Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I reread the Facebook conversation and am even more shocked than the first time. Here are a few of my favourite lines "I am married to Bigfoot and am having his child and it has been very painful..." "They have govt and elders also, one said to my prophet friend: many try to find me but only once will I meet." "They are part angel I believe and since angels were with god, they were able to keep their supernatural abilities." "They have Christian beliefs, did you know that?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 In fairness to Dr. Ketchum, the married and having his child wasn't literally. The context is about her being so busy with this study and the report being the child. I don't think it's fair to anyone if it's perceived in the wrong way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 So exactly how much of this 1/2-a-conversation is overly-dramatic colorful descriptions from Ketchum and how much is verbatim statements of her beliefs? Can you make a list of which is which? Since it's out there for the public to view without the context of the conversation, how can anyone not privy to the private side of this information believe this is accurate? I for one am extremely skeptical of this whole bundle of "evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 So exactly how much of this 1/2-a-conversation is overly-dramatic colorful descriptions from Ketchum and how much is verbatim statements of her beliefs? Can you make a list of which is which? Since it's out there for the public to view without the context of the conversation, how can anyone not privy to the private side of this information believe this is accurate? I for one am extremely skeptical of this whole bundle of "evidence". The question really is what is all of this evidence of exactly? A disingenuous associate who has violated a trust? A release to show that trust and honor don't matter anymore, that all that matters is that its legal or not? A release designed to discredit the science? A release designed to show real encounters? A release to show how whack those religious folks might be? A release to show.... Or is it just a piece of meat thrown out there to see what happens? What exactly is "that truth" we are hoped to glean from all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 My observation is that there seems to be a campaign to force Ketchum into releasing the information that is reported as being "withheld" via a series of several different blog posts ending with, "Until Ketchum releases the data, we have to assume this is true." or words to that effect. If I was given this information, I would wait until I knew the whole story before releasing this, so I just can't seem to relate to the motivation exhibited here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 (edited) I reread the Facebook conversation and am even more shocked than the first time. Here are a few of my favourite lines "I am married to Bigfoot and am having his child and it has been very painful..." "They have govt and elders also, one said to my prophet friend: many try to find me but only once will I meet." "They are part angel I believe and since angels were with god, they were able to keep their supernatural abilities." "They have Christian beliefs, did you know that?" Sounds and looks like a " hack" job? Denovo website taken down and all points mentioned above are controversial propaganda, albeit they're funny. Someone is playing with Ketchum and the public. Very satirical. Edited April 17, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 As it seems only fair she was playing with the public for nearly 3 years. "Soon" , "beautiful", "amazing", "prestigious journal", "in peer review", "double digit PHDs".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 How about? someone who has seen the truth and doesn't want more people to be fooled by this silliness? That would be my take on the release of the posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest J Sasq Doe Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 As to the "enquirer" type of info in the PDF. Read it again and look back at the statements by others who have had their reputations tarnished the last few years for claiming the exact same things said in the conversation. You, or someone, needs to provide the unedited transcript of that alleged conversation. Both sides of the conversation, if it even happened at all. The pdf is worthless because the alleged screenshots could easily have been Photoshopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Again, it's all speculation until the whole truth is shown, rather than just what the sender wanted the public to view. Logic dictates refraining from judgement until all the facts are in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Yes lets wait and refrain from judgement until the end of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 In fairness to Dr. Ketchum, the married and having his child wasn't literally. The context is about her being so busy with this study and the report being the child. I don't think it's fair to anyone if it's perceived in the wrong way. Which complicates the matter of context and transparency and fuels the hyperbole. You can't deny being complicit in that when private conversations are your life blood . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 (edited) You, or someone, needs to provide the unedited transcript of that alleged conversation. Both sides of the conversation, if it even happened at all. The pdf is worthless because the alleged screenshots could easily have been Photoshopped. AGAIN !!!! WHY HAS KETCHUM NOT MADE A SINGLE COMMENT ON THIS? No denials that it was real, no statements, no attempt at any sort of damage control. JSasqD perhaps you know? Or is the answer that we (again) have to ask Dr. Ketchum? And denovojournal.com is STILL down! Edited April 17, 2013 by BipedalCurious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 (edited) This is such a double-edged sword for me, personally. It's probably for the best that people know what they're dealing when they get involved w/Melba, but I feel the way Rhett went about releasing it is tantamount to a sucker-punch. I already knew that she felt that way about BF, but to delete his contributions to the conversation, so that it can all be taken out of context is a pretty cowardly thing to do, IMO. I don't find anything noble in what he did. She trusted him enough to open up to him, and he violated that trust....Period! He can explain his actions ad nauseum, but it still doesn't change the fact that he had a personal conversation where they were discussing their faith, and he pulled a chicken-manure move, and tries to justify it by putting it on her. If you don't conform, ol' Rhett'll get ya! If he releases his part of the conversation, it's not as egregious, IMO, but it's still tacky no matter how you slice it. And just for the record, I have no problem with Njj releasing it. That's the nature of the beast in journalism. It's up to Mr. Mole-iss to do what's right. And, just so I'm clear....What exactly does he have to do with the Sykes study? From what I've read from him, it is his brain-child. Is that accurate? How involved is Nekaris in Bigfootology? Is this a case of some BF researchers asking her to join their club, or is she a lot more involved than that? Edited April 17, 2013 by PacNWSquatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 BUCKLE UP!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts