The Ketchum Report (Part 3)

[Guest DWA]

 

There comes a point when repeatability trumps alternate explanations. You saw that already.

 

Here's an alternate explanation:  these samples aren't coming from an identified animal.

 

One can repeat what one wants.  If the source is unconfirmed, of what significance the repetitions?

 

It's reality that counts in the end, not one's ability to prove or disprove something.  If this is real and human, or real and ape, it matters not what we think.  There it is, and that's the way it's always been.  It's just that when one says something came from, you know, this thing we can't show you, and we're sequencing human DNA, well, some of us go:  hmmm.  She trumpeted her findings long before the research came out.  There's human DNA in it...wait, that's us.

 

And.  No cigar.

[southernyahoo]

Repeatability is science, so you "will" have to deal with that sooner or later, whether it is the reality you want or not. I offered that repeatability can be had with or without a body. The only reason to dispense with the premise of a DNA study on samples with best provenance, is to concede there is nothing to be found.

 

It's reality that counts in the end, not one's ability to prove or disprove something

 

 

This gives me a giggle, LOL, the reality exists only in your mind, until the DNA proves it. This day and age does not acknowledge new species of primate without DNA anymore.

[Guest DWA]

One can giggle.  One can also show me the animal the sample came from.  Nobody seems to be getting past this little obstacle.

 

Reality is what it is.  Individuals' minds have little to do with it.  Funny how this sure don't seem proven to me with that DNA.  Nor to most of the rest of us.

[southernyahoo]

It's proven that human DNA comes from prospective BF samples. The repeatability in that should be as informative to you as the sighting reports are.

 

Proof is defined as a cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of the mind of a truth or fact. So your mind has everything to do with accepting proof. 

[Guest DWA]

My point is:  reality doesn't care about our minds.  It either is or isn't.  Bigfoot is real or not regardless what anyone thinks about that.

 

The sightings are compelling, for reasons I and others have gone over at length all over this site, together with the footprints and the Patty film as close as anything in the history of our species has gotten to being proven without proof.  Against that, a bunch of stories about the provenance of evidence with human earmarks all over it - when we know contamination is always a possibility - doesn't even really rate. 

 

People who have seen a bigfoot have described it, in terms so consistent over so many decades that if they're all fake they're all being informed by generations of dedicated seasoned primatologists.  I'm kinda doubting that.  What did the things that left the Ketchum - even the Sykes - samples look like?  Dang if anyone seems to know.

 

Ketchum has raised eyebrows at every stage.  It's just hard to buy what she's selling.  No matter who is selling it with/for her.

 

 

[southernyahoo]

Against that, a bunch of stories about the provenance of evidence with human earmarks all over it - when we know contamination is always a possibility - doesn't even really rate. 

 

And this why there is no proof in peoples minds, the evidence always has some human earmarks, and they can't wrap their mind around the why. It's in the vocalizations, the tracks, pattys walk and the DNA.

 

I don't expect this to suddenly change, but it appears to be your hope in obtaining a body. 

[Guest DWA]

All I'm saying is that Ketchum don't move the needle for me. 

 

Have I seen one?  Do I know what one looks like?  Have we seen any of the pieces that any of this alleged smoking-gun evidence comes from?

 

Nope.

 

I am practically beyond the need for either scientific or personal proof.  The volume and consistency of the evidence says it for me.  It's just that I don't see Ketchum as a step in the right direction, and it would appear I am far from alone.

[bipedalist]

Remember don't forget these links:

 

http://historum.com/blogs/ghostexorcist/1380-melba-ketchum-s-bigfoot-dna-study-questionable-ethics-creating-journal.html

[Guest Llawgoch]

 

 

People who have seen a bigfoot have described it, in terms so consistent over so many decades that if they're all fake they're all being informed by generations of dedicated seasoned primatologists.  

 

 

 

Or that people who make fake Bigfoot reports read existing reports first and say something consistent with them.

 

You have been told this so many times and you continue to spout that line as if it has any value.  

[Guest DWA]

Or that people who make fake Bigfoot reports read existing reports first and say something consistent with them.

 

You have been told this so many times and you continue to spout that line as if it has any value.  

 

Your proof of your first sentence.  Any time you want to submit it.  If you have none...then you have nothing to say on this matter.

 

But one keeps coming back here to say it, doesn't one.

 

That post is prefaced - as clearly as one could do so - with the implied words, "Because there is no way this could be real..."

 

Oh, no, I've got that right.  The history of the invaluable contributions of eyewitness testimony to scientific endeavor makes that very, very clear.  Unless one is just professing one's ignorance of that.

 

Just read up, and delete that autotext.  Really helps.

Edited September 19, 2013 by DWA
Edit anti-social content

[Guest Llawgoch]

And you keep showing a serious need to get educated on this before saying things without having any idea whether they are right or not.

 

Your proof of your first sentence.  Any time you want to submit it.  If you have none...then you have nothing to say on this matter.

 

But one keeps coming back here to say it, doesn't one.

 

Do you understand what requires proof and what doesn't?

 

The first line is an an alternative explanation for consistency of reports.  You admit only one explanation and one conclusion, without proof.  I don't have to provide proof for offering alternatives.  Can you honestly not understand this?

[Guest DWA]

Just read my RedQuote and..  Thanks for playing!

 

If one honestly does not understand that all entrants into a scientific discussion must provide evidence, and not just throw crap at the wall,...well, I'm honestly wondering what of relevance one does understand about this particular discussion.

 

Whitewashing evidence with a wave of one's hand is not science, and one must not flatter oneself that it is.

 

And I did really mean the "run along" part.  Try to come up with something that will advance the discussion.  This just gets tiresome.

Edited September 19, 2013 by DWA
Remove anti social content

[Guest Llawgoch]

Just read my RedQuote and.  Thanks for playing!

 

If one honestly does not understand that all entrants into a scientific discussion must provide evidence, and not just throw crap at the wall,...well, I'm honestly wondering what of relevance one does understand about this particular discussion.

 

Whitewashing evidence with a wave of one's hand is not science, and one must not flatter oneself that it is.

 

And I did really mean the "run along" part.  Try to come up with something that will advance the discussion.  This just gets tiresome.

 

 

It gets tiresome because you continue to state that only one conclusion can be drawn from the consistency of bigfoot reports.  You do not offer any proof.  You do not offer any reasoning.  You simply state it.

 

When someone says, "no, another conclusion can be drawn", you start shouting about them having to 'prove' that.  It makes no logical sense.  You will not address the issue though, simply make ad hominem statements.

 

Do you deny that a possible explanation for consistent reports is simply that people are reporting things similar to what they have read before?

 

And if you think that needs to be 'proved' before you can address it, how do you prove YOUR conclusion that the ONLY possible explanations are that Bigfoot exists or "They are all being briefed by primatologists"?  Surely to 'prove' that you must be able to show my possible explanation is somehow impossible.

[Guest DWA]

Pat head, over and out.

 

Did you really say, "no, I get to say any silly thing I want because I'm a skeptic?"

 

You did.

 

Is one simply ignoring the fact that proof garnering is going on, based on eyewitness reports?  Is one simply ignoring the glacial but steady shift in the scientific approach to this topic?

 

Oh, one most certainly is.  One could be using one's time learning these things.  But one prefers brickbats with nothing behind them other than telling people to do what people are already doing.

 

[sigh]

 

I'll make sure to tell them proof for Llawgoch must be on the 3:10 from Yuma.  I'll make sure their laughter deters me not in pursuit of this lofty goal.

Edited September 19, 2013 by DWA
edit anti social content

[Guest Llawgoch]

 

Did you really say, "no, I get to say any silly thing I want because I'm a skeptic?"

 

You did.

 

 

Is there any one else on this forum other than DWA to whom this post makes any sense? I would be interested to know.

Edited September 19, 2013 by chelefoot
edit quote