The Ketchum Report (Part 3)

[TimB]

How comes when someone says "do your own research" they are accused of not being able to back up their claims.

 

For me it's because if someone makes a claim without presenting the evidence, it's not backed up.  It's just an unfounded statement.  To me, it's a cop out- "It's true because it's obvious.  If you don't see it there's something wrong with your perception."  That's a dangerous way to go about determining the truth.

 

 

It doesn't take someone castigaging Melba to show that they are obviously supporting her.

 

Again- this philosophy says a person is a "Melba supporter" if they don't go with the group's thoughts on .  I'm not personally comfortable with that way of thought.  Apparently many are.  I like to do my own thinking and only take something as true when the evidence is apparent and well-founded. 

[chelefoot]

THe support of the claims being made HAS been provided.

[TimB]

Well then I guess there's nothing left to discuss, huh?  

 

I haven't been convinced either way yet.  There are too many leaps of faith needed to get to the idea that anything has been proven definitively.  I'm sure I'm not the only one.  It just seems that those who are convinced are EXTREMELY vocal and intolerant of different points of views.  I won't speculate as to why. 

 

I'll just wait for something well-documented.

[Guest]

We're not vocal and intolerant of other views we're just not gullible.

[chelefoot]

I'm thinking you won't have to wait long.   A few phone calls and you wouldn't have to wait at all.

 

The only reason I dispute in other points of view is because that's all they are - opinions based on just what Melba (or rather, Scott) says. The evidence that has been provided has been shown to be faked yet supporters, rather than check them out for themselves simply yell "Bias" or "conspiracy" or my favorite "they are jeolous".

 

I am sick of these people being taken advantage of. I look forward to the day went the truth comes out for all to see.

[TimB]

I guess it comes down to different levels of proof required to convince me of something. I've read this entire thread- nothing Ketchum has stated has been proven in my eyes.  Nothing the anti-Ketchum movement has proposed has risen to the level of proof in my eyes. 

 

During my education I was taught that if I was going to propose an idea in a conversation I needed to be able to prove my position with facts.  Were I to say, "I believe it- you need to make a phone call to confirm this for yourself" during a conversation,  it would indicate to the other participants in the conversation that I didn't have grounds to support my claims.  That's the way an educated discussion works. I was under the impression that this was a discussion board, not an advice for research board.  Perhaps I'm wrong?

[TimB]

And you, whoever you are, are showing a lack of comprehension with the written English language AND proving my point at the same time.

[chelefoot]

 Nothing the anti-Ketchum movement has proposed has risen to the level of proof in my eyes. 

 

 

What exactly would it take to satisfy your level of proof?

[TimB]

Written documentation that that website is legitimate would be a nice start.  It's the most unprofessional way I've ever seen to dispute the claim.  It also fits nicely into some pre-determined conclusions that the anti-Ketchum movement had posted prior to that website appearing.  It's entirely too convenient that an unquestionable source just appears. 

 

The other thing I would like to point out is the veracity of Ketchum's work and the veracity of any of this so-called information are two very different subjects.  They may be related but they definitely aren't the same subject.  If something can't be put in print with a person's name behind it it's suspect.  If someone can talk about it on the phone but refuse to commit to the same information in public permanently, it's suspect.

[Guest]

The only person calling the source unquestionable is you.

OTLS has talked to the source of JAMEZ as well as the Scholasticia site. OTLS has done a pretty good job of investigating and vetting. Have you done the same work?

[TimB]

Changing the conversation still huh?  Why can't the name of the person verifying the validity of the website put his or her name down in print?  Why are they ashamed of the truth?  I've never claimed to be a researcher or "journalist".  I'm just reacting to the validity of the argument.  I'm not impressed.

 

 

Another way to look at it is this- contrary to popular belief here and elsewhere. just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true.  I've seen enough on OTLS's website to doubt their credibility.  I won't be taking their word on anything.

[Guest]

the answer TimB could be as simple as they don't want their name associated  with BFs or MK and yet still feel an injury has occurred and are trying to correct it..      right or wrong.

 

what is interesting is how many people are willing to take up the cause in this, or the many other controversies/covert arguments on this project...

 

it would be easier if just the principle players took responsibility to argue among themselves...

Edited November 3, 2013 by apehuman

[TimB]

If they don't want to be associated with it then why publish an unsourced web page?

 

I don't really care if it's true or not- Obviously Ketchum's work isn't going anywhere.  My point is that this movement is relentless and their "evidence" is unfounded.  I require facts for proof- not opinion and conjecture.

[Guest]

reread my answer, it's there..to your first question.

and yes, I think that is the hold up on acceptance, there is no viable peer review.

the tenacity of opposition?  well,  one day the NDAs will be over..or someone will decide theirs isn't valid..maybe we will get "facts."  I think we have probably, amid the chaos...

Edited November 3, 2013 by apehuman

[TimB]

That just doesn't make sense to me, AH.  If you wanted to right a wrong, why wouldn't you want your name associated?  The anonymity is just to convenient.  It fails to reach a level of legitimacy for me.