There was an error in this gadget

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Melba Toasted

In my opinion
It is immoral, unethical, unprofessional and illegal for a person who is paid to provide a service to claim ownership of the property of another.
If I take my diamonds to an appraiser and pay him for his service of appraising said diamonds, and one of those diamonds turns out to be a very rare diamond, the appraiser cannot retain ownership of my diamond. He/she would provide the appraisal for which he was commissioned and would return the property to its rightful owner.

Melba is selling her "scientific" findings to the highest bidder. She has 19 claims against her because she simply is not capable of providing the service for which she claims. She has not returned DNA evidence that she has received from other researchers. She did not partake in the harvesting of the evidence.
She was paid for her service of analyzing the samples. For her to demand to be included in the payout if some samples proved to be that of a Bigfoot is unethical.
Rumor has it that Richard Substad and Tom Biscardi have pioneered and promoted Melba and have not received their samples back. I’ll give Tom a call and get back to you on that.

I believe that Adrian has paid her dearly to hear the words he WANTS to hear. I have heard that the figure is in the $70,000 range. If you paid me $70,000, I'd tell you your shit smells like roses and that you were the most undeniably handsome man this world has ever seen. Everyone has a price.
Second, if there were 2 bodies that could be touched, poked, prodded and dissected, the piece of paper that would be the DNA results would be a small contributor to the discovery. If you can provide the bodies, we can wait on the DNA, not the other way around.

Are we in it for the money? Let me ask you, if you could quit your job to pursue your Bigfoot investigations, wouldn't you? But only if you could still pay your mortgage, car payment, utilities etc.

Every one of us with a passion for Bigfoot research would do it for a living if we could. However, to knowingly deceive another person for your own personal gain is disgusting.

5 comments:

  1. Your views of the morality and legalities of the
    situation are probably correct. Except for the
    amount of $70,000 which may be an exageration by
    the critics, I don't know. All I do know is that
    I sent 2 samples, paid $200 with the possibility
    of sending further samples at no charge.
    As one who had no desire to make any money,but
    just to solve the mystery, I do not care if they
    get rich on it. I was just happy after two
    years of trying to get my samples analyzed by
    some qualified lab, and having no results,that
    I accepted their terms.
    Larry.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for your input Larry. If I may ask, what were the terms that you accepted?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Its sad when people take advantage of this community as its finally getting the attention it has been craving for decades. I figured that this style of thieving would eventually pop its head up in the way of evidence or people getting conned out of choice information or money(both sometimes). I personally find it hard to converse to anyone without the fear of them trying to cash in on something that was never theirs to begin with. I don't mind sharing items/info as long its to better the community as a whole but to bogart evidence is unethical.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I had to take time to consider just how much I can say before the
    public disclosure.
    First let me say that I still have high respect for Ms Ketchum. I
    know the internet is buzzing with all kinds of allegations. I doubt
    them but cannot speak with authority about anything negative
    because I don't know.

    All I know and care about is my own interactions with her which
    have been honest and above board.
    I agreed to give them ownership of the publication rights of the
    results, as I presume all the other sample submitters did also. I
    also agreed not to disclose any results until their public disclosure.
    They were told that would be after independant scientific review
    which was told to them would be July. But Ms Ketchum has no
    control over them and is enduring the public abuse while waiting.

    I did not consider that granting them ownership of rights was any
    different than doing a commercial on TV where the company has
    complete rights to show it. Of coarse a royalty payment would be
    nice but was not my objective.

    She is not waiting for bids, but is waiting for independant review
    and publication of same in a scientific paper.
    Unfortunately some individuals are breaking their word and
    leaking out both truths and uninformed lies and mistakes.
    Larry

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you Larry for your input.
    I appreciate anyone with any information to support or negate this article to come forward. This is not a mud slinging event. We are simply trying to expose the truth

    ReplyDelete