Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) Apparently, Justin is saying that Melba allegedly told him that the piece of steak he gave her talked to her. Now that is what I would call a real "meating" of the minds. Edited January 24, 2013 by Plenipotentiary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Isn't she aligned with some of the mind-speak/habituator camp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Do you read tea leaves too Tontar?lol Read, or eat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Nature has also published its fair share of hoaxes. Nature was one of the favorite publishing outlets of Jan Hendrik Schön, who hoaxed several discoveries on carbon nanotubes. The journal also publishes an annual global warming special issue, in which many of the contributors were implicated in the Climate Research Unit E-mail scandal (where it was discovered, through a release of E-mails, that global warming scientists activists were altering their methods and models to obtain the results they wanted). So Nature will loosen its peer review standards to suit its own political objectives or meet its own need to publish cutting-edge research. I'm sure most journals have been and will be hoaxed by unethical researchers, often it can be difficult to 'catch' fabricated data and similar during peer review. It is much easier for a journal reviewer to find errors in methodology. Usually instances of fabrication will be corrected later when others fail to replicate the results, unfortunately that often takes years. As for your conspiracy, not true so you cannot use that to implicate the journal for unethical behavior: http://www.ucsusa.or...limategate.html The rest, tl;dr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) Did Dyer and Whitton really find a dead bigfoot, because Dyer and Whitton assured us they did, and assured us that they were innocent of any wrong-doing, after investigating themselves to determine how they could have mistaken a bigfoot costume for a real one? BTW, there were two leaks from the Climate Research Unit, distributed over a period of time, and showing consistent behavior in fabricating results, even after the first leaks came out. Nature was also implicated in the leaks, and also claimed that the leaks were over-blown. The only people claiming that there was no wrong doing are the conspirators themselves and those with a vested interest in global warming activism. I guess we have discovered why hoaxes live for so long. There is a difference between a journal being fooled by unethical authors, and being willingly fooled by blatantly fabricated papers. The Schön papers contained graphs and charts that were perfect, with experimental data perfectly matching theory across the entire range of measurements. That just does not happen. The Schön hoaxes were not discovered because other people failed to reproduce them, but because several competent readers noticed the "perfectness" of his data, and doubted it. When Schön re-used the same graphs in later papers, it became quite evident. Ketchum does seem to be in with N.A.'s who are of the mind-speak crowd; however, I think she clearly meant that the "steak" provided her a lot of information, both genetic, and concerning the relationship between humans and bigfoots. I know that she is worried that Dyer really has shot a bigfoot, and thinks very poorly of him and his financiers for it. It is possible that her attachment to the subject has hindered her objectivity. I can think of no faster rejection, than if she wrote her paper with background information on bigfoots, taken from the mind-speak side. The idea that bigfoots are a cross between modern humans and something else (unknown) may also be an incorrect conclusion, and it might receive a lot of ridicule. There is very little evidence to suggest that nearby species interbreed (there is some), and NA tribal lore tells of marriages between people and bigfoots (so shouldn't the mtDNA have been known, modern human?), but I think most biologists would reject the idea. Having near-human mtDNA and somewhat less human nuDNA could be the result of the segregation and inbreeding of a tribe of humans or near-humans with throw-back traits, rather than a crossing of species. Actually, much more likely segregation than cross-breeding. Edited January 25, 2013 by AaronD to remove politically tantalizing topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 ^ So any site or source I'll cite is part of the "well established conspiracy", while those cited by you are factual. Got it. Never mind that the Academic consensus does not support your assertion, and no there is no real money in this for them, guess who stands to gain if climate science is kept politicized as opposed to fact based? http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/ This is way OT, and I'll refrain from posting about it any further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Read, or eat? As long as you did not smoke them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I understand what some of you are saying about not taking the "spoke to her" literally, but IMO that is not what is being insinuated. Maybe Justin took it wrong or who knows what, but it would explain a lot if you have read everything people are saying about Justin and Melba. I honestly hope this is not what happened, but it does seem like that's what Justin is going to say. I hope I'm wrong about that too. I apologize in advance if I'm taking it wrong. Shawn mentions it around the 1:13.00 mark. It is a long show, but Derek and Shawn both give a good interview so if you have time it's worth a listen. Stacy also talks a little bit about the thermal video that he and his dad got. (the brown footage). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Those who visit art museums are fully aware how when they look at an especially beautiful sculpture or some other work of art, it "speaks" to them. Not literally, but at a level where they sometimes feel connected in a way. That could be what Justin (if he said that) misinterpreted and he's using it to mean something else, therefore making it seem as if a piece of flesh actually talks. I go to antique shops and a chair will "speak" to me as in "buy me!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) Hopefully he misinterpreted any such weird statement. If he in fact said anything of the sort. If she said anything of the sort. If either of them have talked to each other, because to my knowledge they have only communicated one time, read that in an interview he did. Supposedly. It's all silliness now. Edited January 24, 2013 by Art1972 to remove personal attack..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Meanwhile, it's Thursday....................again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Well it was certainly a good way to generate interest for a brand-new radio show... Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Madison- I understand about Justin possibly mis-interpeting a statement by Melba but let me say this, Justin is a very articulite and cerebral individual. I have spoken with hime personally several times and he does not strike me as picking up statements and spinning them to fit his point of view. On the other hand "speaking to me" could be represented as a various ways OUT OF CONTEXT. Just saying. Let me also just say that this whole mind speak issue IMHO comes also from the people that Melba hangs with(without mentioning names) and I have been ushered off of forums that closely adhere to that stance. To me it is such a side note that it doesn't address the meat of the phenom. and muddies the waters as far as credability, but might come out at a later time. As far as Justin making a point to bulster his view point, well I would have to hear it from him before and get his take before I comment on it any further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Well it was certainly a good way to generate interest for a brand-new radio show... Tim B. I can assure you that they did not know about that and didn't know Shawn was going to say anything like that. They were very surprised and I think it shows in the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Meanwhile, it's Thursday....................again. I know. This is getting sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts