Guest MikeG Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 248 days and counting! ..and that's only the length of this thread, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 It the world of baseball metaphors, this is more like a perpetual rain delay, where there are nothing but dark clouds in the sky, and the ump keeps telling everyone that the game will resume in five minutes, but keeps having to repeat it every five minutes because it doesn't stop raining. Better off just waiting until the rain breaks to yell 'play ball'. And I may be alone on this, but I think the protection for Sasquatches is a played out cause. I'm not sure why individuals feel the need to crusade for protection. Once there is something concrete in the form of evidence, the Gov will do something. It's a fools errand to think anything will ever happen without proof of existence, no matter how many signatures there are. They've done pretty well to this point keeping all of the massacring BF hunters at bay, I'd say. Our woods aren't going to turn into a madhouse with blood-thirsty guerillas hunting gorillas like in Rwanda. I'm not sure there is a huge market for Squatch skull ash-trays, BF fur coats, and foot lamps at the local swap-meet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 There goes my new bf leg umbrella stand. Thanks a lot Pac. Party pooper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Betcha you'll make a few more choice comments, though. Congrats on +1 haters gonna hate. Vapourware, ketchumgate whatever you want to call it, this Facebook stuff is an eye opener. And as for the protection effort for a species that she's not allowed to say whether it exists or not well... no comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 If you had BF skull ashtrays and the like and could prove they're authentic, you'd be a wealthy individual. Gov. Schwarzenegger woulda approved protection LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 No, BA, she has said a number of times very clearly that it exists. What she hasn't done is produce the evidence. Yet. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 And I may be alone on this, but I think the protection for Sasquatches is a played out cause. You are most certainly not alone in that sentiment. If bigfoots are real, then they've survived centuries of exploration and settlement of their habitats by people with advanced weaponry. These are people who've hunted out such lightweights as bears, wolves, cougars, elk, bison, etc. Bigfoots thrive in places where you'd be hard-pressed to find a stop sign without a bullet hole in it. Bigfoots have been reported from military bases. Bigfoots survived the near complete loss of primary forest east of the Mississippi, and the transition to agricultural landscapes in the Midwest. Bigfoots have crossed hundreds of roads and other developed areas in their wanderings. Bigfoots survived smallpox and other diseases brought to the New World from Europe. No pack of dogs ever treed one, no bull ever gored one, no falling redwood ever crushed one. Bigfoots managed to survive all these things without a single individual ever being killed and recovered. Not one. That is, until now, of course, when we're led to believe that bigfoots have suddenly become susceptible to our bullets. But there's still no evidence of a dead bigfoot, even if Ketchum does have some vials of things that contain bigfoot DNA. So why on Earth would anyone think they'd need protection from us? Bigfoot is impervious and immune to us. If we can't even capture one of the damned things on a camera, then they don't need our help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 No, BA, she has said a number of times very clearly that it exists. What she hasn't done is produce the evidence. Yet. Mike That's the problem its all so wishy washy what she says. She says she can't discuss the results of the paper but she then goes on about how they exist even to the extent of setting up a protection scheme. Lol. If I was the journal publishing this and putting the strict rules on ketchum about discussing it as she claims, then I would not be impressed with her actions on Facebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 They probably actually agree with that statement Bi-Pedal, especially if her results are solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 So last year we were told this was coming soon. We are still told it is coming soon. That is frustrating. But that doesn't scream hoax to me, for sure. Here are the likely scenarios I'm willing to entertain, in order of viability (or maybe in order of wish fullfilment, you be the judge). Also, I know this has been probably been done to death, but I can't resist: 1) The science is done, and has been for a while. The paper is in with a reputable journal, who is nervous as hell about putting their name behind such a controversial and potentially earth-shaking study. They have insisted on tight control of all information regarding the study and it's place at the journal, as they don't want to handle queries about this, or suffer any ill reputation from entertaining this study in the first place. Due to the reputation of the journal, and the sheer mountain of controversy, criticism and scrutiny bound to accompany the publishing of the paper, they have sent the paper back for a number of revisions, large and small, so that they can not be accused of publishing such an outlandish claim without having the goods to back it up. The revisions are getting smaller and smaller, thus leading to the current ramp up by the Ketchum team in the background, as the issues needing to be addressed are short term, not long term in regards to the methodologies and larger elements of the paper. Maybe we are in the 'typo' phase. The paper is released, and thousands of crows around the country suddenly go missing. Mysteriously, recipes for crow-meat pie start to make the rounds on message boards. Believers have a brief period of smugness which is absolutely unbearable, and then get down to the business of really studying this creature. 2) The science is done, and has been for a while. The paper was with a reputable journal, but was ultimately rejected. The team started shopping it around to other journals, and may or may not have finally found one willing to publish it. Thus the recent ramp up in activity. The paper will be released with a thud in a journal far below people's expectations, and we'll hear both sides claiming victory, with the skeptic side clearly having the upper hand and a louder chorus of I-Told-You-So's. The level of smugness from skeptic organizations reaches its peak, and both camps find no other recourse then to form militias. 3) There is no paper, and the Ketchum team and all those involved, or at least a portion of those involved, are involved in a hoax, putting their professional reputations on the line, without any clear road toward financial gain. Maybe this is because they are all psychotic. (Seriously, if this were an out and out hoax, I don't see how it would be strung along for so long. A journal would have rejected it immediately, there would be no revisions, because you can't really 'hoax' good science). Believers either become completely disillusioned and take up another hobby, or quickly distance themselves from the study, claiming they didn't believe it the whole time. Many of them frantically go back to old message boards and try to delete old posts which would prove otherwise. I'm still leaning strongly toward 1 I'm very optimistic that No. 1 is the most likely. Your appraisal of the many elements involved is the most comprehensive that I've seen. + 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Except that I never stated that BF did not exist, I just find extremely hard to believe there are 28 specimens collected when there is no evidence otherwise. Problem for you is that that statement is not true. There's plenty of evidence and has been for a long time: forensically typed hairs, cast tracks, broadly consistent eyewitness accounts, etc. You are attempting to argue a tautology: this evidence cannot be true evidence because there is no evidence. That is improper logic. I suppose you can play the word games It is not "word games" to point out the fatal flaws in your reasoning. but it will still be my belief and my opinion. And it will still be unsupported by the facts and bereft of logic. If I was the journal publishing this and putting the strict rules on ketchum about discussing it as she claims, then I would not be impressed with her actions on Facebook. The only thing that matters, and the only thing the journal should be concerned with, is the science of the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheellug Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) That's the problem its all so wishy washy what she says. She says she can't discuss the results of the paper but she then goes on about how they exist even to the extent of setting up a protection scheme. Lol. If I was the journal publishing this and putting the strict rules on ketchum about discussing it as she claims, then I would not be impressed with her actions on Facebook. How can it be wishy washy? Is she saying it does exist - then says it doesn't? Or is are you suggesting her statement about not being able to discuss the paper or submission? She appears to be backing up her belief by taking additional actions. She is not talking about work she has submitted or suggesting any particular publisher for the paper. Not seeing anything negative in her actions or wishy washy. Edited March 23, 2012 by Wheellug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Has anyone considered that perhaps they are holding on to the real evidence because this would be one of the greatest natural discoveries of our time and that there is a profit to be had from this? I know many think that "profit" is a dirty word, but if they are making calculated moves to increase profitability in this discovery then I think that is a shrewd and forward-thinking way to handle it. There is nothing wrong with doing something great for science and humanity and also making money from your contributions. I know that if my decision came down to "build anticipation to maximize exposure" or "get it all out there as quickly as possible to satisfy those who are un-satisfiable" then the answer is simple. Let those who think they know everything say as much, and I will conduct my business in the best way I see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 OK.. Can I have everyone's attention for a minute or two ? There's a couple of things that need to be once again pointed out. #1 Just a page back, one of our moderators asked nicely for everyone to keep things on track here, and for the personal shots back and forth (from both sides of the aisle) to stop. #2 I will remind several of you- that Dr Ketchum is a member here, and being such is the case- the snide and personal comments about anything related to her, aside from specific points about the pending study- are going to be handled in a manner you're not going to like. #3 There is FAR too much personal sniping going on. There have been reports this morning by members- who while reporting someone else for personal attacks, are doing the very same thing in their own posts. If it continues, the thread will be locked, and there will be some personal attention paid to those who dont listen. If you cant find a way to politely and intelligently discuss this topic, without adding in the smart-aleck and snide remarks, then I highly suggest that you consider holding your tongue. Final warning guy's ... A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dozy Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Has anyone considered that perhaps they are holding on to the real evidence because this would be one of the greatest natural discoveries of our time and that there is a profit to be had from this? I know many think that "profit" is a dirty word, but if they are making calculated moves to increase profitability in this discovery then I think that is a shrewd and forward-thinking way to handle it. There is nothing wrong with doing something great for science and humanity and also making money from your contributions. I know that if my decision came down to "build anticipation to maximize exposure" or "get it all out there as quickly as possible to satisfy those who are un-satisfiable" then the answer is simple. Let those who think they know everything say as much, and I will conduct my business in the best way I see fit. That's certainly one possibility, although even in the case where scientists have gone overboard in commercializing a discovery of this type -- cf. the Darwinius fossil -- they generally haven't gone about it in the way that Dr. Ketchum has. It's most atypical. Another possibility is, of course, that they have diddly-squat and are playing for time, discovering how low they have to go on the totem pole of rigour and credibility before they find a journal prepared to publish. Unfortunately, there's no way to tell these two hypotheses apart until they decide to break cover. Edited March 23, 2012 by dozy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts