Guest GreatBIGFoot Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 If I paid money for the conf, the hotel and even airfare and she didn't show, I would be mad too I think. Especially if the conference bulletin didn't indicate she was going to tele-conf in. She was not the only thing of importance. I understand. But still.... She is a big draw. And then to be sooooo generic about her info. I don't know. I wasn't there. But neither was she. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 I agree with JohnC. If she's about to out them, then there are implied consequences. She's positioning to deal with the consequences as she feels appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Obviously Dr. Ketchum will not give a talk on her findings until her paper is published. Perhaps she should stop agreeing to appear at these conferences until her paper is out, just so we don't have to hear the moans and groans of the disappointed and impatient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 When asked, on the public FB page, how she would handle her appearance at the conference if the paper was not out yet she stated: On April 30th, " I won't speak of anything sensitive. I will address a lot of questions that people have been asking though.." IMO this made it sound like there would be some questions answered. Some folks even stated they were going based on this comment alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 So I checked out "Melba Ketchum's" FB page and didn't see anything other than a pretty decent looking woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Who and where are all the credible PHD's and co-authors of this supposed paper and why are they not clamoring that this is the real deal and going to happen? They are are elusive as biggie. Are we really taking a FB page as factual statements, because you know everything on Facebook is true. Did you ever see the episode of 2 1/2 men, where Charlie is escorting a young lady to the door and she says "you'll call me?" He says sure. She asks when. He lies and isays "soon". She asks how soon. He says "very soon.". He repeats this answer throughout the show whenever someone tries to pin him down on an answer. That seems to be the theme with this project. Soon, very soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Why are they not clamouring to come forward? Surely you've read some of the other 170 pages of this thread? NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements) cover everyone involved in the whole project. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted May 7, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted May 7, 2012 Important to note: apparently some commenters on BF blogs are now masquerading as Melba Ketchum and Sally Ramey according to some recent revelations (not that it would be hard to tell, and both would not use such a venue to engage). Very reminiscent of a recent commenter posing as John Bindernagel on one of the blogs a few weeks back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Posted 05 May 2012 - 07:57 AM Saskeptic, on 04 May 2012 - 07:25 AM, said: This means that no such creature as bigfoot has ever been described in the scientific literature. emphasis added 2004 Meldrum, DJ. Midfoot flexibility, fossil footprints, and Sasquatch steps: New perspectives on the evolution of bipedalism. J. Scientific Exploration 18:67-79. So as not to derail from the stunning Ketchum developments over the weekend I'll be brief and suggest that you have emphasized the wrong words. Try "no" "bigfoot" "described" and you'll be spot-on. Meldrum did not examine the physical remains of a bigfoot and report on those findings in his JSE paper. He did not propose a name for a new species as "bigfoot" in that paper either. The nearest anyone has come to publishing a paper on the description of bigfoot as a new species is Meldrum's "ichnotaxon" paper (2007) in which he proposed the name Anthropoidipes ameriborealis for the ichnotaxon, which is distinct from the biotaxon, i.e., the species that actually made the prints. Meldrum's point was that "bigfoot prints" are an objective reality regardless if they can be linked to bigfoots, and an objective discussion and analysis of them begins with naming them. He writes: "It should be noted that naming the tracks neither establishes the identity of the trackmaker, nor does it resolve the controversy over the existence of sasquatch." Lozier, J. D., P. Aniello, and M. J. Hickerson. 2009. Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modelling. Journal of Biogeography 36: 1623–1627. Sask - are you aware that the authors of this paper have said publicly that it was written to illustrate their concerns about eco niche modelling and assumptions based on it, rather than as lit regarding Sasquatch? If so, it appears that you're deliberately misrepresenting the paper to bolster your argument - you could still make your point with the other 2. Yes, I'm quite aware of the authors' intent to illustrate shortcomings in ENM in the Lozier et al. paper. They say that's the intent in the paper. As a wildlife ecologist, I find their analysis quite damning regarding bigfoot. Through analysis of the spatial ecology of bigfoot sightings, they determined that the distribution of "bigfoot habitat" correlates very highly with the distribution of black bear habitat in the Pacific Northwest. They focused on the broad niche overlap that must be postulated between bigfoots and black bears, and which would be rather dubious given what we've learned about animal ecology. The more important aspect I see, however, is a complete obliteration of the notion that bigfoots occur in wild and remote places never/seldom visited by humans, and that's how they've escaped collection through centuries of exploration and settlement of the American West. The Lozier paper tells us that everything we're told about bigfoot as occupying wild places on par with those of "cryptids" across the globe is a crock. It tells us that efforts to "protect bigfoot habitat" are silly. If bigfoots are real, then anyplace capable of supporting bears can support bigfoots - and according to the sightings, actually does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Posted 05 May 2012 - 07:57 AM - and according to the sightings, actually does. I thought it was 'and according to the ecological niche model, actually does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 ^Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachFoot Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Well, one way to look at the Sasquatch/Bear parallel is that maybe they DO and always HAVE shared the same environment? I'm a Florida boy and a coastal dweller so I've got zip in experience with bears, so please forgive any ignorance that might be showing. I have wondered before, though, why bears (even the ones that live in the most remote places) seem to have a "hands off" (or massive-claws-and-teeth-off) attitude towards humans. They could easily kill every one of us that they came across, I would think. It seems that bears only attack humans under certain circumstances (i.e. we're too close to cubs, suprise encounters, etc.) and, in most cases, they results aren't fatal. Maybe bears have been sharing their home with "humans" for thousands of years and have learned to just get along? Dunno....but my post count is going up so maybe soon I'll get to hear what Inc. really thinks about RL!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Why don't bears just kill us any chance they get? 'Cause that's what we did to them while settling North America. I suspect it's centuries of fear that our pointy thingies and thunder sticks will kill them that mostly keeps bears from killing us. Historical compared to recent black bear range. Historical compared to recent grizzly bear range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachFoot Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Well, I suppose that's another way to look at it. Guess I'm always just more inclined to see the "peaceful co-habitation" scenario than the "useless killing" one. Either way, the fact that it appears that they share the same environment doesn't really raise a flag in my mind. They both need the same things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 In my experience, there is an absence of bears in areas where a family group of squatch are staying. I agree that any habitat that supports bears can support squatch and vice versa, but why would squatch tolerate the risk of bears in an area where they have a family group? If they'll run humans out of such an area, they'll certainly run bears out. A few well-placed rocks flung on a flat trajectory and you've either got bear for dinner, or a smarter bear. Maybe we seldom find dead bears in the woods because the squatch are eating them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts