Cryptomundo
for Bigfoot, Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents and More

12 Responses to “Melba Ketchum vs Doubtful News”

1. DWA responds: December 9th, 2013 at 9:52 am

   As with 99% of this field, who cares, other than watching a tickle fight?

   Two nutty fringers going at one another. Amusing, but not significant in any way.

2. shill responds: December 9th, 2013 at 6:52 pm

   How am I a fringer? You know what, don’t answer that. I do not value your response, DWA.

   Melba is CLUELESS how science works. She is a creationist who is wrapped up so tightly in her belief, it’s sad.

3. DWA responds: December 9th, 2013 at 9:54 pm

   What happens when two fringers go at it?

   Same thing that happens when fringers try to lecture their betters.

   When BOTH parties are clueless about science: tickle fight.

4. shmargin responds: December 9th, 2013 at 10:22 pm

   @Shill

   I would assume you and Ketchum were referred to as “fringers” since no one knows who you are outside of the outer fringes of people on the internet reading about weird news that normal mainstream media ignores.

   And the rest of the comment was pretty accurate too, since no one really does care about you two going back and forth over the internet.

   Nothing from Ketchum is anything that a normal person can understand regarding Bigfoot, myself included, other than the fact that she really thinks its real and really thinks she has proof. And that she prints her findings in her own scientific journal. That’s all I’ve gotten from the news stories about her.

   And you, you disagree, and write articles stating so, and pointing out things like, she only gets her articles posted in her own scientific journal.

   So, in a nutshell, no one cares about you two fringers tickle fighting over the internet. Feel free to not respond, I don’t know who you are, and don’t value your response as much as you don’t value other peoples.

5. edsbigfoot responds: December 10th, 2013 at 8:37 am

   Here is the link that goes directly to the peer reviews, the link posted goes to the homepage then you have to hunt a little for the peer reviews. I am gad to see them in whole, it finally gives me a point of view of the paper from the actual reviewers. A nice change to see something from the folks who actually did the review.

6. G. de La Hoya responds: December 10th, 2013 at 4:32 pm

   It is high time Melba Me-Ketchum-Big-One puts all of her cards on the table. Of course, the longer she keeps the charade going might mean a larger pot? Or keep something in the pot?

   @shill, your site looks interesting and you have a beautiful smile.

7. alan borky responds: December 10th, 2013 at 6:07 pm

   “I’m not some lone skeptic picking at her claims.”

   Translation? “Ev’ryone trashes’er so why shouldn’I have some fun too”?

   “She revels in being the maverick, persecuted, pulls the Galileo gambit. I find it distasteful.”

   Translation? “I want’er t’sit there in silence while we all trash’er”?

   “This is the first time she responded to me in public. She should totally stop doing that.”

   Translation? “Why must she defend’erself forcin’ the hand of us obsessive compulsive domineering last word types”?

   “Science is not done in self-owned journals, blogs and Facebook.”

   No but if y’feel y’own perspective’s underrepresented what else’re y’supposed t’do?

   Feminists’n’gays felt compelled t’go down that route.

   Ditto many ethnic’n’cultural groups.

   For that matter so did the skeptical inquirers.

   Don’t get me wrong Melba couldn’ve made a worse mess o’ presentin’ her dna *theories* if she’d tried but surely she’s entitled as ev’ry other idiot includin’ me t’have her say on the internet.

8. Goodfoot responds: December 10th, 2013 at 7:10 pm

   “This is the first time she responded to me in public. She should totally stop doing that.”

   Stop WHAT, responding to her for the first time in public? I think that’s already over, by definition! Touchy, touchy.

9. Goodfoot responds: December 10th, 2013 at 7:13 pm

   alan borky: Do you actually TALK in all arcane contractions, too? It makes for some right odd reading, I must say…

10. edsbigfoot responds: December 11th, 2013 at 8:30 am

    My personal favorite exchange in this:

    @doubtfulnews The peer reviewers didn’t even bash the science, they didn’t like the results since they were not consistent with Darwinism.

    @DrMelbaKetchum Why are you discussing this on Twitter? I’ve seen all you have produced and expert opinion on it. It failed.

    @DoubtfulNews Journalists should be fair and balanced and would print both sides. We have scientists supporting the study.

    @DoubtfulNews You just proved you are a FAUX journalist regrettably. Otherwise you would speak to scientists supporting the study also.

    @DrMelbaKetchum I am not a journalist. We are a site that promotes scientific skepticism and call out questionable claims and bad science.

11. Dufusyte responds: December 12th, 2013 at 3:08 pm

    Note how the skeptics are unable to evaluate data, and rather they judge based on the media outlet:

    “Science is not done in self-owned journals, blogs and Facebook.”

    A skeptic believes what Authority tells them to believe. The skeptic only believes what the authorized channels broadcast. That which is on the TV News or a Broadcast Documentary is believed. That which is on Twitter is not believed. You see, it is not about the data, it is about the channel through which the data is communicated.

    This is classic skepticism: No capability to analyze data; total belief in Authority, and Authorized Channels.

    And since every scientific breakthrough begins on the fringe and very slowly comes to the mainstream, the skeptics are always lagging with the best of them, bringing up the rear.

    “A great idea is first laughed at, then denounced, and then everyone assumes it was always accepted.” Skeptics finally grasp truth in the third stage. They are last in line, and in the meantime they are a drag on scientific progress by their oddly vicious nay-saying.

12. Goodfoot responds: December 12th, 2013 at 3:58 pm

    Good analysis, and very well put, though I prefer the term “scoftics”, because it describes them far more accurately.

    Then there are the guys like Randi, who may never come around.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|