Guest Jodie Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) Well slim....she did claim to see bigfoot, multiple times, after the paper was in peer review. I thought that was a little dicey. She could have not said anything. Edited March 12, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Melba is handling it her own way really. So she like a bit of the theatrics, big deal (IMO). I personally see her paper and her FB/Non-profit/etc as separate entities. To judge one based on the other with the information we have available is a bit, well....misguided perhaps. So people don't like her bedside manner, certain people would handle it differently. There are all sorts of people and personalities in this world. The paper will either stand on it's own, or go down as one of the greatest BF string-alongs to date. If this is legit, and she's got the goods, I'd be giving JREF a heads up to get that million dollar check ready! Thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) ^Vil, I'm with you about such an analysis taking a good, long time to make it into print. I personally have no idea what analysis has been done, what source material might have been used, or what the potential results might indicate. What I have seen, however, are multiple statements and actions from the ostensible lead scientist that are exceedingly puzzling. The whole idea of having a Facebook page on which fans/the curious can post questions that may or may not be answered is . . . well, let's just call it unique in my experience. Hyping a paper before it's been accepted? Who does that? "Our data are amazing" and what-not - these statements make no sense in the context of a scientist doing science. It's this, more than any suspected delays in publication, that's eroded my confidence in the outcome of this research. How about you Skeptics make up your minds.......you ding Ketchum for NOT sharing enough information with the public, then turn around and ding her for making the statements she HAS made. A total "dammed if she does and dammed if she doesn't" situation. Edited March 12, 2012 by megatarsal to remove profane and flaming content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 mmmmmmm.........i guess we will just have to wait, and wait, and wait, wait some more, hurry up and wait, be patient, good things come to those who wait, wait another minute, and wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I thought the FB page was in response to the large number of emails she was getting, many asking the same questions. This is exactly what many in the BF community were asking for, updates with whatever information could be given. Yep, she's "dammed if she does and dammed if she doesn't". There is no satisfying Skeptics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 there is satisfying skeptics, present some real proof of bigfoot, there satisfied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 A couple things stand out. Theoretically, an educational website could link to a pdf of the paper. It so happens that the JREF is an educational foundation, so the study of the paper at that website would probably stand up. Funniest thing I've read in ages. there is satisfying skeptics, present some real proof of bigfoot, there satisfied. Moore findings, Pinker findings, Meldrums anatomy paper, Fahrenbach's track size distribution analysis and creature height vs sighting altitude comparison, PGF, and more. Was it good for you? Need a cigarette? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Well slim....she did claim to see bigfoot, multiple times, after the paper was in peer review. I thought that was a little dicey. She could have not said anything. True, but she said that has nothing to do with what's in the paper. But yeah, I don't know what to make of those statements. We don't know the circumstances of the encounters. Since she's clearly in thick with people from the BF community, it's possible these sightings weren't just random. We don't know the backstory. For that reason alone, she probably should have waited before talking about it. I'm not saying I'm completely comfortable sitting here on the fence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Funniest thing I've read in ages. Moore findings, Pinker findings, Meldrums anatomy paper, Fahrenbach's track size distribution analysis and creature height vs sighting altitude comparison, PGF, and more. Was it good for you? Need a cigarette? and yet science does not accept that they exist.... I wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I was just a little surprised that Saskeptic didn't make the same point. You're commenting on the fluff. I'm interested in the science. I think I might have made that point about eighty twelve pages ago, Mike. If you'd like to continue with your Ali analogy, I see it like an Ali shooting his mouth off without anyone ever having seen him set foot in the ring. Like you, I'm interested in the science. I ain't seen any, have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It's interesting to note that after those first few comments about personal sightings (which came up on her personal FB page before the more official one) she hasn't made any more. It seems likely that Sally or someone explained to her that it would be ill advised to muddy the water with such comments. But that is just speculation. The battle lines are drawn it seems. I agree with those who've stated (can't recall who would be behind this statement) that once the paper is released (and I do fall in the camp of being fairly certain it will be released, and in a prominent journal) all of this 'OH THE WAITING" drama will amount to nothing. There might be a brief round of "I told you so's" from whichever side feels vindicated, but after that all of this will seem pretty pointless in light of the results (either way they fall). And I still don't feel like it's really fair or possible to hold the publicity surrounding this paper to anything like what has come before it. If there were a pending study about the absolute reality of Telepathy for instance, I imagine we'd see many of the same things. Many skeptics who caught wind of it would be all over it well in advance of its publication looking closely at the process and attempting to find flaws and reasons for illegitimacy well before any real information was released (and I can understand this impulse, if it comes from someone who is not just skeptical of the phenomena in question but convinced of its non-existence). Many 'believers' would pour over every single tid bit of information and throw around wild rumors and speculation like anyone's business. Just like we see in this case. And Parnassus, I think some of what you say is true, but having watched this closely (as many have of course) what I've seen is a little different, in terms of the fever pitch this has reached at times. While knowledge of the paper in progress has been known for a while, it was only when I saw folks like Richard Lindsay start speculating about absolute release dates, and others talking about the political infighting behind the scenes that the fury really heated up. It was at that time that I started to really see people say "well, if there is something there, why don't they just release it?" To which we got a few responses like: "be patient, this will take time." Which fueled more speculation, which brought us into the damned if do/don't binary connundrum Dr. Ketchum finds herself in today. If she didn't say anything at all, we'd be hearing more and more about "why aren't we hearing anything? This silence is quite fishy" (ok, well, we've actually already heard that a great deal a number of folks), to the "Why is she answering these rumors and addressing speculation on a FB page? That is pretty fishy." Of course, this isn't a nuanced analysis. Does anyone remember the Charlie Kaufman movie "The Orchid Thief?" A great (well, an OK) movie which was a meta-movie about making movies. I think this whole process deserves the same treatment. A lot can be learned about how social media and the internet effect popular events such as this has become. Or maybe, depending on the results, this can be the next "Best in Show" or "A Mighty Wind". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 "Whatever my results show, it doesn't matter other than to prove that they exist. Protection should be put in place regardless of what they are. They have intelligence and should have the right to live their lives. All primates, and other animals too, have intelligence. Ex. The gorilla that can use sign language. They are not food animals and they are not a danger and their population is not having a negative impact so there is absolutely no reason to hunt them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 you ding Ketchum for NOT sharing enough information with the public, I do? When did I do that? I don't believe I've wavered at all from what I thought about this the first time I learned of it months ago: I would expect Dr. Ketchum to release NOTHING until the paper comes out. That's what I would've done. You might recall that I was a vocal critic of her announcement to deliver a presentation to the Honobia bigfoot conference, because the paper wasn't out yet. When she started talking, that raised the red flag possibility for me that there'd be no paper. So far, I've not been proven wrong about that . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 has ketchum appeared at any conferences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 and yet science does not accept that they exist.... I wonder why? Again- I don't think you can make that kind of blanket statement. It's a verifiable fact that there are members of scientific professions that are both open to the possibility of these creatures AND on record saying they believe in their existiences. "Science" isn't one rigid institution- it's a continuum. That argument is disingenuous and and full of holes. Tim B. I do? When did I do that? The sentence previous to your quote contained "you Skeptics" as the subject- Not you personally. Tim B. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts