Guest Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 So, what do people think of Ketchum's new focus: a cultural assessment of the sasquatch and their rituals? That seems to imply to me that she's beyond chance encounters. I'm afraid to board that train of thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 ScottG said: I'm afraid to board that train of thought. Awww come on - all the cool kids are doing it !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 (edited) leisureclass, on 06 March 2013 - 11:27 AM, said: So, what do people think of Ketchum's new focus: a cultural assessment of the sasquatch and their rituals? That seems to imply to me that she's beyond chance encounters. I'm afraid to board that train of thought. Ugh, squared. Is she implying that she is the new Jane Goodall of the bigfoot world? Now that the study is completed, she is spending years in the field observing multiple sasquatches in multiple troops in multiple areas of the country in order to say something is a species-wide ritual? Is that was is being implied here? I used to think I was observing possible incompetence and probable over-enthusiasm, but I think now it's actually deliberate obfuscation of the entire subject. Edited March 6, 2013 by madison5716 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Ugh, squared. Is she implying that she is the new Jane Goodall of the bigfoot world? Now that the study is completed, she is spending years in the field observing multiple sasquatches in multiple troops in multiple areas of the country in order to say something is a species-wide ritual? Is that was is being implied here? I used to think I was observing possible incompetence and probable over-enthusiasm, but I think now it's actually deliberate obfuscation of the entire subject. Ugh, cubed. She wants us to think she is the Jane Goodall of bigfoot, unfortunately, she is not a scientist, not committed, and really not very bright. Madison, I agree with everything you are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Obfuscation ob·fus·cate Verb 1.Render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible. 2.Bewilder (someone). She appears unconcerned for her own credibility. Or able to deny her failure? For 5 Years, she held the Bf community's attention with the promise of DNA proof of the Big Guy. She finally delivered a mess instead of proof. Now she thinks we'll all forget it in 2 weeks and agree to follow the Pied Piper down another false path? Hmmm. No good Con artist would do it this way. Perhaps she is truly deluded. ... She has bewildered herself. (Can I say Messiah Complex in here? Nah. Better not.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Ugh, squared. Is she implying that she is the new Jane Goodall of the bigfoot world? Now that the study is completed, she is spending years in the field observing multiple sasquatches in multiple troops in multiple areas of the country in order to say something is a species-wide ritual? Is that was is being implied here? I used to think I was observing possible incompetence and probable over-enthusiasm, but I think now it's actually deliberate obfuscation of the entire subject. I think she enjoys the spotlight and thinks this will take her to the next level - national attention outside the BF community. As for the whole conspiracy thing, my only question is - why would anyone want to cover up BF? I've never understood that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Sounds like a lot of trouble to go to just to prove that somebody isn't an expert, when they already said they aren't an expert. JMO, but it almost borders on trolling. Or real scientific research! Southern Yahoo has made a claim that he can easily tell the difference. that is relevent because he did indeed submit samples of hair that he believes is BF. why not allow him the professional courtesy of proving his contention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Owl Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Anyone who steps up to the public opinion home plate to bat is exposing themselves to a multitude of opinions, some that are informed, some not informed and some who really don't want to be distracted with facts and will believe what they want to believe. My hats off to Melba Ketchum for taking a swing at this thing knowing that serious science might not even take a serious look at her work. This has been going on for centuries when you study a new thing. Other science pioneers have also endured this before their work was accepted. Her life and business would have been much simpler if she had never taken this route. Anyone who thinks this is a very positive swing on her life is extremely ignorant of what has happened to her during this time. I feel time other endeavors will coroborate her work in time. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Are we talking only human and bear samples? Just post the pics here and I will give you my opinion. ETA: Also, just post a pic of the hair at a midway point in the shaft, where the medulla is well formed. If there are only bears and humans in the woods where you found this, then sure. But I really think, in the interest of scientific accuracy, you ought not to be told , i think you ought to easily be able to say - human! or Bear! or unknown, but not human or bear, I assume you would be comfortable in making that call - no? Photos are a bad option, you need to look at these under the same microscope and light that you have used in all your assessments. I would not want a poorly focussed or incorrectly lit speciment to cause problems. I think it is a much better, more accurate test if you have the physical specimens in your hand, and use your equipment, so we eliminate all of those other variables! slowstepper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Byrne Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 I believe her to be possibly, the Monica Lewinsky of bigfootery, but with less pure DNA. This was a no brainer... get data from independent labs, release data to public and write hypothesis: Novel DNA collected squatchly = New species... show data and turn palms up. Job done. Her talk/evidence ration is worse than RD. My opinion... No offense Monica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FootDude Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) Anyone who steps up to the public opinion home plate to bat is exposing themselves to a multitude of opinions, some that are informed, some not informed and some who really don't want to be distracted with facts and will believe what they want to believe. My hats off to Melba Ketchum for taking a swing at this thing knowing that serious science might not even take a serious look at her work. This has been going on for centuries when you study a new thing. Other science pioneers have also endured this before their work was accepted. Her life and business would have been much simpler if she had never taken this route. Anyone who thinks this is a very positive swing on her life is extremely ignorant of what has happened to her during this time. I feel time other endeavors will coroborate her work in time. Her life and business has been enriched by persuading others like Wally Hersom to fund her misadventures. Edited March 7, 2013 by FootDude BFF Rules Violation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 What I said was that I can distinguish between human and bear. It would be fun to see If I could pick them out of a line up of the known animals in the area I collected the sample. Other mammals in the area might also include bison, cow, raccoon, deer, possum, bobcat, cougar, lama or alpaca ,hog, dog, house cat, rabbit, coyote, squirrel and skunk. While I think most of these can be eliminated by sight as being possible's for my sample, I also can't claim to have looked at each one of these under my own microscope. With enough effort using online references I could probably get most of them. Fully working over 6 different samples could take some time and I'm quite busy in my off time at the moment. I think this would deserve it's own thread slowstepper, and I would insist on a go between to forward samples to me. A trusted mediator lets say, whom could also hold the answer key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 great, who would you suggest as a possible neutral middle man? What I said was that I can distinguish between human and bear. It would be fun to see If I could pick them out of a line up of the known animals in the area I collected the sample. Other mammals in the area might also include bison, cow, raccoon, deer, possum, bobcat, cougar, lama or alpaca ,hog, dog, house cat, rabbit, coyote, squirrel and skunk. While I think most of these can be eliminated by sight as being possible's for my sample, I also can't claim to have looked at each one of these under my own microscope. With enough effort using online references I could probably get most of them. Fully working over 6 different samples could take some time and I'm quite busy in my off time at the moment. I think this would deserve it's own thread slowstepper, and I would insist on a go between to forward samples to me. A trusted mediator lets say, whom could also hold the answer key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 One of the moderators here might be good. How about Masterbarber? Would you be good with sticking to the list I provided of known animals in the area of my find? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 The Journal of Advanced Zoological whatever.... sold to DeNovo has resurfaced as FAZE. http://advancedzoology.blogspot.com/ The ever faithful Casey Mullins is at the helm. Believe it or not they are focusing on Hominid Behavior Studies. They want to provide assistance in "support of scientific writing" along with a bunch of other peer reviewed stuff. Success breeds success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts