The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Ronnie Bass]

_{Melba Ketchum}

_{Do to the wild rumors out on the internet. I felt it important to address a new rumor about a possible hoax. First we have never hoaxed anything as there is no need to. We have the proof we need in the science. I hope this helps everyone understand.}

_{One of the early reviewers asked for any and all references related to our subject matter. We neither agreed with nor endorsed any of those references used though Bindernagel's books are a good effort since at the time he didn't know the human element involved. It was not our choice to use any of them though. That ref was a testament to the idiocy surrounding not only the scientific bias against the existence of these "people" but also the request by reviewers for refs that we had not felt had any place in our manuscript and were not included originally. This same reviewer required the so-called folklore that is in the introduction. That also was not in the original manuscript}

Edited February 25, 2013 by Ronnie Bass

[Guest BartloJays]

and for the record, You were challenging people under nda to reveal coauthors names, and how they supported her assertions in any way. That was something nobody owed you, and would be against good ethics and professionalism prior to publication. You realise that right?

This is a complete misrepresentation of what happened and we have the email exchange to prove it. Do me a favor and contact Dr. Ketchum requesting her written permission to publish those emails (although our discretion to do so, it's a bad precedent in our opinion with expectations of privacy) and I will consolidate and have them up tonight. I would bet she'll not respond or refuse.

She contacted Tyler on the phone, via a third party initially demanding to see our results. When Tyler calmed her down and reminded her she's contacting us because SHE'S concerned about us publishing them as promised, she initially acted surprised at what our labs got...interesting as she told Justin on "the call" over a yr ago.. exactly what "regular" labs will get should he go and test.

Then came the ridiculous suggestion about him pulling piece off the body (I've explained prior this is not possible logically through timeline) because her piece was so fresh with postules etc... (obviously her piece was at the most.. 5 weeks old, ours was frozen for over a yr... not including salted piece).

Then she began to initiate discussion with third party testing of the rest of Justin's sample in her possession (and the samples we have more of), which ....absolutely we're on board with that to get to the bottom of the conflict in results. We're ready to set it all up and she wanted to be there in person. Then came very excuse, inconvenience and evasive tactic in the book. Tyler continued to try and work with her as we've said prior, we were even willing to say, "in lieu of new developments, there's a temporarily delay in sharing our results." Of course we were going to get hammered for it and it would've looked like we're protecting Justin or create suspicion about results, but we also didn't want to eliminate the slim chance she could be right and at worst she'll be proven wrong and potentially concede.

Tyler also gave her the option of sharing a partial list of co-authors, picking one that we can talk to and converse with to verify their work on the Sierras tissue (no other sample). As I've said, Tyler and I don't always agree on everything as I thought that was dropping bar too low (my opinion, but his discretion dealing with her) and we had a transparency commitment to fulfill with one set of completed lab results at that time. Tyler suggesting this was trying to come up with an alternative solution to the problem. He never pushed that on her. No NDA was mentioned if I recall correctly, as well during those conversations as a reason for that being a viable possibility.

SY- to say we tried to strong-arm her in anyway unethically is absolute BS and I dare you to make me prove it. get her permission.

I

Edited February 25, 2013 by BartloJays

[Guest]

_{Melba Ketchum}

_{Do to the wild rumors out on the internet. I felt it important to address a new rumor about a possible hoax. First we have never hoaxed anything as there is no need to. We have the proof we need in the science. I hope this helps everyone understand.}

_{One of the early reviewers asked for any and all references related to our subject matter. We neither agreed with nor endorsed any of those references used though Bindernagel's books are a good effort since at the time he didn't know the human element involved. It was not our choice to use any of them though. That ref was a testament to the idiocy surrounding not only the scientific bias against the existence of these "people" but also the request by reviewers for refs that we had not felt had any place in our manuscript and were not included originally. This same reviewer required the so-called folklore that is in the introduction. That also was not in the original manuscript}

Of course.

[Guest Silent Sam]

_{Melba Ketchum}

_{Do to the wild rumors out on the internet. I felt it important to address a new rumor about a possible hoax. First we have never hoaxed anything as there is no need to. We have the proof we need in the science. I hope this helps everyone understand.}

_{One of the early reviewers asked for any and all references related to our subject matter. We neither agreed with nor endorsed any of those references used though Bindernagel's books are a good effort since at the time he didn't know the human element involved. It was not our choice to use any of them though. That ref was a testament to the idiocy surrounding not only the scientific bias against the existence of these "people" but also the request by reviewers for refs that we had not felt had any place in our manuscript and were not included originally. This same reviewer required the so-called folklore that is in the introduction. That also was not in the original manuscript}

"The Devil made me do it."

[Guest]

_{Melba Ketchum}

_{Do to the wild rumors out on the internet. I felt it important to address a new rumor about a possible hoax. First we have never hoaxed anything as there is no need to. We have the proof we need in the science. I hope this helps everyone understand.}

_{One of the early reviewers asked for any and all references related to our subject matter. We neither agreed with nor endorsed any of those references used though Bindernagel's books are a good effort since at the time he didn't know the human element involved. It was not our choice to use any of them though. That ref was a testament to the idiocy surrounding not only the scientific bias against the existence of these "people" but also the request by reviewers for refs that we had not felt had any place in our manuscript and were not included originally. This same reviewer required the so-called folklore that is in the introduction. That also was not in the original manuscript}

I take it that it was one of the reviewers who rejected the paper in the first place and not one of the reviewers who accepted the paper in the journal MK bought. So why did she leave it in there? There is nothing in the paper suggesting it was there as an example of bias in science or commenting on its' mockery of the subject.

"The above commonly reported traits, as well as other scientific evidence lending credence to the existence of Sasquatch, have been thoroughly researched and documented in both books and in peer reviewed manuscripts.​4-13​​"

And the folklore content, why was that kept if she did not like it? Sounds like some back-pedaling to me.

Reviewers do occasionally act more like co-authors, but it is up to the actual authors to accept it or not. And if it is not even going into the journal it was reviewed for, then take it out.

[Guest Theagenes]

So how big is this purported consipiracy supposed to be? How many people would have to be in the know and culpable?

Sorry, as critical as one might be of the circumstances, I find it unlikely that all of the people involved in all of the related efforts are manufacturing false evidence.

No one has accused any of the independent labs of falsifying anything. It's all her "interpretation" of those results that's the problem.

[Guest]

"The Devil made me do it."

Sounds good enough for me!!!! LMAO!!!!

[JDL]

^^I get that. I was talking about the things people throw around regarding the Ketchum Study and the Erickson project for starters. If there is a hoax, how many people from her organization and how many people from the Erickson Project would have to be in on it? Doesn't seem plausible to me.

[Guest]

29 min's ago from DMK's FB Page, in response to folks pressuring her about the 'fake' papers referenced.

"It is NO a hoax and the science proves it."

36 mins ago regarding the data used in her paper:

"There is plenty of data there. The paper is based on Hard true science."

Should I be posting links to her FB page along with these?

...the complete read.

Do to the wild rumors out on the internet. I felt it important to address a new rumor about a possible hoax. First we have never hoaxed anything as there is no need to. We have the proof we need in the science. I hope this helps everyone understand.

One of the early reviewers asked for any and all references related to our subject matter. We neither agreed with nor endorsed any of those references used though Bindernagel's books are a good effort since at the time he didn't know the human element involved. It was not our choice to use any of them though. That ref was a testament to the idiocy surrounding not only the scientific bias against the existence of these "people" but also the request by reviewers for refs that we had not felt had any place in our manuscript and were not included originally. This same reviewer required the so-called folklore that is in the introduction. That also was not in the original manuscript

[Guest]

So how big is this purported consipiracy supposed to be? How many people would have to be in the know and culpable?

Sorry, as critical as one might be of the circumstances, I find it unlikely that all of the people involved in all of the related efforts are manufacturing false evidence.

But you think that there's a conspiracy of scientists to suppress evidence against certain scientific theories.

[Guest]

In effect, these reviewers undermined and sabotaged the paper by forcing her to include these questionable references. If that is indeed the case, she needs to address the citations that RR put out AND break confidentiality and disclose the documents asking her to include any and all references in her work.

[Guest Theagenes]

So how big is this purported consipiracy supposed to be? How many people would have to be in the know and culpable?

Sorry, as critical as one might be of the circumstances, I find it unlikely that all of the people involved in all of the related efforts are manufacturing false evidence.

No one has accused any of the independent labs of falsifying anything. It's all her "interpretation" of those results that's the problem.

^^I get that. I was talking about the things people throw around regarding the Ketchum Study and the Erickson project for starters. If there is a hoax, how many people from her organization and how many people from the Erickson Project would have to be in on it? Doesn't seem plausible to me.

If it was a hoax? Melba and Robin. Maybe one or two of her employees. No reason to think anyone from the EP was hoaxing. They were more likely victims of both MK and the people that took the footage.

_{Melba Ketchum}

_{Do to the wild rumors out on the internet. I felt it important to address a new rumor about a possible hoax. First we have never hoaxed anything as there is no need to. We have the proof we need in the science. I hope this helps everyone understand.}

_{One of the early reviewers asked for any and all references related to our subject matter. We neither agreed with nor endorsed any of those references used though Bindernagel's books are a good effort since at the time he didn't know the human element involved. It was not our choice to use any of them though. That ref was a testament to the idiocy surrounding not only the scientific bias against the existence of these "people" but also the request by reviewers for refs that we had not felt had any place in our manuscript and were not included originally. This same reviewer required the so-called folklore that is in the introduction. That also was not in the original manuscript}

This is most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

[Guest]

This is most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

+1

[Guest]

In effect, these reviewers undermined and sabotaged the paper by forcing her to include these questionable references. If that is indeed the case, she needs to address the citations that RR put out AND break confidentiality and disclose the documents asking her to include any and all references in her work.

I suspect there is a good reason (obvious to her, and her inter-circle) as to why she hasn't answered many of the published critic reports....especially those that have a reference to DNA sequence questions. Many of us here believe this is the only route for her, to save the desired outcome "we desire".

I wish she would at least post some solid information (or squash rumors) at least twice a week.....I don't mind damage control.

..I haven't thrown in the towel, yet. There is just to much I could speculate on, and it wouldn't be beneficial. So why do it. Patience is not my strong point, but have been chasing after it for 60 years....the day I die, is the day I will win over it.

No one has accused any of the independent labs of falsifying anything. It's all her "interpretation" of those results that's the problem.

If it was a hoax? Melba and Robin. Maybe one or two of her employees. No reason to think anyone from the EP was hoaxing. They were more likely victims of both MK and the people that took the footage.

This is most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Is it ridiculous, or more of not wanting to even have a hint of believing there is some truth in the statement? In my life time I've found that there is always some truth to a statement, along with some well stretch truths, alone with out right lies. I've yet to come across a statement that was a total lie. I watch my dad practice law for years., and when he was sheriff, he got some whopper of answers upon putting someone under arrest....yet there was some truth in what they said.

I would like to see a thread started of whose on the bases. Critics on third, hold-outs on second, believers on First.

[Guest mitchw]

This evening, Ketchum was Tweeting. I replied to her that she should answer Smeja. I've buckled up. Let's put the hammer down.

Edited February 26, 2013 by mitchw