Guest Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 What he said! (assuming the he part) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) I'm surprised by Saskeptic's stance on the FB stuff, and all I would say to him, Summitwalker and PacNWSquatcher is..........all this stuff (leaks, Ketchum comments, FB, assistants, money etc) is fluff. It is irrelevant fluff. It means absolutely not a single tiny little thing. Just ignore it. Mohammed Ali would still have been the greatest heavyweight of all time even if he had never uttered a word outside the ring. Treat this fluff in the same way as you treat his poetry. This entire thing will stand or fall on the published work. If the science stands up to scrutiny, then we aren't going to be talking about Dr Ketchum's FB teasers. Give us the science, give us the film, and if you've got it, give as a look at a body. Everything else is fluff. Mike Edited March 12, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It seems to me, since the rumors of the project probably only come from less than a few hundred people, in a niche community, and are levied by layman and weekend warriors, that there is really no reason to address them. Why not just wait until completion to talk about it? ^I'd say that those same couple hundred people would cry foul if she closed both FB accounts as well, so keeping them open to answer questions is probably being nice to people who should be appreciative. Hype?, I don't see it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Oh I've expressed several times in this very thread that none of this speculation matters at all unless and until a paper is published. I've also written several times that I'm not yet convinced that there's a paper at all. The Ali-esque bluster (committed Smokin' Joe Frazier fan, btw) becomes relevant because, while it may be charming in a flamboyant international sports star, it's ill-befitting a lead scientist ostensibly navigating the stormy seas of a paradigm-shifting publication. It is, however, exactly befitting what bigfooters have seen many times before: bold pronouncements of "this is it!" that ended with a thud or a whimper. I have nothing to lose in this episode. If it amounts to nothing then so what? I was right again about there being no proof of bigfoot. If it's everything it's been hyped to be and there are bigfoot people wandering around the hinterlands (and suburbs) of the U.S. at this very moment, then great! I'd be overjoyed to have been proven wrong about something so incredibly cool! But other folks invest a lot in bigfoot. You can read comments all through this thread about the hope that people have in this. I suspect that nothing of substance will come of this research, and those folks have a bitter disappointment in their future. This is just the opinion of one man, but one who's seen the bigfoot balloon expand - and then deflate - many times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It seems skeptics are undecided whether a scientist should discuss their findings pre-publication. If they don't discuss it then it is assumed there is no evidence or study,and everyone has been taken for a ride. If they do discuss it without going into great detail about findings they are accused of hyping their work. What gives here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It's not the mere fact of discussing findings pre-publication, it's the way it's done. This gem in particular (from FB a few weeks ago) just gave me a sinking feeling about this whole thing: "Our data is [sic] amazing and beautiful and all cutting edge." If that kind of rhetoric gives people confidence, have at it. I read stuff like this and it evaporates any confidence I might have had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Don't get me wrong....I think something will come from it. Knowing they're real, it doesn't surprise me that DNA could be obtained, and I believe she probably has something. It's the antics that have me scratching my head. I couldn't picture Meldrum publishing a paper so significant, and fielding erroneous questions from soccer moms, and carpenters about the veracity of his work. Ketchum doesn't need to be defended. She probably knows that posting about seeing Sasquatches, lobbying for conservation, giving teasers, making trivially cryptic posts, etc, is going to cause certain people to not take her seriously. I just think her approach is odd....That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Yea there is something not quite scientific about having the Facebook publicity page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 This skeptic has no problem with her not wanting to discuss her findings before being published, it's what she says and how she says it that seems odd. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 This is the first time I've heard there are no eccentrics in the entire history of science. I've said it before. If she's managed to convince a "renown" team to co-author the paper and get it through peer review, none of this grousing will make a wit of difference. I would think (if this were some kind of scam), people would be sharpening their pitchforks after another extended period of promises. I don't see how she's doing herself any favors unless she has the goods. It's true she's been at this four years but it's only in the last few months that she's started posting. Could this be a case where the spoils go not to the biggest brains in molecular anthropology, but to the first person that actually bothered to take a hard look? I don't know whether she has the proof she claims. I am willing to wait a reasonable amount of time to find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It being the ''era of social media'' I can't see the point in the criticism regarding her FB page.....LOL...If Steven Hawking had a FB page and took the time to answer questions for laypeople It would be amazing....and it also wouldn't make him any less of a professional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted March 12, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 12, 2012 I have nothing to lose in this episode. If it amounts to nothing then so what? I was right again about there being no proof of bigfoot. If it's everything it's been hyped to be and there are bigfoot people wandering around the hinterlands (and suburbs) of the U.S. at this very moment, then great! I'd be overjoyed to have been proven wrong about something so incredibly cool! But other folks invest a lot in bigfoot. You can read comments all through this thread about the hope that people have in this. I suspect that nothing of substance will come of this research, and those folks have a bitter disappointment in their future. This is just the opinion of one man, but one who's seen the bigfoot balloon expand - and then deflate - many times. You may have nothing to lose,But i bet i do have something to gain,My steak which will be medium rare and a shot of tequila(patron) and a nice cold bottle of modelo.Then we can sit there and chat on what i saw and heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted March 12, 2012 Admin Share Posted March 12, 2012 it's what she says and how she says it that seems odd. RayG Yes, some of her comments (and those of her PR rep) have a certain familiar style of presentation..... It certainly makes one wonder "Why" put forth any hype, if you have the goods......Just deliver them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I don't see how she's doing herself any favors unless she has the goods. Similar sentiments were expressed regarding Tom Biscardi and the press conference about the bigfoot in the freezer. That doesn't mean that Ketchum is a Biscardi-style carnival barker, but it does illustrate that people can and do put their reputations on the line for things that end up being not at all what people had hoped they would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) It seems skeptics are undecided whether a scientist should discuss their findings pre-publication. If they don't discuss it then it is assumed there is no evidence or study,and everyone has been taken for a ride. If they do discuss it without going into great detail about findings they are accused of hyping their work. What gives here? She can't win, they were giving here both barrels, because she wasn't responding,now she start's taking questions, all they do is reload and give her 2 more barrels for responding. You know,as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, there is going to be that one corner that is not going to believe even if Dr.K had bigfoot himself, give the press conference. I'll bet within 4 hrs after the report is made public, some will be speculating what the data is, and start ripping it apart without even looking at the data. @ Sas Is there any particular reason that you find Dr.K.'s credentials or he work unworthy ? I think she has a little more going for her and much more to lose than dumb -n- dumber and P.T. Bascardi & Bailey. Edited March 12, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts