Jump to content

The Ketchum Report


Guest

Recommended Posts

And we are off!!!.....right into another diatribe of skeptic versus believer in a thread where it has no relevance for hypothetical research results, no less.

cartoon-bang-head-jpg.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same with me. My cousin watched something through his spotting scope years ago and he is still adamant about what he saw today. He is a life long woodsman and he refuses to accept it was anything other than a Sasquatch (or someone pretending to be one). While I do not have much faith in this pending report (based of my own thoughts about the FB page and the zero interest outside the bigfoot universe), I do consider myself a skeptical believer. I've been following this mystery for a long time, and although I only recently rekindled my interest, I have noticed these buildups come and go in the past. If something does come of this, and I still think they need more than just inconclusive DNA without a known sample so compare it to, I too will be making a few calls to old friends about a little taste of crow. But not until there is absolute proof. In the meantime, I will still enjoy the backcountry and wonder what might be around the bend.

I think most skeptics would welcome proof, but it is good to be skeptical about 'evidence'.

Cheers

Lanny

Hi, Lanny. I mostly lurk on these forums. I had my own encounter with my Boy Scout Troop in Oregon in the 80's and it has affected me my whole life. I understand the scepticism. I would have talked myself out of what I saw years ago if I had been alone. The fact that I was in a group has forced me to confront what I saw.

Your explanation of your scepticism is the best I've seen. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest exnihilo

You're funny when you called on your nonsense - you start talking like the Wizard of Oz.

When you can explain how your statement was not a strawman - presumably by finding quotes from me and other participating skeptics that people who report seeing bigfoots are all crazy liars - I'll gladly and publicly retract my statement that it was. If you'd prefer to dig an ever deeper hole, have at it.

And I always prefer the hoist when I can borrow another's petard.

There is a class of sightings made by experienced woodsman, whom by their own admission were skeptical of bigfoots existence up until their sighting. They, like many other people would not be likely to jump to the conclusion they had seen a bigfoot if they did not see it perfectly clear. It is actually a knock against skeptical people who have sightings for someone to second guess them and say they were victims of their own wishful thinking. It's kind of hypocritical.

These people are immune to lying, substance abuse, mental illness, optical illusion, hallucination, and ever being wrong about what they claim to have experienced?

The fact that some people are more experienced in the field in others does not suggest that their brain function is qualitatively different. In fact, I'd wager that "woodspeople" are more likely than city folk to spread bigfoot mythology. For one, their outdoor experience lends an air of matter-of-factness and credibility (e.g., "I've seen a lot of bears and this was no bear!"). They're also more likely (at least pre-Internet) to be familiar with local legends originated by Native Americans and others. Here are a few experienced woodsmen who come to mind . . .

Ray Wallace

Cliff Crook

Paul Freeman

Roger Patterson

edited to fix parenthesis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RioBravo

Exnihilo, you just made made Saskeptic's case.

So way down on the list of potential explanations for an anecdotal account would be the possibility that the person actually witnessed a real bigfoot. Other explanations are simply far more likely and need to be carefully considered and eliminated before ascribing a bigfoot cause to some unusual event.

He is clearly admitting the possibility that bigfoot is real and a witness actually saw one. As would any skeptic!

If someone makes the claim "bigfoot is not real," then they are a fool, because it's impossible to substantiate such a claim.

Skeptics don't believe every witness is crazy, just as "knowers" don't believe every witness with a bigfoot story truly saw bigfoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bsruther

And we are off!!!.....right into another diatribe of skeptic versus believer in a thread where it has no relevance for hypothetical research results, no less.

Wait a minute here, you're a believer and not supposed to say this sort of thing. You're supposed to say: Your're either with us, or again' us, there is no in between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, everyone... Let's get this topic headed in another direction!

We are not going to let this thread devolve into another Skeptic vs. Proponent battle, complete with insults and personal attacks.

Out of respect for the other members enjoying this forum, I'm demanding that the personal jabs stop at once.

You know who you are, and using fancy wording in your posts is fooling no one.

The next individual that takes a jab at another member on a personal level will be sorry... VERY SORRY!

Posted for your convenience:

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

General Guidelines:

1. BFF has one rule above all else - Behave like adults!

What do we mean by this? Imagine the forum is run by a bunch of people who have invited you over for dinner - we expect sensible, well thought out conversation. If you start getting personal with other diners, you are likely to be ejected. This not your house after all, you don't have a right to sit at someone else's table and disrupt things.

2. Do not make things personal. Attack the argument, not the arguer. No name calling. Terms like ‘liars’ and ‘idiots’ are beyond the pale and will not be tolerated here.

3. Remember at all times that this forum is here to discuss the subject of Bigfoot, not to discuss other members. If you don't have something nice to say about someone, you might want to consider not saying anything.

BFF Forum Rules:

1. Respect For Others

A. All members of these Forums will respect the opinions and presence of other members of the Forums. You are welcome to engage in challenging and spirited debate with other users, but rudeness will not be tolerated. Name-calling, disrespecting other users or throwing personal insults against them will not be tolerated. Flaming another user because of their spelling or word choice will not be tolerated. Personal attacks of any kind are not allowed. Antisocial behavior will not be tolerated.

Don't force the closure of this very popular topic. That's unfair to the other members. Please, behave like adults!

See

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ex I think you just stumbled onto a new description for skeptics, at least the ones from the JREF

Plussed

It depends on what your stated hypothesis is of the unknown that determines whether you have testable/verifiable results.

Jodie, I generally get along with you, but you are absolutely incorrect here.

It's either known (in the database) or UNknown (not in the database). No "hypothesis" needed. The test results are the test results. If no lab error was made, if they don't match any known animal they therefore logically can only come from an unknown animal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're funny when you called on your nonsense - you start talking like the Wizard of Oz.

When you can explain how your statement was not a strawman - presumably by finding quotes from me and other participating skeptics that people who report seeing bigfoots are all crazy liars - I'll gladly and publicly retract my statement that it was. If you'd prefer to dig an ever deeper hole, have at it.

Well if absolute statements contradicting what a witness says qualifies, check my sig line. This doesn't refer to "all" but it's definately not an acknowledgement that any particular account could be true. Thats not Oz talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With multiple samples included and extensive DNA analysis performed as a hypothetical given, what testable hypothesis could be put forward that would include repeatability?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jodie, I generally get along with you, but you are absolutely incorrect here.

It's either known (in the database) or UNknown (not in the database). No "hypothesis" needed. The test results are the test results. If no lab error was made, if they don't match any known animal they therefore logically can only come from an unknown animal.

I'm not arguing with you Mulder, just trying to explain why it isn't so cut and dry.

There are a lot of limitations to this study that have already been discussed in the thread that I won't bother to rehash, but I chose not to ignore those just to have my belief validated, it doesn't hinge on the study results.

In research involving a hypothesis there are only two conclusions you can reach, modus tollens or a confirmed consequence. In modus tollens the data does not support the consequence. In the second, the data does confirm the consequence but you can't be sure that your specific hypothesis was the reason you got your anticipated results. Confirmation is never 100%.

The most you can hope for in all of this is that Dr. Ketchum did dot all of her i's and t's. If so, then there is a high probability that there is something unknown out there in the woods, but you can never logically conclude that the unknown would be bigfoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With multiple samples included and extensive DNA analysis performed as a hypothetical given, what testable hypothesis could be put forward that would include repeatability?

I think Mulder makes a good point about an hypothesis. The purpose of a study could simply be to investigate reports of the extant hairy hominid known as bigfoot. Going into such a study, we could have an hypothesis that it is a biological entity and physical evidence can be found to confirm it.

Samples are assigned to a species through both morphological exam and DNA testing. The samples that test within an accepted range for knowns in a data base are discounted while samples falling outside an accepted range of variation continue on with further study.

A subgroup of the samples would emerge in this process if there was a new species and evidence was found for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The most you can hope for in all of this is that Dr. Ketchum did dot all of her i's and t's. If so, then there is a high probability that there is something unknown out there in the woods, but you can never logically conclude that the unknown would be bigfoot."

Jodie, I think there is already enough evidence in anomalous hair samples, track evidence, etc to come to a conclusion like that, I think Ketchum's results will certainly be more specific. Her use of so many samples is a good indication she is crossing her t's and doting her i's, as well as looking on providing some statistical proof as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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