Guest thermalman Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Thermalman -- Melba is the one NOT releasing requested information - that is critical to proving her paper... I would say you just made the argument that Melba's work is mute. It's her paper - her work to defend. She is responsible for proving it - no one else. She won't do that. Why? It would all be so easy, if she would simply release the raw data. She won't do that. Which is confusing at best. That raw data is her "beautiful science".. Is it so "beautiful" no one else but Melba can understand it? Well, you can "wait and see" but I want to hear from those who have the education that can tell me what is in her paper to date. I have the feeling Melba is again asking us to "hold our breath".. Sorry, but I value oxygen too much and I want to live. If MK's info is so mute, why all the criticism and fuss? I would like to hear what they have to say about the paper as well. But, to this point, only 1% has been released. Only after we have the full paper, can we then have proper evaluation by the "educated ones". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Since I'm taking over the blog, I reached out. This was the response: Dr. Meba Ketchum (Troy Hudson for Dr. Ketchum) I am sorry Mr. Weeast she is unable to make any comments or is in any position to respond at this time. She is out of town on business (Non-BF related) and will not return for several weeks. Also note: Sir all due respect, Dr. Ketchum has informed me time and time again, she WILL not make any communication to any Bigfoot Related Forum, Blog, or Organization, I am sorry. As a writer, this doesn't make sense. The topic is Bigfoot, yet anyone related to Bigfoot are shut out from asking questions? Well, I tried. LC - I said completely. People can and have refuted what little data there is. It leaves the questioning of the missing data, which from the reply above is perfectly ok with them. Edit - and to show I approached respectfully without bias, I'm including my initial message, without my email. John WeeastHello Dr. Ketchum, My name is John Weeast and I'm taking over the blog for The Bigfoot Forums. I was inquiring if you would be able to ask some questions via email about your paper and the controversy surrounding it since its release. My email is xxxxxxxxxxxxx. I look forward to hearing back from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) Thermalman said: If MK's info is so mute, why all the criticism and fuss? I would like to hear what they have to say about the paper as well. But, to this point, only 1% has been released. Only after we have the full paper, can we then have proper evaluation by the "educated ones". I guess the same question could be asked of you. The fuss - Melba released a paper - she said was "peer reviewed'... Peers have been coming out of the woodwork to discuss her "paper" and the discussion has not been positive. WHY in the WORLD would she only release 1% of her data which supports her position - then say she is moving on???????? Do you think that is a scientific approach? I sure don't. Sounds to me like she published just enough - to show people she did something- and will be happy to take her "kudos" from those in this community closest to her. If she doesn't like the evaluation she is getting - that is her fault for only releasing 1% of it. What? Did she think there would be no discussion of the 1% simply because you say only 1% has been released? FYI - is that a Melba quote - or your own commentary on what she released? Sir all due respect, Dr. Ketchum has informed me time and time again, she WILL not make any communication to any Bigfoot Related Forum, Blog, or Organization, I am sorry. THAT is a slap in the face to every person who submitted samples to her for her "beautiful science".. Sorry, but there is no defense for this kind of thing. This entire community was helpful to her in the beginning until things started looking funky. I bet she has nothing to say. Smart on her part. Troy Hudson is speaking for Ketchum now.. What happened to Robin Lynne?? Troy Hudson huh? LOL. This gets better every day. LOL. Edited March 11, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Maybe Robin is sick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Well, if she is, I wish her the best. Troy Hudson is an interesting choice though.. Makes perfect sense, but very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Since I'm taking over the blog, I reached out. This was the response: As a writer, this doesn't make sense. The topic is Bigfoot, yet anyone related to Bigfoot are shut out from asking questions? Well, I tried. LC - I said completely. People can and have refuted what little data there is. It leaves the questioning of the missing data, which from the reply above is perfectly ok with them. Edit - and to show I approached respectfully without bias, I'm including my initial message, without my email. It makes sense John,....... legal sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 So TMAN you really think this is the proper way for a scientist to act? Put out a claim and then refuse to publically speak about it except under controlled circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Well, if she is, I wish her the best. Troy Hudson is an interesting choice though.. Makes perfect sense, but very interesting. Who is Troy Hudson? Why would he be an interesting choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) Of note: the ONLY people on this forum who support Melba's data and/or results are people who make NO claims as to advanced genetic understanding or credentials. the ONLY people on this forum who DO claim advanced genetic understanding or credentials unanimously repudiate her conclusions. None of the people on this forum who still support Melba has made any sort of coherent effort to refute the implications of the .pdf I have posted from a qualified PhD. So TMAN you really think this is the proper way for a scientist to act? Put out a claim and then refuse to publically speak about it except under controlled circumstances. I will refute your implied credibility of the PDF you've posted: Anyone reading this thread can do this for themselves: -Go to Tyler H's post #1366 in the Ketchum Report -download the PDF supplied by Tyler H. -rightclick on it -click document properties -look for the PHD Author's name -it will be listed as "Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy" How's that for PHD authentication? Care to respond, although it won't likely matter what you say now? MK might have not put all her info out there, but at least she has the guts to legitimately stand behind her work, with her name! Edited March 11, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 A denial of an interview request isn't saying anything other than they don't want to talk. So please let's keep this to the paper and talks relevant to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) You might want to reconsider posting the quote John, otherwise the door has been opened for a derail. Edited March 11, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 I'm not sure how much more can be said. I respect both sides of this debate. Folks from both sides have alot of time invested and it has become frustrating to say the least. We were hoping for the truth, the definitive truth... and we didn't get it. Some are patient and willing to wait, others have waited long enough and are seeking the facts elsewhere - Let's remember one thing we all have in common. We all just want the facts. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 The above quote shouldn't matter who replied, but to stave off any derailment, the above posting did start a dialogue with Troy Hudson and I will be following up. Hopefully I can get some answers that will explain some of the delays and lack of information that is fueling all the speculation. With that said, I will update when I have more. Back to the regularly scheduled programming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Since I'm taking over the blog, I reached out. This was the response: As a writer, this doesn't make sense. The topic is Bigfoot, yet anyone related to Bigfoot are shut out from asking questions? Well, I tried. LC - I said completely. People can and have refuted what little data there is. It leaves the questioning of the missing data, which from the reply above is perfectly ok with them. Edit - and to show I approached respectfully without bias, I'm including my initial message, without my email. John, I think the issues with her methodology and ethics have so tainted her study that the missing data is irrelevant, even if they someday release it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 John, I think the issues with her methodology and ethics have so tainted her study that the missing data is irrelevant, even if they someday release it. With what proof LC? Nothing can be totally proven based on a 1% release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts