Guest parnassus Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 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. Sorry, you can't make that stick. She has made all sorts of statements to the public beginning 17 months ago and continues to do so, and they are imo inappropriate and unnecessary, and some of the authorized statements about the publication process are just wrong. The latter make it seem as though something is being hidden. She never had to say anything to the public. She never had to go on internet radio. She never had to copyright a documentary or publications. She never had to go all social media. Now she is going on forward with public statements that seem to say she has proved the existence of bigfoot, blaming the scientific community for not recognizing it, and is moving past that to work on a non-profit to protect them. So she is really mounting a public relations campaign. These statements are inappropriate for this stage of verification/publication. Inappropriate. She is doing just exactly what the established scientific process is built to prevent: going to the public with unverified claims. Meanwhile, she hasn't done what would be scientifically appropriate, that is, publish her findings, or at least present a paper at a scientific meeting; in either case, that would allow for scientific review/criticism. p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I must have missed the post where she blamed the scientific community for not recognizing her findings. Do you have a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I know a lot folks are hung up that something isn't true or doesn't exist if it isn't published in a scientific journal - or do I misunderstand that? Who decides what is run in these reputable journals? How many people are there making this decision? What about discoveries made under black op type programs or high security clearance? All don't exist? Or rather we aren't told? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I think the length of time involved in this study is indicative of how resistant science is to the existence of Bigfoot and a true test for DNA as a standard for acceptance. The subject is untouchable without biological proof, even though many other forms of evidence that could support the notion that they exist are well within the realm of science to study. It's just been a dangerous limb to venture out on without the premise fully established. SY, you don't think science would love for there to be a bigfoot? or even credible DNA? love love love. knowledge knowledge, questions, answers questions, answers, fame publications publications promotions promotions, grants grants raises raises fellowships, funding, PhD's, expeditions,.... yada yada yada .. What evidence do you have of any cabal, any committee, group, commission or conspiracy of scientists who think that bigfoot would be bad for science? bad for someone's career? which scientists have staked their livelihood, their reputation, their job, on the non existence of bigfoot? Can you name even one single scientist who would suffer a loss of faculty appointment, funding, etc? Please, I'd like to see your evidence. On the other side of the "possible explanations" for Ketchum not publishing yet: what evidence do we have that Ketchum has credible DNA? 1) HER STATEMENTS TO THE PUBLIC. 2) ahhhhhhhhhhh 3) errrrrrrrr 4) ummmmmmmmmmm She could have presented a paper on her findings at a scientific meeting a year ago and this would all be settled, if she really had something. So I really think you are putting the onus on the wrong party. Is that scapegoating? looking for someone, something to blame for the lack of proof of bigfoot in 400 years? eg: science, acid soils, men in black, skeptics, Georgia boys, "elusiveness", "wilderness", .resistance to bullets, resistance to motor vehicle collisions.... p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 That's the problem Cotter, at least fully 1/4 of scientific advancements are made by Defense Contractors and we aren't privy to it. Oh it's legit scientific work, but you won't see it published anywhere for obvious reasons....LOL. @ Parn We don't know either way the credability of her evidence so making assumptions is problematic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) I must have missed the post where she blamed the scientific community for not recognizing her findings. Do you have a link? LOL you mean in the last 24 hours??/ how about this: I wish science wasn't so slow. This has been an exercise in patience and tenacity.It will be out, when depends on the journal. she has made the implication publicly that she is having to do more than is reasonable, and that she is not going to accept muitiple negative reviews from referees. Those are things she wants her "fans" to believe. Most people here seem to believe the picture that she has painted. She's waging a PR campaign. I know a lot folks are hung up that something isn't true or doesn't exist if it isn't published in a scientific journal - or do I misunderstand that? Who decides what is run in these reputable journals? How many people are there making this decision? What about discoveries made under black op type programs or high security clearance? All don't exist? Or rather we aren't told? I'm not into word games about whether something exists before it is published in a journal. That has nothing to do with proving bigfoot exists. please, not with the men in black stuff again....sorry but I find this idea that the government is suppressing evidence of bigfoot to put us right into no-credibility land. There is no logic or evidence of a giant conspiracy. I'm not discussing it. p. Edited March 13, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) Edited to get off my high horse a bit: Parn, your readings of her comments seem clearly biased toward a negative view of Dr. Ketchum. I don't think there is any fair reading of her posts which would indicate that she is not going to accept multiple reviews. Her comment about wishing science wasn't slow etc., which I saw at the time it was posted, seemed clearly leveled at the hundreds of comments on the site clammoring for the release of the paper. There have been many more posts saying "patience everyone, real science takes time!" But those posts don't play into the narrative of her putting on a martyr act for her fans, which is why I would guess they don't end up in many of the posts trying to defame her. Edited March 13, 2012 by Particle Noun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 @Parn: I wasn't suggesting that BF was being covered up by the Gov't, rather there are many new discoveries in general being made that never get released to the public, thusly, some folks are eliminating the possibility (and actuality) that many new discoveries are made that are simply not recognized by the 'scientific community'. Doesn't change the fact that there is proof for said discoveries, just that the proof is not shared. Many folks have shared that, if they were driving the DNA project boat, they would be tight lipped until the moment of release. IF BF has been discovered by a separate entity (gov't, scientific group, etc), where does the 'tight lipped' aspect cross over to the 'conspiracy' aspect? This isn't a gov't cover-up thread, but I will comment, I agree that there is no evidence (that I am aware of) of conspiracy, but I will respectfully disagree with you that there is no logic there for one. Is one really happening? I don't know. Thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I have no doubt this project had to be "shopped" around till someone would take it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I believe it is still being shopped around. No one has confirmed it has been accepted for publication. That would be be easy to confirm. "my paper has been accepted for publication:". Dr. Ketchum, to my knowledge has made no such statement. Her most definitive statement I can recall is "my paper will be published..." I am taking the position that the paper as of today as not been accepted for publication. Reminds me of the Clovis vs Pre-Clovis debate; Clovis has been widely accepted for so long that even good evidence for Pre-Clovis is dismissed almost before examination by other archaeologists. You are making a strong point here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) Particle noun: "bias". perfect!! That is how she paints it. LOL. Her actions and statements are appropriate then? p. I believe it is still being shopped around. No one has confirmed it has been accepted for publication. That would be be easy to confirm. "my paper has been accepted for publication:". Dr. Ketchum, to my knowledge has made no such statement. Her most definitive statement I can recall is "my paper will be published..." I am taking the position that the paper as of today as not been accepted for publication. .... Yes, that is one area where the statements from the Ketchum camp on facebook are very misleading. And it is one question that is legitimate to tell the public about. No one has to wait until NBC news announces it on Thursday afternoon. It's a straightforward point that it seems they are avoiding. Has the paper been accepted for publication, yes or no. They can answer that. And shortly thereafter they would have an approximate date. Those are completely normal things to tell your colleagues, friends and family and put on a blog. Doesn't violate any rules. Edited March 13, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Unless of course they have some sort of agreement with Erickson, since he is one of the money men, to allow for him to sensationalize the event for profit, again, nothing wrong with that. A reminder,this is a private study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Parn: What? That's how she paints it? What are you responding to? That's how I painted it, not her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlurryMonster Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) summitwalker said: Reminds me of the Clovis vs Pre-Clovis debate; Clovis has been widely accepted for so long that even good evidence for Pre-Clovis is dismissed almost before examination by other archaeologists. You are making a strong point here. He is, but not the way you probably think. The existence of pre-Clovis cultures has been widely acknowledged and accepted for a while now. That's a pretty example of the way science (specifically anthropology, which also applies to the bigfoot debate) works; good, new evidence falsifies old hypotheses and introduces new ones. Edited March 13, 2012 by BlurryMonster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 SY, you don't think science would love for there to be a bigfoot? or even credible DNA? love love love. knowledge knowledge, questions, answers questions, answers, fame publications publications promotions promotions, grants grants raises raises fellowships, funding, PhD's, expeditions,.... yada yada yada I don't think scientists want to proclaim bigfoot is real without proof, proof is what scientists want first before they publish. Science has to act first to have proof in the form of DNA. I'm amazed at your ability to not see this vicious cycle where doubt can cripple the action. I do think the bar is higher for bigfoot, because it has been so long without proof, and ofcoarse it's existence is portrayed to be so extraordinary, which demands the extraordinary proof. You wouldn't settle for less now would you? BTW, since when was peer review done at science meetings? Criticisms at such meetings doesn't sound like it is a formal and independent analysis of data. Should I call this a strawman below? She could have presented a paper on her findings at a scientific meeting a year ago and this would all be settled, Sorry parn, not on this controversial topic. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts