The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest Tyler H]

I think now more then ever, especially for those of us that do "know," we should promote elevating our collective standards rather than foolishly thinking the world and science should lower theirs.

AMEN!

Yeah, like drag a Phd into this to look at some highly contaminated salt water washed boots!!!!!!!! Maybe we should start with evidence that hasn't been drug through every contaminant there is for a starting point?

No... that is not the starting point - the starting point was the mountains of evidence that Melba got and wasted. No doubt some of it was good. We are working with what we have available SY. We went with the tissue, and we know the results. WHat we have left to work with includes the boots. Why on earth WOULDN'T we test them? HOw much would everyone be screaming at us if we DIDN"T get the boots tested?

If by knowing more than what can be revealed, then yes, some of us are guilty of defending her reputation against the repeated hypothetical assaults. It's called confidentiality.

Seriously though, you should be directing all your queries to Dr. Ketchum for the answers you seek. Otherwise, I'm sure she reads these posts and will get a lifetime of laughs from them?

You misunderstand, Tman - I have no question for her. Patently, she feels the data she has supplied is sufficient for forming opinions about the validity of her work. My question is for you and your ilk:

"Since Melba is of the opinion that it is a sufficient amount of data to formulate conclusions about the validity of her work, and felt it should be sufficient for SCIENTISTS, why do you now as lay-persons, feel it is NOT sufficient for your lofty learned standards?"

PS - I don't believe you answered why "Supreme Glaxy of the universe" is a pseudonym that no one should trust, and how you could assert that he should not cowardly hide behind an online handle, but should instead use his real name (such as I am) and yet you do not reveal yourself.

Nor have you answered why other standards applied by yourself and the rest of society are acceptable in every other circumstance, but why those same standards should NOT be applied to MK.

I'm curious (well... no, not really, since I already know the answer): Do you choose to argue only the points that you feel are the soft-ball questions? Do you cower from answering questions that point out arguments that you cannot win?

You consistently dodge questions that pin your irrational logic to the ground, and consistenly apply double standards. It's like trying to wrestle with a phantom snake that follows no rules, and calls "time-out!" when it gets pinned.

The burden of proof lies with your DNA report rebuttal, as you claim it's sound, but still insist on withholding the author's "true" identity. You really need to ask Dr. Ketchum the questions you feel you need answered. Simple as that.

This will be the last time I respond to your questions about that pdf rebuttal, T - They've been asnwered myriad times. Here's a retraction - How 'bout I make ZERO claims about its validity, and for the 50th time tell you "DON'T take my word for it - DO it yourself". HOw lazy can one person be? That pdf makes NO extraordinary claims - it shows at a grade 3 level exactly what is happening with that sequence. If you can't grasp it, and don't care to vet it for yourself, via the steps I outlined for you or anyone to do, then quit asking. I have done the vetting that I am capable of on Melba's data. I have not sat here challenging it without getting off my Asquatch to check into it and do some legwork. Once again, your standards differ for yourself and your leader - you don't think you should have to contribute - just poke. SUre, I've poked at MK - but only after researching.

The burden of proof lies with people making extraordinary claims that go against all the strictures of science and genetics. If you think otherwise, you are of an intellect that I cannot comment on here, for fear of being banned.

Now, back to my questions for YOU. I'm not asking questions about Melba anymore - she seems to be the most logical one in your group at the moment and I need no further info from her. I've asked YOU some very simple, straightforward questions that you are choosing not to answer. The rules of fairplay dictate that if you won't answer questions, you don't get to ask them. But once again, I'm sure you are about exceptions for yourself, rather than a level playing field for all.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Tyler H

[Guest BartloJays]

how can you justify the paper not being a total failure?

Aren't you one of Smeja's handlers? Or at the very least, involved with the Trent U bear sample fiasco? Don't you think that maybe you have a conflict of interest with Ketchum's study, and perhaps you should declare your bias?

You're right I'm biased, especially from what I know and have seen with my own eyes because I care about the "truth" more then I care about what a handful of desperate people intoxicated with "hope" think.

Actually based on your postings and embarrassing justifications in this thread defending Dr Ketchum, or lack thereof (I should say)....... I'm your worst nightmare.....of course, right after the person you blindly defend...you just haven't accepted that yet.

Edited April 13, 2013 by chelefoot
To bring into compliance

[Bonehead74]

In summary:

[Guest BartloJays]

I think now more then ever, especially for those of us that do "know," we should promote elevating our collective standards rather than foolishly thinking the world and science should lower theirs.

AMEN!

:clapping: :clapping:

Yeah, like drag a Phd into this to look at some highly contaminated salt water washed boots!!!!!!!! Maybe we should start with evidence that hasn't been drug through every contaminant there is for a starting point?

I think that's funny coming from you. Maybe I should've given them to the person you worship and have tied yourself and your sample to forever who repeatedly requested them. I hear this cutting edge "bleach solution" really brings out the alien and angel dna.

If you only knew how ignorant your statement is on so many levels. Maybe you should email Dr. Sykes and ask him who pursued who and while you're at it maybe request he look at your human hair sample and see if he finds a bigfoot as well.

[Guest Tyler H]

how can you justify the paper not being a total failure?

Aren't you one of Smeja's handlers? Or at the very least, involved with the Trent U bear sample fiasco? Don't you think that maybe you have a conflict of interest with Ketchum's study, and perhaps you should declare your bias?

Bart... I think it's time...

Let's declare our bias together, on three...

Onnnne

Twooooo

Threee!

"We believe Melba's claims are inaccurate and unsupported"

There, the secret cat is out of the bag. Sorry we were so coy about it till now.

++++++++++++++++++

EDITED TO ADD THIS PS:

Dang, I got called away from making that post, and when I came back and hit submit, it came after a bunch of other posts that kinda rendered it obsolete.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Tyler H

[Guest]

Just as a small footnote, that will surely be dismissed in no time by most parties here.

Anybody trying to convince parties certain of the Truthâ„¢ of the Ketchum Reportâ„¢: have you considered that with all evidence that you have evaluated, both direct and circumstantial, that has convinced you that the Ketchum report is at best severely faulty and at worst very fraudulent that there are people that cannot/will not evaluate this evidence objectively?

Do you truly think there is any evidence you can show Thermalman (or Science Critic, or Mulder, or...) that will convince them of your argument?

Have you considered the position you have found yourself in the last several months, trying to explain evidence and the scientific process to those that seemingly willfully misunderstand those points?

Have you considered how believers respond to skeptics in general? How is Thermalmans' responses to Tyler or Bart very different from any other here when responding to someone like Saskeptic? Do you not recognize it is the same behavioral pattern or do you ignore it when it fits your personal agenda and/or belief system?

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I think there's been more than enough evidence for any open-minded person to see the reality of her "study". Some people are choosing not to. Bigfoot skeptics often get accused of being in denial, but it seems it's just as evident with Bigfoot proponents. Funny how it works both ways

Edited April 13, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest thermalman]

Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy?

[Guest Tyler H]

Have you considered how believers respond to skeptics in general? How is Thermalmans' responses to Tyler or Bart very different from any other here when responding to someone like Saskeptic? Do you not recognize it is the same behavioral pattern or do you ignore it when it fits your personal agenda and/or belief system?

Huh?

Are you trying to imply that if I were to argue with people who suggest that Sasquatch don't exist, that my behaviour and stance would become analagous to Tman's?

Sorry, not even close - I admit where evidence is lacking, and admit when I am wrong, and answer questions asked of me, and deal with facts. I don't impose double standards. If my belief system is found to be lacking or unsubstantiated, I abandon it. I guess I like to jump on bandwagons in that way - I jump on whatever bandwagon can show me the most logic and proof.

[Guest]

MULDER !!!!

Have you been paying attention at all to the information surrounding this?

FACT ALLEGATION: IT IS NOT A REAL JOURNAL

FACT: IT NEVER EXISTSED ON THE INTERNET BEFORE 2/4/13 (PROVEN BY DOMAIN RECORDS: http://whois.domaint...novojournal.com)

First, fixed your statement about it "not being a real journal". Second, it had a different name before...so what?

FACT: SHE CLAIMS HERSELF THAT SHE PURCHASED A JOURNAL

Then there really IS a journal, or else she could not have purchased one...just killed your own argument above.

FACTALLEGATION: THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE THAT IT EVER PASSED ANY SORT OF VALID CREDIBLE PEER REVIEW

1) Again corrected mistatement. 2) Multiple weasel words noted.

Please present evidence said journal's peer review does not pass muster.

Highly highly improper behavior which the scientific community should be laughing at.

In your opinion.

Nature has an article on this exact subject.

http://www.nature.co...lishing-1.12666

This would be the same Nature that is alleged to have refused to consider the paper based on the ridiculous claim of "no testable hypothesis", yes?

[southernyahoo]

I think now more then ever, especially for those of us that do "know," we should promote elevating our collective standards rather than foolishly thinking the world and science should lower theirs.

AMEN!

:clapping: :clapping:

Yeah, like drag a Phd into this to look at some highly contaminated salt water washed boots!!!!!!!! Maybe we should start with evidence that hasn't been drug through every contaminant there is for a starting point?

I think that's funny coming from you. Maybe I should've given them to the person you worship and have tied yourself and your sample to forever who repeatedly requested them. I hear this cutting edge "bleach solution" really brings out the alien and angel dna.

If you only knew how ignorant your statement is on so many levels. Maybe you should email Dr. Sykes and ask him who pursued who and while you're at it maybe request he look at your human hair sample and see if he finds a bigfoot as well.

My comment relates to the condition of evidence and it's viability to produce a non-contaminated result. That's a standard to consider when we both know that someone like Sykes doesn't come around too often. I think it's a shame you and others couldn't find fresh deposited samples in the area of the shootings. They would be far less challenging to test.

All personal feelings aside, I'd put my sample right there with any to have viable cells with an intact nucleus. The difference is that the stained boots have a great story to go with them and a better excuse for failure.

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

Tman, JSD, and other MK believers - If you DON'T feel this data was sufficient, and still feel that our conclusions need to wait on more data, then you have to explain to me why Melba herself felt it was sufficient for PhD peers to review, but it is not suffiicient for your own personal layman's standards.

First of all, speaking for myself, I am not an "MK believer". I am a believer of looking at the data. The truth is in the data, and not in what people say that MK did or did not do, or say or did not say. All of that is irrelevant.

When people with agendas try to steer us away from the study, then that is just wasting my time.

I am just waiting for a qualified, credentialed expert (unbiased, ergo outside of bigfootery) to look over her data, and prove/disprove her results. Until such a person receives that data, then all of this is pretty much a sideshow, especially that which has nothing to do with the study's data.

But I'm not worried about the data and what it may/will/does reveal, do you?

[Guest]

You mean the 3 science journals that rejected it yeah that would qualify as people be outside of Bigfoot

[Guest]

This would be the same Nature that is alleged to have refused to consider the paper based on the ridiculous claim of "no testable hypothesis", yes?

From the guy who has posted multiple times throughout the thread about how Science works it is pretty shocking you have no understanding of how important a "testable hypothesis" is. It is the basis of all Scientific claims.

Here is a refresher for you on the Scientific Method:

The steps of the scientific method are to:

• Ask a Question
  
• Do Background Research
  
• Construct a Hypothesis
  
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  
• Communicate Your Results
  

[Guest]

Don't forget her journal making the predatory journal list.

http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

Mulder, thanks for the laugh, I about wet myself reading those defenses for Ketchum.lmao

BBB Round Two, is it?

Can't attack the science, so attack the publication?

Still waiting for that proper scientific rebuttal.