Doc Holliday Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 Welcome to Bigfooting, Take a deep breath and a big swig of what ever you like to drink, sit down and take a moment to let it flow threw your veins. Now ~ remember in life for every point there is a counter point, the same rule applies here and to some degree a bit more, the best you will be able to do is chip away one strike at a time and work your way along the maze of information and misinformation, if you can do that then at some point ( who knows how long ) you will reasonably understand that there is no way in hell what ever side you take will make any difference at any time. Simple as that. Tim Tim,if I had another plus one you would get it for this post.imo,this is about the most accurate way I've seen it put.well said my friend.
southernyahoo Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) I don't think anything bad will happen to her or the lab if this falls through, who is going to know she was involved in BF research, the few thousand folks that follow it? DR Meldrum is doing ok after all his year's of research into it, she is just on a personal quest and if it taks a big dump then it's work as usual. Tim Tim, her lab does alot of testing for animal owners, some of her clients might be reknowned breeders of horses show dogs and the like. one google search on her name would likely turn up more "bigfoot DNA" hits than her prior rep would have made her known for. I imagine prospective clients have found this info. Edited December 16, 2011 by southernyahoo
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 Yup that's what happens when you do a search, i know cause i searched for info on her lab. I agree some might say she is a little kooky for looking into BF, but i would also have to think folks would think she has guts and is someone that is not afraid to take some risks, that could be a good thing. Tim
Guest StankApe Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 I would love to see a good BF pic, please PM me. Tim DITTO with a capital DITTO!
Guest parnassus Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 (edited) Re : Relative ease of searching for terrestrial creatures Perhaps you need to get outdoors... go drive to a trailhead near Marblemount, then figure out how you are going to search thousands of square miles of VERY DIFFICULT terrain... no, not just the trails, go waaayyy back in to untracked areas, cliffs, etc. Now, sustain that effort for, what did you say it took that Japanese guy to find the giant squid, a month? Go ahead, go off trail for a month, then come back and tell us how easy that was. Oh, and carry all the research gear, food, etc. etc. Should be real cheap and easy, right? Re : Ketchum, journal publication, etc. Perhaps you need to do a little more reading about the requirements for journal publication and why they bar submissions from blasting their results to the world before publication. Are you saying that DNA results from a major university would be just as good or better, and if so how are they going to publish it (oh... right, publish it as in a JOURNAL). Naj, do some reading first. It really helps. why would one have to go waaayyyy back in to untracked areas? bigfoot has been reported thousands of times in very accessible areas. Why go somewhere where the reports are few???? Go where the money is....How about that state park in Ohio? You should read about where bigfoots are reported. There are a lot of hot spots reported around the country where enthusiasts say these creatures are, and they aren't waaayyyy back in the wilderness. Pretty much everywhere the BFRO goes, you can drive to, correct? Actually, since I would guess you have ever submitted a paper to a scientific journal, let me help you out here and inform you the issue is prior publication of the final results of the paper, directly or indirectly, by one of the authors. Leaks are pretty much irrelevant because lab people generally want their lab to succeed in publication, and they act professionally. But if one goes to a newspaper and attempts to spill the beans, the newspaper is just going to go to the head of the project to confirm, and it won't happen. No journal expects that authors run a gestapo in their lab; it's a free country. If you think that Richard Stubstad going to Robert Lindsay, waving his arms with a bunch of stuff, is going to prevent publication of Bigfoot DNA, you are completely mistaken. You may not realize this, but many if not most papers are presented in preliminary form before submission, in front of hundreds of scientists before being formally published. This helps get feedback and criticism that can improve the paper. Or sink it. This is what people in universities do, and it is one of the many things they do that actually do make papers better. Ketchum could have done this. These talks are published in abstract form, with results. Sometimes reporters are there. Big deal. The point is that secrecy per se is not the issue. The issue is that the authors themselves don't do anything to mislead the public about what the study shows, and that they don't leverage the impending publication into implied approval of whatever claims they might make in the lay press. The old saying applies: A lie goes around the world while the truth is pulling its pants on. The author has to speak through the paper (in its final form) and the journal, initially. Example: If Dr. X writes a paper saying that herbicide X was used in a research environment and didn't cause birth defects in frogs, well, that might be accepted for publication by the Journal of Embryology. But if suddenly the author appears in a news broadcast from the headquarters of the herbicide maker, announcing "our paper showing that herbicide x is safe will be appearing in the Journal of Embryology." Obviously, the paper doesn't show that the herbicide is safe. Someone is paying this author to make the study seem like more than it is. But no one knows this, because the paper can't yet be read and studied. So the word goes out around the world that the Journal of Embryology has pronounced herbicide x to be safe, millions of tons are sold and put in the ground, before the study ever is published. It doesn't show that herbicide x is safe for anything but frogs in a research environment. So now millions of animals are potentially at risk. A renegade Richard Stubstad just can't have this effect, for several reasons. Edited December 16, 2011 by parnassus
Guest Jodie Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 Ketchum is not just protecting her contacts. She has made people pull stuff from their websites, barred them from talking about anything, fired people that worked with her and so on. This is from people that CLAIM to be so interested in PROTECTING SASSY and yet they have the purported evidence that will prove the existence and they do nothing until their pockets are lined? All the stuff she has done is to protect the profitability of her "project," that's it. What is the purpose of having a paper in a journal anyway? What would that accomplish that some of the top wildlife DNA labs in the world couldn't do? Are you all saying that a published paper in a journal that NO ONE can even name would carry more weight with the scientific community than positive DNA results from someplace like Ohio State, UCLA, Stanford, Harvard or Texas A&M? If that is the claim, I am going to have to respectfully disagree. nalajr Even CERN has to verify their results, everyone has to have repeatable and verifiable results including those universities you named for any research they support. The purpose of having a paper in a reputable journal is to present a polished/ finished product that has been critiqued and reviewed by other experts regarding whether the methods used in research were sound. In other words, " It looks like she did everything right, so there may be something to this". From there, what she did can hopefully be repeated for further verification like Stubstad said he was doing. You may see that as lining pockets, but I attribute that to the "hangers on", not Dr. Ketchum. As for what labs were used, I'm guessing Baylor University was one of them involved, and it is the third best in the country for molecular and human genetics.
Guest StankApe Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 why would one have to go waaayyyy back in to untracked areas? bigfoot has been reported thousands of times in very accessible areas. Why go somewhere where the reports are few???? Go where the money is....How about that state park in Ohio? You should read about where bigfoots are reported. There are a lot of hot spots reported around the country where enthusiasts say these creatures are, and they aren't waaayyyy back in the wilderness. Pretty much everywhere the BFRO goes, you can drive to, correct? Actually, since I would guess you have ever submitted a paper to a scientific journal, let me help you out here and inform you the issue is prior publication of the final results of the paper, directly or indirectly, by one of the authors. Leaks are pretty much irrelevant because lab people generally want their lab to succeed in publication, and they act professionally. But if one goes to a newspaper and attempts to spill the beans, the newspaper is just going to go to the head of the project to confirm, and it won't happen. No journal expects that authors run a gestapo in their lab; it's a free country. If you think that Richard Stubstad going to Robert Lindsay, waving his arms with a bunch of stuff, is going to prevent publication of Bigfoot DNA, you are completely mistaken. You may not realize this, but many if not most papers are presented in preliminary form before submission, in front of hundreds of scientists before being formally published. This helps get feedback and criticism that can improve the paper. Or sink it. This is what people in universities do, and it is one of the many things they do that actually do make papers better. Ketchum could have done this. These talks are published in abstract form, with results. Sometimes reporters are there. Big deal. The point is that secrecy per se is not the issue. The issue is that the authors themselves don't do anything to mislead the public about what the study shows, and that they don't leverage the impending publication into implied approval of whatever claims they might make in the lay press. The old saying applies: A lie goes around the world while the truth is pulling its pants on. The author has to speak through the paper (in its final form) and the journal, initially. Example: If Dr. X writes a paper saying that herbicide X was used in a research environment and didn't cause birth defects in frogs, well, that might be accepted for publication by the Journal of Embryology. But if suddenly the author appears in a news broadcast from the headquarters of the herbicide maker, announcing "our paper showing that herbicide x is safe will be appearing in the Journal of Embryology." Obviously, the paper doesn't show that the herbicide is safe. Someone is paying this author to make the study seem like more than it is. But no one knows this, because the paper can't yet be read and studied. So the word goes out around the world that the Journal of Embryology has pronounced herbicide x to be safe, millions of tons are sold and put in the ground, before the study ever is published. It doesn't show that herbicide x is safe for anything but frogs in a research environment. So now millions of animals are potentially at risk. A renegade Richard Stubstad just can't have this effect, for several reasons. Plussed! That's a as good a description for the peer reviewed method (and the various myths surrounding it) as I've seen! kudos!!!
Guest Nalajr Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 Kinda like Ketchum appearing on Bigfoot radio shows, paranormal shows and going to Bigfoot conferences??? So an auditorium full of scientists could've heard a preliminary report proving Sassy is real and not a single one of them walked out of the room and said "hey that blew my mind, I can't believe we finally have evidence of Sassy?" Not buying it for even a second. Can ANYONE even say what journal this supposed paper is going to appear in or has been supposedly submitted to? ANYONE? In the above example do you think that Dr. X would refuse to even admit that he submitted a paper to the Journal of Embryology? I can understand not talking about its contents or conclusions, but refusing to even say? We're not talking about a pesticide causing defects in frogs. We're talking about what would be the BIGGEST scientific discovery in perhaps the last 100 years. Journals are NOT meant for consumption by the general public. They are for SCIENTISTS, 98% of the general public couldn't understand the first paragraph of a journal article. Nalajr
Guest Jodie Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 Maybe you can't understand journal articles, but most of us in this thread can. To my knowledge, Ketchum hasn't talked about her results and I hardly think she is raking in the dough appearing occasionally when she makes a very good living running and owning her own DNA lab. Ask several members of this forum here who have appeared at these conferences what they get out of it...... :lol:
Guest StankApe Posted December 16, 2011 Posted December 16, 2011 You can have preliminary discussions about the principles of the paper. You just can't fully announce the "findings" of the paper to the media or public. Regardless of the subject matter (be it cold fusion, frog mutations or Bigfoot). They expect there to be some discussion in regards to the theories or evidence included in said paper, but they don't want there to be any official pronouncements to the press or public. Not just because it could taint the reality of the findings and/or said journals reputation for accuracy, but also because they are basically agreeing to a "first rights " agreement with the submitter for publishing the information included. It's also why you can't submit to more than one at a time. It would be unethical to try and drive some bidding war for your paper if multiple journals accepted it for publication.
Spader Posted December 17, 2011 Author Posted December 17, 2011 When I started this topic I was curious as to why so few Bigfoot are caught on Game Cams. I certainly did not want people trying to out do one another with witty comment(some times mean) I was just curious as to what other people think as to why we cant capture a Bigfoot on game cams. This is what i know about cameras, I know that Andre Agassi promoted something the "Rebel" and thats about it. I did not want to start an ESP VS. Full blood war. I just wanted to get get everyones opinion not clever banter hiding put downs on other posters. I DID learn a bunch and thanks to all, there where a bunch of very obtuse and obvious comments. I know that this one topic generates a whole bunch of great ideas and others that seem too out there, but just as valuable. I thank each and every one who responded. I know that this sounds like a farewell letter, but it is the complete opposite, keep them coming.
Guest StankApe Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) Sorry Spader, but I find excuses for why cams don't appear to work like "ESP" to be a cop out.... By this logic, all pictures of Bigfoot are fake cuz a real Bigfoot would've felt them coming miles away and never been photographed. Ditto for Patty! In other words, I just wish people would stick to the things that make sense before making the leap to paranormal stuff like ESP and/or dimension jumping...etc Edited December 17, 2011 by StankApe
bipedalist Posted December 17, 2011 BFF Patron Posted December 17, 2011 Maybe you have just been imagining how easy fieldwork is Stankape. Get out there and have your gamecam bear chewed while you are camped on a mtn bench above it with something shaking the holy crap out of a locust snag simultaneously...... (yeah, the camera wasn't mounted on THAT snag but it was the same one YOU shook everytime you passed through the area during the daytime, lol) Be sure to get back to us on that ..... now hear! Then maybe your, "it's all nonsense comments", will have some stickum to thum! Seems like maybe TooRisky's philosophy is starting to sink in a bit
Guest Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 I thought this thread was blah-blah-blah about not being able to catch BF on trail cams not blah-blah-blah about "the paper." The blah-blah-blahs are blending together.
Guest StankApe Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 Maybe you have just been imagining how easy fieldwork is Stankape. Get out there and have your gamecam bear chewed while you are camped on a mtn bench above it with something shaking the holy crap out of a locust snag simultaneously...... Be sure to get back to us on that ..... now here! Then maybe your, "it's all nonsense comments", will have some stickum to thum! Seems like maybe TooRisky's philosophy is starting to sink in a bit I don't live anywhere near Bigfoot activity. (unless you think the swamp bigfoot stuff is real which I don't). I live near bayous and swamps and have been out on those a lot. But not anymore really, I find the idea of being hot, wet, muddy and looking out for submerged gators and cottonmouths more a thing of my past than my future! The truth of the matter is this though. At least 60+ years of regular trips to the woods by Bigfooters and no decent looking photographs. That's not my fault for not going into the woods. In fact , it's starting to convince me that Bigfoot is a social construct and not a real creature at all, regardless of everyones anecdotal evidence. That makes me sad
Recommended Posts