Guest Silver Fox Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 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? No one wanted anything to do with it because it was about BF. Maybe they don't believe in it, maybe they think it will hurt their reputation, not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 No one wanted anything to do with it because it was about BF. Maybe they don't believe in it, maybe they think it will hurt their reputation, not sure. I do have to admit, you do give ANSWERS Mr. Fox. Write or rong, they are answErs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 No one wanted anything to do with it because it was about BF. Maybe they don't believe in it, maybe they think it will hurt their reputation, not sure. So much for "objective science" then, if that's the case... I do have to admit, you do give ANSWERS Mr. Fox. Write or rong, they are answErs. Are you saying his explanation is wrong? If so, I'd really like to hear your perspective on why no other lab would take the samples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 My previous point is that we are hearing about all of this from enthusiasts. Even your comment about Dr. Ketchum is your comment, the comment of an enthusiast. Does your definition of enthusiast include yourself? Does commenting on the subject of bigfoot "here" make anyone an enthusiest? Does being an enthusiast somehow negate the legitimacy of a statement? If so, why ask anyone here a question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 So much for "objective science" then, if that's the case... Are you saying his explanation is wrong? If so, I'd really like to hear your perspective on why no other lab would take the samples. You are pretty quick to believe a guy who is not providing any sources for any of his statements and has had his "reporting" refutted by multiple parties of much higher repute on this very board. I don't want more perspectives. I want some facts. Especially when we are talking about a human being's integrity and work product on a public forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Mulder, on 17 July 2011 - 07:03 PM, said: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? Silver F No one wanted anything to do with it because it was about BF. Maybe they don't believe in it, maybe they think it will hurt their reputation, not sure. How could BF hurt reputations? Are still in the Dark Ages of BF where those who conflict with official BF knowledge are burned at the stakes? Why else do we not see PHD candidates, and university primatologist doing any work on BF? Is BF a Taboo topic that brings down mockery or termination? The Columbuses of BF are Jeff Meldrum, Dr. Krantz and some others. Is their work turning the heads of powerfuls who are beginning to believe the world is not flat? Maybe it's safe to sail and explore. If the Ketchum works prove BF, there could be a flood of exploration to find the gold. Are we avoiding the fire and stakes by staying under the radar of official BF dogma by remaining in a secret society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Ah, the ever-elusive TRIPLE post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 18, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 18, 2011 Does your definition of enthusiast include yourself? Does commenting on the subject of bigfoot "here" make anyone an enthusiest? Does being an enthusiast somehow negate the legitimacy of a statement? If so, why ask anyone here a question? From wikipedia: en·thu·si·ast/enˈTHo͞ozēˌast/Noun1. A person who is highly interested in a particular activity or subject. Exactly and an enthusiast in my mind is the equivalent of an interested hobbyist or knock-about.....seems like there are plenty of skeptic BF enthusiasts (highly interested people) on this forum as well so what difference would THAT make. I'd like to see the double-blind test that will be used to admit who is qualified or disqualified as an enthusiast before they are allowed to participate in the science of the matter. That should be a good one. (OMG.....she clicked on a BF discussion website and visited the BFF, ding ding ding.....loser, loser....the gall and unmitigated inherent bias ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 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. This is simple. There were a number of people out there who thought they had bigfoot samples, but had no clue what to do with them. These people have an interest in bigfoot, follow the bigfoot-related shows, and saw the Destination Truth episode with Ketchum in it. They saw Ketchum make her statement regarding the hair samples provided by Destination Truth and perceived her to be open-minded. Destination Truth provided the name and location of Ketchum's lab in their broadcast. The people with samples start shipping them to Ketchum. No mystery, just a modest bit of exposure for Ketchum that turned into something substantial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Gotta say: Ketchum has acknowledged receiving a "steak" sample from the shooting incident. The sample has been analyzed and Dereck has made a statement suggesting that its import is not insignificant. The "steak" sample could not have been taken from a living individual, and was, according to Ketchum, cleanly cut with some sort of tool. It is improbable that a scrap of a dead bigfoot could be found under snow weeks later and still provide the "steak" sample as described. It is highly unlikely that the hunter, with a legal bear tag, would be prosecuted for shooting an unknown animal that he thought was a bear and leaving the body in the forest. It is also unlikely that he would be prosecuted for shooting a second unknown animal that was threatening him. The circumstances may have been different than described above, but no one knows the "truth" other than those who were there. If investigated, all they have to do is make the appropriate statements (thought it was a bear, definitely wasn't human, self-defense in the second case, also definitely wasn't human), and the account is written off. No missing persons reported in the area, no dead human bodies discovered, no foul. Worst case is a slap on the wrist for a hunting accident involving the shooting of something that wasn't a bear, but looked like one. But the hunter/taxidermist wants amnesty according to Silver Fox, and is concerned about prosecution according to others (Dereck?). Why? What has he done to perceive that he requires amnesty, or should be concerned? He must have collected the bodies. The bodies represent both value and liability. "Amnesty" eliminates the liability and allows the hunter to capitalize on his acquisitions. On the other hand, a witch hunt causes the bodies to disappear, eliminating both the liability and the value. Silver Fox has provided information that is said to go beyond the facts of the case. Dereck has provided, as I recall, the "pertinent facts" (a subjective term that also indicates there is more to the story) as related to him by the hunter (this allows Dereck to truthfully report what he knows second hand from someone with reason to be circumspect, and distances him and the Olympic Project from any inconvenient future revelations). The truth is in the Goldilocks zone and isn't likely to be tied up in a pretty bow - nor is it ever likely to be completely revealed. I do, however, believe the bodies will turn up shortly after the peer reviewed paper is published, or some other event occurs that documents to the public's fascination that bigfoot exist. Arguably, their value will peak at this point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 18, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted July 18, 2011 He must have collected the bodies. The bodies represent both value and liability. "Amnesty" eliminates the liability and allows the hunter to capitalize on his acquisitions. On the other hand, a witch hunt causes the bodies to disappear, eliminating both the liability and the value. I do, however, believe the bodies will turn up shortly after the peer reviewed paper is published, or some other event occurs that documents to the public's fascination that bigfoot exist. Arguably, their value will peak at this point. This is my way of thinking to.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 This is simple. There were a number of people out there who thought they had bigfoot samples, but had no clue what to do with them. These people have an interest in bigfoot, follow the bigfoot-related shows, and saw the Destination Truth episode with Ketchum in it. They saw Ketchum make her statement regarding the hair samples provided by Destination Truth and perceived her to be open-minded. Destination Truth provided the name and location of Ketchum's lab in their broadcast. The people with samples start shipping them to Ketchum. No mystery, just a modest bit of exposure for Ketchum that turned into something substantial. Yeah but that's not why the Erickson Project chose Ketchum to do their DNA work. She was not their first choice at all, I assure you that! But they shopped around and shopped around, and they couldn't get anyone else. Ketchum was the only one willing to do it, so they went with her. Not that I think she's incompetent or anything, but I don't like the way she is trying to hog the project money-wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Gotta say: Ketchum has acknowledged receiving a "steak" sample from the shooting incident. The sample has been analyzed and Dereck has made a statement suggesting that its import is not insignificant. The "steak" sample could not have been taken from a living individual, and was, according to Ketchum, cleanly cut with some sort of tool. It is improbable that a scrap of a dead bigfoot could be found under snow weeks later and still provide the "steak" sample as described. It is highly unlikely that the hunter, with a legal bear tag, would be prosecuted for shooting an unknown animal that he thought was a bear and leaving the body in the forest. It is also unlikely that he would be prosecuted for shooting a second unknown animal that was threatening him. The circumstances may have been different than described above, but no one knows the "truth" other than those who were there. If investigated, all they have to do is make the appropriate statements (thought it was a bear, definitely wasn't human, self-defense in the second case, also definitely wasn't human), and the account is written off. No missing persons reported in the area, no dead human bodies discovered, no foul. Worst case is a slap on the wrist for a hunting accident involving the shooting of something that wasn't a bear, but looked like one. But the hunter/taxidermist wants amnesty according to Silver Fox, and is concerned about prosecution according to others (Dereck?). Why? What has he done to perceive that he requires amnesty, or should be concerned? He must have collected the bodies. The bodies represent both value and liability. "Amnesty" eliminates the liability and allows the hunter to capitalize on his acquisitions. On the other hand, a witch hunt causes the bodies to disappear, eliminating both the liability and the value. Silver Fox has provided information that is said to go beyond the facts of the case. Dereck has provided, as I recall, the "pertinent facts" (a subjective term that also indicates there is more to the story) as related to him by the hunter (this allows Dereck to truthfully report what he knows second hand from someone with reason to be circumspect, and distances him and the Olympic Project from any inconvenient future revelations). The truth is in the Goldilocks zone and isn't likely to be tied up in a pretty bow - nor is it ever likely to be completely revealed. I do, however, believe the bodies will turn up shortly after the peer reviewed paper is published, or some other event occurs that documents to the public's fascination that bigfoot exist. Arguably, their value will peak at this point. This is an excellent summary of the facts, and I think you are really onto something. Whether it is the real truth or not may be revealed at some point in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 I'd like to see the double-blind test that will be used to admit who is qualified or disqualified as an enthusiast before they are allowed to participate in the science of the matter. Yeah, there must be some arbitrary line drawn that some perceive themselves to have control of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 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 On the contrary, all animals in Canada belong to the Crown and there is no permission given to hunt or harm them unless explicitly stated in the hunting synopsis, for example, crows, and furthermore there are laws limiting hunting and shooting near roads, houses, towns, etc. If this shooting had occurred in Canada it would have been illegal on several different levels. On the other hand, if the subject is determined by DNA testing to be human, it falls under the protection of laws which protect humans, of whatever kind. And again, the law must have been broken though if there is no proof any more in the form of a body which may be examined for evidence of violence then there is no case. So in other words, don't go shooting/hunting sasquatches in Canada, the law will get you in any way they can if you keep the body. Plus the body if found will be confiscated. I know for certain that even road-kill does not belong to the driver, if a deer or moose is killed and the body is picked up fast enough for the meat to be good it never goes to the driver but is donated to the local food bank or parcelled out by LE to poor families in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts