Guest DWA Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) I think science has been willing to look at the claimed evidence, and still is. Science follows where the evidence leads. In this case, to date the evidence has not lead to a single bigfoot. It has lead to many, many discoveries of hoax attempts, and misidentifications, and outright fabrications. A lot of proponents of bigfoot will put the PGF up as the best of the best evidence for the existence of the phenomenon. Many proponents argue "where is the suit" and I could ask those same posters "where is the bigfoot" almost 50 years later and booms in technology and population. We can read a newspaper from space with satellites, disable missiles with lasers, send unmanned projectiles thousands of miles to hit a target within a 3 foot radius. In a country with thousands of reports, and much claimed evidence not one has lead to an actual bigfoot. It has lead to proof of men pranking folks, and sometimes for profit. It has lead to some of the pro bigfooters misidentifying normal animal sign as evidence of bigfoot. (makes for fabulous headlines, and publicity/television - there is definitely a market for it) I think there are other examples of phenomenons that have similar conclusions to the evidence. Those things have been mentioned time and again in this thread so I won't rehash it. The odd thing to me is, we can prove the source of the claimed evidence in many cases. The proponents just don't like the answers to those sources, and refuse to submit that it is the source. Scientists are not looking at, or following, the evidence. Your faith in scientists is touching. But "science" isn't scientists. It is a virtually perfect discipline...that unfortunately is practiced by people. If scientists followed the evidence that has accumulated, we'd have had sasquatch 40 years ago, latest. They don't. None of the technical advances you are talking about mean a thing when we are talking about an animal no one would believe if one of those projectiles hit it; a drone filmed it; and a platoon of Special Forces were on the ground to watch the critter hit. Shoot, you can't even talk about this, much less act on it. Don't believe me? 'splain this one: http://bfro.net/GDB/...ort.asp?id=1258 Those are the guys who are running all that tech. (No, they are.) Don't mean nothin' if everybody who sees one is believed by no one they tell. "Look at this, Clarence...." "You'n'me are gonna pretend we didn't see that if we want honorable discharges...OK...?" Oh, that's how it is, all right. Edited January 6, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 I wonder if Disotell is going to be a reviewer of Sykes' paper? I don't know if you know this, but he's kinda a big deal. . . people know him. I'm still not sure what to think of Disandtell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Lets put it this way, he specializes in physical Anthropology, primate evolution; molecular evolution; genetics and mitochondrial DNA; analytical techniques of phylogenetic systematics; the history of biological anthropology, Dr. Ketchum doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Bet a guy like that would be upset if he wasn't asked to be a part of a big study... Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 smells like ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Disotell might be one of the few scientists who can belittle others and look good doing it. He is, a professional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 You think THAT looks good? Well then you'll LOVE this- Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 LMAO!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Lets put it this way, he specializes in physical Anthropology, primate evolution; molecular evolution; genetics and mitochondrial DNA; analytical techniques of phylogenetic systematics; the history of biological anthropology, Dr. Ketchum doesn't. Ok, then there's absolutely no chance I'll run into him out in the forest. That's probably good. There's something to being a master of derivative study rather than first-hand investigation. I guess it takes both types.... but when did it get turned around to the point that someone who is a master of the derivative is able to discredit the first hand investigator by simple proclamation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 It is my understanding Justin did not actually send the sample to Ketchum. Justin said he was away hunting at the time of the mailing, that it was Justin's wife that actually selected the sample from the freezer and mailed it to Ketchum. Did your vetting of the samples confirm this? From what I remember Justin signed full ownership of the original sample to the Olympic Project. Derek Randles owns the original sample that was sent to Ketchum. So as far as the Ketchum study goes, Justin has no rights to it. Spooky huh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhloydPhan Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 I wonder if Disotell is going to be a reviewer of Sykes' paper? I don't know if you know this, but he's kinda a big deal. . . people know him. FWIW, Dr. Disotell was interviewed by Scott Herriot for Episode 36 of "The Bigfoot Show" podcast (November 26, 2012) and said that he was not a peer reviewer for the paper. He went so far as to say that he is regularly asked to serve as a peer reviewer for papers which propose to identify new species or subspecies based on DNA evidence and was surprised that he had not been asked to serve as a reviewer for a paper like the one described in Ketchum's November press release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 I should had to that, but when Randles submitted that sample to Ketchum I do believe she took over full rights. Derek can correct me if I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) Disotell might be one of the few scientists who can belittle others and look good doing it. He is, a professional. One thing for sure, if he is looking for a career change, he would have no problem playing the part of an escaped mental patient or serial killer in a Hollywood thriller.If you look up mad scientist in Wikipedia, that picture probably appears. Edited January 6, 2013 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Disotell might be one of the few scientists who can belittle others and look good doing it. He is, a professional. He's a protege of Glen Plake... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 If you want to be taken seriously, you reach out to someone like Disotell. If you insolate yourself with only Bigfooters, some of which have sketchy back stories, it is way harder to get much credibility. Please can someone here give the name of a top flight scientist who is known to be working with Dr. Ketchum? It would only take one email that showed a snipit of data to at least keep someone like Disotell from laughing at you. I know it will be said she can't because of the peer review, but that ship has sailed, press release, C2C interview etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts