The Ketchum Report (Part 3)

[Guest Cervelo]

Llawgoch,

Exactly!!

There's nothing to prove wrong...Bigfoot hasn't been proven to be real, maybe someday.

If and when that day comes it will not change the number of reports that are lies, misinterpretations ect. it is and always has been an absurd argument.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Cervelo

[Guest Llawgoch]

Because the "generally accepted view" is not how science does stuff.  Scientists may.  They're just disobedient to their practice when they do.

 

If bigfoot skeptics actually examined their premise, they'd find it distinctly uncomfortable.  But they never do.

 

Anyone who thinks that those propensities comfortably account for reports has simply never read them, and doesn't have an opinion I can respect.

 

I have read them and I think those propensities can comfortably account for them, so you're demonstrably wrong there.  If you replace your 'and' with an 'or' you may still have an argument.  A very poor argument, ultimately amounting to "you are wrong because I am right", but some sort of argument.

 

Essentially you just keep saying "If you think about it you have to agree with me" despite everyone telling you they have thought about it and they don't.  You never introduce anything for them to actually think about.

[Guest DWA]

Oh, so you haven't thought about them.

 

No one has shown me how he got to his assumption.  You have demonstrably not thought about it if you think that human fallibility "comfortably" accounts for the evidence.

 

Oh, we've given you plenty to think about.  You just don't choose to.

[Guest Llawgoch]

Oh, so you haven't thought about them.

 

No one has shown me how he got to his assumption.  You have demonstrably not thought about it if you think that human fallibility "comfortably" accounts for the evidence.

 

Oh, we've given you plenty to think about.  You just don't choose to.

 

Well there you go again.

 

America contains enough people willing to make and tell stupid lies for reasons of fun, profit, or insanity to account for all the bigfoot sightings there are.  That's just liars.  That's before even starting to throw in those who are genuinely mistaken or deluded.

 

That's not to say that all reports are lies or mistakes.  It's just the simple fact that they easily could be in terms of weight of numbers as there are plenty of people willing to lie about it.

 

If you are convinced by the quality rather than the quantity of reports then please cite five reports that you believe are of high quality.  They will necessarily have to be not anonymous and unambiguous.  Please don't tell me to go away and read stuff.  I have.  I want to know what you consider to be a high quality sighting report.

[Guest Cervelo]

Oh, so you haven't thought about them.

No one has shown me how he got to his assumption. You have demonstrably not thought about it if you think that human fallibility "comfortably" accounts for the evidence.

Oh, we've given you plenty to think about. You just don't choose to.

Easy the longer it gets reported without being proven the less likley it's real and the more likley it's a myth...an 8' tall humanoid wandering around the continental US for centuries undiscovered thats what we'er talking about....right?

Then you got stuff like this....okey dokey

Talk, howl like a wolf, cluck like a chicken, screech like a peacock, croak like frogs, can imitate machinery (wow), whistle, bark like a dog, meow like a kitten, coo like a dove, hoot like an owl, etc.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Cervelo

[indiefoot]

Well there you go again.

 

America contains enough people willing to make and tell stupid lies for reasons of fun, profit, or insanity to account for all the bigfoot sightings there are.  That's just liars.  That's before even starting to throw in those who are genuinely mistaken or deluded.

Does America contain enough honest, courageous, thoughtful people to account for the BF reports?

[bipedalist]

I think so, and it only takes one if they recount that they saw a hairy bipedal primate that looked like a primitive human. 

 

I'm sure that was a rhetorical question, but I'll play. 

[Guest Llawgoch]

Does America contain enough honest, courageous, thoughtful people to account for the BF reports?

 

 

Yes.  It has plenty of both sorts of people.  However, if there aren't any Bigfoots, then those sort of people aren't making the reports.  That's why anonymous reports are not evidence.  Before we can know whether honest and reliable people are making the reports, we need to know whether there are Bigfoots, or who those people are.  

I think so, and it only takes one if they recount that they saw a hairy bipedal primate that looked like a primitive human. 

 

I'm sure that was a rhetorical question, but I'll play. 

 

 

It does.  Which is why it should be easy to cite one report and say "this is the one (or a one) I believe", if you think that Bigfoot exists based on reading eye-witness reports.

 

Of course we are not talking about personal sightings or sightings by friends here.  We are talking about accepting the existence of Bigfoot based upon publicly available sighting reports.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Llawgoch

[chelefoot]

If someone would like to start a new thread to discuss BF reports, I would be happy to move these comments to that thread.

 

We are getting way off topic here.

[Guest DWA]

Well there you go again.

 

America contains enough people willing to make and tell stupid lies for reasons of fun, profit, or insanity to account for all the bigfoot sightings there are.  That's just liars.  That's before even starting to throw in those who are genuinely mistaken or deluded.

 

Your proof.  

 

That's not to say that all reports are lies or mistakes.  It's just the simple fact that they easily could be in terms of weight of numbers as there are plenty of people willing to lie about it.

 

Your proof.  It's not worth discussing if no evidence backs it up.  None of us would be discussing sasquatch if all the evidence didn't point to an unlisted animal.

 

If you are convinced by the quality rather than the quantity of reports then please cite five reports that you believe are of high quality.  They will necessarily have to be not anonymous and unambiguous.  Please don't tell me to go away and read stuff.  I have.  I want to know what you consider to be a high quality sighting report.

 

And you would just say "that's not proof."  It's not, and it's pointless to engage in that discussion.  Proof is gotten by getting proof, and there's more than enough evidence out there that science is about 45 years behind the eight-ball on that one.  You have to show me why they're worthless.  I have to show you nothing, because, see, there are the reports...UNADDRESSED.  Address them.  And proof, please.

If someone would like to start a new thread to discuss BF reports, I would be happy to move these comments to that thread.

 

We are getting way off topic here.

I'd agree.

[Sunflower]

Easy the longer it gets reported without being proven the less likley it's real and the more likley it's a myth...an 8' tall humanoid wandering around the continental US for centuries undiscovered thats what we'er talking about....right?

Then you got stuff like this....okey dokey

 

 

It's ok that you don't believe but this is only a small bit of information about the things they can do reported by all sorts of people in all sorts of professions.  It's "stuff like this" that bolsters the knowers to come forward and want to share what they've learned.  No matter how many verbal barbs you toss at me, my skin is almost as thick as the hairy guys' skin.  BTW, their skin is really thick.............

 

So fire away!!!!!! 

[Guest]

Sally Ramsey along with Derek Randles are now coming out and speaking against Ketchum. Derek wants his sample back from Ketchum (actually wants it sent to Wally) so it can be independently tested. This would be the Smeja sample that Derek submitted to Ketchum for testing. Ketchum still refuses to return the sample.

[Guest SDBigfooter]

I'm sure a few of you have seen this but if not, what do you think?  Very interesting read.  Honestly, I didn't make it all the way through but the idea is that it passed review.  Then, because of outside pressure, the company that was going to publish it refused to be involved.  Ketchum apparently bought that journal to maintain the "Accepted for publication with revisions" status and renamed it Denovo. 

 

Maybe this isn't news and I missed it a while back?

 

http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/2013/09/exclusive-newly-leaked-information.html

Edited September 17, 2013 by SDBigfooter

[Guest]

Sally Ramsey along with Derek Randles are now coming out and speaking against Ketchum. Derek wants his sample back from Ketchum (actually wants it sent to Wally) so it can be independently tested. This would be the Smeja sample that Derek submitted to Ketchum for testing. Ketchum still refuses to return the sample.

Glad to hear Derek woke up. Is there a link to this? I wish Wally would go on a Blog Talk show and speak out about his involvement and financial losses with Ketchum. Perhaps he and Erickson can be a double feature? I would call in for that one with a million questions.

 

Too bad the money the two of those men wasted didn't go to St. Jude's instead. What a shame and shame on Ketchum and Paulides.

 

Thanks

Edited September 17, 2013 by Polypodium

[Guest]

It is clearly absurd.

Who in the academia/scientific would has ever heard of an author buying a journal as a move to ensure publication of their article??

Let's assume for a minute she is actually telling the truth, that she did buy a journal for those reasons. How does that not scream of ethical concerns??