ShadowBorn Posted December 4, 2012 Moderator Share Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) Bart has made plenty of claims about Ketchum, as have you. NEITHER of you have proffered ANY evidence to support your claims about Ketchum. Paulides is not Ketchum. Always play the wild card if one does not have the goods ,sure the other will.The funny part about this whole thing is that one will never be happy with the results and you know who wins ? Sasquarch Edited December 4, 2012 by julio126 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 On the subject of Ketchum, you offer nothing new. More claims. No evidence to back them up. You talk about "transparency" in the same post you fill with innuendo, hints, and shades of meaning. What specificially are you saying she's done wrong scientifically? What evidence do you proffer to support those claims? Otherwise, your post is just more baseless Ketchum bashing. I'm curious how one can claim that it is proper to practice complete transparency in one study while declaring it unprofessional to release any info about the results of another study prior to "substantiation". By what standard are we talking about now? Peer review, or some lab reports brought forth by a footer? If there is some difference, how would that be "substantiated" and how would that be Dr. Ketchum's problem absent any "peer review"? I would give you both +1 if I could. If BartloJays knows something that would discredit MK he should share it instead of berate us. Perhaps if we knew these things too we would have the same opinion. However since we dont, and all we have is innuendo and rumor to go by, we try to keep an open mind waiting until the info is released to make our own minds up about who is trustworthy and who isn't. And as far as there being no "concerted effort" by the BFRO to discredit MK, perhaps BFRO would be best served by keeping their figurehead from acting like a spoiled child on twitter and stop the character assasination on MK. If she is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, that will become obvious in the future. As of now, I do not know who to believe. So I wait for the science to inform me. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 We don't need to provide any Mulder. The report.. shhh don't tell anywone. It's not out yet ! Oh yes you do. Both you and Bartoljay have said there is no paper, Ketchum is deceiving us, etc. In the immortal words of Skeptics everywhere: "Prove it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) ^ So now you're all about proof to back up accusations? ;-) Kewl! Edited December 4, 2012 by Tontar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Always play the wild card if one does not have the goods ,sure the other will.The funny part about this whole thing is that one will never be happy with the results and you know who wins ? Sasquarch In this case, it's more don't play ANY cards but insist you have four Aces in hand. ^ So now you're all about proof to back up accusations? ;-) Their claim, their obligation to back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 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. Ok, what is Bart doing if not to try and prove something? How would he prove anything without it being published in a journal? Without proof there is no onus to explain any differences. Who says there will be any differences? This is just a bigfooter gotcha game. It ultimately will not change what the sample is from. In order for Bart to prove there is anything different from what Ketchum claims, he will need to know exactly what that is and her data for comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I'm curious how one can claim that it is proper to practice complete transparency in one study while declaring it unprofessional to release any info about the results of another study prior to "substantiation". By what standard are we talking about now? Peer review, or some lab reports brought forth by a footer? If there is some difference, how would that be "substantiated" and how would that be Dr. Ketchum's problem absent any "peer review"? 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 ?? Just curious, why are you still hanging on to this thread and your stated 2 year promise. just along for the ride? Your posts are of the type that you are one and done... In other words, only thing you can gain from 2years of reading is hope she fails and you want to be there when she does.. Don't make sense to waste time for the inevitable doom you forecast... Just saying ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Ok Mulder ready here is one for you... My Claim: "There is no paper" Proof: As of today's date no paper has been provided, released, shown, documented, etc. Yes. I could be wrong if said paper is indeed released. I actually hope I am. I hope the paper lives up to all the hype and blows mainstream science out of the water. But as of right now my claim is backed up with facts. Right now at this moment there is no paper in that it has not been released. ^ So now you're all about proof to back up accusations? ;-) Kewl! HAHAHAHAHA. Oh **** that was funny. Gotta give it to you on that one. Classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Actually, that was my point. I didn't want to come right out and say it though. So - is Sykes done? Do we know that for sure? According to my sources he is but you know what that is worth these days in bigfootery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 According to Dr.; Burtsev, Dr. Ketchum's study failed peer review and has not been accepted for publication. His words "We waited a couple of years the scientific publication by Dr. Melba Ketchum. But scientific magazines refuse to publish her Manuscript which deserves to be published." Right now, we have no proof that the paper has been accepted for publication. We have positive confirmation that the paper has been rejected by "Scientific Magazines". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Orygun Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 According to Dr.; Burtsev, Dr. Ketchum's study failed peer review and has not been accepted for publication. His words "We waited a couple of years the scientific publication by Dr. Melba Ketchum. But scientific magazines refuse to publish her Manuscript which deserves to be published." Right now, we have no proof that the paper has been accepted for publication. We have positive confirmation that the paper has been rejected by "Scientific Magazines". Positive confirmation from who? Burtsev? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Note: She did not deny Burtsev's claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 According to Dr.; Burtsev, Dr. Ketchum's study failed peer review He never said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) Mulder- First off, I never said here was no paper and she’s deceiving you. I said question highly if both of those things are happening for **** good reasons I have. That's a big jump by you saying I defintively said differently. I'd appreciate it if you quote me correctly as I don't have time to sit here and clarify your misquotes all day. What “confirmation protocols?†We’re the checks and balances, two laymen, that took the tissue piece to two independent labs (one university & one private, “independent†of each other & Ketchum) first to one that was “blind†in that they initially had no idea what we were assuming the piece could potentially be from. The second lab was from a referral as an additional checks and balances to not only test another sample of the same tissue piece but also the salted piece Meldrum and J Mio examined on site during the remains search in July 2011 (to confirm or not if they were from the same subject species). it's really that simple. If you’re concerned about the reputability of the labs and directors we contracted, in case you’re not happy with the eventual results or vice versa, you’ll be able to perform all the due diligence you wish because the names and communications will be provided for you. It’s really going to be that simple. This also ties in with some of Southernyahoo’s laughable insinuations answered quite nicely by rockiessquatching who seems to get it. I mean, you guys do know the difference between an examination and an actual study right? Tyler and I are not doing a study to prove something exists (for example) or test a hypothesis. We have a vested interest (obviously) to know the origin of the tissue and brought it to two reputable institutions to get it examined because one, we see and saw more red flags then a North Korean army rally, and two, it would be the prudent thing to do anyway, even if Ketchum had not given us reasons to be concerned. Either way, when you put that in context, it’s very telling to me for someone to be fearing potential results. If anything, you should be relieved and embrace the opportunity that “if†there’s any major deviations in results with her paper, they will be addressed and she will be challenged earlier rather than later. Am I missing something? I’ve been investigating this for a year and a half and have much more time, energy, money etc… invested in the Sierra Kills case then both of you (even got unexpected thermal footage from there Aug 23rd, not definitive visually imo, but compelling with circumstances and witnesses) and I don’t potential fear results, I want answers….so why do you? In addition, My comments on Ketchum aren’t based off of her results because I haven’t seen any, have you? Or were you just told everything was looking great? They were precipitated by my disappointment in her using a lame excuse for selfishly going public without any substantiation (a reflection on all of us) and they were based off personal knowledge and experience internally, including as well, many of same things some of you should be questioning (I know many of you do) you should see externally. As rockiessquatching stated, she has leaked out definitive claims from day one. If Ketchum is being honest, she’s doing a “study,†which has expectation standards she’s expected to abide by (amplified with respect to subject matter), like keeping quiet for one and not acting like a facebook queen. Right now is not the time to discuss specifics on that, though the time for me to speak up was now because I want to make it clear my position on her “NOW,†not in hindsight...especially if her work is validated (I get a lot of emails with people assuming the opposite because they don’t pay attention to details). Still, I pray she pulls it off as I would be thrilled, absolutely thrilled for all of us. But that doesn’t mean I will have regrets on a position I’ve taken because you only regret when you would make a different decision under “parallel†circumstances. Her simply following through (and being successful) on what she’s claimed to be doing in first place does not justify regret in me. That would show questionable character on my part and if being on the winning team was so important to me, I probably wouldn’t be such a big Jays and Phins fan. There’s one thing I will defend her on and that’s the cowards that have said insulting comments about her appearance on her recent TV interviews. I think it’s shameful and have no time for that nonsense. Edited December 4, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC To remove statements about a member Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 My Claim: "There is no paper" Proof: As of today's date no paper has been provided, released, shown, documented, etc. Yes. I could be wrong if said paper is indeed released. If you could be wrong, then it's not a valid claim of fact. You should just say, you haven't seen it. You should say the same about Bartlojay's promises. There is no public evidence he is doing anything with a sample. Simply choosing who you would rather believe is not a stable platform to argue from, with or without secret knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts