Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) Perfect, now you can keep a closed mind no matter what the paper says! It's that easy folks! Generally, we accept scientists with religious beliefs (that's psychic supernatural stuff...mind speak!), and Eisenstein a perfect example. Here's one not as savory: Dr. Watson, Nobel Prize for unraveling the DNA molecules...that double spiral helix...and Google his later comments on genetics and Africans...was that professional? LOL... So, we look at the science first....and then if we don't like the conclusions, but the science is good, then we look for the personality weakness? Don't you think that is why Meldrum comes off so wooden on TV and yet people say in person he is a riot? Isn't he trying to look professional for mass viewers, but a conversational FB comment " BFs said they like the study" isn't professional. (or is it audience size that counts?)..? That damned FaceBook! Who is to say in the strange world of Bigfootery? Even if one behaves professionally, others don't, and eventually we all sink into "like responses" at some level at least once...it is infuriating, this free for all! So, why bother posting this? LOL I don't know, except a focus on the science should be enough...right? We don't have to like or agree with broader opinions...but, boy we want to see the data....and letting that cat of the bag in 2009 was something that had to be done really (recall request for samples via podcast), and if Ketchum didn't, Biscardi did on his website as early as the summer of '09.... Edited November 30, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 There is something about this topic that turns professionals into non-. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Regarding the Erickson video and other evidence, it makes sense that Ketchum would not talk about it until release. Other wise it might get so hyped up as to be underwhelming at the reveal date, it should come out in a nice package. That is if it is still included, I am assuming there has to be some photo and video evidence based on earlier comments in this thread, but I don't really like to assume anything about this study, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Generally, we accept scientists with religious beliefs (that's psychic supernatural stuff...mind speak!), and Eisenstein a perfect example. Here's one not as savory: Dr. Watson, Nobel Prize for unraveling the DNA molecules...that double spiral helix...and Google his later comments on genetics and Africans...was that professional? LOL... So, we look at the science first....and then if we don't like the conclusions, but the science is good, then we look for the personality weakness? Don't you think that is why Meldrum comes off so wooden on TV and yet people say in person he is a riot? Isn't he trying to look professional for mass viewers, but a conversational FB comment " BFs said they like the study" isn't professional. (or is it audience size that counts?)..? That damned FaceBook! Who is to say in the strange world of Bigfootery? Even if one behaves professionally, others don't, and eventually we all sink into "like responses" at some level at least once...it is infuriating, this free for all! So, why bother posting this? LOL I don't know, except a focus on the science should be enough...right? We don't have to like or agree with broader opinions...but, boy we want to see the data....and letting that cat of the bag in 2009 was something that had to be done really (recall request for samples via podcast), and if Ketchum didn't, Biscardi did on his website as early as the summer of '09.... Exactly, Maybe some have been enjoying all the drama between Twitter, Bfro's front page and others. Myself, I've contacted Animal Planet to clarify whether MM'S views are their official position. I would suggest others do the same. http://corporate.discovery.com/contact/viewer-relations/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 It's his personal Twitter, not Animal Planet's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 For the longest time now, I think of this situation LINK, whenever I think about this work being done by Melba. Why? Well - just read the article. Here is a little snippet - the full article discuss a new study which has now cast serious doubt on the work done by Daryl Bem. Skeptics may scoff at the finding as obvious, but the research is important because it refutes a study published in a psychological journal last year that claimed to find evidence of extrasensory perception. That research, conducted by Daryl Bem of Cornell University, triggered outrage in the psychological community when the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology announced in 2010 that the paper had been accepted for publication. Psychologists immediately leapt on Bem's statistics and methods, finding reasons how he may have come up with the unbelievable results. Folks - this has just started for Melba - and if you think this community is hard on her - you ain't seen nothing yet. I would suggest we all pace ourselves - this is gonna be a long and ugly process that won't end even IF her paper is published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 For the longest time now, I think of this situation LINK, whenever I think about this work being done by Melba. Why? Well - just read the article. Here is a little snippet - the full article discuss a new study which has now cast serious doubt on the work done by Daryl Bem. Folks - this has just started for Melba - and if you think this community is hard on her - you ain't seen nothing yet. I would suggest we all pace ourselves - this is gonna be a long and ugly process that won't end even IF her paper is published. ...and so much for the presumption that 'Bigfoot would be the greatest discovery of all time," and that's why they don't exist...? Oh, count on it, there are a lot of UNWELCOME findings in science. And you are looking at one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Yeah. JREF better take the rest of their vacation time now. They are gonna need the rest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) Interesting, maybe old news, Justin Smeja saying that he is getting " a lot of hits on human", I believe he is referencing the further testing of his flesh sample..(from about 22-3 minute mark. Still watching.. as I write this Edited November 30, 2012 by VioletX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 If not release of the Erickson footage, at the very least mention it. Y'all got to understand this- if you are reading this you are not general public. 99.9%+ knows very little about Bigfoot and essentially 0 about this project. They know nothing about Melba, DNA, habituating, Erickson, brisson, standing, pancake vid, RL, etc. Clueless. Their perception of Bigfoot is an old video of a guy in a suit in the 60's and a dumb tv show on Subday nights on Animal Planet. They can't imagine seeing a fleeting glimpse of one, much less bait one to capture it's hair or blood or saliva. She has to sell it better if she is gonna do interviews. Jimbo the local tv guy isnt going to be up to speed on the world known as bigfooters and bigfooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Violet - check your link... LMAO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Violet - check your link... LMAO. fixed...should have posted that one 2 days ago on the appearance derailment,lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Interesting, maybe old news, Justin Smeja saying that he is getting " a lot of hits on human", I believe he is referencing the further testing of his flesh sample.. Well, at least that's not inconsistent with Ketchum's findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Well, at least that's not inconsistent with Ketchum's findings. yes, and listen, at around 45 minutes, to Justin's comment re the little one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Question- why can't they be genetically close to humans but still be apes? How do we know where the line is? Orangutangs and chimps are genetically close to humans and still apes, Bigfoot could just be CLOSER to humans but still apes... maybe everyone is right? Maybe the ARE very, very, close to humans genetically, but just haven't evolved the higher thinking and are thus just very smart apes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts