bigfoot. Of course, I'm reading between the lines, which is apparently a requirement these days. I would have to ask if Melba's DNA work is indeed more advanced or rigorous than the other labs? Has she developed the protocol TO test for BF DNA...something which other labs haven't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Well according to my calander we officially went from weeks to months about three days ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Sally Ramey, Melba's ex PR person said publically that a sample from a killing in the Sierra's was in the study. I read that here, on facebook, others have read it...and no I don't have a link handy. Why would she say that if it is not? So, I believe it is. Sally was very careful with her posts and I know it was there. What she did not say was that it was specifically Smeja's. But who else could it have been? Then there was the point in the study when they aquired "new" information (I suspect the Sierra sample) that "changed things". No, Melba has never said Smeja's sample is in her study except that she will not comment on the sample the other labs tested because she had not tested those... implying she had only tested the samples she has. This is all from memory, but I remember them well. The rest is my take on what I read. Yes, it was weeks, not month's. But it is still weeks. Not monthS..yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Chelefoot, there is no doubt that this will be months however one views it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 You overlook the fact that other Bigfoot advocates are claiming that Ketchum has indeed claimed privately that Smeja's sample will be included in her study supporting the existence of what we call Bigfoot. Are they lying, or mistaken, or delusional? They haven't provided any evidence (let alone proof) to back those claims. Didn't Randles say he was confident concerning the samples, based on communication from Ketchum? Did he? Link? On c2c, she did say she believed Smeja, but she never mentioned what she concluded from the sample he provided. Why? Because that would be mentioning specific details of the study, which she is still unable to do pending the results of the re-review. This has been explained several times now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Did he? Link? He sure did. I suggest you listen to his blogtalk interviews. I know the information you desire is also in the Sierra Shooting thread but for some bizarre reason, the search by author only presents four pages of results. However, I did find these more recent comments: The Olympic project has submitted many samples to the study. The Sierra sample is indeed part of the study. Someone formerly know as "Jodie" asked him this: I think I have assumed that the sample from the Sierra Kills was one of the samples chosen for sequencing. I can't recall why I got that impression. Derek, can you say if that is true? Derek's answer? Jodie, I can't say if that's true but I think you're a very smart person. I'm not sure what he's getting at but at least he thinks Jodie's smart. Oh well, there's more pertinent info in that thread but I'm not going to wade through the entire thing unless I'm doing my own homework. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts