Jump to content

The Ketchum Report


Guest

Recommended Posts

If Erickson has faith in this paper Ketchum is suppose to be coming out with, and believes its going to prove something,then why not release a glitzy documentary to coincide with the publication of the paper? Since he is reputed to have financially backed the project, and assuming he believes the results will prove the existence of such a creature, then it would be great timing for cashing in on such a sensational discovery. Is there anything unethical, or immoral about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest exnihilo

A couple of years ago, folks might have expressed something like this:

"Yeah, these cops are pretending they have a bigfoot in their freezer so they can make a quick $50k off some rich, gullible donor and get on national television."

I don't know yet what to make of this whole Ketchum thing - and I'm reserving judgment until the day something actually comes to light sans speculation - but let's just say that stranger things have happened in bigfootery than for someone to expend a whole lot of effort trumping up something that was never really there in the first place.

...and subjecting that trumped up evidence to the rigors of science before attempting to make a dime. After all, glacial patience and profound circumspection are the hallmarks of idiotic and insane people.

Am I allowed to use the word "obtuse"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Erickson has faith in this paper Ketchum is suppose to be coming out with, and believes its going to prove something,then why not release a glitzy documentary to coincide with the publication of the paper? Since he is reputed to have financially backed the project, and assuming he believes the results will prove the existence of such a creature, then it would be great timing for cashing in on such a sensational discovery. Is there anything unethical, or immoral about that?

They'll probably make some money off of it, and probably in a variety of ways.

But I think that the primary reason for releasing the DNA Study and the Field Study (isn't the Erickson project documenting bigfoot at habituation sites?), is that they are mutually supporting. The DNA study runs the risk of being marginalized without supporting evidence (as has been observed on this thread). The field study runs the risk of being declared a hoax. Together they are stronger.

Released together, they will garner more attention from the public (gotta admit, the public just doesn't go for the dry statistical stuff, but loves video), and the public response will influence the scientific community's response (hard to stay entrenched when civilians are over-running your position asking why you hadn't told them about all this bigfoot stuff before). The scientific community may actually be forced to get on the bandwagon or be "overcome by events".

If things progress well, there'll be money for bigfoot study from all sorts of sources and that, if nothing else, will drag the scientific community along.

And as all of this develops, Ketchum and Erickson will be in the forefront with the choicest opportunities.

If you can do something great for science, good on you. If you can do something good for science and make money in the process, great on you.

No conflict unless the pursuit of money taints the science (yes, the potential does exist). But we haven't seen that happen with this crew yet. If anything, they didn't run right out and release everything for a quick buck right away. They've been holding back evidence for years, if I'm not mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you basing the projected disappointment on, Bipedal? What changes if Lindsay's source is accurate? The documentary will still contain the "money shots."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After all, glacial patience and profound circumspection are the hallmarks of idiotic and insane people.

I take it you don't have children. Or at least you don't have 11 of them. :D

RayG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bipedal Ape

What are you basing the projected disappointment on, Bipedal? What changes if Lindsay's source is accurate? The documentary will still contain the "money shots."

Why use that russian footage at all? Just removes any credibility they may have had. And that sleeping bigfoot... LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see what's laughable about the sleeping Sasquatch. If, as is apparently the case, they have extended footage of this scene, of which we've only seen a single frame, how can we judge the entire clip as unworthy? Also, the Erickson Project itself did not put Caesar's face on the cover of anything; that was a poster mock-up/visual aid to accompany a blog speculation about a theatrical release.

Edited by Christopher Noel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...