Guest RayG Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 It just boggles my mind when I see people say that even a body wouldn't be sufficient evidence. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 RayG, if you're referring to my post it was 10% humor and 90% sarcasm because no matter what you present as evidence SOMEone SOMEwhere will refute it. Perhaps for attention or publicity, or maybe because there are a few microcultures out there that not only don't believe in BF, they actually would be angry if it were proven true. They just don't want to be wrong, so they will grab at straws rather than face it---IF we can come up with a body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 So what if she makes money from it? She's spent enough of her time, and put enough effort in. Good luck to her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 No paper yet? Out of town, hanging out in Bigfoot country, need update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 nope, no paper yet, and allegedly no pub date yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 FYI an example of how well the system works, first they had what.....a body!!!! Crud couldn't get the link to work. It's on Fox web site new species of bee discovered with DNA! So what? Still waiting for your alternate source of DNA other than a critter from whence the sample the dna comes from... Pictures and video have everything to do with the paper. If she put them out first without any supporting DNA they will be completely blasted. After all the crap Dr. Ketchum has had to listen to I'm starting to think she is handling this properly. I just changed my mind about that. I would also ban people that ask for proof. She asked you to be patient and you're still bugging her. I would keep making confident statements, showing a little swag, to really start making skeptics mad. They are hammering her either way, I think she may be fed up with it and is now saying, "you want to question every single move I make, let me give you something to talk about." My sources say she is getting a kick out dropping little tidbits that are incensing her detractors. She has made them go all in against her, then she it going to basically drop a daisy cutter on a few prairie dogs. I hope very much you are right...it's the side of me that really wants to rub it in certain people's faces. It will be evidence that proves the existance of Sasquatch, not a scientist. A scientist can prove the truth of a theory or hypothesis based upon testing of the evidence. Example, sasquacth is a human is a theory which could be tested by dna. However, you cannot prove a theory about Sasquach until you prove the existence of Sasquacth. I don't think she has the evidence to prove sasquatch. It would be ironic though if a truck driver came up with the evidence a week before the paper is published. So what is YOUR theory as to how she came to have multiple samples of (if the results are to be believed) non-human higher primate DNA matching nothing else on record without there first BEING an unrecorded non-human higher primate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 So what? Still waiting for your alternate source of DNA other than a critter from whence the sample the dna comes from... Just thought it was some interesting info sorry it got you so perturbed..... You keep repeating this question which I have answered numerous times but maybe your getting a little forgetful.... of course DNA comes from critters, I think my example that you seem to have a problem with illustrates that pretty clearly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 It just boggles my mind when I see people say that even a body wouldn't be sufficient evidence. RayG Well, we have body parts/substances that are the source of the dna studied and the Skeptics are still asking for more, so why would you be surprised that they'd want "more than a body"? Just thought it was some interesting info sorry it got you so perturbed..... You keep repeating this question which I have answered numerous times but maybe your getting a little forgetful.... of course DNA comes from critters, I think my example that you seem to have a problem with illustrates that pretty clearly Sorry Cervelo...it's been that kind of morning, and my limited time on the library's computers (mine's in the shop) isn't making my mood any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) Mulder, It's all good, I know we don't (if every) see eye to eye, but thank you!! Hoping you get your computer back soon (I guess) just kidding!!! Edited April 30, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Is there anywhere in the scientific journal publication process that REQUIRES an author to show pics/videos pertinent to their paper prior to publication? I think we all know there isn't a restriction (as has been pointed out multiple times)...with some of the demands, I figure there may be a requirement I've missed. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Well, it's not like she said it'll be years before it's released. Maybe we just need to give her a chance cough*snowwalkerprime*cough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 ...it's the side of me that really wants to rub it in certain people's faces. This is really too bad. For Mulder - and all who post the "can't wait to see them eat crow" stuff - I have no desire to rub anything in anyone's face. You'll read time and time again from me and other resident skeptics here that we'd love for bigfoot to be true, we're just at this point wholly unconvinced that it is. If I could ever prove a negative regarding bigfoot, there's no part of me that would take joy from dishing out "I told you sos" to folks who at one time did believe. Sometimes I think this deep-seeded desire by some folks to stick it to the "S"keptics is more important than the actual pursuit of the truth, i.e., evaluation of evidence put forth to suggest the existence of bigfoots in the first place. Well, we have body parts/substances that are the source of the dna studied and the Skeptics are still asking for more, so why would you be surprised that they'd want "more than a body"? Great example right there: We might have bigfoot body parts that are the source of the DNA Mulder, but until we see some actual analysis of that DNA to establish that it came from bigfoots, we in no way "have" what you claim. You're so focused on scoring points against those evil capital S skeptics that you're jumping ahead of anything that we can legitimately be said to have right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) Saskeptic, You are right. There are too many of us, myself included, who pipe up now and then with a wish to make the capital S skeptic eat crow. For myself, it's mostly playful, and actually, I wouldn't even direct that at you, in any event. Speaking for myself, the area where emotion tends to get into it is when confronted by people who are not displaying rational skepticism (in my opinion), but those who viciously debunk anything and everything related to Sasquatch research. I'd posit Snow Walker Prime as a good recent example. Now, I enjoy a lot of what he puts out, and thought his report and interview with the gentleman who had a sighting in Maine recently to be top notch. However, his dismissive attitude, derisiveness and enormously condescending tone are, I hope you can admit, liable to rub anyone who doesn't share his views the wrong way. We can probably agree that those firmly or at least leaning toward the proponent camp should just let that attitude roll off our back, and I'd agree. However, when dealing with emotions and internet forums, that is easier said than done. I don't think you'd lump all skeptics into the same boat would you? Just as you wouldn't with proponents. There are extremes on either side. We have some of those extremes right here on this board. So, for some of us, and I know this is where I stand, the desire to see someone "eat crow," is mostly directed at those who aren't just arguing their position from rationality, but are openly derisive to all other views. Edit: Maybe another way to put it would be that I react most strongly to those who clearly will want to rub it in the face of anyone supporting the Ketchum project at this point if it turns out to be nothing at all. Edited April 30, 2012 by Particle Noun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I agree that there is a continuum of skeptics, with the extreme that has been termed "skoftics" that don't really seem to have a logical foundation for their skepticism, relying instead on ridicule or positing some pretty far fetched alternative theories to evidence. For those I wouldn't mind serving a copious helping of crow tar tar. The skeptics I enjoy debating and who have helped me hone my own critical thinking, such as Saskeptic, who are open minded and wanting the BF phenomena to be proven real, but haven't yet seen evidence that is convincing... these are the ones I really respect. I would enjoy sitting down with Saskeptic with a fine bottle of wine and beef steak to celebrate the confirmation of the species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Yeah, that is it exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts