BobbyO Posted July 14, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted July 14, 2011 Craig Woolheater is a skeptic? http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/erickson-project-news-5/comment-page-1/#comment-71472 Funny, as the owner of Cryptomundo and a former member of the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy who himself claims a Bigfoot sighting, I would not have considered him to be a skeptic. Just because he's skeptical of this situation doesn't make him a skeptic of the whole Subject, unless of course he's now doubting how own eyesight.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billgreen2010 Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 This guy too... Sorry, couldn't resist. RayG hey ray ROFL to be continued with this ongoing situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) I'm wondering if she was supposed to reply to complaints by saying she's sorry she's late with results but she's been up to her ears analyzing sasquatch DNA? If she'd analysed someone's horse's DNA and it came back "cat" I might be worried. Why would one customer need DNA for a horse sale anyway? Question of paternity? Bang on. Pedigree methinks. Horse breeding is BIG business. Horse and bull semen from good lines go for $$$. So knowing an animal's pedigree may be important for establishing value. Or maybe someone shoulda called Maury.....:-P Edited July 14, 2011 by notgiganto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) According to Cryptomundo, Ketchum posted an update of sorts on her Facebook page. This caught my eye: "It won’t be too long now and then all will know what I know and all of this drama will be concluded." Also, Paulides has updated his blog discussing the DNA study. He seems to be suggesting the DNA shows BF to be more human than ape. Apparently he also replied on his Facebook page to a Bigfoot DNA story that ran yesterday (someone posted a link in this thread, I think). Unfortunately, the Facebook post is gone. Does anyone know what it said? Edited July 14, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 According to Cryptomundo, Ketchum posted an update of sorts on her Facebook page. This caught my eye: "It won’t be too long now and then all will know what I know and all of this drama will be concluded." Also, Paulides has updated his blog discussing the DNA study. He seems to be suggesting the DNA shows BF to be more human than ape. Apparently he also replied on his Facebook page to a Bigfoot DNA story that ran yesterday (someone posted a link in this thread, I think). Unfortunately, the Facebook post is gone. Does anyone know what it said? Paulides (or whomever) updated NABS BF blog today: basically more of the same, no updates, once again dangling the carrot ( a new one this time: a concurrent behavior study??/) and telling us how great the research is without even telling readers the status of the DNA project. Some of the claims being made are very interesting. No mention of sources of DNA other than hair. New NABS blog entry Really trying to be patient, but some idea of where the paper is might be nice, realizing that details cannot be released. I feel a bit patronized by being told "not to worry." Also might be nice if FB updates didn't disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 14, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 14, 2011 Should reference to this be over in the Ketchum thread (NABS).......Erickson is not directly involved with Paulides is he? These threads seem to be cross-pollinating and are becoming homogenized. Anyhow, this quote, NABS believes that genetic testing has been completed by at least one of these scientists and they didn’t like the results, it didn’t fit his hypothesis and the results were concealed from public view. Very interesting? I like the part where they trumpet their own horn and then state in conclusion that the research and success will be in the study not the individual researchers. Maybe so, just didn't read that way, if so. I certainly do hope somebody has been listening to people with behavioral observations and ecologically valid data on BF behavior. It has been a long time in coming. Maybe somebody has some research journals they can turn into a documentary and book? As for the ape vs. human drama, yawn, get over it. I don't buy into the "knife in the back" theories. If somebody does well with the new study more power to them. To wish that somebody will get their just desserts is less than professional....yes you read it on one of those places where critics (and researchers btw) hide. As always, not the BFF's viewpoint, JMOVHIO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) Should reference to this be over in the Ketchum thread (NABS).......Erickson is not directly involved with Paulides is he? These threads seem to be cross-pollinating and are becoming homogenized. Anyhow, this quote, Very interesting? I like the part where they trumpet their own horn and then state in conclusion that the research and success will be in the study not the individual researchers. Maybe so, just didn't read that way, if so. I certainly do hope somebody has been listening to people with behavioral observations and ecologically valid data on BF behavior. It has been a long time in coming. Maybe somebody has some research journals they can turn into a documentary and book? As for the ape vs. human drama, yawn, get over it. I don't buy into the "knife in the back" theories. If somebody does well with the new study more power to them. To wish that somebody will get their just desserts is less than professional....yes you read it on one of those places where critics (and researchers btw) hide. As always, not the BFF's viewpoint, JMOVHIO. Sorry, Bip tried and couldn't find the other thread. User error on my part. I am not sure who is involved with who. Thought Ketcham was involved with both Paulides and Erickson. <shrug> I am likely wrong. You are right to point out the innate contradiction in talking about the study whilst tooting own horn. Don't get me wrong, I really like what I know of NABS, and agree with many of their viewpoints, but sometimes these blogs seem full of self-acclaiming rhetoric, attacks on the well known pervasive divisiveness in bigfooting (point taken, lets move on) while adding little pulpy info about ongoing work. Frustrating for us lay footers. MOve my posts over to the other thread if you think it is a derailment.... Edited July 14, 2011 by notgiganto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 14, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 14, 2011 Nope, it's not going anywhere.....looks like all the threads started referenced Erickson...not Ketchum like I thought. I'll own that one. It's good where it is. I liked the call for solidarity but not couched by NABS within a point of rhetorical conflict and paranoia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I'm wondering if she was supposed to reply to complaints by saying she's sorry she's late with results but she's been up to her ears analyzing sasquatch DNA? If she'd analysed someone's horse's DNA and it came back "cat" I might be worried. Why would one customer need DNA for a horse sale anyway? Question of paternity? Submission of DNA samples for analysis often involves highly emotional issues. Complainants in such cases may have hair triggers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Why would one customer need DNA for a horse sale anyway? Question of paternity? That would be my guess or certification of genetic soundness or some such thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Craig Woolheater is a skeptic? http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/erickson-project-news-5/comment-page-1/#comment-71472 Funny, as the owner of Cryptomundo and a former member of the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy who himself claims a Bigfoot sighting, I would not have considered him to be a skeptic. And he should know better. So should Skeptics who are seizing on this non-issue to attempt to discredit Ketchum/Erikson/et al before the science is even available for public inspection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I'm wondering if she was supposed to reply to complaints by saying she's sorry she's late with results but she's been up to her ears analyzing sasquatch DNA? If she'd analysed someone's horse's DNA and it came back "cat" I might be worried. Why would one customer need DNA for a horse sale anyway? Question of paternity? Yes, alot of breeds, especially ones that race require mane hairs with follicles submitted for parentage verification before foal can be registered.Most buyers wont buy if registration isnt in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Yes, alot of breeds, especially ones that race require mane hairs with follicles submitted for parentage verification before foal can be registered.Most buyers wont buy if registration isnt in order. Wow. That's new since my days in Harness Racing. All that was needed was the papers. Of course there wasn't any DNA testing yet.................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 15, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 15, 2011 http://www.olympicproject.com/id16.html Derek Randles account of the shooters story for the obtained tissue sample from a BF in the NorCal Dixie Game Management area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 16, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted July 16, 2011 http://www.olympicproject.com/id16.html Derek Randles account of the shooters story for the obtained tissue sample from a BF in the NorCal Dixie Game Management area. I don't disbelieve any of that & in fact would say that DR's Account would be the only one i believe, but i do wonder how a Guy who is a regular Visitor to a Taxidermy www. Forum would leave soemthing like that little one he shot, at the scene.. That puzzles me.. The relevance of what was shot on anyone would have been massive, but on a Taxidermy enthusiast, you'd x 100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts