BobbyO Posted June 17, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted June 17, 2011 They're never going to quit. When Ketchum's paper comes out, they are going to roast it like a marshmallow over a fire. They've already said that they will not accept the findings. And they are sharpening their knives over the Erickson video footage too. They've already announced that they will not accept this either. If that's certain people's mentalities, then i personally really wouldn't worry one iota about what they thought or said to be honest.. Someone who has a preconceived notion about something like this i would assume, would likely have an agenda &/or an alterior motive one way or the other anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 17, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted June 17, 2011 Good science is rock solid.......preemptive exercises will be seen for what they are....don't think Ketchum is shivering in her boots on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 If that's certain people's mentalities, then i personally really wouldn't worry one iota about what they thought or said to be honest.. Someone who has a preconceived notion about something like this i would assume, would likely have an agenda &/or an alterior motive one way or the other anyway. Personally I agree about the agenda issue for some of the skeptics who may have a *vested* interest in debunking BF financially speaking, but there are other people will not believe even when the truth comes out. It's like UFOs, even after seeing a UFO a friend said: I saw something else because UFOs do not exist. True story.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 If that's certain people's mentalities, then i personally really wouldn't worry one iota about what they thought or said to be honest.. The problem is that they wind up "poisoning the well". Remember the old adage about "first impressions"? If the first impression the general public is getting of Erickson, or Ketchum is the Debunkerist/Denialist version, then that will color how the results are perceived. It's a PR struggle not over truth, but how to twist public perceptions OF that truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 NABS has a new page on their site, giving information about it's team members and the upcoming release of their DNA study. I'm assuming that they are referring to the DNA work that Ketchum is doing. http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/nabs_team_members.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Finishing line... so close... oh my God... my fingernails are history Man, hopefully this will be published soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 17, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted June 17, 2011 NABS has a new page on their site, giving information about it's team members and the upcoming release of their DNA study. I'm assuming that they are referring to the DNA work that Ketchum is doing. http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/nabs_team_members.html Interesting profiles on Bobby Short and Scott Carpenter, maybe two of the most interesting, understated individuals in this search. Thanks for the heads up on that one bsr! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Will the reveal be done here on the Erickson Project topic, or will there be a special forum created? I'm afraid of missing it! Will there be news coverage so that Fox and CNN will have it as headlines? Since most people know next to nothing about BF, and may only have a passing interest, will it be the Headline on all News programs? I'm afraid of missing the event and not having it recorded so I can tell hubby "I told you so" for about the 20th time in the past few months.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted June 18, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted June 18, 2011 The problem is that they wind up "poisoning the well". Remember the old adage about "first impressions"? If the first impression the general public is getting of Erickson, or Ketchum is the Debunkerist/Denialist version, then that will color how the results are perceived. It's a PR struggle not over truth, but how to twist public perceptions OF that truth. Absolutely, but sadly there is little or nothing we can do about it Mulder.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 18, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted June 18, 2011 Will the reveal be done here on the Erickson Project topic, or will there be a special forum created?I'm afraid of missing it! Will there be news coverage so that Fox and CNN will have it as headlines? If that team is published in science journals or adapt a personal presentation of their work here, this thread or at least discussion of those papers would most likely be posted up in the media section or within the In The Field / Applied Scientific Method sections. Kind of depends on how the material is presented by news organizations and how the authors/producers represent their products and whether they directly come to the forum with it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 If that team is published in science journals or adapt a personal presentation of their work here, this thread or at least discussion of those papers would most likely be posted up in the media section or within the In The Field / Applied Scientific Method sections. Kind of depends on how the material is presented by news organizations and how the authors/producers represent their products and whether they directly come to the forum with it or not. Thank you! I would *hate* to miss the event after waiting for years as many of us have been doing..BF is real! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 18, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted June 18, 2011 Also, if it's as big as they are "saying", something will most probably be pinned but we've got a way to go with that yet it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alpinist Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 (edited) Dr. Ketchums DNA results proving Sasquatch are humans like us will only come as a surprise to North American researchers and the general public. The people who won't be surprised about the human DNA revelation will be the North American Indians, the Russians and the numerous face to face eyewitnesses. In 1958 Russian scientist Dr. Boris Porshnev presciently surmised that these beings preceded the emergence of man, as themselves being higher level bipedal primates. Dr. Porshnev's influence created an initiative by the USSR academy of Science to set up a special commission on the subject which unfortunately produced no results. But the premise that primitive relic men still roamed the earth amongst us from the stone age was established over 50 years ago. What has been the big stumbling block in North America is the initial researchers into the phenomena had a strong bias, a monkey like, dumb animal bias. This view has resulted in the cherry picking of witnesses, reports, and the wording of descriptions to create, what to them, seemed to be a viable and believable model of the Sasquatch. This model was sold into the public domain and has tainted everyones perception going forward. Particularly the inability of the general public to swallow the story that a mere animal could be so elusive. DNA results proving that these beings are in fact humans like us will emphasize what has been a very significant discovery back in 2008, namely Scott R. Nelsons work. His research that they have a spoken structured language has been very much overlooked, but was an important clue to many elements of the mystery. As I understand it he is now mapping meanings to the words and phrases with new information he has been given. A language which enables them to co-ordinate their behaviours, and that they likely regard us humans, in general, as enemies to be avoided at all costs. When those two elements of Sasquatch, language and DNA, is proven to average man in street it wont be such a hard sell telling him that Neanderthal like beings have survived from the stone age and are still living amongst us. What has been a curve ball for everyone is that there is not a single species of squatch, that much I got out of the younger Erickson at the Harrison conference. They all don't look the same and share the exact same physical conformations. This has caused a lot of problems and conflict in the bigfoot research community. Post discovery let the anthropologists and the environmentalists run with the ball from here. They are going to have a lot of fun with it, especially if the environmentalists thought the spotted owl was a big deal. Next the anthropologists have a new conundrum to contend with, humans that don't need tools or fire, but share the characteristic of speech, with us, mappable by a crypto-linguist. I think that to move forward, post discovery, in the most effective way, references to these beings using the words Sasquatch and Bigfoot have to be discontinued. There is simply too much baggage attached to those terms. I am sure Melba has spent considerable time devising a new naming convention which will give us a healthy and fresh start into the post discovery world. Human DNA .... Human language characteristics. Sure explains a lot of the mystery in my opinion. Congratulations to Adrian Erickson and his crew. And a big thank you to Dr. Ketchum. Kudos to the Olympic Pennisula team and all the others whom have made contributions of physical evidence to her lab, including myself. I am very excited about the future and the adventures it will provide. Edited June 18, 2011 by Alpinist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 18, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted June 18, 2011 ....and the numerous face to face eyewitnesses. I agree with your assessments, alpinist, of early bias and models suggesting a lesser form of intelligent ape-squatch so to speak. I feel that some fact-to-face eyewitnesses that come upon these beings at night still may not wholly agree with the ease with which you portray their easy categorization/classification as Homo however. They have enough unusual characteristics, that if you are not a long term witness/researcher that you aren't going to miraculously understand what these organisms are based on the typical nocturnal sighting. As you say the diversity of presentation still presents a conundrum. This is not all wrapped up in a nice neat package until the presentations are published and released. There are still issues of physiology to be worked out among the subspecies for example. Otherwise, yes, I hope this plays out as you depict for everybody in a convergent way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 They are already yucking it up over the Stubstad interview. They're laughing their heads off about all this stuff. I saw them at one of their forums. They're never going to quit. When Ketchum's paper comes out, they are going to roast it like a marshmallow over a fire. They've already said that they will not accept the findings. Wish I knew who they were. Then again, such closed minded thems don't really matter in the grand scheme. Of course, it seems that some people are taking Ketchum's statement that Stubstad knows nothing of her results, as a statement that Stubstad's results do not agree with her's. Stubstad's results come from work on two samples, which Ketchum performed for hire, and are not from the paper related work, or related to the Erickson Project. In other words, Stubstad's release could be viewed as independent verification of Ketchum's paper. Of course, all of the DNA sequencing was performed by Ketchum in both cases. Now that people know what to look for (matches to ancient haplogroup H), DNA testing from other labs should show even more positive hits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts