Guest Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Bill, your post is right on. There is no set day when she will release it. She'll put it out there when it's done. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Ray, honest skepticism and caution are applauded. If one is scattering land mines in the approach to the objective, that's scorned upon. I hope you're doing the former and not the latter. Edited February 18, 2012 by Incorrigible1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Bill, I start to distrust whenever someone says, "Trust me", or "Trust them". Trust is earned, not something handed out like cookies. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Ray, could you explain to me why you would ever need to trust her? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 When this report comes out, I hope that when it is published and the BFF has verified it, can you all somehow figure a way to notify interested members. Maybe the director could be persuaded to put an announcement at the top of the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Bill, putting spin on something or being in public relations doesn't mean a person is dishonest. The spin is applied to ensure a certain perception. Highlight the positive and minimize the negative. I don't see where we're at odds here. But I still don't see why I should trust her either. RayG Being a reasonable person, there is no reason to either trust or distrust the mouthpiece. The mouthpiece is simply a person tasked with presenting the views of a particular constituency, and while this does not necessarily compromise their integrity, it is clear that they are not being asked to make autonomous judgments about the facts they are presenting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Yes, being what I consider a reasonable person, I would have no ~reason~ to either trust or distrust someone I know nothing about, had never met, etc. However, once someone else I don't know tells me I should trust them... RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 11BRAVO Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 i think it is all a big joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Yes, being what I consider a reasonable person, I would have no ~reason~ to either trust or distrust someone I know nothing about, had never met, etc. However, once someone else I don't know tells me I should trust them... RayG I have to agree Ray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Well what if there is more than one kind? The Sierra Kills creature is now said to be like Patterson's bipedal ape; the Ullibarri account is of a human; one Erickson habituation video is said to portray a very Chewbacca like animal, replete with fangs: I have heard no suggestion that the DNA report is going to verify multiple types of surprising hominins or anomalous apes. The Ullibarri creature looked like this: The Sierra Kills creature is now said to resemble this: While the Erickson videos include something said to look like this: If these are accurate representations of the creatures in question, they would seem to cross the boundaries of mere species variation and represent different genera. The fangs alone would terminally burden any attempt to place these creatures as mere close-cousins. Needless to say, it would be really controversial if the DNA report alleged the existence of ancestral or wild people of multiple types, as well as new types of chewbacca apes. But, then again, we have heard no rumor to the effect that the report will try to support the idea of multiple types of sasquatch. As I said before, I hope that the report is not what it is rumored to be, liner notes to a greatest "contemporary hits" of Bigfoot stories, and will instead be something we haven't thought of or imagined. If so, those who want to thumb their noses at the skeptics here, note that the paper's conclusions may just as well be a surprise to skeptics and true believers alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sandman Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 No, Homo Sapiens Sapiens means human. Homo properly refers to hominid or 'human like" creatures. To rephrase what you said for accuracy: Homo erectus was not human. Homo habilis was not human. You can keep saying that they are but you will be wrong every time. no, hes not. what exactly is your agenda? All this can stop when the Skeptics drop their claim that Ketchum is claiming that the results show that BF is human Or yer just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted February 18, 2012 Admin Share Posted February 18, 2012 The Sierra Kills creature is now said to be like Patterson's bipedal ape; the Ullibarri account is of a human; one Erickson habituation video is said to portray a very Chewbacca like animal, replete with fangs: I Say whaaat?! That's all hearsay, making any inferences based on that is not a wise course of action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Ketchum posted this tweet at about 7:30pm eastern time. ​Notice the confident phrase, 'real science.' It's not a bad idea to start getting her feed. "I do not have a pub date yet. Please be patient, real science takes time unlike TV." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 19, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 19, 2012 She also now has a new Melba Ketchum Facebook public information page separate and apart from her old page..... she's posted the same message there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Thursday, Sally Ramey wrote at Bigfoot Evidence, "In my experience, you often only know about three weeks out when your paper will publish." So if the Ketchum tweet is credibly her, perhaps we're at least three weeks out from the release. I say perhaps, because Ramey has only stated what has usually happened in her experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts