indiefoot Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 As i understand the logic in the Ketchum study Which study would that be and where can I go to read it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Yet homicides occur every day, despite that dilemma. I can't believe that I've had to point this out now more than once in this thread. Is anyone suggesting that if bigfoots are real that one will never be collected? People murder people; people kill other people accidentally. People kill other highly intelligent animals like great apes, elephants, and whales. If Bigfoot exists, it is inevitable that one will be collected. Those situations are not analogous, either ethically or legally. Not to mention the per capita incidence of homicide even forgetting what are less than conducive circumstances. Smeja's incident is about as close as you can expect to get, and these reports are not very common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) Any chance that the results could be due to cross contamination? Apparently we're talking of over 200 samples. They can't ALL be coming out the same, and all be the same because of contamination. I say it again............PATIENCE! Why decide the study is flawed, or determine what the results mean, before a single word has been published? Mike Edited February 12, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) I check this thread daily, just like I flip through the channels. I usually land here just long enough to scan the new posts and get a snapshot of the ongoing argument. All I really want to know, though, is whether or not the study is out yet and what it says. All I see, however, is seventy six pages of pre-game analysis, but no game yet. We know there's going to be a game, but not the exact date or time or location (journal) of the game. We know it's going to be a football game, but there's some question about whether it's American football or European football (the actual conclusions of the study). We know who the promoters are, but know very little about the teams, because we know the teams aren't allowed to talk about the game. We've had leaks about the game, but we argue about whether or not the leaks are accurate. But, boy, we sure can argue about the game. We've got seventy-six pages of pre-game analysis. It's all meaningless, except that it provides insight into the social constructs we have regarding bigfoot. One side says, "Here will finally be proof. Bigfoot exists. End of argument." The other side, has already laid out all of the possible ways in which the content of the study can be marginalized, and all the possible ways the author, journal, process, etc. may be impugned, saying "I can call this element of purported evidence or its sources into question, therefore the subject of the evidence remains in question." Perhaps it's more like a murder trial than pre-game analysis. It's been said in the past that the evidence pointing to the existence of bigfoot is equivalent to what would be sufficient to convict a murderer. But, to me, it is not the existence of bigfoot that is on trial. It is the non-existence of bigfoot that is on trial. I see the proponents of the non-existence argument as lawyers constantly scrabbling for ways to establish reasonable doubt. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. This applies to logic as well as to geometry, yet we see daily in this topic and others those who are dedicated to crafting the most circuitous, convoluted, and tortured agruments to explain how they can sidestep the straight line between evidence of bigfoot and the existence of bigfoot. Straight line logic says thousands of people have filed contemporary reports of bigfoot, and provided physical evidence that bigfoot exists, therefore bigfoot exists. Direct cause and effect. Convoluted logic says that every single one of those reports can be attributed to hallucination, misidentification, or hoax. That hair samples and fecal samples, and now already the DNA samples, though they don't match any known species, cannot prove the existence of bigfoot, because there is no existing bigfoot in cold storage to compare them to. Not an argument in favor of cause and effect, but an argument to establish reasonable doubt. It is paramount to establish reasonable doubt. Avoid the straight line logic. Misdirect the jury. Find ways to sidestep any possible evidence. Impugn the evidence any way possible and do it before it is disclosed so you can have it judged as inadmissable. If the looming mound of reports and physical evidence continues to mount, keep the jury's attention off of the size of the mound. Attack each element separately. If the prosecutor points out that the mounting evidence is mutually consistent, and straight line logic leads to a direct cause and effect conclusion, then claim that key evidence is still missing. Argue that the DNA is contaminated or otherwise flawed, and therefore insufficient evidence. No body, therefore reasonable doubt remains. I'm looking forward to the study's publication, but I can see now that there are those who are more interested in refuting the findings than in objectively considering them. That it's more important to some to continue to establish reasonable doubt than to pursue the discovery of fact. It's saddening. Edited February 12, 2012 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 12, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) It's easier for me, as a witness/believer, to hope that the study will come out soon.....doesn't mean I haven't lost my patience from time to time..... as another thread commenter in days past stated.... my interest in Bigfoot ebbs and flows but in the end I know it is out there.... I hope the study is worth the wait as promised. Edited February 12, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Human nature, we like to gossip, as long as everyone understands that no one knows anything with any certainty at this point and that everyone is discussing "what ifs" then no harm, no foul IMO. Right now, this thread is in about it's fifth cycle of the same questions/speculation. Some of these opinions are better than others just based on training and education, but not one person posting in this thread sequences DNA for a living that I'm aware of, so take those good, better, and best opinions with a grain of salt, mine included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Human nature, we like to gossip, as long as everyone understands that no one knows anything with any certainty at this point and that everyone is discussing "what ifs" then no harm, no foul IMO. Right now, this thread is in about it's fifth cycle of the same questions/speculation. Some of these opinions are better than others just based on training and education, but not one person posting in this thread sequences DNA for a living that I'm aware of, so take those good, better, and best opinions with a grain of salt, mine included. This thread has left me behind. In a nut shell, what has Melba done? Has she submitted a report? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 LOLOL...nothing new here George. We are in reruns on speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Those situations are not analogous, either ethically or legally. . . So, shall I put you down for "No, a bigfoot will never be collected"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I was hoping I stayed away long enough for the conversation to change. I like the new look, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) ............,,,....,,.I'd say she is a human population geneticist by now, ......according to Parn. yahoo, I can't deny she's a human. The rest...not so much. p Edited February 12, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 ...........and why you can't understand that your pet hate, "institutional science", is about to do the very thing you despise it for not doing, is way, way beyond me. Mike No, Dr Ketchum is attempting to do that very thing. I fully expect that institutional science will fight her tooth and nail every step of the way. If the rumors of at least one journal rejecting the paper on completely spurious grounds are true, the fight has already begun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Which study would that be and where can I go to read it? Unfortunately, you can not read the study because one has never been published. My understanding comes from 2nd and 3rd hand information that I have obtained on this forum. I was referring to the "bigfoot is a modern human" conclusion that is rumored. I was making a point of how meaningless such a conclusion based on a dna analysis of samples from unknown origins. Just like a crime scene. JDL. Yes there has been thousands of reports of bigfoot. you also referenced physical evidence. Please point to me the physical evidence that proves the existence of bigfoot. The only evidence that I can think of footprints which is the best evidence we have in my opinion. Now if you have a real good footprint, beyond human size with some anatomical differences plus dermal ridges and throw in DNA analysis of some tissue from the footprint and you are on the right track. Right now we are not there. Now if you have a footprint that was within the size for modern humans and there was no anatomical features not found in a human print and you had dna that showed modern human, then you don't have phyical proof of a bf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) Which is why your opinion is diluted. You want everything, but give nothing. Nonesense! The proponents have ponied up plenty: eyewitness testimony, hairs, tracks, vocals, etc. What have Skeptics ponied up? Theories, bald-faced assertions with no support, double-standards, moving goalposts and general snarkery. So just who has made the better case for their position? I think that answer is obvious to any open-minded, thinking individual. Yes, actually. A fundamental difference. One is transitory and easily hoaxed. Which does not = hoaxed. Edited February 13, 2012 by megatarsal to remove implied profanity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) If the rumors of at least one journal rejecting the paper on completely spurious grounds are true, the fight has already begun. Any evidence for this? Which does not = hoaxed. Agreed. But of course, the fact that it could be hoaxed means that hoaxing has to be completely ruled out before it could be taken to be evidence, whereas this is clearly not the case with an ancient fossilised trackway. Mike Edited February 12, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts