Guest MikeG Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Ray, I am at a loss to follow your reasoning. Can you tell me what exactly the problem is with a scientist saying that they have seen the animal they are studying? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 When did Dr. Ketchum say nothing? I must have missed that. And it's not so much THAT she says something, it's WHAT she says, that have some people questioning her methods. She seems to be her own worst enemy. If she had just stuck with what she wrote way back when.... See the part I highlighted? Had she stuck with that, maybe she wouldn't feel so frustrated. If people (mostly bigfoot proponents) had been given that answer every single time they asked for further updates, they might have gotten the hint. Instead we heard convoluted stories about gag-orders from journals, and other curious things, especially when she seemed to toss scientific objectivity out the window. Here are some of those other things she has said: So while some bigfoot proponents might stand and applaud her musings, I'm guessing most real scientists are rolling their eyes. How can someone remain unbiased when they've written those things? She's right on one point -- she should not have even brought it up. So much for being unable to give any details. RayG She hasn't given any details of the study, which she is barred from doing. Nothing says she can't talk about her personal experiences outside of the study. If she were to not even mention the study, then the supposed "leaks" from Stubstred, Lindsey, et al would go unchallenged, and would be perceived therefore to be truthful. as far as divulging details, bf ,dna,nda etc etc.. imo, if it were me i would make every effort to "lay low" & out of the public eye until everything was finished,reviewed,tested & approved. barring an unfortunate leak to the public it would seem best to me to avoid the bashing and/or argument & say nothing until it was airtight or debunked,whichever the case may be. That's what she tried to do, until Lindsay, Stubstred, and that crowd started making public statements implying that their information came from the study. At that point she HAD to respond, within the limits imposed by the reviewing journal(s). If I understand correctly, this study isn't just about DNA results. This study will turn the world on its ear, so to speak. It will prove, through DNA analysis, the existence of a creature presently unaccepted by mainstream science. When she makes comments prior to the release of any official scientific disclosure, to the effect that: ~I know they exist, I saw and actually observed one of these gentle 10-foot-tall beasts.~ How does that NOT affect her study? How could anyone peer-reviewing her submission ignore her bias if they read what she's written? Because what she saw or didn't see will not change the DNA results one iota. The data is the data, and any truly objective person would not say that her sighting has anyting whatsoever to do with that data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 ^At that point she HAD to respond, within the limits imposed by the reviewing journal(s). ......and, to be fair, her own self-imposed limits, made in agreement with the whole group and reinforced with NDAs. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 But what HR said in is post, just doesn't work. Which part of my post? Remember that my response was based on this one of yours... jodie doesn't care for dr ketchum or her study, and doesn't hold back about it. Even when comes out I doubt she will embrace it. Jodie is just displaying what I would consider to be expectant sentiments from rational folks that are not part of either extreme and her stance is based solely on the continued FB postings that always relate *soon* or some other undetermined verbage with nothing of substance sans the *promises*. That's like somebody sitting at the blackjack table and placing their bet after the dealer flipped his cards. That is not really a fair position to be in, just because your afraid of being burned or being wrong, Why? it's not like your going to loose your house,or you or anybody else were never wrong about something before. I just don't think it's really fair to Melba,to bash her so you don't get burned and then if it turns to be true your going to be in her corner, Have Jodie or I ever bashed Dr K? If you'll take a casual cruise of the forum you'll easily note numerous cases in which I've defended her and called the skeptics out for allowing kit years for his documentary to come out while bemoaning the fact that Dr K's work has yet to be released. I'm just advocating a stance of optimistic skepticism for those of us in the believer camp and saying that our eyes have been really blackened over recent cases that didn't pan out. Never a bad thing to have a bit of skepticism until something comes out. In fact, I think it would better serve our community if all of us implemented such standards. As Ray said, Dr K with her FB postings, has really been her own worst enemy and raised expectations to a point in which I'm hopeful but doubtful that she can live up to. In fact, Ray's post here.... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7225-the-ketchum-report/page__view__findpost__p__581023 pretty well sums up what I feel is an most reasonable assessment of the situation. Those words he uses are hers by the way. In the end, they work against her and support the idea/notion that she has been her own worst enemy. So it would be better to just sit there and let the bashers bash away unresponded to? Yep. She should have kept her mouth shut and just waited for the findings to come out. By not doing so, and saying the things she did on FB, she elevated the expectations to a point in which it is going to take something really incredible to back up her FB claims. Why in the world would one do that? If she had just stayed with her previous mantra of *I cannot give details or timing* then her burden of proof would be much less than it is now. I'm hopeful, but fear that she has raised the bar for herself so far that there is no way she can produce results that equal the expectations that she herself has brought into play from her FB postings. Dunno, hope I am wrong, but if I were her I'd have just posted the mantra of I can't divulge details and stuck with that. Doing so would have helped to manage expectations to an acceptable level if what she has is anything less than mind blowing. If she truly has the goods then the skeptics can eat crow just like proponents can if she doesn't. As a proponent, I've eaten enough crow to last me an lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) Ray, I am at a loss to follow your reasoning. Can you tell me what exactly the problem is with a scientist saying that they have seen the animal they are studying? Mike Absolutely nothing. Keep in mind however, we're not talking about any regular animal, we're talking about the Kraken of the woods, the Holy Grail of the deep forest, the creature whispered about around the campfire, the legendary beastie that has so far eluded any and all attempts at capture or identification. No sir, this ain't no normal critter. Why, you could say this is exactly like a scientist preparing a scientific paper on ghosts, saying they know ghosts exist because they've seen one with their own eyes. And Mulder, she can talk as much as she wants about seeing and interacting with them, but I suspect it will taint acceptance of her paper. Shall we wait and see? Had she responded to 'leaks' by sticking to one of her original statements --Though I cannot give details or timing, I will assure everyone that all is well and we are continuing to move forward. Good science cannot be forced or quickly completed. If it is not extremely thorough, then it will all be for naught and any paper rejected outright. So, I ask you to be patient and understanding and realize that extreme scientific overkill is required in order to convince a world full of skeptical scientists. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofâ€. This is what we are doing.-- she wouldn't have compromised anything. Nor was she under any obligation to respond further. RayG Edited April 16, 2012 by RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 ^Absolutely nothing. Keep in mind however, we're not talking about any regular animal.^ Well, if it is exists, it is a regular animal, and therefore I'll take your first phrase as the position....... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) Sir, I do not know Melba personally, what I say about her FB posts are strictly about her presentation. Now can I ask you why you are honing in on me when I am one of many in this thread that share the same opinion? Is my nut magnet on high today? Let me tell you something, a woman can have any opinion she wants and change her mind tomorrow. If you haven't figured that one out yet, then I don't know what else to tell you. I will continue to bash the FB posts to my heart's content and if she is successful then I will promptly forgive her for her bad form. I believe I do not need to ask you to either agree or disagree with that. Why are you being so defensive and confrontational ? I stated your position, I didn't insult you,or belittle you, just saying you can't have it both ways, i don't believe that makes me nuts. I thought you are not suppose to insult people, calling me a nut I believe is insulting, But I guess since your in the click you can say what ever you like. Have Jodie or I ever bashed Dr K? If you'll take a casual cruise of the forum you'll easily note numerous cases in which I've defended her and called the skeptics out for allowing kit years for his documentary to come out while bemoaning the fact that Dr K's work has yet to be released. under jodie's own admission she bashes her, I never said you did. Edited April 16, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 I agree that they are normal, but I would say they are as normal as people, rather than animals. We have to take into account that they often exhibit an intelligence that parallels our own, though applied differently. I'd say the best one word description of them is preternatural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) Why are you being so defensive and confrontational ? Dude, you are just a gnat flitting through the windmills of my mind. Edited April 16, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 ^Sorry I can't abide by that word. It sounds like something you learn about in health class that makes everybody smirk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 I dare say that If Dr. Ketchum said nothing and didn't defend the accusations levied at her on bias, which "was" brought up before the FB statements, alot of folks would not be optimistic at all right now. We would be hearing "the silence is deafaning" montra and "bahh humbug this all hogwash". Truth is, people want something to talk about and don't want to be blind sided. You show up out of nowhere with bigfoot DNA, people would say there is something wrong, because there's no way someone could get through that whole process without a leak. It's the "Kraken of the woods" we're talking about here, :)Love that by the way Ray, did you get that from EB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Why are you being so defensive and confrontational ? Dude, you are just a gnat flitting through the windmills of my mind. Man, that post brought back memories from the *old* BFF 1.0. I think the last time you used that it was towards an Admin of the *old* forum. We had a lot of fun with it behind the scenes back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) "Though I cannot give details or timing, I will assure everyone that all is well and we are continuing to move forward. Good science cannot be forced or quickly completed. If it is not extremely thorough, then it will all be for naught and any paper rejected outright. So, I ask you to be patient and understanding and realize that extreme scientific overkill is required in order to convince a world full of skeptical scientists. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofâ€. This is what we are doing.-- she wouldn't have compromised anything." go Melba! Edited April 16, 2012 by georgerm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Yeah, if she had left it at that ....Go Melba! But she didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Absolutely nothing. Keep in mind however, we're not talking about any regular animal, we're talking about the Kraken of the woods, the Holy Grail of the deep forest, the creature whispered about around the campfire, the legendary beastie that has so far eluded any and all attempts at capture or identification. No sir, this ain't no normal critter. Classic special pleading. And Mulder, she can talk as much as she wants about seeing and interacting with them, but I suspect it will taint acceptance of her paper. Shall we wait and see? That is entirely possible, and if it does it will confirm exactly what I have been saying all along about Scientific hypocricy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts