Guest Llawgoch Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 Wait a minute, I'm still scratching me head. Okay, Sykes is testing samples, are they Bigfoot samples? How do we know these samples are genuine BF? I gather that from reading on the board here that they aren't the same samples MK used. So, is there any inkling were these game from...Europe, Asia, USA? I have no idea what samples Sykes is testing, but all I'm saying there's a chance (if Bigfoot exists) that if none of Ketchum's samples was a Bigfoot, one of Sykes's might be - the problem isn't in the DNA testing, it's that Ketchum didn't have the right samples, and didn't just come out and say so. Personally I expect Sykes to end up identifying everything he has as mundane and saying so (and consequently I'm not sure it's going to be much of a paper or that many places will be that interested in publishing it).
Guest Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) Some highlights from Melba's appearance on C2C: *Genbank offered to allow her sequences to be uploaded, under Homo sapiens but only with a permission slip from the donor. *She was told by a knowledgeable person that sometimes the hybridization process can lead to a genome with single stranded DNA because of alignment problems. *Possibly more than one type of but related creatures in North America. Data may indicate a more primitive type in the Southeast. Study is ongoing. *Bryan Sykes has requested to speak with her. Edited February 18, 2013 by HODS
Guest Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) Some highlights from Melba's appearance on C2C: *Genbank offered to allow her sequences to be uploaded, under Homo sapiens but only with a permission slip from the donor. *She was told by a knowledgeable person that sometimes the hybridization process can lead to a genome with single stranded DNA because alignment problems. *Bryan Sykes has requested to speak with her. Thanks HODS you definitely got the top three things that caught my ear. Edit: a couple of other things mentioned...a couple of other papers have already been submitted to the new journal and the journal does have editors who are working on the website (no names given) Edited February 18, 2013 by MOCrk
Guest njjohn Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 One of the other submitters spoke up : http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/2013/02/bigfoot-dna-study-critics-read-study.html#more
Guest Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 Don't count me in as a supporter. I've been arguing about all the red flags for a year now. Yeah - a year. 1 year, out of the 5. There weren't the red flags when it started.
Guest Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 Bf evidence has a new blog. David H. Swenson PHD has spoke up in defense of this study. He has a laundry list of accomplishments and credentials listed online. Is anyone here familiar with that name? I'm just s spectator so I have never heard of the guy. Do you think the addition of someone credible saying she is right, in public, will draw a more serious look at the paper? The plot thickens. Oh, I have also made it through the first hour of her C2C interview. She hadn't helped herself too much yet. Not really hurt anything either. Still claims she has this or that as evidence, and forward emails to George about bias toward her---for Heavens sake Melba, listen to George and put that info out there for people to see! The time for claims and secrecy is over. You gotta show it now.
Guest Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 She was asked by a caller why some sketches of them look so different. She answered with- they are different like we are between person to person. THEN said she has several pictures of them and you can see differences in each one..........uh, Melba, you think those pics may kinda help your cause a little bit?!? You think maybe we would want to see those to add some credibility?! We can't hardly take you seriously if you put forth a paper with evidence then hold back photos in your possession. C'mon now.
BobbyO Posted February 18, 2013 SSR Team Posted February 18, 2013 Help please. Am I right in saying that the paper passed peer review, then the Ketchum " team " bought/acquired the journal that passed it and then rebranded it for want of a better word, to Denovo ? Do we know the name of the original journal that did actually pass the paper ?
Guest Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 Hello Bobby O, Melba states her paper passed peer review, but the journal refused to publish. She then states she purchased the journal (that refused to publish) created a new website - loaded her paper (only) and here we are. Word on the street the name of the old Journal could be Journal of Advanced Zoological Exploration in Zoology
BobbyO Posted February 18, 2013 SSR Team Posted February 18, 2013 Cool, that's what I thought but wanted to get clarification. Thanks Melissa. PS I just watched the episode of MQ on the IPad at work that you and HM were in, I'd never seen it before..I enjoyed it..
Guest gershake Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) Help please. Am I right in saying that the paper passed peer review, then the Ketchum " team " bought/acquired the journal that passed it and then rebranded it for want of a better word, to Denovo ? That is what Ketchum claims happened. Do we know the name of the original journal that did actually pass the paper ? Yes. It was called Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology and had no published papers.EDIT: Woops, someone already answered that. Edited February 18, 2013 by gershake
Guest Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 Cool, that's what I thought but wanted to get clarification. Thanks Melissa. PS I just watched the episode of MQ on the IPad at work that you and HM were in, I'd never seen it before..I enjoyed it.. You're very welcome. Also, I'm glad you enjoyed the show
southernyahoo Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 Wait a minute, I'm still scratching me head. Okay, Sykes is testing samples, are they Bigfoot samples? How do we know these samples are genuine BF? I gather that from reading on the board here that they aren't the same samples MK used. So, is there any inkling were these game from...Europe, Asia, USA? Right, we must know right this minute, full disclosure, transparency, due diligence or parish, because these samples might ruin our precious credibility if we don't know before the results are given. I just love the Logic in that! People should stop crying about who tests the evidence and put "real" bigfoot evidence on the table to save us all!..................
Guest Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 Melissa, I have seen all the MQ episodes but can't remember which one you were on. Was it the all female group one? Just curious. This is make or break week for the Ketchum project. It'll either get news coverage and some credible genetic community backing, or it'll fizzle into a non story by next weekend. Whoever has contact with her, please bend her ear to listen. Release all the pics, emails, etc you can while the opinion is still open. If you wait much longer the calls of faking them will increase. Especially from the EP! If it is as good as claimed. Maybe Erickson is a hoax?!
Recommended Posts