Ike Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) I don't see anyone challenging you, so why do you come out so angry? Or did I miss something? I'll be the first to say I don't read every thread, infact I don't get to read most, but it seems to me that the few posts I have read by you seemed kind of like you have a chip on your shoulder or perhaps a bee in your bonnet. I think you will find that most of the folks here on the forum are quite nice even when they don't agree which happens quite often. So why so upset? I think I will coin a new phrase for myself. I consider myself a skeptic-believer. A "skelever" if you will because I believe, but not blindly and I have to question each issue in this BF game and make my own determinations based on evidence. I am mildly interested in the habituation claims, but have a real hard time swallowing the whole concept. It amazes me in reading through some posts on here how many folks have what mainstream people would refer to as outlandish claims, but absolutely never, never, ever are able to substantiate those claims. There is always some excuse such as "I know, therefore I have nothing to prove to anybody." If that is the case, why even crack open the can of worms? If you make these claims, at least have the sense to realize that other folks, even if they "believe" or "know" there is a BF are going to be dubious. Furthermore, at least don't get your panties in a bundle because someone deigns to question your story. You throw it out there, expect some commentary both positive and negative (just ask Dr. Ketchum). That being said, I have been suspect of "Guest of Sasquatch" from the get go as being a troll trying to stir up a response. I've noted that folks such as "Apehuman" and "Sasfootie?" have at least posted for a long time here, and stick with their stories whether others believe in them or not and take criticism in stride. Compare this to someone who has under ten postings, comes out swinging with stories that many in the community (much less non BFers) consider somewhat over the top, and within those same ten postings gets mad and essentially states "they are taking their dollies and going home." Not a lot of credibility in my mind, thus I conclude this was a put on. Do some folks get their jollies off of dangling the carrot in front of people, only to yank it away at the crucial moment? Edited December 1, 2012 by Ike
norseman Posted December 1, 2012 Admin Posted December 1, 2012 That's OK, I just think it's rude to keep picking on him when he's just interested in what we are. I'm here to talk about the show and Bigfoot not to gang up on someone that's not here to defend himself. That's OK, I just think it's rude to keep picking on him when he's just interested in what we are. I'm here to talk about the show and Bigfoot not to gang up on someone that's not here to defend himself. Have you ever been a member of his forum? It's rather rude and draconian........that's why I left. MM is interested in "his" version of the subject and not anyone else's with differing points of view. If he want's to crawl out of his castle and defend himself??? By all means.........do so. (he wont)
Rockape Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 "Rude and draconian" are why I never joined. I went to have a look what with these new events and sure enough, any threads about the Ketchum report are locked.
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 Then you got to the dance late... waaaaaay late. I'm glad that he has changed his ways now, some people grow up later in life. Everyone deserves a second chance and he's been took and told. MM is interested in "his" version of the subject and not anyone else's with differing points of view. That's true with just about everyone I have met in the BF field. "Rude and draconian" are why I never joined. I went to have a look what with these new events and sure enough, any threads about the Ketchum report are locked. Maybe he's right about Ketchum, most of the scientists are now saying she is a fraud. I sure hope they're wrong because she would really hurt the Bigfoot community if that turns out all fake. It's very sad what I read and watch now about Ketchum. The public is laughing at her, and I really had hopes she was going to prove to them it was real.
roguefooter Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 What scientists are you talking about that's calling fraud?
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 What scientists are you talking about that's calling fraud? I'd like to know that too. I keep hearing people speculating, but I need to hear it from someone who has seen the study. The BF isn't real, so the study is a hoax mantra doesn't really work for me. Not one person who has claimed hoax has backed it up with one shred of evidence.(Well, technically, MK hasn't shown us any evidence to date, either) Naysayers throwing out snarky comments doesn't qualify for proving a hoax. Let's calm down a little, and just see what the data shows before the witch-hunt begins. As far as MM is concerned....He has the classic egomaniacal 'I'm taking my toys, and going home if things don't go my way' personality. I honestly feel that he has made great contributions to the BF world, yet for each step he takes forward, he takes two steps back. Going beast-mode on Twitter seems counter-productive to me, if he truly cares about BF research, in general. It's weird how much his ideology differs from Bobo's, when it comes to the study. They are probably both privy to the same information, yet MM goes off the reservation with his opinion, while Bobo does the media circuit claiming the exact opposite as MM. Maybe their little rift had to do with Bobo not sharing Matt's hoax claims, or of MM, the self-appointed BF Alpha dog, not getting the TV opportunities as Bobo, and being jealous. I find it interesting that MM is trying to align himself with Sykes, yet naysaying Melba. But let's be honest.....The BFRO has been anti-Melba since day one. The Ketchum thread was locked since the thread was started on the Blue Forum. Didn't fit the pro-BFRO agenda, which is problematic for an entity who's only concern is what 'they' have done for BF research. There are a lot of good people in the BFRO, but that guy playing the flute needs to change his tune.
Guest wudewasa Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 C'mon people, Tim just likes to play the devil's advocate to try to get under our skins. 1
norseman Posted December 1, 2012 Admin Posted December 1, 2012 That's true with just about everyone I have met in the BF field. Yes but the difference is is that NOBODY on this forum is attempting to gag you. They may disagree with what you have to say but your entitled to your opinion. When all of your threads are locked and your posts keep getting erased...........get back to me on that thought.
bipedalist Posted December 1, 2012 BFF Patron Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) ...I find it interesting that MM is trying to align himself with Sykes, yet naysaying Melba. Good observations all PNWSquatcher and spot on. As to the above quote: then complaining about foreign scientists being in the mix IIRC, so I suppose his definition of foreign selectively would not include Sykes being across the pond (NOT starting anything here with our brothers across the pond, but stop and think how selective that logic is). So what if the followup study then includes Burtsev and Sykes with Ketchum, then what?! LOL Maybe he's right about Ketchum, most of the scientists are now saying she is a fraud. I sure hope they're wrong because she would really hurt the Bigfoot community if that turns out all fake. It's very sad what I read and watch now about Ketchum. The public is laughing at her, and I really had hopes she was going to prove to them it was real. What?! She could probably kick your butt anytime of the day (and twice on Sunday) too but what does that have to do with her brand of science if the paper is done how she has described it, controlled for contamination, had blind replication through alternative certified labs, etc. etc. Edited December 1, 2012 by bipedalist
Ike Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 I would agree. So why do you think that MM hates, and has it out for Ketchum and her findings? That was my thought as well.
bipedalist Posted December 1, 2012 BFF Patron Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Well of course, it all devolves back to ape and human and whatever they are..... professional jealousies, etc. etc. End of his show on release and discovery. End of his expeditions maybe? insert your own hypothesis here. Edited December 1, 2012 by bipedalist
Guest SquatchinNY Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 Back to the subject of Finding Bigfoot, Sierra episode on Sunday.
Rockape Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 Maybe he's right about Ketchum, most of the scientists are now saying she is a fraud. I sure hope they're wrong because she would really hurt the Bigfoot community if that turns out all fake. It's very sad what I read and watch now about Ketchum. The public is laughing at her, and I really had hopes she was going to prove to them it was real. Maybe he is right, but he could be more level-headed about it and not resort to character assasination. That makes me question his character. And not allowing any discussion on it at their forum is abit over the top and no way to move the issue forward. Also, like the others, I'd like to know who these scientists are that are calling her a fraud. 1
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 Back to the subject of Finding Bigfoot, Sierra episode on Sunday. The preview made this weeks episode look pretty good..... We'll just have 2 wait and see.
Recommended Posts