Dr. Melba Ketchum Schedule To Speak About Sasquatch Dna On October 1, 2011

[Guest HairyGreek]

TimB wrote:

"no evidence+ third party hearsay= best scam yet. Beautifully orchestrated, but not all that different than the Georgia boys. WAY more sophisticated. Hats off to those who had us all stringing along".

I don't know exactly how this will turn out but I can guarantee you one thing - it's not a scam.

If it was it would be the most long-winded (even boring) scam of all time.

Scams abound in bigfootery but this one has none of the hallmarks.

Absolutely no evidence to back up what you say. Perhaps it's a mastery of the hoaxing art? The only thing that could change this is evidence.

Tim B.

I do hope you realize your telling someone something you should tell yourself here. You also have no evidence to back up your "best scam yet" statement. Can you really not see this?

[TimB]

Try that.

That works as well. I was referencing my original formula- "no evidence+hearsay=scam".

Tim B.

[TimB]

I do hope you realize your telling someone something you should tell yourself here. You also have no evidence to back up your "best scam yet" statement. Can you really not see this?

MY evidence is every scam that followed that pattern- no evidence+hearsay has always equalled "scam" in the bigfoot world. Last time it was cops- this time it's scientific professionals. Wonderfully orchestrated, but without EVIDENCE, it's a scam. Perhaps something I missed in my original formula was "ever-expanding timeframe for release of 'evidence' ".

Tim B.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Circumstantial evidence at best. I see nothing "wonderfully orchestrated" in this experience. It has been a cluster**** since the first NDA was broken. Not really sure how anyone can see otherwise. Here is a popular word in Bigfootdom...show me proof.

I don't recall hearsay ever coming from the audience of the scam as opposed to its supposed perpetrators either. The hearsay was created on this very board and others like it by people too impatient to wait and think critically. Add one blogging troll and stir until smooth.

I think you should reconsider your logic as far as this situation goes.

[TimB]

I'm fine with my logic. It's the simplest conclusion. Anything else requires me to put faith in organizations that refuse to share their self-reported confirmed evidence. The farther you dig in, the more twisted it gets and the greater the urgency is put on "Trust me.." and "Be patient"... Silliness.

Tim B.

PS- Godot never comes and their lives waste away to nothing.

[Guest slimwitless]

Your theory has been duly noted and archived in perpetuity for future reference.

[TimB]

Does that mean I should shut up now? .

Tim B.

[Guest]

MY evidence is every scam that followed that pattern- no evidence+hearsay has always equalled "scam" in the bigfoot world. Last time it was cops- this time it's scientific professionals. Wonderfully orchestrated, but without EVIDENCE, it's a scam. Perhaps something I missed in my original formula was "ever-expanding timeframe for release of 'evidence' ".

Tim B.

Your logic is a bit flawed, Tim. In actuality the formula should be:

fabricated, exaggerated, or misinterpreted (intentional or not) evidence + intent to deceive = scam

This is because the point of a scam is to deceive others, whether for gain or not, although something of the magnitude of this DNA study, if it is a scam, would be quite expensive, so one would think it would definitely need to be for profit. I don't personally think it is a scam. Although is possible that it may not reveal anything near as conclusive as we would like or have been led to believe, I don't think it is because we have been intentionally mislead.

[Guest HairyGreek]

I'm fine with my logic. It's the simplest conclusion. Anything else requires me to put faith in organizations that refuse to share their self-reported confirmed evidence. The farther you dig in, the more twisted it gets and the greater the urgency is put on "Trust me.." and "Be patient"... Silliness.

The only reason they have to say that is the cat is out of the bag thanks to some disgruntled ex-employees and the people who think they are somehow owed "the truth" of something they never put a minute of work in. And I don't mean walking around the woods hitting trees with sticks or sitting up till dawn with IR glasses on.

People have been crying about real scientists looking at the proof. Now they are, and you want Nestle's instant answers all hot and steaming with marshmellows in it. It doesn't work like that. Go read some of the threads where people who actually understand the scientific process don't see this paper being able to pass very quickly at all. Then look farther back and see how we initially found out about the DNA study. It wasn't Ketchum's fault to any extent that you are sitting around butt-hurt no one is keeping you "in the know".

And you're right. Your conclusion is simple.

[TimB]

I was going for a fact-based formula, rather than an emotive one. I have a hard time quantifying intent. If you apply my formula with the added aspect of the ever-increasing time frame for completion I think you'll see that all the previous scams fit. And so does this one until proven otherwise. It's theory, not fact.

Tim B.

[TimB]

It wasn't Ketchum's fault to any extent that you are sitting around butt-hurt no one is keeping you "in the know".

And you're right. Your conclusion is simple.

You read a lot into what I post. I can assure you that my butt is not hurting. As far as I'm concerened, I am "in the know" because there's nothing to know. And I have no problem with simple- sometimes it's the best way to interpret things. If you stick to the facts that's what you end up with.

Tim B.

[Guest HairyGreek]

OK Tim, fair enough. But I cannot see a lady who was dragged into this field of study and still to this day has a successful DNA lab willing to give that all up to perpetrate a scam. There is no logic in that. Please don't bother bringing up the bad BBB reports. She does paternity tests as part of her business as well as DNA testing for criminal cases. That is a good enough reason in my mind for some vindictive people to do some horrible stuff to her.

The people involved in prior scams (at least the ring leaders of them) all devoted a considerable portion of their life to this phenom. Ketchum didn't until a TV show brought her a sample of something she couldn't identify.

I am not going to say I have not seen people give away as much as Ketchum to try and fraud people, but you were claiming a hoax first, not a scam. If it is a scam now, where is the money? From what? I haven't given a penny; have you? Media exposure? Where is that? I haven't seen her on Fox or CNN either.

What is the end game that you think this is playing towards? You should be able to see this first before claiming scam or fraud. Hoax doesn't make any sense at all either. There is no money or 5 minutes of fame involved until there is some results. That is why I personally don't see hoaxes and such as bad thing. Thanks to things like Georgia, you must pass the gauntlet to get through to real scientists and the media. You have to have something tangible and legit. In that way, Georgia was a God-send.

People are not likely to be hood-winked by outlandish claims again for some time. If you were a regular person on the street, you wouldn't have any idea this is even happening. This whole thing is off the grid and only known to the enthusiasts.

[Guest]

Wow! It's the Tick against the Hulk. Epic battle.

[Guest]

Tim,

Do you honestly think that something with a PhD and an established practice is going to risk career suicide to help perpetrate a hoax or scam? The only way Ketchum would be involved in such a thing is if she was duped herself. If you can prove someone has manufactured DNA that's another story; but Melba would have discovered that, if not her the labs involved in the blind test most likely would have, if they don't I can assure you Planck will if that is in fact where the samples have been sent. It's not worth it. It would call into question everything she has ever done, the post 911 ID work, every court case, you name it. There would be sever civil, ethical and even criminal repurcussions.

It can take decades for a species to be recognized under perfect circumstances, this is just the beginning if all goes well.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Tautriadelta

[Guest]

I was going for a fact-based formula, rather than an emotive one. I have a hard time quantifying intent. If you apply my formula with the added aspect of the ever-increasing time frame for completion I think you'll see that all the previous scams fit. And so does this one until proven otherwise. It's theory, not fact.

Tim B.

However, your formula is not fact-based at all. A scam is intentional deception on the part of the scammer.

From dictionary.com:

scam

   [skam]

noun

1.

a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit; swindle.

verb (used with object)

2.

to cheat or defraud with a scam.

World English Dictionary

scam (skæm)

— n

1. a stratagem for gain; a swindle

— vb , scams , scamming , scammed

2. ( tr ) to swindle (someone) by means of a trick