Leaderboard

Hello Bodhi, I do sometimes find myself wondering if character assassination is a good method for refuting DNA testing. For some maybe it is. It can be very effective, especially when there's a claim that an independent lab supports the results of 12 other labs. Character assassination, yessireebob, that's the way of science.

Melba is probably an agent of the logging industry releasing a false narrative of "human hybridization". Branco is probably a government agent here to make the government appear more capable then they really are. Hiflier is probably Melba's assistant helping to make her appear credible. Old Dog is probably the paid operative instructed to seed the information to the public. Wingman is probably an agent of the National Wildlife Federation here to foil Melba's secret plans and save the Bigfoot species from extinction. The rest of us are probably government minions using the Mushroom Growing technique.

Ketchum was wrong on so many levels and this is more "Hail Mary" desperation until the other paper shows. I will read Branco's link just the same.

Hello All, In considering this interview, between the top layer of power, the underlying layer of scientific pressure, and then the underlying layer under that of Google's filtering along with it's control of YouTube and it's filtering, then add in the sarcastic slant of the media and I am more inclined to support Dr. K than ever who is really out on a limb here on so many levels. The subject of Sasquatch appears more and more a subject that is very sensitive to ALL those layers mentioned above and going after the truth is in the hands of an extremely small pocket of scientists and a few websites with Forums. If the potential for the near future is something akin to the mouse that roared there are not many subjects that would create such a shake up. After all the discussions over the years here Dr. Melba Ketchum is the spearhead to pry the whole thing wide open. I truly think she deserves as many chances as it takes in light of the wall she's is, and has been, up against to at least acknowledge the risk she has undertaken on the Sasquatch existence question. Something am in no position to do at the scientific level and never will be. On that she has simply NOT given up and it doesn't look like she's ever going to until the issue is resolved to her scientific satisfaction. Go Melba. You are it. There's no one else. And I too thank you Old Dog for the good Doctor's gutsy update.

I may obsess a little over 'truthfulness'. But, don't forget to ask kit how he calculates his probabilities.

Uh, OK, Sweaty. No one was talking about Kit. Obsess much?

Don't forget to ask...how does kit calculate his probabilities??? One fine day...it is 1-in-a-hundred... "Within a max of about 4 states and two provinces... I think there's a maximum 1% chance that any of the sightings from those areas are true which is enough to keep me interested in claims of reliable evidence." http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/49350-information-wanted-roger-patterson/page-5#entry874605 Some other fine day...(in the cesspool called JREF).....it is approx. 1-in-a-million... "I think Lloyd had a better shot (chance) with Mary than Bigfoot being real"...

Her clothing line won't sell itself you know. She needs to get the interest going again.

According to the evidence, people are having encounters with Aliens inside their own homes, in their backyards, on the streets, etc. There are multiple repeat encounters. People have even claimed to have shot and killed them. How does one get a DNA sample from an Alien? Devise a plan based on the encounters- just like Bigfoot. So far attempts at obtaining Bigfoot DNA has failed, so the idea that one would be more difficult than the other is kind of moot at this point.

...beginning to wonder if perhaps ketchum should be added to the list of 'names not to be mentioned"...... that last flop didnt help matters any eta..... i guess it all depends on her motivation .

Option three of course is that you cannot back up your statement, nor refute mine and so you just resort to a personal attack.

Where does your knowledge come from about BF and where did you get your ideas about bears?

Absolutely NOT off-topic! You can't make claims, then ignore follow-up the follow up questions pertaining to your claim. Below you posted: You claim there are no sasquatches b/c in 47 years you've lived there you have not seen a BF, but have indeed seen all sorts of hairy humans. I simply inquired if you saw any Sierra Nevada Red Foxes, a rare creature of the Nevadas as well. Thus, I was challenging your logic on why you think BF doesn't exist b/c you haven't seen one. We're trying to limit the potential area of BF's livable range. I don't necessarily want to throw Nevada out b/c 1 person has lived there almost 50 years and hasn't seen one. So I say we keep Nevada on the table!

FarArcher: While I'm as staunchly no-kill as anyone, I'll politely ask you to tone down the rhetoric. The potential is there for all those things, but I'm not convinced their disposition predisposes them towards violent retaliation. What I'd suggest is if you are no-kill, then don't. If your no-kill position is based on avoiding consequences rather than an inherent sense of right and wrong, then the first chance you get with no consequences, you'll kill. That's how it works. Personally, I'd rather do it based on ethics, not avoiding payback. I have a lot more respect here for a few people (like Norseman) who are pro-kill but engage in the discussion in a reasonable, respectful manner than people I fundamentally agree with more but express it in irrational, abusive ways. IMHO there's no place for hype and hyperbole. If the truth won't carry the day on its own, it's probably not so true after all. MIB

No the topic isn't invalid at all, and I think they're decent questions. I just personally have an issue with you specifically asking them as you don't believe Sasquatches exist anywhere at all so I struggle to see a positive purpose for you personally asking these questions. What I do see is you asking them so that you and other of your ilk can rip apart certain members responses if/when they come, which make the entire thread another social experiment for skeptics that ultimately, in the end, will just end in a tonne of sarcastic replies to the answers of your questions. I will always, always fail to see how loaded questions like this, in this sense, will be a positive for the forum and it's this type of thing, by people like you, that will see people like me frequenting the forum less and less in time. It's boring me with how predictable and tiresome the skeptics on this forum are getting and I can assure whoever is reading this, it's taking it's toll on the membership. I think so, as well. My point entirely.

Great topic. I wrestle with this question all the time and I can only come up with one conclusion. I don't know.