Guest Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) On the topic of red flags - I hope that the Ketchum camp gets used to it. As has been stated, the red flags of the BF community, be they believer or skeptic, will be nothing compared with the uphill battle faced trying to prove existence to science, and worse, trying to prove existence to the long disbelieving population of the entire world. On the topic of multiple agendas... The multiple -sometimes odd -agendas of the (supposed) major players in the whole thing have me scratching my head. For instance: NABS has claimed to be major players in the Ketchum paper, claiming to have brought her on board to BF research. They have seemed concerned in the past about bringing scientific credibility and cooperation to the field. Their newest focus is not so much on the Ketchum paper as it is the missing persons issue. I can see the connection there, but one would think that that the organization would not put more than one major iron in a major fire. Then comes their most recent blog posting, talking about UFOs and BF? Not the kind of thing that adds to scientific cred when they are already looking to add credibility to the incredible. I don't see the introduction of supernatural/ufo elements as passageways to increasing cooperation, either. It will be interesting to see if NABS gets much credit when the paper is published. I have a funny feeling that it will not, despite claims or actual involvement. All of that said, I am personally well past thinking that what we are dealing with here falls into the deliberate hoax category. That would have happened by now, IMO. Or maybe, as you have said, Arizona, we are all tiring ourselves out looking for red flags while we wait Edited March 16, 2012 by notgiganto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 I'm extremely comfortable taking the "wait and see" approach with regards to the study. By no means does the existence of Bigfoot hang in the balance. If Dr. Ketchum is able to pull this off, outstanding. If not, well I had my own big ol' hairy hallucination so I'm okay with my position on the whole thing. Much more than the results of a paper, I find this a fascinating study in human behavior. By no means do I want to see someone flame out so spectacularly on such a big stage, but I have to see how this turns out now that Dr. Ketchum has pushed all of her chips to the center of the table and has gone "all in". For the life of me, I could not imagine someone doing so, knowing they have nothing. There is no bluffing peer reviewers. Call me optimistic or whatever, but I guess such a brazen move leads me to believe she has to have something. Or maybe it's just that she truly believes she does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 The "all in" analogy is good, Arizona. That is at the heart of what so excites all of us, IMO. Nail on head: She has something, or really believes that she does. Fascinating either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 There are several scenarios to consider. Many folks think or hope that this DNA paper will prove Bigfoot exist. Some think this will play out as a deliberate hoax. The truth may be less sensational than these two scenarios imply. One plausible scenario (based on various statements yet to be verified) is that the report will find that samples tested suggest consistent human genetic variations that are not found in the human genetic data-bank. This finding will be supported by eyewitness accounts related to the samples, making the case for the phenomena originating via something truly new (to science) in nature. Critics will point out that these interesting variations do not exclude Homo sapiens sapiens as the likely explanation, although they will have to provide testable ideas as to why such variations in the samples are consistent. Now, if this scenario is near the truth of the matter, then the type of questions I posed about your samples become relevant. Then, the idea that such a large "tribe" of humans can co-exist virtually all over the place, right outside of town really, and is for all practical purposes undetectable, becomes a problem for the credibility of the DNA paper. So what if the data comes back and said "humans" have 48 chromosomes, then what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 We certainly haven't heard any of her five or six co-authors coming out and distancing themselves from her and her pronouncements. That to me is very telling if they are indeed the caliber she has suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) @ arizonabigfoot That's what I also believe and said before, it's not like she's someone with nothing to loose, or is trying to slide it through the cracks, and take it to the MSM with her own theory,samples,etc... It's not just Dr. K ,their is other professionals that are in the thick of it who also pushed their chips in. It's not behavior you see from people with the credentials she has. Think of the ramifications of her hoaxing this, she did DNA work for the police, that either helped put guilty people in jail or keep innocent people out of jail. Think of the can of worms that would be opened over cases she was involved in. One thing that bothers me about this is the lack of professional courtesy by some on and outside the forum that have professional back grounds themselves, you would think they would at least give her some time and a chance to follow through before tearing her down. . Edited March 16, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 We certainly haven't heard any of her five or six co-authors coming out and distancing themselves from her and her pronouncements. That to me is very telling if they are indeed the caliber she has suggested. Huh, interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) Here's where the discussion might get off-target though--I recall at least one hallucination when I was young due to a high fever I would get from ear-infections. My hallucination involved aliens sort of turning my mattress over and carrying me out the window (first time I have ever typed that in my 46 years on the planet) but it makes perfect sense that the hallucination was due to a very high fever--the fever documented by my mom. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that naturally occuring hallucinations happening for no reason at all to otherwise healthy people is close to zero %. As the skeptics will agree--there needs to be a cause and effect. A REASON. Otherwise "hallucinations!" becomes the catch-all for seeing something unique in our lives. As far as I know I've never had a hallucination. I mean, how would I know, I'm an evidence-based thinker, and my reality is shaped entirely by what I experience. If I did have hallucinations I wouldn't even know it, I suppose. If I ever saw a bigfoot, I wouldn't even consider it to be a hallucination: it would just be another experience I have had that would add to my knowledge of the natural world, regardless of whether is it considered to be a cryptid or undiscovered animal or not. I've never seen a bear in the wilderness either, though I have seen their paw prints just after my mother and brother have both seen them while we were at the cabin at the lake. If hallucinations were such a common experience for mankind then I don't think humans would have been a particularity successful species. Our survival in the wilderness as we evolved depended on our ability to correctly interpret our environment - if we were so prone to hallucinations then we would have never been able to both exploit natural resources and avoid predators - including huge hairy hungry man-beasts. Edited March 16, 2012 by RavenBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 With all this excited talk about the paper, can someone NOW tell WHAT JOURNAL it is submitted to or going to be published by? From what I can tell there's no hard info available. It's all the same stuff as we've been hearing for what, 3 years now? What makes THIS TIME any different than the last dozen times the paper was "coming out" in the next month? Is there any REAL info at all other than speculation? Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) "I'm an evidence-based thinker, and my reality is shaped entirely by what I experience." I like the first half of the sentence, Raven. I like it a lot. I'm just not sure that it is compatible with the second half. Your logic about hallucinations is great, too..........but the mods have asked us to stick a bit closer to the subject of the Ketchum report, rather than side tracking. The thing is, if your reality is shaped only by what you experience, aren't you missing out on the small matter of all human learning to date? All science is binned, all history, geography etc. Culture, Shakespeare and Mozart.......all sacrificed at the shaky alter of reliance on our own experience and perceptions. The logical extension of what I think you are saying is that you won't believe the results of any scientific study unless you see something with your own eyes. Or do I have this wrong? In which case, the Ketchum report would be interesting to you, but not conclusive.......? Mike Edited March 16, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) OOPS: I've been reading through the thread and I've just got to the post from the moderater attempting to steer the thread back to the topic of the Ketchum paper and away from the hallucination path. Sorry if my post above was off-topic. I just find that hallucination accusation to be so dismissive towards witnesses. I've never seen a bigfoot myself, but I would never accuse a witness of hallucinating their own encounter. It seems most witnesses are down-to-earth sorts who spend their free time in the outdoors enjoying nature - not crack-heads who are flying high on meth or cocaine. I suppose it's possible to do both at the same time, but most people I know who venture out into the wilderness are not prone to hallucinations, either naturally or due to substance abuse. I'm looking forward to the Ketchum paper publication. I do wonder about the attitude of some of the skeptics on this forum. One of my favorite podcasts is the Skeptics Guide to the Universe, and what I've come to understand about the world view of the skeptic is that they are evidence-based thinkers like myself who will happily adjust their perception of realty as we know it when new evidence is presented that expands our understanding of the world around us. It seems some of the 'skeptics' on this forum already have their minds made-up that bigfoot is simply a mythical animal and that Ketchum is running some kind of scam, which doesn't really seem like a truly skeptical position to me. The logical extension of what I think you are saying is that you won't believe the results of any scientific study unless you see something with your own eyes. Or do I have this wrong? In which case, the Ketchum report would be interesting to you, but not conclusive.......? Mike Oh no, not at all - I've lived the very limited existence of a north american male alive from 1966 onward. As a science geek I consider the opinions the experts who have devoted their lives to the many different fields of scientific study to enrich my own world-view beyond what I've personally been able to study. But on the other hand, I would never consider discounting the eyewitness testimony of those who have personally encountered a huge hairy hominid in the wilderness, and as somebody who is fascinated by all aspects of science and the natural world, I'm frankly on pins-and-needles anticipating the revolution of our understanding of ourselves and our origins if the Ketchum paper proves to be valid and accepted as scientific fact. Bigfoot will be proven to be our closest living relative, and one that may enable us to learn more about our own origins as a species. It may be a completely different flavour of humanity. How cool is that? Edited March 16, 2012 by RavenBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Regarding the Ketchum Project and the Red Flags: How are we certain that the red flags people are seeing aren’t indeed hallucinations? I see no definitive proof provided that there are indeed red flags. Ergo, the red flags do not exist. (Sorry folks, couldn’t resist) :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Reading this thread is like watching someone put a puzzle together without benefit of the picture on the box and with the pieces face down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 ^ while blindfolded now that i think about it, that puzzle may have been done in less than 4 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 That's a big 10-4! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts