JDL Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I guess you've just illustrated the difference between intellect and empathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 @mulder I seriously doubt that. Oh, it'll get mentioned, but we have 8+ million people unemployed, gov't debt that is eating us alive, etc. Far far more important than a monkey in the woods. With all that u mentioned, They would probably welcome anything positive to take people's minds off the tension caused by all the problems were facing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Maybe it will at least rate a spot on the news - with Todd Disotell explaining why it's meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I'm glad to see that it's situation normal for the BFF - many "pluses" for this blatant strawman statement. Carry on. If the accusation strikes home, there must be some truth to it. Because I did not mention you. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheellug Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Why is that a blatant strawman statement? The sides are drawn by some that state no BF exist versus those who claim to have seen a BF and therefore BF does exist. For those who say BF does not exist means that they disregard statements by those who claim to have seen the topic. So wouldn't it be more of a strawman statement by those for disregarding said statements and not taking them into account? Your comment is more inline with a strawman statement by oversimplifying his statement and broadly claiming those who use the BFF as a forum to discuss the topic. Games man.. you got game! Carry on oh wayward son.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) These witnesses that everyone is sure are crazy lying kooks are real people. I think its important to keep that in mind when accusing them. It is not a small thing to call a man a liar, and it should not be done without justification. I'm glad to see that it's situation normal for the BFF - many "pluses" for this blatant strawman statement. Carry on. Dress it up any way you desire, doesn't change the fact that it's true. Edited February 24, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) This is because according to Sally the nonscientists who have provided many of the samples are retaining ownership of the samples, and one presumes they are privy to the findings as a result. According to sample providers they have not seen results, just a yeah or nay it is in or out of the study. No sample provider has claimed to have read the paper either. It is a strange sitation . Most here can read a Journal submission page, and many have personal experiences with journal submissions. The explanations don't add up. I am assuming (oh dear) the reliance on Journal policies was the easy way out of saying, "I ain't talking till I am ready"... "I" in the royal "we" sense? Or just I?.. If one believes some of what is "leaked" we have to look forward to: a book by Mike Greene for the Sierra Kills, a book by Paulides timed to release in tandem, a documentary or something from EP also tied to the study, public expeditions with OP, and apparently many websites registered by Dr. K,, from a planned Sasquatch Genome Project to an apparent group for protection Dr. K will lead. And of course, a conference scheduled with the Forest People goups (or was it Native Peoples? sorry) We also have an inkling she hopes to release copyrighted materials per those applications. We can't see patent apps. What other potential revenue stream can be had? Did I miss any? It is not looking like science to me anymore (even knowing many scientists in industry work hard to shore up potential revenue streams..not quite like this though?) but more like more BF Business. I am pretty depressed today. Given in has been a year and half since this reported "KILLS" I am again struggling with why that wasn't set aside as it's own "this happened" and get it out fast, so that we have the benefit of knowing something...of being on notice they are "real" and this killing did take place....I think TBRC might like to know those results.... p.s. on the last part of quote: it is not clear to me the right to retain or "own" the used sample has any real meaning. If the information derived from the sample belongs to Dr.K and she (as SR promises) plans to prosecute every person who publishes it the owners of the samples won't have much to say about their results, only the provenance of the find or their personal witness not a part of the study. Edited February 24, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Do you think moneymaker has been told the results of the study? After all he's the boss of big footing and I'd feel sorry for him if he wasn't told after putting in 25 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) I doubt seriously MM has seen results given he contacted Nature directly (and posted response) to find out if it was submitted there. He reported it was rejected for no testable hypothesis. Additionally, one thing Lindsay's blog has done for me, is draw some lines around alliances/groups that are often opaque to outsiders. It is clear from his articles the divisions in the BF community might lend themselves to "revenge" (LOL sorry bad word..but many want to "scoop" the others) and to settle old differences in glory. The "community" does not work together, only smaller groups. Alliances change as fast as good evidence changes hands? I spent some time last month on the web..doing what I have resisted for three years, reading often funky BF websites. Lindsay has done a pretty good job on many levels. The personal woes I am not fond of hearing about, but the BFers themselves tend to trot those foilbles out first.. Lindsay responds in kind and is frighteningly good at it. The fall out shall be interesting.... Edited February 24, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) According to sample providers they have not seen results, just a yeah or nay it is in or out of the study. No sample provider has claimed to have read the paper either. I'm not sure any sample providers have read the submitted paper but some have claimed to be privy to the results (as interepreted by Melba Ketchum, no doubt). Derek Randles said in an interview he had "seen everything". I think JC Johnson made some comment that Melba had read the paper to him. That was probably an exaggeration. Others have suggested they've seen the results. They use terms like "mind blowing" and "shocking" to describe what they were told. Granted, that doesn't make any of it true. I also believe Ketchum said she would speak for the non-profit but would not run it. A small distinction perhaps. You know, I would feel a whole lot better about this process if the name of just one of the co-authors surfaced - someone with a reputation outside of the bigfoot community. I think it would allay a lot of concerns. Edited February 24, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Thanks, I don't follow the blog radio (and few BF websites) and a lot of info comes out in those. Funny though, after reading SR's explanation that we, most of us, couldn't understand her paper...kind of makes the "reading it to them" not much of an endorsement or example of seeing/understanding the results? It is hard for me to imagine anyone with more than a few thousand dollars invested isn't getting at least their own results. Oh yeah, they can't be trusted to not publish...which might say all the sample providers are untrustworthy? So, yeah I agree some samples providers must have enough data to stay put, otherwise they might be posting here instead of us. I agree..if just one co-author would note it on their website/FB anything, it would give me some comfort. Edited February 24, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) If and when this situation comes to pass, the media blitz and marketing are going to be overwhelming and eventually tiresome. Look at what George Lucas has done with all of his Star Wars movies: clothing, action figures, partnering with fast food restaurants, images plastered on soda cans. Speaking engagements, interviews also require fees. If this find rings true, they are ready rake in as much cash as possible- long live the free market! Bipedal Ape, I'm not sure if Ketchum and Co. have allowed MM to play in their sandbox. You can imagine how this might set with him, hence the inquiry to "Nature." Edited February 24, 2012 by wudewasa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 @exnihilo: Your statement: " . . . everyone is sure are crazy lying kooks are real people." How silly of me to consider myself part of "everyone." More to the point though, it doesn't matter if you intended to refer to my positions or not, I don't know any bigfoot skeptics who consider alleged bigfoot witnesses to be "crazy lying kooks." Certainly some people who've claimed to see bigfoots might fall into such a category, but it's by no means all and I'm sure even such wicked minds as parnassus and that asshat RayG would concur. So who did you really intend to address with "everyone?" @Wheelug: I can't tell you how many times I've written at length on the BFF that it's NOT only the "crazies" or the liars reporting encounters with bigfoots. Why is this false dichotomy perpetuated that if I say that I don't think there are real bigfoots out there that I must therefore consider all witnesses to be crazy and/or lying? It's not coming from me, nor is it coming from any vocal skeptics with whom I regularly interact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Apehuman, There are rumoured to have been 200 or more samples in the report, or at least, submitted to the Ketchum team. Can you imagine trying to keep that lot from leaking if every single one of them had been given the full results? I'm not sure what your point is regarding the understanding of the results. Have you ever tried reading a scientific paper.....even on on a subject that you that you knew quite a bit about? They are so full of technical terms as to be virtually incomprehensible to the unannointed. The summary is the only part that most are going to read. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I won't be paying a penny to see any videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts