Tags

, , ,

I had a discussion with Melba Ketchum today on Twitter regarding her continued claims that Bigfoot will be proven true.  Some of it spilled over to Facebook – her favorite communication outlet. I was surprised she responded and it went on for quite a while. For those of you who missed it, good for you. But here it is mostly in its entirety (a few other tweets weren’t worth adding); see what you can glean from this.

For background, note that my site, Doubtful News, has been critical of Melba’s work with good cause (melba ketchum | Doubtful News). I also wrote a chronicle of the history of her project for Skeptical Briefs (which you can see here The Ketchum Project: What to Believe about Bigfoot DNA ‘Science’ – CSI) and in Skeptical Inquirer. I’m not some lone skeptic picking at her claims. She has the entire scientific community against her. She revels in being the maverick, persecuted, pulls the Galileo gambit. I find it distasteful.

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

The Facebook posts:
Screen Shot 2013-12-06 at 4.54.39 PM

Don’t flatter yourself (again). Gee, she thinks pretty highly of herself. This is not a battle. It’s supposed to be a discussion. I also don’t think I was unprofessional. She is making some seriously OUTRAGEOUS claims, not me.

Screen Shot 2013-12-06 at 4.55.39 PM

There is good reason to attack the “journal” and good reason to criticize this work. She is in denial about that. We come from such different starting points that there was NO chance that we could agree on some premises and progress. Especially on social media. But I hope this was enlightening to at least reveal where she is coming from and where I am coming from.

If you’re interested in my background, click on Bio. I’m not a n00b, Melba.

Melba Ketchum defends herself. Poorly.

My discussion with Dr. K today reveals quite a bit about her mindset, her lack of science literacy (for a so-called scientist) and some terrible logic. Observe.

Melba stated on Facebook (that also went to Twitter) that the additional video footage available of “forest people” is excellent and convincing. But she can’t show it because she doesn’t own it. (Erickson does.) She then deleted that post on Facebook after someone brought up they hoped it wasn’t the Chewbacca-mask footage again. Then, I got involved.

I will reiterate. I DO NOT own the footage of the individual from which one of the DNA samples is taken, one of…  http://fb.me/14lmrWAVd 
.@DrMelbaKetchum Then stop hyping it! Your promises mean nothing.
@DoubtfulNews If you people would print fact and not opinion, you wouldn’t be saying that. I am not hyping, just supporting our resesearch.

“You people”? Ouch. What am I chopped liver? I only specialize in Science and the Public. And for DN, my audience is the public and some well respected scholars as well.

DrMelbaKetchum
@DoubtfulNews You never even gave a chance to rebut your article. We have legit experts supporting our study like Dr. David Swenson.Fri, Dec 06 2013 12:22:44

She could have commented. I would certain have allowed that. But, granted, she would not have had an easy time considering the format in which she typical responds.

DoubtfulNews
.@DrMelbaKetchum Unimpressive. Science is not done in self-owned journals, blogs and Facebook.Fri, Dec 06 2013 12:23:22

DrMelbaKetchum

Dr. Melba Ketchum@DrMelbaKetchum
@DoubtfulNews I can support our entire project with the science. So how about being fair with your reporting?
 http://www.sasquatchgenomeproject.org
 
Fri, Dec 06 2013 12:25:18

DoubtfulNews

Doubtful News@DoubtfulNews
@DrMelbaKetchum I have been more than fair. Had high hopes. Your work was sloppy and biased. If true, do more to support that it’s not.Fri, Dec 06 2013 12:27:11

DrMelbaKetchum

Dr. Melba Ketchum@DrMelbaKetchum
@DoubtfulNews I have no blog. I answer questions on FB. I want the Sasquatch protected. Like @JaneGoodallInst I promote for that reason.Fri, Dec 06 2013 12:37:05

Her Facebook posting (and all her other online media posts) have been INCREDIBLY unprofessional – with terrible arguments, spelling and grammar errors and the same nonsense over and over. I’m astounded at her ignorance of how ridiculous she looks by trying to argue her case on Facebook and still expects to be taken seriously. You, ma’am, are no Jane Goodall.

DrMelbaKetchum
@DoubtfulNews Our ms passed peer review but the journal from a journal other than denovo. I have stated this repeatedly.Fri, Dec 06 2013 12:38:34

That was not peer review. It does not matter how often you state that, it does not make it true.

DrMelbaKetchum

Dr. Melba Ketchum@DrMelbaKetchum
It is so funny that everyone wants to criticize the Sasquatch DNA study but nobody wants to really look at the science.Fri, Dec 06 2013 12:41:06

It has been looked at, and it was SO BAD, that it did not pass muster. Competent scientists would have an answer to the criticism instead of lame excuses of baseless persecution. Your data should speak for itself. Sadly, the Ketchum study was poor.

DrMelbaKetchum

Dr. Melba Ketchum@DrMelbaKetchum
It’s OK for the Max Planck institute to say they are finding human hybrids (see latest news) but not OK for us to prove a human hybrid.Fri, Dec 06 2013 12:42:54

It’s a shame I have to state the obvious that this is another ridiculous false comparison. What a name dropper! Recall that she once said her work was worthy of a Nobel.

DrMelbaKetchum

Dr. Melba Ketchum@DrMelbaKetchum
Ather observation: The peer reviewers didn’t criticize the science, they just couldn’t believe the results and tried to explain them away.Fri, Dec 06 2013 12:47:29

Which peer reviewers, the one that “approved” your paper or the ones from Nature who gave you ample opportunity to fix the egregious errors? Nevermind…

DrMelbaKetchum
Dr. Melba Ketchum@DrMelbaKetchum
@DoubtfulNews If you had high hopes for our research, you would have contacted me or an interview and I would have explained what we did.Fri, Dec 06 2013 13:17:00

Why? You made your case with the paper, press releases, and in public. There was nothing new to ask you. I consulted experts instead to make sure I understood it correctly. That’s the skeptical process.

DrMelbaKetchum

Dr. Melba Ketchum@DrMelbaKetchum
@DoubtfulNews If you were not just interested in bashing the study, you would have asked questions about our blind studies/other controls.Fri, Dec 06 2013 13:19:12

The case for this should not be made to a blogger. It should be spelled out adequately in a published journal. Your journal did not allow rebuttals or letters, if I recall correctly. How were scientists to respond in line with traditional scientific publishing? This study was unorthodox in its presentation. Red flag.

DrMelbaKetchum

Dr. Melba Ketchum@DrMelbaKetchum
@DoubtfulNews The peer reviewers didn’t even bash the science, they didn’t like the results since they were not consistent with Darwinism.Fri, Dec 06 2013 13:21:26

Red flag number two (a GIANT one). If your results are inconsistent with the main tenet of biology, one of the most established theories on earth, you need to seriously consider that you are totally WRONG.

DrMelbaKetchum
@DoubtfulNews If you people would print fact and not opinion, you wouldn’t be saying that. I am not hyping, just supporting our resesearch.Fri, Dec 06 2013 12:20:38

There’s that “you people” again. Consider me the public, Melba. I have a right to question the extraordinary claim you made and to criticize your responses to those questions. I was also the voice of many who felt the exact same way and had similar concerns. I had been following the project for a long while and did comprehensive research on it. I’m not sure why she thinks I haven’t seen everything that was made public on it.

DoubtfulNews

Doubtful News@DoubtfulNews
.@DrMelbaKetchum Why are you discussing this on Twitter? I’ve seen all you have produced and expert opinion on it. It failed.Fri, Dec 06 2013 13:28:56

DoubtfulNews

Doubtful News@DoubtfulNews
.@DrMelbaKetchum Put your work in the right format in a proper journal and take the criticism to heart. That’s how SCIENCE works.Fri, Dec 06 2013 13:29:27

DoubtfulNews

Doubtful News@DoubtfulNews
Real scientists answer the criticism with better data, not constant excuses.Fri, Dec 06 2013 13:32:29

Doctor Atlantis (Blake Smith of MonsterTalk) chimes in politely.

DoctorAtlantis

DoctorAtlantis@DoctorAtlantis
@DrMelbaKetchum @DoubtfulNews Oh wow! Do you think your study is strong evidence that the Darwin paradigm is wrong?Fri, Dec 06 2013 13:23:42

DrMelbaKetchum

Dr. Melba Ketchum@DrMelbaKetchum
@DoctorAtlantis @DoubtfulNews No, there is evolution, but it is more complex than simply Darwin’s original theory.Fri, Dec 06 2013 13:32:36

DoubtfulNews

Doubtful News@DoubtfulNews
@DrMelbaKetchum Sorry, but your words reveal your non-expertise about evolution. @DoctorAtlantisFri, Dec 06 2013 13:33:56

DrMelbaKetchum

Dr. Melba Ketchum@DrMelbaKetchum
@DoubtfulNews If you need answers, I suggest you contact a real scientist/ professor emeritus, David H Swenson on FB. He did an indy review.Fri, Dec 06 2013 13:39:33

DoubtfulNews

Doubtful News@DoubtfulNews
@DrMelbaKetchum I’ve seen it. Unimpressed. One review does not trump the scientific community.Fri, Dec 06 2013 13:44:02

DrMelbaKetchum

Dr. Melba Ketchum@DrMelbaKetchum
@DoubtfulNews Journalists should be fair and balanced and would print both sides. We have scientists supporting the study.Fri, Dec 06 2013 13:42:12

HOLY COW this is awful. I can’t believe she quoted Fox (Faux) News. She is not aware of false balance.

DoubtfulNews

Doubtful News@DoubtfulNews
@DrMelbaKetchum WRONG. This is not Faux News. DN reports the sound evidence and does not give equal time to poor evidence or nonsense claimsFri, Dec 06 2013 13:43:41

DrMelbaKetchum

Dr. Melba Ketchum@DrMelbaKetchum
@DoubtfulNews You just proved you are a FAUX journalist regrettably. Otherwise you would speak to scientists supporting the study also.Fri, Dec 06 2013 13:49:07

DoubtfulNews

Doubtful News@DoubtfulNews
@DrMelbaKetchum I am not a journalist. We are a site that promotes scientific skepticism and call out questionable claims and bad science.Fri, Dec 06 2013 13:50:33

She does not understand the purpose of Doubtful News. At all. I’ve never said I was a jouralist. Never. Maybe I should send her my bio…

DrMelbaKetchum

Dr. Melba Ketchum@DrMelbaKetchum
@DoubtfulNews There is no point speaking with you. I am sorry you are so closed minded and have apparently spoken with skeptical scientistsFri, Dec 06 2013 13:51:37
You are right. There is no point. That’s mutual. Serious discussions should not happen on Twitter.

One of the popcorn munchers (of which there were a few) chimed in. :-)

Retweeted that.

DrMelbaKetchum
@DoubtfulNews OK since you are not a journalist, there is no point in this discussion.Fri, Dec 06 2013 13:58:30

I guess good questions from the skeptical public don’t count. Why only talk to journalists? You got a mountain to climb to convince the scientific community that you aren’t completely bonkers with these ideas. That takes a LOT OF WORK and some THICK SKIN. Stop trying to one-up me on Twitter, or telling me you know how science should work. Go do some sound research instead. Convince the scientists. That will shut me up.

Finally, she reveals more ignorance of evolutionary theory. Mind you, she is a devout Christian and I’m pretty sure has Creationist tendencies. That explains some of this rhetoric.

DoctorAtlantis

DoctorAtlantis@DoctorAtlantis
@DrMelbaKetchum @DoubtfulNews Do you think you’ll be able to overturn current understanding of all evolution – or just human origins?Fri, Dec 06 2013 13:39:03

DrMelbaKetchum

Dr. Melba Ketchum@DrMelbaKetchum
@DoctorAtlantis The problem is that they are the opposite of what we are as far as hybrids. They have more novel DNA with only a % of humanFri, Dec 06 2013 14:14:25

DrMelbaKetchum

Dr. Melba Ketchum@DrMelbaKetchum
@DoctorAtlantis Time will tell. The whole genomes have so much novel sequence that they do not fit well in the current “Tree of Life”.Fri, Dec 06 2013 14:16:58

She bragged about how she was having this nasty discussion with me on Facebook. I responded saying it wasn’t nasty, in my book. But it was pointless. I wish she WOULDN’T respond to me. There is no need. Your science should speak for itself. And my work speaks for itself. I’ve been more than fair with Melba (compared to some real nastiness from others in the Bigfoot community) and my commentary was mostly about her study, not her personally. But her personal beliefs became so entwined with her claims, and her belief biases everything she says, that I can’t take her seriously. Just stop, Melba, you only dig your hole deeper. If she is this committed to protecting the Forest People, she needs to go back to the drawing board and do better next time. They are poorly served by her research and behavior.