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

[TimB]

Okay so scam is the wrong word- I'll give you that. Replace it with "bigfoot event that doesn't happen as promised." Take the implied accusation out of it. I can go with that.

Tim B.

[Guest]

What seems to escape everyone is that the individuals who put on the Honobia Conference are the ones that should be scrutinized here, not Dr. Ketchum. They knew in advance she wasn't going to appear, they have made that clear from comments seen on Facebook, where they said they already had the video in their possession. The story that Troy tells about running down at the last minute to do the video is a flagrant outright lie, based on the fact that one of the organizers of that event has contradicted his story months in advance. Whether Melba had any intention of showing or not, it was the organizers that appear to have perpetrated everything bad with this event. They advertised right up to the last few minutes before she was to go on, that she would be appearing, knowing full well that she wasn't there or planned on being there.

[TimB]

A tangential scam? Hmmm...

Tim B.

[Guest HairyGreek]

That makes about as much sense as your avatar's battle cry. I can see why he is your favorite.

[TimB]

You'd have to be a devote' to understand...

Tim B.

[southernyahoo]

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

Tim B.

Fixed it again.

[TimB]

Dude- I already said it was the wrong term- catch up before you throw legal terms around.

Tim B.

[Guest parnassus]

My speculation is that Ketchum didn't think much beyond the idea that she got some publicity and business out of it. Nobody "dragged her into it", whatever that means. Then she quickly got in over her head, probably listening too much to Stubstad and probably Paulides, and she made the huge misstep when she hyped the results on that Internet radio show. Then she gets a bunch of specimens from all over and a bunch of money, and she is really flumoxed, because she doesn't have the training, experience, equipment or staff to sequence DNA or to know what it all means when she gets sequencing results back from other labs. She now says "there's something there..." but she really doesn't know much beyond the fact that about 90% of the samples show known animals and the other 10% are human. Some of the human mtDNA samples are similar haplotypes, some are very different. Stubstad tried to tell her that meant something, but now she knows it doesn't. I really doubt that there is even one complete nuDNA sequencing.

If I had to guess, I'd say she has consulted with some experts who shook their heads, and so she has not submitted a paper to a journal.

She is in a tough position now and I think she knows it. With the statements she made earlier, she has put her credibility in jeopardy, regardless of what she does now. Again, just an educated guess, but I would predict she will back away from saying anything other than she got a bunch of samples from people who wondered if they were from Bigfoot, and they all tested out as common animals or human. That's not exactly the kind of article that makes headlines, though Paulides would like it to. I personally think it should be published, as a negative study, and I think It could be.

If there is a scam or hoax here, we dont know about it yet, but i certainly dont rule it out, and if there is, it happened before Ketchum got the samples, IMO.

[gigantor]

A negative study, meaning that the samples are not from BF? is that what you mean?

Edited October 7, 2011 by gigantor

[Guest HairyGreek]

Again, just an educated guess...

That isn't an educated guess at all. That is biased speculation based on your inability to consider the possibility of this creature’s existence which can be demonstrated on oh, say 1000 different threads (that's hyberbole by the way). The only thing you probably got right is that if there is fraud, Ketchum is not in on it.

[Guest Cervelo]

If you guys get a chance watch Catfish on HBO it's a very interesting study of emotional investment on information gathered thru the Internet and reality. Very sad story but definitely applies to this subject in general IMO.

[Guest]

If you guys get a chance watch Catfish on HBO it's a very interesting study of emotional investment on information gathered thru the Internet and reality. Very sad story but definitely applies to this subject in general IMO.

That movie is freaky and depressing. It's hard to watch, but everyone should. The problem with the Internet is you can find "facts" to support anything you want to believe or discredit. It's paradise for the self-righteous masses. But, what are you going to do?

[Guest Cervelo]

Opps double post

Edited October 7, 2011 by Cervelo

[Guest slimwitless]

She is in a tough position now and I think she knows it. With the statements she made earlier, she has put her credibility in jeopardy, regardless of what she does now. Again, just an educated guess, but I would predict she will back away from saying anything other than she got a bunch of samples from people who wondered if they were from Bigfoot, and they all tested out as common animals or human. That's not exactly the kind of article that makes headlines, though Paulides would like it to. I personally think it should be published, as a negative study, and I think It could be.

If your theory is correct both Ketchum and Paulides would have to be lying to their supporters and confidants. If they're lying, they have to be actively involved in a hoax. If they're actively involved in a hoax, your theory can't be correct.

I still see only three possibilities:

1. Hoax/Scam
2. Mistaken Identity
3. Discovery/Identification

I can't find the motive for #1 (especially given the number of people involved). If #2 is true, the mistaken identity is ongoing and has slipped past outside reviewers (IMO). As for option #3, well...

I don't know. Maybe we're all part of a very large behavioral study.

[TimB]

I still see only three possibilities:

1. Hoax/Scam
2. Mistaken Identity
3. Discovery/Identification

I think #2 can evolve into #1 given pressures with unproductive results. When you have a lot on the line professionally, it's easy to take a step over the edge.

Tim B.