Guest Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Yep! What's wrong with that anyway? I don't follow your logic. NiceGuyJon's Yup, it's actually a pretty direct analogy, to be honest. Funny how... wrong it looks from the other side! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 There is no Bigfoot, no shootings, no bodies and no Bigfoot "slice-of-thigh" or any other body part forthcoming. My sources are irrefutable. There IS no DNA. There is no (to say the least) convincing Erickson video. Isn't there. What inside connection do you have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) And we're off to the races! Probably old news already, huh? http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/erickson-project-news-5/comment-page-1/#comment-71472 Edited July 13, 2011 by Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 And we're off to the races! Probably old news already, huh? http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/erickson-project-news-5/comment-page-1/#comment-71472 Yep...the attempts to discredit Ketchum and/or DNA Diagnostics have been ongoing for some time as a premptive strike against this research project. First off, note that there are only 18 complaints. The lab I'm sure handles 100s of samples a month, and only has 18 complaints? ANY business is going to get at least a few complaints from someone at some time or another. Next, the complaints are of the nature of "where are my results". If the lab has a problem, it appears to be in not having enough staff, not in the quality of it's analyses. This is why these various projects are better off staying hush hush until they are fully completed and ready for presentation. The Skeptics will seize any chance they get to "poison the well" by blowing a bunch of smoke alleging fraud and/or incompetence, giving a bad "first impression". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I agree, Mulder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted July 13, 2011 Admin Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Mulder, Come now, you have to be fair if you want the other side to be fair. Lead by example. Simply pointing out the bad reputation of the lab in question, as documented by the BBB is not biased or an attempt to damage the future findings of said lab. It is what it is, a bad track record. BTW, it's been what? 12 months or so since the results were to be released "any day now"? We also have conflicting statements about that peer reviewed paper, it was supposedly out for review last December; but now it seems that it hasn't even been completed. I was initially excited about this, now, not so much... Edited July 13, 2011 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Mulder, Come now, you have to be fair if you want the other side to be fair. Lead by example. Simply pointing out the bad reputation of the lab in question, as documented by the BBB is not biased or an attempt to damage the future findings of said lab. It is what it is, a bad track record. BTW, it's been what? 12 months or so since the results were to be released "any day now"? We also have conflicting statements about that peer reviewed paper, it was supposedly out for review last December; but now it seems that it hasn't even been completed. I was initially excited about this, now, not so much... I'm pretty certain that on the July 9 MNBRT show, Derekfoot said the paper was being looked at. I assume that means it's in the peer review process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I'm pretty certain that on the July 9 MNBRT show, Derekfoot said the paper was being looked at. I assume that means it's in the peer review process. They said that in January too. They said it was out for peer review back then. Then we heard that on June 11, it still was not even out for peer review. In fact, as of June 11, the sample admission process was not even closed yet. This is interminable. I doubt if it will ever see the light of day. It's extremely unhelpful that there are never any updates from this group either, or if there are, they are not even correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I wouldn't think that they would ever close the sample admission process. Why would they? If this is what they claim it is, being a clearinghouse of a continuing collection of data could be quite profitable. It could mean grant money, private donations, etc. In essence, they'd be Bigfoot central calling all the shots. I just hope they remember that with great power comes great responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) First off, note that there are only 18 complaints. The lab I'm sure handles 100s of samples a month, and only has 18 complaints? ANY business is going to get at least a few complaints from someone at some time or another. Next, the complaints are of the nature of "where are my results". If the lab has a problem, it appears to be in not having enough staff, not in the quality of it's analyses. Actually, it was 19 complaints. And that number is quite significant for a small business. To put that into perspective, Coca-Cola Company Headquarters has had 84 complaints within the past 3 years, with a BBB rating of B+. And it does indeed appear that DNA Diagnostics "has a problem." Here's the breakdown of DNA Diagnostics: Factors that lowered DNA Diagnostics, Inc.’s rating include:19 complaints filed against business Failure to respond to 3 complaints filed against business. 8 complaints filed against business that were not resolved. 10 serious complaints filed against business. BBB does not have sufficient information to determine how long this business has been operating. BBB made two or more requests for background information from the business. BBB has not received a response from this business and/or has not been able to verify information received from this business. Source: http://www.bbb.org/east-texas/business-reviews/laboratories-medical/dna-diagnostics-in-timpson-tx-24003140 I've frequented the BBB on numerous occasions investigating the backgrounds of those I intend to do business with (as any informed consumer should do), and 19 complaints reflects very poorly upon that particular business. Not to mention, 8 unresolved and 10 serious complaints, which is a huge contributing factor to the BBB rating of, "F". It's common business practice to investigate a business's BBB rating/accreditation prior to conducting business with them. Why persons would want to conduct business with someone who has a BBB rating of "F" is beyond me. Unless, of course, the person involved is biased towards (or employed by) the business. Edited July 13, 2011 by Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I wouldn't think that they would ever close the sample admission process. Why would they? If this is what they claim it is, being a clearinghouse of a continuing collection of data could be quite profitable. It could mean grant money, private donations, etc. In essence, they'd be Bigfoot central calling all the shots. I just hope they remember that with great power comes great responsibility. They should close the sample admissions process for this study, that's for sure. Right now, as long as they are still taking samples, that means that the study is still ongoing and the paper has not even been submitted for peer review yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 13, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 13, 2011 I wouldn't think that they would ever close the sample admission process. Why would they? If this is what they claim it is, being a clearinghouse of a continuing collection of data could be quite profitable. It could mean grant money, private donations, etc. In essence, they'd be Bigfoot central calling all the shots. I just hope they remember that with great power comes great responsibility. This may be true, however, on the blogtalk radio appearance (or C2C appearance) Ketchum linked a sample cut-off period loosely by referencing it as being a contingency by which the paper could then be submitted.....this may not have been intended but it was what this listener understood the case to be. She encouraged those with samples to get them in within a few weeks if they wished them to be included in the current analysis or paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 This may be true, however, on the blogtalk radio appearance (or C2C appearance) Ketchum linked a sample cut-off period loosely by referencing it as being a contingency by which the paper could then be submitted.....this may not have been intended but it was what this listener understood the case to be. She encouraged those with samples to get them in within a few weeks if they wished them to be included in the current analysis or paper. In November 2010, she said you have 3 more weeks to get your samples in? Jesus. Now here it is, June 11, and they are still taking samples. Waiting for Godot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Actually, it was 19 complaints. And that number is quite significant for a small business. To put that into perspective, Coca-Cola Company Headquarters has had 84 complaints within the past 3 years, with a BBB rating of B+. And it does indeed appear that DNA Diagnostics "has a problem." Here's the breakdown of DNA Diagnostics: I've frequented the BBB on numerous occasions investigating the backgrounds of those I intend to do business with (as any informed consumer should do), and 19 complaints reflects very poorly upon that particular business. Not to mention, 8 unresolved and 10 serious complaints, which is a huge contributing factor to the BBB rating of, "F". It's common business practice to investigate a business's BBB rating/accreditation prior to conducting business with them. Why persons would want to conduct business with someone who has a BBB rating of "F" is beyond me. Unless, of course, the person involved is biased towards (or employed by) the business. Good points Rod. Let's hope that Ketchum is really good at DNA analysis, but just poor at running a business. She might be one of those scientist who wants everything perfect, and she keeps finding more data to put in the report. Consequently the report will never be good enough to submit. She knows the BF mockers will ridicule every line of her report so she redots the i's and recrosses tees each month with a never ending process. I suppose someone could call her to find out the status of the BF DNA and if mtDNA and nuDNA are showing up in the samples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 How sad for Ketchum, Erickson, and others who have spent years and thousands of dollars in order to have their "ducks in a role" before presenting definitive proof of the existence of bigfoot to the world only to be co-opted by a nurse who finds a bf foot in a ditch along side a road. Ketchum's paper will be second page news as the world marvels at the bf foot. How foolish to wait so long to disclose this great discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts