The Ketchum Report (Part 3)

[Guest]

ShBoom

You hit the nail on the head.

The disappointment is not that her paper failed to prove the existence of Bigfoot. The disappointment is the betrayal, disrespect, and seemingly purposely fraudulent destruction of something we all care so much about.

 

Yes. And the thing that irks me the most is that she was supposed to represent SCIENCE finally taking a serious interest in the field. She was supposed to be our hero. Instead, she thumbed her nose at the process, and actually turned people against SCIENCE. When you read the hate, anger and BS on FB about how big, bad SCIENCE is to blame, it turns my stomach. If only she worked at a real lab or a research university, there would be consequences for scientific misconduct. But when someone is self-employed/unemployed ... they can do whatever they want. 

 

Science does have some checks and balances. I hope that Scholastica will put an end to the "peer review" and "journal" shams. But that still leaves us with a messy legacy of a "study" that has attracted a cult following. This field will be suffering with this mess for years.

 

It's a shame Wally won't file charges or sue. But I guess if I was his age, I wouldn't want to deal with it, either.

Edited November 6, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC
Removal of personal info

[southernyahoo]

Pure speculation here, but I have had many conversations with Wally. I think he likely knows he won't get money out of Melba, and he's just not the vindictive type. He may also think that it just brings the field further down to have this end up in public court cases. He may also feel foolish. I don't know, but I don't see how this has any real bearing on the facts of the case.

 

The cheque that slostepper refers to was written and returned to Wally. I forget the details of this. I think he was a well-meaning person who bought into Melba too much, and now is trying to make it right. BUt he's deathly afraid of having his name associated with this field.

 

He was not a "squatcher" at all prior to this MK project. (Or so he claimed to me anyways)

 

 

 

 

 

Tyler, have you ever asked Wally if he was privy to correspondence between Ketchum and the Journals? Ketchum said that a few submitters were privy to them, shouldn't Wally have been also. being the big benefactor? Perhaps he knows exactly what transpired with each review and this is why he's not trying to sue her.

 

So he bought into this study. as in believed it had merit, but didn't send it out for review? Is that correct?

Edited November 6, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC
Removal of personal info

[Guest]

Where can YOU verify this in written form? Oh you can't... No one will affix their name to these truths for the public record. .

Scholastica verified it in written form on their own Facebook page calling Ketchum's supposed peer-review with them a fabrication.

I dare you to challenge this and prove it wrong.

http://www.facebook.com/scholasticahq

[Guest]

I figured since you talked to him you would have asked the questions and saved us all the trouble. That's what you are trying to do right? I mean, do you really want everyone that reads this thread to call him? 

 

Did he ask you to put his name out here so he can be bothered with footers?

 

Some sort of deal was suppose to go down, or Wally wouldn't have written the check. What was the check for slowstepper? If he is denying putting Ketchums paper through a review, do you think I'll get a straight answer on that question? Would he accuse Ketchum and Wally of some sort of bribery?

Yes i did talkwith him,  but since you would not believe me,  I invited you and any other doubters to actually check on something,  themselves!

 

Enough with the "review" !  Scholastica has confirmed there was no review, and the supposed "review" leaked by ketchumites is in fact fraudulent.  You don't have to take my word for it,  go to scholasticas FB page,  they confirm it is a fraud -  what more do you want?

 

And again,  if you want the background on the check,  drivedown theroad and go ask Melba, or callher up -  i could tell you,  but you would not believe me,  and if you want to call Wally,  please do,  I will provide his phone number for you! 

 

Bottom Line -  scholastica says fraud,  you want to argue with them,  go to their facebook page,  that would be the proper forum!

Edited November 6, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC
Removal of personal info and staff edit

[TimB]

Scholastica verified it in written form on their own Facebook page calling Ketchum's supposed peer-review with them a fabrication.

I dare you to challenge this and prove it wrong.

http://www.facebook.com/scholasticahq

 

 

1) is Scholastica a first name or a last name?

 

2) Here's the quote- "Since Scholastica isn't a journal, it doesn't do any peer-reviewing and the screenshot in that blog post did not come from our system.

Here's a blog post that someone sent to us that seems to explain in further detail the fabrication you're mentioning: http://bit.ly/1hKOSju ".  (My highlights).

 

Two critical issues here- this un-named person says it "seems to explain".  Never does this un-named say "This is a fabrication and this is why." ( I call this weasel talk).   They point back to OTLS, which certainly has an ax to grind against Ketchum for some unknown reason.  More smoke and mirrors by people who are uninterested in backing up their statements with their name.  It's conceivable that this is all an elaborate game by one person looking for attention.  Who knows what really is going on.

 

3)  You've established yourself as the defender of Wally and all others looking to finance bigfoot researchers who come to bigfoot forums to look for investments.  Care to be more specific on your involvement in the bigfoot world?  Are you a researcher who's been burned?  Or simply a forum member who feels strongly about it?  I'm wondering what moves you to be so focused on this one subject...

 

As always, there's no proof either way- just unknown persons'  opinions.  So I failed your challenge- this will never be proved positively or negatively.  It's all opinion unfounded.  Just one person- ONE PERSON- that will go on record on your theories would help so much with credibility.  Until then it's all just a big rumor factory.

[TimB]

Always back to that when your arguments are shown to be weak publicly.  I haven't addressed anything about Ketchum- I reacted to your definitive proof which I find lacking. Your calling me a cult member only shows your bias and the weakness of your argument. 

 

For the record, I have no contact with Ketchum, no investment in whether she's successful.  I think she failed in her mission to prove the bigfoot existence.  What you are seeing is me reacting to what you present as fact.

 

Are you going to define your role in this saga?  I'm assuming you are an accomplished forum participant.  Do you have a real-life concern on this subject? You seem unable to see the weakness of your own argument.

[Guest]

TimB, clearly you don't know much about organizational communications in today's era of social media. And your post indicates that you don't even understand what a company Facebook page is. When a company has a FB page, they put a person or a team in charge of that FB page. Usually, these same folks manage the organization's other social media. They are authorized spokespersons for the company, and typically housed within the PR or communications departments. They are authorized to respond to a range of questions, and must check with management and/or legal on the more squirrelly ones. Responses on a company Facebook page are equivalent to a response from its management.

 

The people who respond on their company's social media sites are NEVER named. They speak AS the company itself. Scholastica's response to the question is the company's official response. 

 

Now, you are certainly welcome to go onto FB, and send a PM to Scholastica and ask for an e-mail response with a real name, if you think it is necessary. But in this response. Scholastica has clearly said that the so-called leaked peer review is a "fabrication." Perhaps they also have been monitoring the Ketchum situation simply because of the dust-up with the journal ... OR perhaps like all corporate communications departments, they do regular searches for their company name online and have been aware that way. But for whatever reason, the COMPANY chose to send readers to OTLS for more information, after making it clear that the document was a fake.

 

There is no logical way anyone can say that this information is false. But again, you can always contact the company yourself. 

 

If you choose not to contact them, you have no right to sit back and criticize those of us who do have the cajones to do so.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Shboom2 in GA

[TimB]

I have every right, sir or madame, to say it could be false.  It is not confirmed as fact just because it's on a Facebook page.   You do understand, don't you, that ANYONE could set up a page for ANY COMPANY on Facebook and it would take major complaints to change that.  I, in fact, have a Facebook page for a hobby endeavour of mine.  It took 5 minutes and there was absolutely NO verification necessary.  I could have said I was located on the moon and it would have been accepted. 

 

It doesn't take "cajones" to send an email.  It takes "cajones" to make a statement and back that statement with your reputation by affixing your name to it. This entire farce is completely cajones free. 

Edited November 6, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC
Staff edit

[Guest]

So now you are saying that Scholastica's Facebook page is fake?

Seriously that is what your saying?

Because their Facebook page was started on June 2011. So by your logic someone created that fake facebook page over 3 years ago anticipating this Ketchum debacle.

Just please clarify that is what you're saying.

Edited November 6, 2013 by BipedalCurious

[TimB]

What's your role in this?

[Guest]

It appears he is. 

 

All you have to do is go to ANY company Web site and click on their FB icon to get to their FB page. Take Scholastica, for example: https://scholasticahq.com/

 

At the bottom right corner of their homepage is the FB icon - click on it and it takes you to the FB page.

Edited November 6, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC
To remove personal comments directed at another member

[Guest]

What's your role in this?

Stick to the topic at hand TimB. You just claimed that the Scholastica website is fake. Please confirm or deny.

[Guest]

You are misdirecting again when called on the carpet to back up your own suppositions.

I am done discussing this with you as you refuse to do anything but throw out constant red herrings to confuse, blur, and misdirect.

 

Edited November 6, 2013 by chelefoot
Remove personal statements

[Guest]

Actually, I joined the older BFF in 2007 or 2008 as simply Shboom2, a screen name I have used ever since I became active in BF discussions online. I encountered an unusual technical problem with my account earlier this year and the admins said I had to start over with a new account, setting my posts back to 0. You can ask the admins, as they had to handle this technical issue for me. Oh.... wait ... you won't do that. You will simply ignore this information and continue to state your misinformation as fact. 

 

I have already substantiated my statements above.

Edited November 6, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC
Staff edit

[TimB]

Thank you for clearing that up about your account.  I'll take your word on that.

 

What I won't take your word on is your nameless sources.  That might be good enough for you.  It's not good enough for me.  Since there isn't anyone but Bipedal Curious and Tyler H jumping into your line of thought I'd imagine I'm not the only one.

 

Try not to disparage me or assume a connection to Ketchum that makes me thoughts dismissable- it'll reduce your credibility even more.