Guest BFSleuth Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Well said, HRP. IMHO I think either clamoring for premature release of a paper or documentary or disrespecting someone for taking their time to do a professional job is disingenuous, especially when it comes to publication in a major science journal. I'm comfortable with Kit going through his process to documentary release, and I'm comfortable with Dr. Ketchum going through her process to publication. Not being a big fan of the whole PGF set of discussion threads, perhaps I've avoided the long history of Kit's proclamations. I'll still allow him the time to go through the process. I mean, think about it forum members, do any of you do this level of research for either project as a full time job? Kit doesn't. Dr. Ketchum doesn't. They both either have jobs and/or businesses to run. They're doing this as just a fraction of their total time. Maybe I'm just more willing to cut slack on that issue. However, I've got an open mind and could devolve into frothing at the mouth against one or the other for fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 ^ What he said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 (edited) Not sure BFsleuth, I'm under the impression Dr Ketchum does do DNA work as a full time job, and this certainly could put her on the map and "who's who" among scientists of our day. Kit, on the other hand, strikes me as a guy who's passionate about a hobby, but like you said, has a job to tend to a greater part of his time. If only we all had massive trust funds so we could spend 60-80 hrs/wk to searching for BF......or a certain BF costume Edited April 6, 2012 by AaronD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Yes, Dr. Ketchum does DNA work as a business. However, I don't imagine that this BF project is her bread and butter income. Far from it. Likely it is a fraction of her total effort on a day to day basis. Paying clients would need to be the focus of her daily work and that of her company. If anything the time spent on this project is time not spent with paying clients. My point is that the argument that she (or Kit) are "dragging their feet" for fun, gaming, (fill in the blank with your favorite pejorative), etc. are disingenuous. If either individual is serious about presenting a complete project to the world it is MHO they aught to take their time to get it right. Both are working with deadlines and schedules of many other people, and in Dr. Ketchum's case she also has to work according to the requirements of the schedule of a science journal (the editor or staff time, prepress work, printing, etc. etc.). There are lead times involved with these kinds of projects. I get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 TimB ~ "(skeptics) just lost sight of their priorities and invested in their own non-factual belief system." Nonsense. Thanks for your educated and complete reply. I will now change my opinion based on your learned response. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I understand exactly why Dr. Ketchum is taking so long, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. I enjoy griping about it along with the rest of you. The issue is the constant reassurance of "soon". If she had just said had no comment or said "I don't know" I think my attitude would be a little different. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 "Soon" in some industries or activities can still be a long time to those that aren't familiar with the process. When Dr. Ketchum says "soon" I interpret it to mean that the process is still moving forward and if all works out it will be published. Even once a paper has been accepted and is in queue for publication that can still take time. The journal has a number of articles in queue to publish, there are editorial decisions, page layout, prepress, etc. etc. to take into consideration. "Soon" is a relative term. But it is fun to gripe about the length of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Is it? Not for me! It's driving me nuts!! I wished I'd never heard of Dr Ketchum, and that one day completely out of the blue she'd just published her work, taking the whole world by surprise. Watching people make certainty out of rumour, and then analyse it, has been an interesting human-watching experience, but even that hasn't obviated the frustration of the endless teasing this process has entailed. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I just want my Barnes and Noble gift card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Don't hold your breath Slim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 In my opinion, the delay of release of the purported Ketchum paper is not of her choosing. It is my belief that the paper has not been accepted for publication and that is the reason for the delay. People were saying we were close to publication months ago and those statements ended up not being true. That makes me question the accuracy of other statements/leaks regarding the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 In my opinion, all postings in the nearly 140 pages were nothing but opinion........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) In my opinion, all postings in the nearly 140 pages were nothing but opinion........ FACT! I've read all 139 pages. Clearly this is a game-changing post. I shall pat myself on the back. GK Edited April 7, 2012 by gerrykleier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Rats and leakers started this countdown months before it was supposed to. The Sierra and Ketchum people never came out and said their work was done. Their hands were forced in a damage control type of situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 You describe a remarkably timid science, is that how you describe the true greats from science past. I would describe Darwin as somewhat personally timid, even if his "long argument" was rigorous. My point was that Bigfoot phenomena is not generally open to engagement with the rigors of science, so why should science bother. If we find a Bigfoot trackway and submit the evidence to scientific scrutiny, how is anything advanced if the scientific reply is that the trackway, while impressive, cannot be ruled out as a human conceived hoax? If five people on a camping trip say they saw Bigfoot, the best that a scientific response to the evidence would allow is that the folks claimed to have seen Bigfoot. Maybe they did, or maybe they did not. Perhaps you see timid in my example of a scientist who would hesitate to claim Bigfoot likely non-existent because he could instantly be proven wrong by a Bigfoot turning up --- and very real. I do think that this plays into the thinking of some who have looked into the phenomenon and find it lacking and decide to drop the issue rather than pursue it negatively. If the phenomena is overwhelmingly circumstantial, there is not much science can do as to offering a conclusive explanation. Field work may as well be performed by big game hunters, trackers, para-military types and the like. Of coarse the exception would be the discovery of a body or part of one (even if just DNA) and then science would have something to work with. My impression concerning a lot of Bigfoot proponents' complaints about science is this: in their mind, Bigfoot is a settled matter. It is not a question of does Bigfoot exist, it is a question of what do we know about Bigfoot. Some proponents seem to want science too to side-step the question of Bigfoot's existence and agree with them that that question has already been answered in the affirmative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts