Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 I can see where this is going now. The JFK assassination begat the 'single bullet theory'. I guess we can coin this new controversy the 'single Melba theory'. I wouldn't be taking such a hardline if these experts actually talked to us dummies and explained to us about the various methods for establishing a species and how and why each method was used in this paper and the like. It's no surprise to anybody who has followed this topic the last 2 1/2 years where this was going to end up once the paper came out. Yes I want to see all the data but I dont fully understand what is in the paper in the first place. But I don't really care to listen to bunch of people who are doing nothing but splashing around a lot of bad vibe about the paper and the subject which it covers. This was going to happen no matter what circumstances the paper was published under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Note that she claims to have passed peer review at 'the other' journal, then bought it. Then she claims to have changed its name (and put together a fast/cheap website) without ANY reference to the previous journals history. Lets read some more from your link: [/font][/color] So.. the previous journal name was "Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology". A journal that has no history prior to it being registered by Ketchum in January this year. So she claims the paper passed review by referees at that journal, without naming any of the old journals editors or referees. She also does not provide any of the referees comments. Neither does she provide the data for independent analysis by other experts. She lies and states she cannot upload the data to genbank. We now have heard from several sources that she can easily upload it for access and verification. If she lied about that, why not about the peer reviews? If she has peer reviews, she needs to release them (along with the names of the reviewers). Until she does we should all assume she has none. At one time I leaned toward thinking MK meant well, but was just naive and way out of her league and maybe too stubborn to get help. I though it might be possible that she had some interesting data but didn't really know how to interpret it properly. After this week, from both the way this paper was released and from several things within the paper itself (some of which has been mentioned here) I am personally no longer inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt or to take her at her word. Caveat emptor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) Here's a thought. We need the rest of the Erickson video now. Right now. But this occured to me today- his team had their work done and ready to release and was held up because he was tied in with Melba. Very frustrated having to wait according to several reports. So do you think now he is getting a little revenge by holding his footage back and letting her take the beating alone? Let her take the heat, then when it calms down release the rest and prove these things real, therefore being the hero to come in and salvage a victory for this circus. Just a thought. He may choke too! Edited February 15, 2013 by Hoosierfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Probably simply waiting for the buzz to hit its peak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reelback Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) To a great degree, certainly. However, if the nuDNA is persuasive or even intriguing, then people will pay attention. People more skilled than her perhaps, and with bigger budgets might follow it home (if it was, in fact, Bigfoot DNA). Her hybridization theory would be dismissed as bad interpretation by a non-specialist and ignored. Eyes on the prize, after all. If she has Bigfoot DNA, she could lose the battle but still win the war. A number of the criticisms have focused on contamination and the implied lack of experience with the subject area. Those are probably fatal weaknesses, if accurate. GK This comment didn't get enough attention. Its certainly possible that this could be an outcome. In all outcomes, its likely that MK is out of her league. Maybe she's afraid to load this data to the gene bank, or doesn't know how, was misinformed? On the other hand, there seems to be too many odd outliers here to maintain any level of confidence. The appearance here is that she is hiding the data. And if the data were released too early (read: before enough $30 payments were captured) then exposure wouldn't yield any income from this project before the hoax was exposed. The best way to gain traction at this point is to put the right information in a place where it can be reviewed. I suggest people suspend the purchase of the paper until this happens so that the appearance of a hoax can be dispelled. Edited February 15, 2013 by reelback Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 If this has any real legs, shouldn't there be a press conference at 12:00 today? I remember hearing it would be the Friday after the release on Thursday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) I can see where this is going now. The JFK assassination begat the 'single bullet theory'. I guess we can coin this new controversy the 'single Melba theory'. I wouldn't be taking such a hardline if these experts actually talked to us dummies and explained to us about the various methods for establishing a species and how and why each method was used in this paper and the like. It's no surprise to anybody who has followed this topic the last 2 1/2 years where this was going to end up once the paper came out. Yes I want to see all the data but I dont fully understand what is in the paper in the first place. But I don't really care to listen to bunch of people who are doing nothing but splashing around a lot of bad vibe about the paper and the subject which it covers. This was going to happen no matter what circumstances the paper was published under. You're not taking a hard line. You're taking a terribly soft line on the one person here who has demonstrably done everything wrong. By your own admission you know nothing about this subject, but rather than listen to the people who do know something telling you what's wrong, you want to listen to the person who is telling you what you want to hear. Because "it would have happened no matter what". It wouldn't. It's happening because the paper is worthless. Edited February 15, 2013 by Llawgoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TH68 Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 If the Smeja sample is not bear and presumptive for sasquatch, then Bf is confirmed. To quote an earlier poster many pages ago, "DNA comes from a critter". If the Smeja sample is the critter and the DNA is not bear, not human, no known animal and presumptive for BF then it is a BF. BF is real. Moreover, it is inconceivable that the coauthors who are involved in criminalistics would commit economic death by being part of a paper that was not scientifically sound. So where is Mr. Smeja? I would assume he is getting his ducks in a row, lawyering up and preparing to either make some money, get famous or both. Hopefully he has already done this and is waiting for the proper moment. It seems to me that the tipping point has just about been reached. Uploads to Gen bank will be made. The Erickson videos will be released. Dr. Sykes will publish his results, confirming Dr. Ketchum's DNA findings. And Finding Bigfoot will be cancelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 To anyone who has actually read the paper: Is the any explaination(or even mention), explicitly or implied, of what the "curveball" thrown by the purported bigfoot DNA is? Apologies if this has been answered and I missed it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) It seems to me that the tipping point has just about been reached. Uploads to Gen bank will be made. The Erickson videos will be released. Dr. Sykes will publish his results, confirming Dr. Ketchum's DNA findings. And Finding Bigfoot will be cancelled. You could have said all this before the paper was "published" and it would have been just as likely as it is today. The thing is the paper has nothing. Yes, all these things might happen. 40 Bigfoot might walk out of the woods tomorrow and announce their intention to start an Arby's franchise. But they haven't, and none of the things you say will happen have happened, and this joke of a paper hasn't advanced anything one inch. The co-authors by the way have not risked their reputations as all any of them with reputations seem to have done is analysed the samples and returned their findings. The conclusions being drawn from that analysis are all Ketchum's. Edited February 15, 2013 by Llawgoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 I'm thinking it's time for us (and I was certainly hopeful that she had the goods) to admit this is a farce. I can't really tell you what I think has/is going on as Melba is a member here. Something which folks need to remember as some of the previous posts are rather pointed so to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reelback Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 You could have said all this before the paper was "published" and it would have been just as likely as it is today. The thing is the paper has nothing. Yes, all these things might happen. 40 Bigfoot might walk out of the woods tomorrow and announce their intention to start an Arby's franchise. But they haven't, and none of the things you say will happen have happened, and this joke of a paper hasn't advanced anything one inch. The co-authors by the way have not risked their reputations as all any of them with reputations seem to have done is analysed the samples and returned their findings. The conclusions being drawn from that analysis are all Ketchum's. Does anyone here have access to Ketchum to see where the data submission stands? I think another thing to point out here is that if this continues to be bungled, I feel really sorry for the folks that submitted evidence being let down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Whoever invested money in this, is probably not thrilled with the resulting 'paper'. Has anyone tried to reach the people who supported this endeavor? The main complaint, before the release of the paper, was that science ignored Bigfoot. Now, you have science LAUGHING at Bigfoot, further eroding their confidence that anyone involved with Bigfoot has any credibility. This paper has done nothing but hurt Dr. Meldrum's efforts to elicit mainstream acceptance. This has also proven to me, that until now, mainstream did have an interest in Bigfoot. If you look at the number of scientists that actually admitted on Twitter that they went ahead and bought the paper, then any criticism that science didn't WANT bigfoot to be real is false. The concensus from those scientists is that they got suckered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Does anyone here have access to Ketchum to see where the data submission stands? I think another thing to point out here is that if this continues to be bungled, I feel really sorry for the folks that submitted evidence being let down. I don't know, but that's clearly her way out of this mess. If she really has anything (which I obviously doubt) then all she has to do is submit it to genbank and all will be fixed, despite the paper itself being nonsense, there will still be something concrete to look at. But she hasn't done that, says wrongly that she can't do it, and is making no comment on the fact that everybody else is saying she can and has to. There is only one reason she would be staying quiet now which is she hasn't got anything and she knows she hasn't got anything, but as soon as she says that the $30 stop coming in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrowhead Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) I'm wondering if it was a requirement to theorize the origins of the species AND also prove their existence. Isn't it a big enough nut to crack just to prove they’re real? It sounds like some of the flak is being generated by her theories of their origins which might be detracting from the physical evidence. Sounds like they tried to do too much, but maybe that is the only way it would be accepted. Too bad they couldn’t just focus on proving their real and let other studies figure out where they came form. Edited February 15, 2013 by Arrowhead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts