Guest Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I don't understand the admonitions of "make up your mind after seeing the evidence" leveled only against those skeptical that Ketchum's analysis will provide that elusive proof of bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I've only ever stated, that I recall, that I'm 'hopeful' or 'optimistic' that the results will establish the existence of bigfoot. That's not definitive. I am certainly waiting to see the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I don't understand the admonitions of "make up your mind after seeing the evidence" leveled only against those skeptical that Ketchum's analysis will provide that elusive proof of bigfoot. I agree that the admonition should apply equally to everyone, whether a proponent or a skeptic. With the lack of evidence (ie. the published paper) it seems all we have to talk about is speculation about what the study might or could contain, from a number of parties in this forum and from other outside sources. It is the speculation that is really driving this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 This thread will be a historical document of sorts no matter how this plays out...although one of greater significance if Ketchum delivers. As for Parn, he's making the safe bet. Me? I just want something interesting to happen. That doesn't mean I think her success is a foregone conclusion (not by a long shot). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 There's at least one sociology paper in these 177 (so far) pages. At least our resident skeptics have the guts to stick around and stick to their guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I don't understand the admonitions of "make up your mind after seeing the evidence" leveled only against those skeptical that Ketchum's analysis will provide that elusive proof of bigfoot. Neither would I, if that is what I had done. Same as last time I made the same quote, I apply it absolutely equally to both sides. I accept that I could have made this clearer by splitting my paragraph into two. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I don't understand the admonitions of "make up your mind after seeing the evidence" leveled only against those skeptical that Ketchum's analysis will provide that elusive proof of bigfoot. I don't understand how anyone is not skeptical. Big-time bf proof claims haven't panned out once yet. Everyone should be a little skeptical at this juncture. IMO <-- not a policy, just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 (edited) Type of Work: Text. Registration Number/Date: TXu001776703 / 2011-09-12. Application Title: A New Contemporary Feral Species of Hominin. Title: A New Contemporary Feral Species of Hominin. Description: Electronic file (eService). Copyright Claimant: Melba S. Ketchum, 1955-. Date of Creation: 2011. Authorship on Application: Melba S. Ketchum, 1955-; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: text, photograph(s), compilation, editing, Data Tables. Rights and Permissions: Maureen A. Doherty, 10777 Westheimer, Suite 1100, Houston, TX, 77042-3462, mdoherty@dohertylegal.com. Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence. Names: Ketchum, Melba S., 1955- Parn, doesn't the above application testify to the fact that Dr. Ketchum is stating she has DNA from a new species of hominin, as in, "not Modern human" ? Explain to me how she really means modern human. How do you know what she means better than she does? This is more of your special knowledge /crystal ball stuff isn't it? Stop cherry picking and omitting what is right in front of you. I don't understand the admonitions of "make up your mind after seeing the evidence" leveled only against those skeptical that Ketchum's analysis will provide that elusive proof of bigfoot. I think what is more important is who is prejudging it. Suspending judgement "is" being skeptical. It's not any different than your inability to decide if there is a paper until you see it. I'm sure you tell your colleages you don't believe they have a paper until you see it, all the time. LOL Edited May 15, 2012 by southernyahoo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 (edited) I don't understand how anyone is not skeptical. Big-time bf proof claims haven't panned out once yet. Everyone should be a little skeptical at this juncture. IMO <-- not a policy, just my opinion. Is Saskeptic being skeptical when he says BF absolutely does not exist. Or Parn portraying all believers as a "little lacking" for what they believe (or have seen) Maybe you have skeptic and denialist mixed up Edited May 15, 2012 by will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Type of Work: Text. Registration Number/Date: TXu001776703 / 2011-09-12. Application Title: A New Contemporary Feral Species of Hominin. Title: A New Contemporary Feral Species of Hominin. Description: Electronic file (eService). Copyright Claimant: Melba S. Ketchum, 1955-. Date of Creation: 2011. Authorship on Application: Melba S. Ketchum, 1955-; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: text, photograph(s), compilation, editing, Data Tables. Rights and Permissions: Maureen A. Doherty, 10777 Westheimer, Suite 1100, Houston, TX, 77042-3462, mdoherty@dohertylegal.com. Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence. Names: Ketchum, Melba S., 1955- Wow. There goes the Ponigae Gigantopithecus theory. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter O. Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 If this were the case we might someday see some crazed doctor running through the woods injecting bigfoot with some gene therapy designed to make their hair fall out. And then sell them Rogaine! I'd hate to be the tree-to-tree saleman after that though... On a related note, Richard Stubstad posted this at the blog of he who cannot be linked to (this does not reflect my thinking or that of the management): She said “no way, Joseâ€. It won’t matter if it’s Paabo & Green themselves; she won’t ever let this one go as second or third fiddler, even if it means ultimate failure. That's sad. Not just for the paper's chances, but because the senior researchers have devoted big portions of their lives to search for the Squatch and collect the samples in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Will, are you saying I should have said everyone should be a denialist? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 (edited) Is Saskeptic being skeptical when he says BF absolutely does not exist. Or Parn portraying all believers as a "little lacking" for what they believe (or have seen) Maybe you have skeptic and denialist mixed up I was riding down the road in a high density area of town the other day. I passed someone's house and looked down the side yard as I went by at 25 or 30 mph. I saw a lion. My sighting last for a few seconds and I saw it clear enough to know that it was chained to a pole. I told my kids there was a lion beside the house we just passed. They called BS so I turned around to prove to them that I saw a lion. I was wrong. It was a massive chow dog that had been trimmed to look like a lion. I have a life long friend who swears he has seen kangaroos in his backyard. He is a semi-professional fisherman who has be featured in the "Florida Sportsman" magazine and is an avid hunter. I know he's not crazy. I let my 12 yr old son go fishing with him for days at a time. He is not a fool but I don't think he saw a pack of kangaroos. You can believe and not be a "little lacking". You can have a sighting and not be a "little lacking". If anyone thinks that squatch evidence ever pans out then ....... edited to accomodate will's edit Edited May 16, 2012 by Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Will, are you saying I should have said everyone should be a denialist? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Just pointing out that most have some skepticism and a few are complete deniers masquerading as skeptics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Pretty intense logic there ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts