The paper wasn't mentioned because there is no paper. I looked her up and evidently she's just as deluded as you or else she's trying to pull a scam. And I say scam because she runs a for-profit business and her claim has gotten her and her lab a lot of free advertising. I also checked what an independent DNA expert had to say about it. You can read that here: http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/12/dna-experts-view-of-the-ketchum-bigfoot-dna-claim/
I see Not surprising there are many in the mainstream that have difficulty wrapping their heads around the evidence , as Melba talked about in her interview
Really? The problem is that she's provided NO evidence at all!!! Mainstream cannot wrap their heads around nothing, silly boy! In fact, she won't even tell where the samples came from. Sounds like rotten fish in Denmark to me. Just curious, what are you going to say if it does turn out to all be a scam?
-for a sample obtained from a half-eaten blueberry bagel! It would seem that the paper has been "about to be published in a few weeks" for the last year or more. Ketchum's lab, DNA Diagnostics, was recently featured on a SyFy channel crack-pot show about monsters. DNA Diagnostics is currently closed and the Better Business Bureau has a bad report with 25 complaints filed. 10 of these complaints are rated "serious." Ketchum is not a very scrupulous person. Occam's Razor: which is more likely? 1) that an unscrupulous business-person might scam the public; or 2) that an unscrupulous business-person has actually found DNA of a "bigfoot" on a blue-berry bagel?
Oh, I should also say that I retract my insistance that river is a liar. He/she is not a liar, just gullible. Clearly the liar is Ketchum. Though it is possible that Ketchum, too, is gullible. But given her unscrupulous history (see the BBB link above), it would seem not likely. Also, gullibility doesn't explain the overly secretive nature of the alleged data she has. If the data are completely fabricated, that would, however, explain over-secrecy. The scientific community simply isn't that guarded with data. She's refused to share with even paleoanthropologists, which are the exact people she should want to review the data first, even prior to getting it refereed in a journal (helps prevent public embarrassment).
a word about BBB ratings: a company can have an A-1 rating at BBB with no complaints and still be screwing every one of its customers. it's my opinion that a small group of dedicated people can ruin an otherwise legit business through the BBB. analysis? BBB ratings should NEVER be relied upon without doing your homework.
That was my first thought as well regarding the BBB... but then I noticed you could look at the actual complaints. The few I looked at were people giving very specific problems of not receiving agreed upon services and wanting refunds. Couple this with the fact the company now seems to be out of business....
Quite frankly I'm sick and tired of these ill informed people coming to some conclusion about this topic without the forensic scientist who is directly involved in this genetic investigation , without any information on Melba's point of view , none at all , it is reprehensible We have to stop this uninformed nonsense attitude Now I NOT trying to promote coast to coast radio , but what am I to do ...? Seriously ? Shall I not mention the interview on this station , and let you people carry on with your ill informed BS , or mention the interview , which is three hours long , in which by the way she discusses the BBB situation ( of which has nothing to to do with her labs analysis of big foot DNA ), or leave you ignorant of her side of the situation I chose to give ALL of you the option of listening to her side Because this is what getting to the truth of the matter at hand is all about So for $7.00 bucks , cheap , cheap , cheap , to understand her side of the controversy , is money well spent But most important , she is a Human being and deserves to be heard So if you have any desire for the truth , if getting to the truth on any ology is really your goal , then become more balanced in your finding this out Give her justice river
Is your head REALLY that thick?????????????/ There is NO evidence - she hasn't provided ANY!!! (What an ignorant jerk!!!)
So as I have said before , you are AFRAID of the truth Inquisitiveness is absolutely NOT your strong point , you are wonderwall If I was in a room of people and came across a discussion with you involved , after a time I would learn what your about , then leave this discussion I would learn nothing from you From now on I will ignore you and with any luck , you will ignore me
Nope, I'm not going to ignore anyone. I'll continue to hammer away at your monumental ignorance until you finally admit defeat or run away with your tail tucked between your legs. As I've said before, it's YOU who are afraid of the real truth because it threatens your silly fantasies.
Exactly. He refuses to visit any reputable site because they won't support the nonsense he believes and NEEDS in order to make his mediocre life bearable.
Further alexg Your not about a balanced perspective on the topic ? Which of course is wrong approach , when understanding
Ketchum has plenty of opportunity to share her knowledge. I'll not spend a dime to a nutbar radio show to hear "her side" when she should simply share her data with professionals int he field. She has refused to do so, indicating only that "a paper is a few weeks away" for the last year or more. She's bullshitting us. Well... some of us anyway. I'm not swayed by her bs nor is anyone else with half a brain and the ability to think critically. Making comments like "...so you are not about justice , interesting..." makes you look like an ass. This is a clear non sequitur and an example of a lack of critical thought. Of course he's about justice. That's the point of skepticism: not to give bullshit a chance to flourish. Injustice is pretending you have some data about bigfoot DNA on a blueberry bagel. Then refusing to show methods of data collection or results and ... refusing to discuss provenience of the sample. She's a crackpot. Or completely deluded. Or simply a con artist. She's not a "forensic scientist" by any stretch of the word. Her degree is in veterinary science. Not forensics, anthropology, or any branch of science that forensically investigates the environment, artifacts, etc. You want to impress me, post a quote of the transcript of her interview here. As long as it's less than 10% or so of the original transcript, it'll be well within Fair Use. Hell, we're using it for critique and education, so the whole transcript would probably fall within fair use. Surely, as a subscriber, you can get a copy. If not, the fee should be minimal. Put up or shut up.
