Guest CT Seeker Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I feel that way because it involves Bigfoot. Everyone turns out to be hoaxing, or getting hoaxed. All hype and no ape. It has nothing to do with Ketchum. I didn't even know about her until this DNA thing. The track record of Bigfoot is one of hoaxing, lying, cheating, being hoaxed, making up excuses, hyping, and I am not buying anything to do with a DNA paper. I am of the belief that Bigfoot is not a living actual creature. It is a myth. Look at the patterns of the discoveries. They start in the PNW where Roger Patterson and Wallace were hyping this creature, writing books, going on TV, then the sightings spread out from there, matching population densities, and following the media hype of the creature. So then I don't understand your "interest"? You clearly seem to be not interested in this subject so I don't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) I feel that way because it involves Bigfoot. Everyone turns out to be hoaxing, or getting hoaxed. All hype and no ape. It has nothing to do with Ketchum. I didn't even know about her until this DNA thing. The track record of Bigfoot is one of hoaxing, lying, cheating, being hoaxed, making up excuses, hyping, and I am not buying anything to do with a DNA paper. Opinions are like belly buttons and everyone has one..........................that would be lots of hoaxers out there. Bigfoot costumes would be flying off the shelves. Hallucinations would be very rare and BF would be reported to be floating with multicolors or in some other weird fashion.......might be interesting but far from a realistic observation. The Ketchum report is real and she obviously has some DNA facts for us that points to new hominid or she would not be wasting her time. After all, she has an animal clinic to run and the paper is probably not paying the bills. Edited March 15, 2012 by georgerm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) I am in the mood to show some frustration with the continue circular arguments here by a few. I don't know why, except I open the thread hoping to read something relevant to the study and b/c we have nothing new this keeps spinning into campfire talk. Saskeptic, if you have waded through the extrinsic evidence (assuming anectodal accounts are not evidence) and still come to your conclusions regarding the reality of Bigfoot in general, this isn't really the place to rely on that conclusion. All that has to be set aside wrt to this study. So, not sure what I am saying here, except....it gets old. But, waiting on the study is getting old too, so My Bad! Except...? I guess it is valid to point out this thread has really degenerated, and now I feel like part of the reason! Ok, I wont open this thread again till the study is out! My apologies,. Any bets I can resist? Humm, I think I can. No I can't- this stupid edit button is a vortex. Still in the edit vortex.. skeptics maybe if you shift to examining (again? maybe 500 pages ago you did) some of what we know is going into the study...such as the JC Johnsom irrigation pipe video...and so on and how those do or don't rise to extrinsic evidence might be more on point? I could just delete this whole comment....nah, it can't be any worse than a good portion..so just ignore it and continue...LOL, why I ever think my opinions should carry weight....MY Bad again! Edited March 15, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 But I would suggest stop trying to look for something you aren't even going to believe you see when you see it! ^ Amen, and if you don't trust what you see, it's best not to level a gun at it, firing shots willy nilly. It would be cause to have someone commited. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 But, waiting on the study is getting old too, so My Bad! Except...? I guess it is valid to point out this thread has really degenerated, and now I feel like part of the reason! This thread just keeps movin' along though nothing happens. Even the skeptics seemed bored. It's like we're all waiting in line to get tickets for some event (which may or may not happen) and we got here hours and hours and hours too early. Nothing to do now but kill time. Boy is inertia a powerful force! The BF in southernyahoo's icon looks like he's hunched over with his hands in his pockets (were he wearing clothes) staring off into the middle distance, whistling tunelessly wondering what time it is just like he wondered the same 5 minutes ago. That's pretty much how I feel at this point too. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 That photo was given to me from an inlaw, It's a wood carved statue that now resides at a bigfoot museum in california. On the back of the photo it says "Ruth Lake" 1969. There is a similar photo in the book "Meet the Sasquatch" which I believe Renae Dahindin is standing next to it at this same location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 A Notice To All Participants: Please keep this topic to The Ketchum Report. While hallucination is a probable cause of some sightings, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL TOPIC OF THIS THREAD. If you'd like to discuss the subject matter elsewhere, feel free to start another thread elsewhere. BACK ON TOPIC, PLEASE!!!!! See Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 But I would suggest stop trying to look for something you aren't even going to believe you see when you see it! When I'm in the field and "looking for bigfoot," I'm not looking to encounter a bigfoot just for the sake of seeing one. I'm looking for physical evidence of something that can be analyzed and identified, much like the samples of things apparently submitted to Dr. Ketchum. That's the only game changer in bigfootery - physical evidence. This thread is supposed to be about one example of someone analyzing putative physical evidence of bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I wonder why people aren't hallucinating leprechauns or unicorns. Why are most of the sightings (assuming hallucinations) so...well, boring? Shouldn't these visions fly or speak in the voice of a dead relative or be wearing clown shoes and women's underpants? I dunno. Maybe it's my philosophy minor speaking but what if I told you I saw a fox outside my office building. A fox is a real animal but it can be hallucinated as easily as a sasquatch. What reason do you possibly have for believing I saw a fox if you weren't there and I didn't collect physical evidence? Only semi-serious here. It's up to the reader to decide which parts. Speaking as someone who does hallucinate, most of mine used to be dried out corpses or ghosts. Now that I'm on medication I see them a lot less and more mundane things now: joggers, cats, dogs, etc. What I "hear" is more ordinary now too. This makes it a little harder for me as I used to be able to tell when I was seeing something that wasn't really there . Leprechauns and unicorns would be pretty helpful. I think it is important to distinguish between hallucination, mis-identifications, optical illusions, and changed memories. For example, I read somewhere that actual studies of where people thought they were when they first heard of the Kennedy Assisination or the Shuttle Disaster are not particularly accurate. Hallucination is seeing something that is not there. The other three on my list is seeing something something there but not seeing it accurately or remembering it accurately. That is why one sighting of a bigfoot is never great evidence of a bigfoot at that time and location. Several sightings over a time period or multiple people seeing the same thing are better evidence. I defend car wreck lawsuits for a living and I can tell that no two people under oath will have the same recollection or observation of the same accident. It is just human nature. I am a skeptical beliver and I don't discount all sightings. I just think caution should be used in how much weight you put on a sighting. One more thing, I was disappointed in finding bigfoot that they featured the sights have children that had occurred a few years back. Probably the least reliable. This is good to understand. Most of my hallucinations are simple and "low resolution" but I see real things this way too: out of the corner of my eye, not paying attention to what's in front of me, not remembering correctly afterward etc. Most of my friends don't understand this but they incorrectly see and hear things all the time too. I do think this is more significant than most proponents want to accept. Not that I think all of these incidents are hallucinations or misidentifications but this can really happen to "normal" people. A Notice To All Participants: Please keep this topic to The Ketchum Report. While hallucination is a probable cause of some sightings, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL TOPIC OF THIS THREAD. If you'd like to discuss the subject matter elsewhere, feel free to start another thread elsewhere. BACK ON TOPIC, PLEASE!!!!! See oops okay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I asked Sally Ramey whether they could tell us when they get a publication date (as opposed to telling us the publication date itself). She said she didn't know, and that Ketchum was going to ask the journal about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I hope she doesn't mention that it's us. I can hear it now " The bigfoot researchers and enthusiasts would like to know......." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) My bad, continued an off-topic discussion before seeing the warning. Edited March 15, 2012 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 15, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) I asked Sally Ramey whether they could tell us when they get a publication date (as opposed to telling us the publication date itself). She said she didn't know, and that Ketchum was going to ask the journal about it. I hope she doesn't mention that it's us. I can hear it now " The bigfoot researchers and enthusiasts would like to know......." Let's put it this way, if they can't deal with the free, informed thinkers of the BFF, then "we [they] have a problem Captain" or more succinctly, "Houston, we have a problem!". Edited March 15, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) Bi you got that right! If they don't have a head, hand or foot to plop down beside their study and they think this is a tough crowd! LOL In the words of BTO "you ain't seen nothin yet" But it will be fun Edited March 15, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 They are really pushing the Bigfoot protection part (forming of a formal protection group) hard on the Ketchum Corp. FB page now, and beeing ever so vague on the peer review issue. Several agendas at the same time makes me see red flags all over the place! Check it out yourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts