freelygiven

New Member
  • Content count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About freelygiven

  • Rank
    Booger
  • Birthday January 11

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Interests
    genealogy and other mysteries of any kind

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

244 profile views
  1. Just starting to get tuned into this, I marvel at you with so many years of experience. There's a way to get this done.
  2. Thank you again, norseman. The Ars Technica article was a great, dispassionate review of Ketchum's work. Her leaps of logic and completely unfounded conclusions were not obvious to me as I first looked into the subject, but they surrendered to their inquiry. As I read the article, I found myself wondering about her motive myself. "She's seen one, and she's desperate for them to be recognized," I said to myself. Come to find out, the last segment of the article addressed that very subject. The article quotes her as saying, "I've seen one." She said, "All we wanted to do with the paper was to prove there was something novel out there..." but that being beyond the reach of the evidence, they made the quantum leap from that to identifying its hypothetical subject specifically as "bigfoot." Worse yet, publishing that unscientific if not irrational conclusion only adds to the folly. She says, "...I'm not going to try to make them fit a scientific model when it doesn't." In spite of that she tried, but it can't. Unfortunately, we have no model for bf. Love is blind, I guess, but this only detracts from any valid bf science in the end.
  3. It'd be nice to prove their existence scientifically, but with all these cards stacked against you, it's almost like flying by the seat of your pants out there, hoping for a lucky break. I'm pulling for you!
  4. Geez, norseman! If I'd waited for your treatise, I could have saved myself a lot of homework. First time on here I actually had some knowledge of the subject matter. Love your addressing Ketchum as "Mrs.." Along with some of the rest of the "news to me," I discovered she never completed her PhD. Makes it hard for a novice to take anything you read except with a grain of salt, especially if there's any truth to the sample from Smeja's freezer she supposedly identified as being from "bigfoot," according to my source. We know you can't say such things, even if it IS from bf. Nasty.
  5. You're very welcome, SB!
  6. Hence, the conundrum in that killing one may well present the shooter with a host of unintended consequences, some of which could be life altering if not life ending, depending upon jurisdiction where the event took place. Sorry I missed replying the other day. I know. Their DNA is human, so even something as simple as “informed consent†and endless other ethical issues around human subjects research creates uncertainty at the very least. Who might pop up to actually advocate for them from among the skeptics and nay-sayers? What irony. Ya never know. This research landscape is a mine field.
  7. SB: Thanks for such a thoughtful response to my post. I thought I left this reply last night. Sorry for the delay. Quote: The evidence that has been collected by most researchers feel that their evidence is sufficient for the creatures existence. But as we are learning that this evidence is not enough to prove this creatures existence at all by science standards. The evidence is certainly enough to convince me and apparently many others here, but, as difficult as the task may be, the simple collection of evidence isn’t actually research. That’s a very intricate, controlled, rigorous and specific process in any science, and it usually yields quantifiable results. Evidence may seem strong, but outside the context of “by the rules†scientific inquiry, it’s powerless to tell a story to a society of skeptics. Research design, especially with a subject generally perceived as mythical, has to be solid and as airtight as possible: exceptionally well thought out. Quote: Yet, there are hundreds upon hundreds of reported sightings of these creatures by witnesses with evidence that proves they seen some thing out of the norm. But this does not prove this creatures existence but should show interest to science that there is some type of animal that is roaming with in our wilderness. To us, this is common sense, but to address some of your later points, PhDs have to pay the bills, too. Whatever they do has to provide them with some tangible reward. That’s only fair. It could be someone only masters-prepared, too. They’re qualified peers. If well-versed in bf culture, they’d know how to design a solid study based on existing scientific literature and what evidence they know they could collect in that very controlled, scientific way. Although there seems to be precious little scholarly literature, peer-reviewed or otherwise, whoever does this should be up to speed on it. They’d know how to write a grant to get that money for the equipment they might need to get out and collect the evidence and to support them as they design, implement and document the thing. This all takes massive amounts of time, and not many folks can afford to do it for nothing. Besides all that, PhDs often get their grad students to do their studies anyway. If you put a legit study together, some PhD might be eager to attach his/her name to it. Who is actually out there trying to get research funded? They don’t give you money without knowing exactly what you want to prove and how you plan on proving or at least supporting your hypothesis. Quote: The research has been on going and has not stopped. By this do you mean that people are out trying to collect photographic, audio or physical evidence? This is great, but unless this activity is attached to a specific study using those same rigorous methods, it’s not actually research but evidence collection, and possibly not admissible as such. Quote: It is science that has stopped or refused to research into this by not funding the proper people with reputable PHD to do the research. But I believe that this has been done in the 70's by a chosen few who wrote up a detailed report on these creatures. But the problem is that it did not fit with what there concept of what animal behavior is suppose to fit. So the funding stopped due to what was reported. Who is writing the grants for funding? Quote: The best way to research these creatures is in the field and in a known area of fresh encounters that can be controlled and must be kept under wraps. See above. Quote: It is already being done by amateurs who have no idea about animal behavior but are learning as they go. College or going back to school helps with writing up a study. But it will take a PHD for this write up to be accepted among their peers. But with out a body the evidence for the write up is weak and will be turned down, unless a well respected PHD can have a personal encounter to get a study started. I think John Bindernagle and Anna Nekaris, among others, are of the opinion that bf exists and, like me, don’t necessarily need a sighting. There are certainly others, no? Quote: That's just it, there is no protocol of the proper handling of the DNA, so they cannot narrow it down. Is the DNA contaminated by the handlers? or is this Human DNA found with in of the creature it self?. No channels exist of proper testing to see if the Human DNA belongs to the handlers or the creature it self. In other words they have not isolated the human strand of the so call contaminated DNA, nor have they gone onto details of the unknown strands of the DNA they have collected. It almost seems like they are refusing to research this creatures existence further and in my opinion I believe that they are scared. They are scared of that unknown strand that has mixed with Humans that does not match with nothing on earth. I am not saying that they are aliens , I am saying that they are refusing to add this unknown to the gen bank when ever they discover a new species. You can look this up your self if you do not believe me. They add new species to the gen bank every other month or even week with new species being discovered. I’m actually aware of this situation based just on my limited exposure to the available information. A big problem, from what I’ve seen, is that samples are brought to a lab in good faith but with questions about their collection and without a study design into which to plug the results. For us, designing a study obviously starts with the hypothesis that bf exists. It then defines specifically what constitutes supporting or contradicting evidence. It includes, probably among other things, 1 the collection of such evidence with 2. a plan for its collection and 3. provides a vehicle for translating that evidence into 4. pre-defined data points aimed at answering 5. pre-determined research questions deemed relevant to supporting the hypothesis by the investigator (and his/her grantors). A broad question of bf’s existence should be supported by the conclusions reached logically by answering the smaller, more specific questions, in this case, what about this dna? Quote: No, and nor will there ever be DNA ever entered into the Gen bank from this creature. Like I said they are scared of the truth and where it may lead them too. An open mind will lead to discovery , but a closed mind will only lead you to a locked door with out a key. They may be scared of the government conspiracy surrounding this as well. I don’t have to see the black ops helicopter to be suspicious of that. Call me paranoid. I may be too green to believe there will never be a database. GenBank is probably out of reach for now. A separate database imight be doable. I have faith that something’s gonna break. Quote: I hope this helped Thanks again, SB. Quite helpful!
  8. I won't use the quote function to save space, really, I guess, so I hope I respond to the many aspects of this thread that resonated with me. It's discouraging to think science is stalling just as I'm getting into this. I'm brand new to this business, so I'm virtually clueless, but I know a little science so I'll throw out some thoughts anyway. The first thing is that I don't see a lot of science. How do you do bf science anyway? Is it research that's stalling? How would you research bf if you don't have one? In any event, the grunt work of science can be done by non-scientists. I don't think you need a card-carrying scientist to actually see bf. They need only to design a study and write it up. In fact, nobody's reputation should be besmirched in that way. (That sounds terrible, doesn't it?) There are many people out in the field trying to get "evidence" that, to paraphrase some of the language in here, I think, won't hold the hard science water. Even the DNA is human, so, absent a previously classified hominid, hard science has no alternative but to declare it a contaminant, right? They may not be laughing when they say they need a body. There's just no other way to classify a cryptid. So what more is needed? What needs studying? If you've got the scientist to design a study, I'll crunch the numbers or do whatever I can to help the cause. Is there a database of the DNA evidence that's been advanced as being from a bf? There should be one somewhere to allow a comparision and find commonalities among them. That's an interesting article right there. You can always do a qualitative study. I have no idea how many of them are out there, but it doesn't hurt to have one more. Set some qualifications for witnesses, decide the most relevant information you'd need from them and develop questions to ask in interviews with them. It can only help until that irrefutable proof turns up. Just don't stop woring on this. Not in order to get him protected. We'll understand ourselves better.
  9. Hello fellas: I may be new to this, but it makes sense that there would be proportionally fewer encounters in inclement weather and on snow-covered terrain. Witness me sitting here in my recliner, and it's only raining out. Admittedly, this is the extent of my experience, but from what I see on TV, they just seem to stay home, like most of the rest of us, but what do I know? Interesting discussion, though.
  10. Probably contaminated with human DNA. Just sayin'...