Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I think there's a tendency here to over-value BF-related news relative to the wider world. Publication of a paper in a reputable scientific journal proclaiming DNA proof of the existence of BF is undoubtedly huge news, and would generate headlines, if for nothing else, the sheer audacity of the claim. However, in the absence of a body or detailed and extensive habituation videos beyond the pall of hoaxing, the rest of the world is so conditioned to BF being something espoused by cranks and kooks that the paper alone will hardly be a game-changer in terms of general acceptance. I'm willing to bet it wouldn't even make water cooler conversation in most offices. Here at the forums, is another matter of course, but elsewhere, my belief is it'll be greeted with bemusement at best, regardless of how air-tight the findings are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Who knows what the paper contains. But the suggestion that it is an out and out hoax does not hold water. My impression if the NDA situation is that numerous persons are a party to the study. 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. So in addition to the pragmatic reasons to not release the preliminary paper, there may be an unusual situation regarding the NDA with whatever journal is involved. Now whether or not it is the case, it certainly seems plausible. Consequently this interpretation ought to be accorded the benefit of the doubt until the study is released, while we remain in ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Too many variables to speculate with any accuracy. It all depends on how much "proof" the paper has and whether it is retestable by other groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I would like bf to be real but having never had my own experience the longer the hype about this dna study goes on without anything being release the more I start to become skeptical. It's not that I want to be skeptical but in lack of never having spotted one myself in having spend most of my 31 years near where they are said to be and having done a lot of camping and hiking in the WA cascades and olympics I need some type of evidence. I would love to see the results of the dna study released soon but after so long of hearing it is coming I suspect the wait will continue. I hope I am wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 2013 the year of the sasquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I hope I don't have to keep changing my signature line. Been doing it since 1998. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) Yeah...I just don't see it that way. I don't think most of the skeptics here are trying to "convince people that there is no such thing as bigfoot". I think most of the skeptics here are simply trying to convince people that there is not a lot, if any, of concrete evidence that proves that bigfoot exists.....so far. ..Just say'n. (Disclaimer: Slabdog is not a paid spokesperson or representative of Skeptics inc., nor does Slabdog receive any specially priced deals, discounted rates and or preferential treatment by or from Skeptics Inc. The views expressed are his own) Just Read Every Forum that talks about bigfoot. Frequent Observations Reveal Ugly Messages Surrounding bigfoot and all else considered "paranormal" by the "enlightened". Tim B. Edited February 23, 2012 by TimB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Being brand new to these forums, but having been around a few others at various times, so far it seems like the 'skeptic' camp here is pretty reasonable, which is really refreshing. I've seen my fair of debunkers who stake a claim that it is impossible for Bigfoot to be real, 100%, no doubts about it. This is a different position from saying there is no evidence, or that it is unlikely. On the other hand, those forums also tend to be filled with people who go way to far in their belief as well. For myself, I'd probably fall more on the intrigued but skeptical side if a close family friend (whom for me is beyond reproach) had a very detailed encounter which I can not find any other explanation for (out fishing with a friend deep in Nor Cal woods, and saw a very tall, very bipeadal brown hairy creature walk across the river upstream about 20 yards from them). This raises the likelyhood for its reality for me in this sphere considerably, although still, it is not proof. Ms. Ramey is out with another interesting post today about what to expect when the article is published, in relation to how hard it will be to actually read the entire study, since it will be in a journal only really available to subscribers of the journal. It's worth a read: http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=362347383785665&id=359075637446173 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Oh I'm pretty sure the uglyness goes both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 It does indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I'd like to add a few items here. While I have never actually met Sally Ramey, I've been acquainted with her for several years online as well as several phone conversations. Many others within the field have met her though, including a few people I closely know. Not sure if she is a member here actually, but I used to chat with her as a confidant over on bfro quite often and yeah she is Loubob there, which I'm sure is not a secret for her given she has stated her position with the study. She is very supportive of what people experience and that is a good trait. I also haven't spoken with her on this paper subject or this post. She's been on a few boards though and I know she attends conferences as she can. She was also largely responsible for organizing Igor Burtsev's travels in the US last year, and while I didn't even know this beforehand, she was who I would be in contact with for Igor's stay with me. Working with her on that visit was a pleasure and business was business when necessary. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with everything she has presented on every matter, but that's just life isn't it. I mostly say this in respect to there being a trend I have noticed where too much natural phenomenon is being attributed to bigfoot. I believe this is something that everyone needs to be mindful of. Its only a handful of issues I've noticed from her and it is something that many novices and so-called experts are equally guilty of. My being someone who is fairly astute about nature in general, I often question images/physical sign, where there may be a very rational natural explanation of certain phenomenon that the primary proponent is not aware of based on his/her own life experiences. Mother Nature just happens to be a wonderful artist without the help of Sasquatch. Anyway, while it may be tempting to hang on her every word with respect to the Ketchum Study, keep in mind that they are probably still working out the bugs both on Facebook and with how their roles of responsibility will evolve. Facebook had a glitch where it only allowed one identity for both Admins and that can cause confusion. I suspect this should be worked out if it already hasn't so there will be no confusion on who is speaking there. I am going to have my own concerns about the study and its impact as well. I do hope that Dr. Ketchum pays attention because I fear there are some impacts that she and others have not thoroughly considered in what is now a drive to bring protection to what may be the most exotic species there ever was. The scientific component is also not the whole picture of the species either. Even with the DNA, we really don't know much about them. There really is more to them then just some relic of our past too. They do have language. They have intention in what they do in avoiding us. There has indeed been a universal objective to not be 'discovered' so to speak. But why and how have they accomplished this? Without experiencing for oneself, most can't fathom what they are actually capable of. Without saying more, I simply remain mindful of signs that we are not being shown the full picture 'by them', meaning the Sasquatch. I also do remain concerned that with their being 'outed', that it will open up a new black market 'demand' and relentless chasing by the masses that few can grasp as of yet. Everyone will want to 'see' one and even more then now will want to hunt one . This will only bring additional pressure on a species that doesn't want to have contact with us, for whatever reasons. 'Protection' will not prevent this new outdoor pursuit of what could be millions of people wanting to experience it! Forcing them into the limelight within society may spark a coexistence transformation with us not yet anticipated or even desired. This remains grey area to every bigfoot expert, including scientists. And so I proceed with caution as well, especially given the repeat encounters I've had in my life. I also can't blindly jump on bandwagons where new slogans evolve such as 'love the sasquatch'. It can actually be dangerous in the long run but these are things people don't always realize going in. What will stop a REAL 'Church of Bigfoot' from developing next after this new enlightened being is born to the world? First we have Believers, does 'Faith in Them' come next? Will the more gullible, er faithful, begin constructing idols to honor these mysterious beings? Has that already begun? Need to keep an eye on the subtle signs... That aside, I believe that Sally will do a good job as they work out the bugs. There may be different interpretations of the results from different camps even, partly because the DNA won't reveal/explain many things or odd experiences many have had. There still remains many mysteries about Sasquatch the DNA just won't touch on. Frankly the Goodall approach is simply not plausible with this species, and I have made the same error in the past by expressing this methodology. Also if using 'Nature' as an example wasn't their best choice, maybe just chalk it up to a simple oversight on overlooking rules differences between different publications as things get organized? There may be another plausible explanation too but it doesn't seem too important an issue. Everyone makes mistakes but I completely understand why they couldn't use the actual publication's name at this time, and so maybe that was their basic reasoning. Its not that big a deal as long as the information pipeline continues which seems to be the case, which it sounds like it is. Maybe at some point Sally or Dr. Kethcum will share information here as well but if they don't its understandable too because there's only so much time available on their plates, and a spokesman could be inundated here. Hence the Facebook page will hopefully allow the information to flow as needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) There is talk on the FB page of a non-profit Protection type group arising from the efforts which she will lead. Not true, Ketchum "I also need to clarify that I will speak for the non-profit and support it in every way possible, but will not run it" cervelo People that believe Bigfoot could not exist don't hang around Bigfoot forums! I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but some of these posters here are on other Anti BF forums, where they don't even entertain the remote possibly of the existence of BF and thinks that anyone believes in BF,automatically qualifies them for an unlimited stay at the hotel Bellview, in the stylish, rubber suite. Edited February 23, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Zig, I hear ya! I amended my statement to say majority. I tend to zone out the extreme ends of any issue or argument. That's not direct at you by any means Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I hope I don't have to keep changing my signature line. Been doing it since 1998. LOL!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 It's 1PM my time and no breaking news at the NBC website. Looks like one more week...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts