Guest Cervelo Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Jerry here ya go I couldn't resist LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I guess you have to decide whether bigfoot has met the fate of other wildlife, then come up with a reason why it wasn't reported if it did, or why the body disappeared. Does that bring you back to negative evidence? Normal fauna vs Special being, maybe a mixture of the two conceptual models would help. sy, I'm mystified and mortified. Are you really going the down the road of conspiracy and "Special being" to explain Bigfoot phenomena? If you are, is that in itself a recognition that there is a problem with viewing the Bigfoot story as just a wildlife issue (as apparently someone like Dr. Meldrum does) and instead one must infuse shadow issues (conspiracy) and literal special pleading ("Special being") to maintain it? There is an issue here Jerry, where you tend to focus on other peoples beliefs or your perception of their beliefs. Beliefs don't matter in science, but do matter in religion. You could argue that belief doesn't exist in science. We have hypotheses we test, observe phenomena, document and predict future findings through experimentation. Attempting persecution of someones belief, isn't a scientific inquiry. sy, I have problems with this response. Are you suggesting Bigfoot advocacy is not belief driven and instead is a purely scientific endeavor? Are you saying that in my comments I am "attempting persecution" of other's (religious?) beliefs? What observed phenomena do you offer to verify the "Special being" status of Bigfoot? "Special," in what way, according to your science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) I think once the report is published it will very likely generate a lot of discussion and debate within the scientific community. It will need to be verified by being able to repeat her work, and I would think it will likely create more interest in the subject especially in light of so many recent discoveries of humanoids that lived as recently as 10,000 years ago. Shortly after the paper comes out a bevy of people will be released from their NDA's and I would guess that there are a number people and organizations that are preparing to release their own statements and materials to show how they collected their samples. Add to this the Erickson Project movie and we will likely have a healthy debate in public forums, media, and scientific bodies. Will the publication of the Ketchum report immediately convince the world of the existence of BF? Not immediately. I'm sure there will be die hard skeptics in the science community that will likely do their best to attack the work. I'm sure there will be those that will still require a complete body for study. However, it will certainly move the debate forward by leaps and bounds. BFS, you seem to have it all laid out here, except for what we will have for lunch that day. Tell me, please, in light of my post above, and all that is known about Ketchum, her background, her record, her statements, the domain names, Paulides, and anything else, what makes you think/project/believe/imagine your scenario? please be as specific as possible in giving reasons why you think Ketchum is going to change the world. In other words, what do you think Ketchum will publish, why do you not think she has just modern human DNA, where will she publish it, and why do you think so? And I would ask you not to rely on wild rumors that have no known credibility. p. Edited April 21, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 BFS, In other words, what do you think Ketchum will publish, why do you not think she has just modern human DNA, where will she publish it, and why do you think so? And I would ask you not to rely on wild rumors that have no known credibility. p. That is an excellent question. I am puzzled why some seem to think that a paper will be published. At this point, no one has confirmed that a paper has been accepted for publication. So the question I would add is why do you think the paper will be published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 And I would ask you not to rely on wild rumors that have no known credibility. Well there went this thread, nothin left to talk about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted April 21, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 21, 2012 What? nothing left to talk about. Sure there is alot to talk about and i mean there is alot to talk about.Like why there are 155 pages on this topic alone.Why people from all over the country and the world are seeing and collecting evidence of a creature that some say does not exist.Why we are even arguing the fact that there might or might not be a paper out there that might prove the existance of a creature that could very well be related to us as humans except be living very primative more primative then an animal.The only difference between this creature and animal is that it has intelligence and it does not follow the normal rule or behavoral of animals do.In other words it makes it very elusive to track or it just does not want no part to do with us humans.Is very protective of its kind and has an understanding of what it is to us.Should i go on or will this so call ghost report tell the details when it does come out.Everything takes time and science is not going to except something that can change the way we believe our way of life or should i say the tree of life was written with some thing that could possbly change it.Just my opionion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toejam Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Those who say they don't exist just haven't experienced them. Those that have, know the truth. Simple. Skeptics can say they don't exist all they want but it doesn't change the fact that they do. We're dealing with a species that is smarter than we are in THEIR habitat. Their true proximity and still labelled a myth is proof of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 BFS, you seem to have it all laid out here, except for what we will have for lunch that day. Tell me, please, in light of my post above, and all that is known about Ketchum, her background, her record, her statements, the domain names, Paulides, and anything else, what makes you think/project/believe/imagine your scenario? please be as specific as possible in giving reasons why you think Ketchum is going to change the world. In other words, what do you think Ketchum will publish, why do you not think she has just modern human DNA, where will she publish it, and why do you think so? And I would ask you not to rely on wild rumors that have no known credibility. p. As you pointed out in your prior post so eloquently, nobody knows what is in the report (that isn't a part of the research team or peer reviewers or editors). If you are asking for me to speculate what she may have based on what has been discussed and has become "known" from other sources, I would guess that the report will indicate DNA from a heretofore undocumented species that has elements that are closer to homo sapiens sapiens than any other currently documented species. As for what I'll be having for dinner on the date of the publication... whatever goes well with a fine merlot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 sy, I'm mystified and mortified. Are you really going the down the road of conspiracy and "Special being" to explain Bigfoot phenomena? If you are, is that in itself a recognition that there is a problem with viewing the Bigfoot story as just a wildlife issue (as apparently someone like Dr. Meldrum does) and instead one must infuse shadow issues (conspiracy) and literal special pleading ("Special being") to maintain it? Special being should be difined here Jerry, My definition would include humans, who have better reasoning and judgement than animals. You've acknowledged that there is positive evidence for bigfoot, so use your modus tollens. If bigfoot exists (p) then bigfoot has been killed by humans (q) . So where is the body? You tell me! sy,I have problems with this response. Are you suggesting Bigfoot advocacy is not belief driven and instead is a purely scientific endeavor? Are you saying that in my comments I am "attempting persecution" of other's (religious?) beliefs? What observed phenomena do you offer to verify the "Special being" status of Bigfoot? "Special," in what way, according to your science? Just forget beliefs Jerry, my acceptance is based on anecdotes , evidence and predicted results in field experiments plus DNA results. I'm not going to lay all that out for you here in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Well there went this thread, nothin left to talk about. Has there really ever BEEN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) Uh, ok. The same guys that are saying that science has nothing to do with belief are bemoaning the fact that not enough people trust in science? Faith, trust and belief are all, somewhat, synonyms. If you want trust, you get belief, and maybe faith. Synonyms [trust]1. certainty, belief, faith. Trust, assurance, confidence imply a feeling of security. Trust implies instinctive unquestioning belief in and reliance upon something: to have trust in one's parents. Confidence implies conscious trust because of good reasons, definite evidence, or past experience: to have confidence in the outcome of events. Assurance implies absolute confidence and certainty: to feel an assurance of victory. 8. commitment, commission. 17. credit. 19. entrust. dictionary.com Edited April 21, 2012 by vilnoori Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Do you mean me, Vilnoori? In which case, I'd appreciate if you would quote me directly, and I'll deal with your point directly, rather than dealing with a precis of something you think I might have said. If not me, then ignore those last two paragraphs. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 As you pointed out in your prior post so eloquently, nobody knows what is in the report (that isn't a part of the research team or peer reviewers or editors). If you are asking for me to speculate what she may have based on what has been discussed and has become "known" from other sources, I would guess that the report will indicate DNA from a heretofore undocumented species that has elements that are closer to homo sapiens sapiens than any other currently documented species. As for what I'll be having for dinner on the date of the publication... whatever goes well with a fine merlot. And I don't think it will be crow, like some will be having Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) As you pointed out in your prior post so eloquently, nobody knows what is in the report (that isn't a part of the research team or peer reviewers or editors). If you are asking for me to speculate what she may have based on what has been discussed and has become "known" from other sources, I would guess that the report will indicate DNA from a heretofore undocumented species that has elements that are closer to homo sapiens sapiens than any other currently documented species. As for what I'll be having for dinner on the date of the publication... whatever goes well with a fine merlot. BF, Okay, that is an almost minimal answer about "what." You could have just said, I don't know....but you didn't. So......Do you think the mtDNA is non-modern human, or the number of chromosomes? or something definitive in the nuclear DNA? or the male/female peaks? But what I am really getting at is: you must have a basis upon which to make this guess. What is the basis? ? Because I don't believe there is ANY basis for that. Not a bit. Not from Ketchum, not from Stubstad, not from Paulides, not from the domain names, not from the copyright documents, not from the data which was released by Stubstad or Ketchum. So...do you have any basis? See, If you decide what it is gonna be, before you have any reason so, then this is kind of like you choosing the wine before you choose the main course. p oh, and to all those who are offering crow, is that the same crow you've been promising for the last 40 years? whew, how are you allowed to keep it in the freezer all this time? Edited April 21, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 21, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted April 21, 2012 Well, when and if BF is discovered taxonomically through this dna study I'd like to see the scientific nosology consider the Homo sapiens ketchumifyoucan designation! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts