Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Well I meant for when all is said and done with the report, of course not now. Well to be more specific, we crossed a threshold. I'm still seeing a lot of "Proponents vs. Skeptics" arguments. We're beyond that now. Belief has nothing to do with this. It has to do with what we've all been asking for, analyzing empirical data. We've had "empirical data" (hairs, tracks, ect) for decades and it didn't stop Skeptics from beating the "it's all in the 'b'leevers' head" drum. The thing we've all been talking about for years..... here we go..... ready for it.... now it really applies... dun dun daaaa.... "the scientific method" woo-hoo, finally. I'm getting a vibe that it will be okay to skip the step of "others should be able to replicate the results" and replace it with "trust the backstory". There aren't enough angry posts in the world to bully me into that acceptance. Given how many of the prominent Skeptics have already started manning the "worthless study" barricades, I fear you are in for a disappointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 thats bull unless you believe DNA can be faked. I understand now, thousand of footprints reported all over north america, but they are fake. Next there is BF DNA pouring into labs across the continent, but the skeptics assure us it's fake It's not bull. It's my opinion based on what I think Ketchum may attempt to claim; it has nothing to do with creating hoax DNA. That's just another straw man. No one is suggesting that she would try to manufacture fake DNA. You may choose to ignore what I say. You may characterize information you don't like as intestinal gaz or fecal matter. That is reminiscent of grade school, yes? Ketchum may try to ignore it. but reviewers won't, I can assure you. And I think it is likely that I know more about that process than some here do. I could be wrong. For example I thought the NBA lockout would be settled last week...I always underestimate the power of greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 It's not bull. It's my opinion based on what I think Ketchum may attempt to claim; it has nothing to do with creating hoax DNA. That's just another straw man. No one is suggesting that she would try to manufacture fake DNA. Another drink for those playing along at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I was just watching a show called Mysteries at the Museum and they had a story about a suspected Squatch tooth in the possession of some Bigfoot Museum curator named Mike Rugg. It also mentioned that he was cooperating with scientists to have it checked for DNA. I was wondering if anyone "in the know" as it were, happened to know if this was the tooth being used as part of Ketchum's DNA sampling? The tooth appeared to be a human molar but about double the size. I was impressed by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhunter Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) StankApe, did it say what location the tooth came from or how old the tooth is? Edited November 9, 2011 by beerhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alpinist Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) Ketchum Report Phase II Everyone who submitted for Phase I is asked to go out and procure samples again. This time the procedures are documented by third parties from local Universities, a chain of custody. The problem may be, that like cameras, which they are onto, Team Sasquatch gets wise to what the homo sapiens are up to and doesn't fall for the same non-lethal tricks that worked the first time. Yes Mike Rugg was in on the Ketchum study and is also very pro-Stubstad and is chipping a piece off of his tooth for that one too. he is in a good position, he held onto most of his materials. Edited November 9, 2011 by Alpinist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Dr. Ketchum’s paper will not be published in Nature - Straight from Dr. K herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 "The paper will come out when it is supposed to come out." Ya. Sure. Wasn't that last year or even last spring? Well, since it is not Nature, I will revert back to my original guess---Mad Magazine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I've also heard speculation about the American Journal Of Physical Anthropology. Maybe parnassus can tell us where it's not (so we can do the rest). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Any sample which cannot be positively sourced is probably scientifically useless in this context, just so you'll know. I'm surprised that Ketchum didn't realize that and/or make it clear. Depends on how you define positively. we don't have a denisova body, yet they existed. to say similar evidence for bigfoot or any other undescribed and or extant species is scientifically worthless is gross intellectual dishonesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I've also heard speculation about the American Journal Of Physical Anthropology. Maybe parnassus can tell us where it's not (so we can do the rest). You should just write "Can't wait to read your paper when it's published in the American Journal Of Physical Anthropology" on her FB wall and see what she says. It worked once. Who's to say it won't work again? If she says no, we can pick another publication and keep going until she either doesn't respond or says "thanks!" In fact, we might be able to find out what the paper says and more by using this strategy. "So glad your paper proves that Sasquatch are apes!" "Very happy to hear you have a body included in your study." "Cool to learn you're dating David Paulides." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Primate Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I know Mike Rugg.I've seen the tooth. He held onto his tooth and didn't sign an NDA.(which is good because appearently Ketchum and Erickson are in legal conflict over the results of the study) Stubstat is taking parts of the tooth and afew other samples to europe for testing at a different lab and other scientists are looking at the tooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Declaring a Species without a holotype isn't unknown though. If Beebe's word was enough for Ichthyologists<link> DNA samples may be enough to establish the Species as real to the point that further well funded explorations may be entered into by Universities etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) No it's a way to describe modes of argumentation that are not intellectually honest. Edited November 9, 2011 by grayjay quoted deleted post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) RWR, you had me laughing! It may be worth a shot?! Edited November 9, 2011 by Hoosierfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts