Cotter Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Some great posts in here the past couple days. I still see Dr. K's posts as irrelevant to the study - people are interested in her background, experiences, and what-not with this particular study, and personally, I think her stating she has seen the subject of her study (only after she did the analysis of the samples, convincing herself there is indeed something out there) is a positive admission. We have a scientist now saying she has tested samples, they are unique....then she went out and actually saw the living creature(s) of which samples were taken (maybe not the EXACT creatures, but ones within the species). The whole FB thing 'keeping the hype going' type stuff....hey, good marketing in my opinion. Folks can sit and be armchair quarterbacks all day long, but I think what one says looking from the outside in and what one does given the opportunity to be 'in' can be completely different. So she's excited about her finding and wants to share the legiticamy of the creature to those that are curious...she can't give the study out at this moment, but she can tell us that she has indeed seen one and the science to back it up is forthcoming. I think people have mentioned that she isn't a scientist in the realm she is now working in, why expect her to behave like one? She's got a learning curve to get through just like you or I would. I am optimistic, but have not made any parade throwing plans yet - I, like all skeptics (and many proponents) will wait for the results to proclaim that the proof is finally here. Thx all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 I don't see it as scientific hypocrisy. It's more like crossed boundaries and red flags, but in the long run it doesn't matter. If "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofâ€, she's certainly compounding the situation. Why the need to make it more extraordinary? If she has the proof, why not let the proof do the talking instead of bolstering it with sensational gravy. I would think that is done only when someone doesn't have the proof. What group is she trying to convince, scientists or the bf community? What happens when one of the reviewers approves the paper, says he also had an encounter, played tetherball against a ten footer for 45 minutes, then packed up his belongings and flew home like the Green Lantern? Sorry to sound like a broken record, but it doesn't matter what she says. It only matters what the people verifying her results have to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 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. RayG Exactly? Did your scientist see his ghost before or after he wrote the paper? Did your scientist collect tissue samples thought to be from ghosts numbering over 100 and test their DNA? Did your scientist send some of those ghost tissue samples out to other scientists to test on their own? Did your scientist bring together a half dozen or so co-authors for his ghost paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) Did your scientists use as an example in their study, the only proven fact about ghost data collection samples (opposed to most other data collection) is that there has been fabricated hoaxes using purposeful misleading deception? Edited April 16, 2012 by FuriousGeorge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Just curious, how many of you have ever met Dr. Ketchum in person? And of those, do any of you know her on a first name basis? Yep, I have & do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Exactly? Did your scientist see his ghost before or after he wrote the paper? Did your scientist collect tissue samples thought to be from ghosts numbering over 100 and test their DNA? Did your scientist send some of those ghost tissue samples out to other scientists to test on their own? Did your scientist bring together a half dozen or so co-authors for his ghost paper? Indie, I like that analogy very much. Thanks!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted April 16, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 16, 2012 Sorry to sound like a broken record, but it doesn't matter what she says. It only matters what the people verifying her results have to say Is that not the whole point of the argument,that it only matters what the results will say.Who cares if if she really did see one or not since that is not the argument and yes people are trying to make that the argument. So why make it?stick to what we do know and that is that there is DNA and people are having a hard time trying to except it.DNA is the life of our being and here we are talking about a new species that could be our brothers and sisters in the chain of life.They might even be that missing link but who knows except for those in the know.Lets start to try to except and learn to cooperate.Sure everyone is going to be skeptical and why not, We are talking about a living being that is not suppose to exist .I am very surprised that we have been able to even retrieve DNA and that a Person like this DR is putting her reputation on the line .It is not just her but there have been a few Dr's who have put there reputations who have been willing to risk it all.I say Bravo to them for coming to the aid and putting their time so thatnk you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 I predict that sometime in the future this entire thread will become the topic of someone's PhD dissertation. I hope everyone is content with what they said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 They better ask permission first before they do any such thing, otherwise they need to wait 70 years after the last one of us dies, by then I doubt I'll care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 I predict that sometime in the future this entire thread will become the topic of someone's PhD dissertation. I hope everyone is content with what they said. you know, ive sometimes wondered if threads and even entire forums such as this arent already the topic of someones study.... i can imagine some stuffy types reading/analyzing us like lab rats, with great delight,chuckling to themselves about our characteristics & tendencies, mere simpletons & all that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Well there's plenty of material here to write a book about how this Ketchum report came to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 I think one would be hard pressed to find a more robust discussion of the topic anywhere else, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Well there's plenty of material here to write a book about how this Ketchum report came to be. Any thoughts about who should play you in the movie? I feel there should also be a composite character representing us armchair researchers. Speaking of, the blogger who shall not be named (or linked) has a new post. Avert your eyes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 I saw that too. He's back!!!!! I must say he was very kind about Richard Stubstad's unfortunate health situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Julio, What I want and what the people reviewing the paper want may be different. Ultimately yes, the results are what matter to me. Getting there is where we have a problem. The problem mentioned is that she might be seen as being bias while making those sightings statements. The counter is that science would be bias for considering such things. My problem is that science would not be bias because any correlation to the first part would not be considered unfair, therefor by definition, not bias. This is all we have so far. We have proven hoaxes. People purposefully falsifying their data. We also have people that hand in false data but don't do it on purpose, like reporting misidentifications and blobsquatches that are actually porcupines and such. I think the magic number is 10,000. After about 10,000 false reports (which happened somewhere in the '80's), "science" gets to officially say "pul-eeze" without being called bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts