Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Ketchum was not involved in Bigfoot research until people brought samples to her DNA testing facility. She's not an enthusiast. She's not a friendly. She's a veterinarian with a DNA-testing business. Tim B. Why go to her, rather than someone else? "A veterinarian with a DNA-testing business" would not be the most likely go-to person for such an important study and research event, a possible ground breaking shift in nature studies and natural history, I would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Why go to her, rather than someone else? "A veterinarian with a DNA-testing business" would not be the most likely go-to person for such an important study and research event, a possible ground breaking shift in nature studies and natural history, I would think. If you take Bigfoot samples to a Bigfoot enthusiast to prove the existence of Bigfoot, you could see where the conflict might come up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Because she offered testing at a reduced cost? Plus, if you were working under the assumption that bifoot was an animal....why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Why go to her, rather than someone else? "A veterinarian with a DNA-testing business" would not be the most likely go-to person for such an important study and research event, a possible ground breaking shift in nature studies and natural history, I would think. Do you see anyone else offering to do a study to the depth required to establish a new species on their dime? How much work and funding do you think it takes to do this? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Why go to her, rather than someone else? "A veterinarian with a DNA-testing business" would not be the most likely go-to person for such an important study and research event, a possible ground breaking shift in nature studies and natural history, I would think. She definitely was not their first choice. They went to a lot of others first, but no one would touch the BF stuff. She was the only one who would touch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 I'm confused given that the NABS organization has all but declared Bigfoot human and believe their view will be vindicated by Dr. Ketchum's research. We are given the account of a bear hunter killing two sasquatch, and his description of the creatures are oddly unlike humans. (Even the adult traveled on all fours at times, and the juveniles were described as looking like bear/ape hybrids). Am I the only one wishing some of this information were being issued by NON-enthusiasts? Bigfoot are some sort of Homo, and yes they do go down on all fours sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 17, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 17, 2011 Why go to her, rather than someone else? "A veterinarian with a DNA-testing business" would not be the most likely go-to person for such an important study and research event, a possible ground breaking shift in nature studies and natural history, I would think. The transcript from one of her internet radio appearances had her describing receipt of samples early on in her career where people would suspect some kind of unknown primate but they would always turn up to be a common animal such as a raccoon, possum, fox, bear, etc, etc. She then explained that she became very disenchanted with those prospects until she was determined to try to test for human markers more recently. To say she was a believer or enthusiast going in would be far from the mark by the way I read those transcripts. The choice of someone with a passion for animals doesn't sound like it would disqualify someone because they were not firmly anchored with a foundational world-class genetics lab or institution. However, if she did World Trade Center dna investigations somebody must have heavily suspected she had much potential and was qualified. Perhaps her lab will become world class if this shakes out as early indicators describe it could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Someone with multi-species experience would be a plus as well, would it not? Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Okay the guy is afraid of being prosecuted for the killings...how can you be charged with killing an animal that the goverment wont acknowledge? Virtually every state wildlife code includes a "catch all" provision stating (essentially)that if you do not have explicit permission in the law to hunt it, shoot it, or possess it, you may not do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 18, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 18, 2011 Someone with multi-species experience would be a plus as well, would it not? Tim B. Diversity is good, yah it is! And as Jodie and SY say it didn't hurt that she was making room for the project and perhaps was assuming some "buy-in" or pro bono contributions to the project.....which might explain some of the exclusivity of the second nda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 If you take Bigfoot samples to a Bigfoot enthusiast to prove the existence of Bigfoot, you could see where the conflict might come up. No, because the proof (or lack of) will be in the RESULTS, not in who tests them. I am sick of people implying that anyone who is even sympathetic to the proponent case is fatally lacking in objective credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 She definitely was not their first choice. They went to a lot of others first, but no one would touch the BF stuff. She was the only one who would touch it. I can guess the answer, but I'd like you to confirm it if you can: was it because they couldn't pony up the cash for the test, or was it because of the subject matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dudlow Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Virtually every state wildlife code includes a "catch all" provision stating (essentially)that if you do not have explicit permission in the law to hunt it, shoot it, or possess it, you may not do so. We need some of that up here in Canada, 'Mulder'. Our Charter of Rights contains something called the 'Notwithstanding Clause', kind of a catch all safety plug designed to head off unintended consequences of unforseen events. I could see that type of thing being applied to our national wildlife policies if something like that does not already exist; and I fear it does not! It would probably get knocked down to the Provinces and Territories which would require numerous individual efforts towards implementation. Ugh, lots of hard work yet to be done for the Big Guy up here. - Dudlow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 No, because the proof (or lack of) will be in the RESULTS, not in who tests them. I am sick of people implying that anyone who is even sympathetic to the proponent case is fatally lacking in objective credibility. Yes I get that, but the truth has very little to do with it, unfortunately. Perception is reality, and if people can discredit the people in order to invalidate the science, they will. People have proven time and time again to have that kind of capacity for pettiness. It drives me crazy, but it's true. That's why I think this Erickson thing is taking so long because he is doing everything he can to make it 100% bulletproof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 (edited) Bigfoot are some sort of Homo, and yes they do go down on all fours sometimes. This voice from you: Is it the supposed journalist, or is this a personal opinion you've not distinguished? Me? Given a choice.... I think it's the latter. Edit: I sincerely question Silver Fox's self-appointed title of "journalist." Operating a blog doesn't confer the title of "journalist" upon you. Anyone can operate a blog, these days. 'Nuff said. Edited July 18, 2011 by Incorrigible1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts