Leaderboard

OK, I'm going to respond to this. It's not about her theories. Lots of people have theories. And a few of those are based on fact, but most are opinion. So, nope. This is about addressing the labeling of Dr. Ketchum as a fraud, a cheat, a liar, a scammer, a hoaxer, a rip off artist, a thief, a deceiver, and anything else along the lines of why people say they hate and despise her. THAT's what this is about. So you are correct, 10 lawsuits won't change what she had theorized whether it is accepted or not. But there aren't ten lawsuits; there's not even ONE lawsuit. It says that, non-disclosures aside, no one has come against her or her theories with ANY accusations of wrong-doing. Mainstream science? Yes. BF proponents and members her? Yes. But the issues spread quickly from wrong theories the data didn't support to INTENTIONAL FRAUD, DECEPTION, THEFT, LYING, HOAXING, AND ALL OTHER KINDS OF NAME CALLING, CHARACTER ASSASINATION, TRUE HATE AND LOATHING. Hey, I have theories too like anyone else but that a far cry from this: "INTENTIONAL FRAUD, DECEPTION, THEFT, LYING, HOAXING, AND ALL OTHER KINDS OF NAME CALLING, CHARACTER ASSASINATION, TRUE HATE AND LOATHING." Big difference. However if there is an agenda to really trash me in many other ways because of my theories even though I committed no illegalities, i.e., no lawsuits, no litigation, no reparations? Well, you get the idea. Until Dr. Ketchum either ends up in court, or some other legally accused wrong then all that's there is that she was convinced the data said Sasquatch and did everything to move on that. Period. Everything is just trash talk and it's just been trash talk for at least the last five years. There is nothing in the way of legal action that says she did anything wrong. Zilch. And it's certainly been long enough for anything to materialize from all of the smart, educated, and wealty people and supporters in and around her the entire time of the SGP study. But people don't care about any of that. They'll just keep on trashing her anyway and make sure the situation remains volatile in the face of everything I've just said. It's an long running agenda to destroy Dr. Ketchum that goes far beyond and outside misinterpreting the data of a five year study. The consistent and sheer imbalance of it all has had me more than curious for some time.

She didn't purchase a journal she had a website built by her crony and called it a journal. She may have paid some kind of fee but it was only to give herself so cover. The entire fiasco is well documented. As of the last time I looked the website listed Melba's "paper" as it's sole article. Could you please provide a link to the "legal counsels" advice you mention above?

Norseman is correct. That is a matter of historical record for anyone who will put down the cool aid and take time to educate themselves. MIB

Ok..... I cant take it. The ONLY person that trashed Melba Ketchum? Was MELBA KETCHUM!!!

An NDA would probably not be binding in case of fraud or deception as to material facts.

You know as well as I one of the few times legal actions have taken place in BFing go back to the days of the PGF, if you don't, or know of a lot more of them let us know because lack of legal action is no defense by itself.

I honestly think I'm talking to myself here. Page 11 had such a disconnect with anything I was saying regarding confidentiality agreements, lack of lawsuits, lack of professional reprisals, and no evidence that any SGP team member thought there was anything wrong with the study then or now. No evidence whatsoever that anyone associated with the project either financially or professionally saw or reported any improprieties technically or scientifically. No one, except for one PR person who is NOT a scientist, geneticist or even a lab tech and did not financially invest into the study. All of that- with no legal or criminal indications of any kind and no action taken at any time against Dr. Ketchum- at all. So. What? I'm just making this up? "Get a clue hiflier" is the response to this entire line of thinking? After asking that personal jabs not be issued I get a jab anyway? That paragraph above has merit whether anyone likes it or not. No one can refute it but rather that agree or find some alternate reason that explains what I said in that paragraph? I'm told to stick a fork in it. Seriously, if there is a darned good reason or reasons that provide another avenue of thinking for discussing why Dr. Ketchum has been virtually untouched legally for her accused misconduct then I would honestly like to hear it. And I mean that. I would like to hear it. For the sake of emphasis I will repeat the paragraph: "Page 11 had such a disconnect with anything I was saying regarding confidentiality agreements, lack of lawsuits, lack of professional reprisals, and no evidence that any SGP team member thought there was anything wrong with the study then or now. No evidence whatsoever that anyone associated with the project either financially or professionally saw or reported any improprieties technically or scientifically. No one, except for one PR person who is NOT a scientist, geneticist or even a lab tech and did not financially invest into the study. All of that- with no legal or criminal indications of any kind and no action taken at any time against Dr. Ketchum- at all." None of you can address these things. If you could you would instead of side stepping every point I've brought up. I'm about to rest this case because I have see no direct or relevant rebuttals for at least two pages. When none of her colleagues from the study broke the non-disclosure/confidentiality agreement because they found something fraudulent or deceptive- because they didn't find or see anything fraudulent or deceptive even after the fact and after the paper went public. Nothing. No attacks, no mutinies, no cries of foul or foul play. So yes, I'm nearly done here and not because I've somehow vindicated Dr. Melba Ketchum of any wrong doing. It's more because I see no one who is willing to step up and actually look at that bolded paragraph and understand what it really is saying. Melba Ketchum doesn't need vindication from wrong doing- that's what it's saying. There is nothing in that paragraph that indicts her. No action taken against her means no action taken against her. And not one of you is willing enough to even say why that would be after all the things she has been publicly accused of doing. No action taken against her by ANYONE. Just how could that be possible after all the supposed fraud and deceit and stealing other people's money through this scam she is alleged to have hatched and run? No reprisals for all the bad evil things. Lots to think about now folks, so get to it. And NOW, I'm done here.

Get a clue hiflier, Ramey ran the PR for most of Melba's campaign until trusted confidantes saw through the charade, including her. I know our own BF blogger was on-board until the curtain was pulled back to see what this study was really worth. She then got a Michigan habituator to come on board and that is when huge retrenchment and defensiveness ensued in her camp making it ten times worse. There were misrepresentation of personnel, people hiding behind pseudonyms and fake emails, on and on trying to support her when the made up websites for the journal showed up. She was on life support then, stick a fork in it now.

Hiflier, you started off saying you wanted to unbiasedly get to the truth in your in-depth research of this study. Given your recent responses and unwavering defense of everything Ketchum, it makes it hard to believe you are coming at this without bias. JMHO.

Midnight Owl, With regard to the game camera avoidance and the idea of photographing them, are your comments above your speculations/opinions or did the BF actually communicated that to you or the landlord? Reason I ask, is that you previously gave the impression that the BF's were communicating with the land-lord. Thus, might as well ask them directly why they don't want us to take a photo. If they can communicate with you or land-lord, then they should know that cameras don't kill and are thus avoiding the photos for some other reason.

I think we can all agree that their five senses alone are more acute than ours. I think they notice "foreign" objects more readily than we do. Reflective surfaces, changes in texture compared to background, position within the environment, active IR or UV emissions, etc.. Something lost on the ground is different than something strapped to a tree. As good as they are at concealment, one has to surmise that they are also good at spotting members of their own species who are concealed, simply because they know what to look for. This expertise would extend to other things. Cameras are usually positioned where they will have an unobstructed view of the subject. That means that the subject will have an unobstructed view of the camera's position.