Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) SY, Has Bart released any information at all about their findings? (hint: no) Has Ketchum? (hint: yes) As stated above Bart said the transparency thing will be answered when they release their information. You better hope that Ketchum can match their level of transparency because she will have to backup her claims. Edited December 4, 2012 by rockiessquatching
Guest slimwitless Posted December 4, 2012 Posted December 4, 2012 It wasn't that long ago around here that published skeptics were bashing Ketchum for not discussing her findings (even before publication).
southernyahoo Posted December 4, 2012 Posted December 4, 2012 It wasn't that long ago around here that published skeptics were bashing Ketchum for not discussing her findings (even before publication). Amazing isn't it? Should scientists try to explain everything they did in a blog when they've gone through the trouble of doing all that in a manuscript and submitted it for review? There is two seperate standards at work here. Only one carries substantiation/validation of the work. Oh, and wouldn't Bart's study need to be repeated? LOL SY, Has Bart released any information at all about their findings? (hint: no) Has Ketchum? (hint: yes) As stated above Bart said the transparency thing will be answered when they release their information. You better hope that Ketchum can match their level of transparency because she will have to backup her claims. Bart is making promises right now, but has not shown anything to substantiate them. 1
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Posted December 4, 2012 SY, Has Bart released any information at all about their findings? (hint: no) Has Ketchum? (hint: yes) As stated above Bart said the transparency thing will be answered when they release their information. You better hope that Ketchum can match their level of transparency because she will have to backup her claims. And what about Bart's claims of chicanery vis a vis Ketchum? Where's the transparency on THAT?
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Posted December 4, 2012 SY, If you are trying to confuse people with the words "promises" and "claims" you aren't doing a very good job. Promised results will be released (Ketchum) (Bart) Made claims about the results of the information (Ketchum) Has been promising results for nearly 2 years (Ketchum) Smart money is on Bart.
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) Smart money is on Bart. Is that a promise? . ETA (to Bart): Bart, early in your post you said, "I think most of you know by now how I feel about Melba from a credibility standpoint (I’ll get to that in a second)." That's a not-very-subtle attack on Ketchum's credibility, yet you provide no evidence to back it up. Edited December 4, 2012 by Oak
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Posted December 4, 2012 SY, If you are trying to confuse people with the words "promises" and "claims" you aren't doing a very good job. Promised results will be released (Ketchum) (Bart) Made claims about the results of the information (Ketchum) Has been promising results for nearly 2 years (Ketchum) Smart money is on Bart. Play on words. Bart has promised "110% transparancy" on what data they get. Ketchum has promised her findings will be available in some kind of journal after "peer review". Difference here is Bart hasn't submitted a paper to try and prove the existence of bigfoot. Ketchum says she's done just that.
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) Play on words? How about the words "soon" ? How much longer are you all going to hang on to this thread of a 2 year old "promise" ? Such defenders of the faith ! FYI: On day 9 of the 7 to 10 days Paulides "claimed" it would be out. Anything? Bueller, Bueller ?? Edited December 4, 2012 by rockiessquatching
Guest crabshack Posted December 4, 2012 Posted December 4, 2012 Ketchum has promised her findings will be available in some kind of journal after "peer review". So that means she is at the mercy of others, and their time tables, and not when the scoffers think it should be fully released just because her preliminary findings differ from their beliefs.
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Posted December 4, 2012 Oh my...tempers are HOT. I was not injecting myself into an argument. Just stating the differences between what has been said. Transparancy on results versus release of peer reviewed paper.
Guest crabshack Posted December 4, 2012 Posted December 4, 2012 It was just a general statement bananasquatch it should not be implied as an attack at all.
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Posted December 4, 2012 SY, If you are trying to confuse people with the words "promises" and "claims" you aren't doing a very good job. Promised results will be released (Ketchum) (Bart) Made claims about the results of the information (Ketchum) Has been promising results for nearly 2 years (Ketchum) Smart money is on Bart. Bart has made plenty of claims about Ketchum, as have you. NEITHER of you have proffered ANY evidence to support your claims about Ketchum. Play on words? How about the words "soon" ? How much longer are you all going to hang on to this thread of a 2 year old "promise" ? Such defenders of the faith ! FYI: On day 9 of the 7 to 10 days Paulides "claimed" it would be out. Anything? Bueller, Bueller ?? Paulides is not Ketchum.
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Posted December 4, 2012 We don't need to provide any Mulder. The report.. shhh don't tell anywone. It's not out yet !
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Posted December 4, 2012 It was just a general statement bananasquatch it should not be implied as an attack at all. Sure thing. ;-) Can't blame a girl though. It's overload in here.
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Posted December 4, 2012 My God are we a bunch of BF geeks or what??? lol!
Recommended Posts