Cotter Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) Tru dat Arizona! @ BFSleuth - Didn't Ketchum say pretty much the same thing? That she was a non-believer until the DNA started telling her differently? I wonder what will happen if Sykes gets taken to a habituation site and sees one himself..... Edited May 25, 2012 by Cotter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Well all I was trying to put out is that how the scientific community has protocalls and controls in research and a prescribed methodology and how the amature bigfoot community does not and has not to date. If there was, the mumbo jumbo psychic forest tribe crowd would'nt have a step to stand on. But hey, when the report comes out in an actual accepted scientific trade journal and not Ketchum's website or the National Inquirer, I'll stalk, kill, and eat a crow as my punishment for going against the mob. So who will do the same when the report is not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 @ BFSleuth - Didn't Ketchum say pretty much the same thing? That she was a non-believer until the DNA started telling her differently? I wonder what will happen if Sykes gets taken to a habituation site and sees one himself..... I'd have to look back through her comments, but I do believe that she came reluctantly to the project because so many unknown samples were submitted to her over the years and she started getting results that didn't fit into any known category. If Sykes gets involved in a habituation site and sees one himself that might bring out the naysayers in strength, let's hope he keeps arms length from such activity and concentrates on his lab research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Umm ya, thats because I am a skeptic......did I blunder into a true believer thread by accident? No, but you can't make an unsupported and unsupportable argument based on intellectual fallacy and not expect to get called on it. By your logic, we should pay no attention to ANY scientist who has stated an opinion, because they have a point of view. That includes your side's scientists as much as the proponents'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I'd have to look back through her comments, but I do believe that she came reluctantly to the project because so many unknown samples were submitted to her over the years and she started getting results that didn't fit into any known category. If Sykes gets involved in a habituation site and sees one himself that might bring out the naysayers in strength, let's hope he keeps arms length from such activity and concentrates on his lab research. My recollection is a little different. I remember her saying that she'd gotten samples over the years, but they always turned out to be nothing. Then, when Josh Gates gave her the sample, it came up with intriguing results, which prompted her to become interested in the subject. I believe that that episode of Destination Truth sparked a few researchers to send her samples, and the game was afoot. One of the things I'm really looking forward to once the paper is released is an actual accounting of the entire process, free from rumor, speculation, and faulty memories like mine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Yeah, but are you a "Skeptic?" If you're just a plain old, lowercase "s" skeptic then Mulder's cool with you. Satan's plumbing must be freezing up...a moment of agreement with Sas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) BFSleuth, here is the reference I was looking for, from an interview with Dr. Ketchum: "About '95, we started getting the occasional person calling, 'Oh, we believe we've got Bigfoot," [and I said], 'Oh, ok, whatever...If you want it tested, we'll test it.' And for years, we got nothing but horses, or raccoons, or any number of different, you know, creatures. I didn't take it seriously, but I would test it nevertheless. I try to be open-minded and not close-minded and I think that's the veterinarian in me, because we're kind of a different breed. [laughs]"So, two years ago in the spring, we had a couple of samples submitted, and actually Dave [Paulides] was one of the submitters, that sent some hair to us, and Destination Truth, it was a show... I was so tired of dealing with these things - I [knew] that they would be close enough to ape or human that they would run on human markers if they were something worth looking and so I got to the point that I would screen these things on human markers, and if they tested out, fine, and if they didn't I would just pass it on and say, 'Nope. Not what you're looking for.' "Well, we had two samples... those two samples actually turned into something a little bit different? And I was foolish; I wasted a lot of the DNA because I wasn't believing I was going to get anything. We did get some interesting results and they were just... it was different results for different types of testing, though, so we couldn't combine the two and go anywhere with it. And, like I say, we didn't have enough DNA to continue on with it. As a result, we just had to let it go... but it led me to believe that there might be something worth looking for. "Shortly after Destination Truth aired, we started [laughs] receiving a huge number of samples from all over the country. In fact, all over North America. So... we're knee-deep now in this huge undertaking. [laughs]" This is actually one of the best pages I've found (had it bookmarked for a while) with a history of the early days of the study: http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/melba-ketchum-Bigfoot-DNA-study_2011.php Is that an ok site to link too? Edited May 25, 2012 by Particle Noun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 No, but you can't make an unsupported and unsupportable argument based on intellectual fallacy and not expect to get called on it. Is my argument any less unsupportable than yours? and if so how? You all support arguments based on intellectual fallacy and you dont get called on it. But if the report actually does get published, and not on Ketchum's website or her organization's website, or in the bigfoot times, or in the weekly world news, or on scientistlookingforlove.com, and it actually has to do with bigfoot, I will publically apologize and and leave the forum forever. But I'm pretty sure I'll have at least the next 3 years while its still in "peer" review to lend a rational thought or two. Maybe longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Is my argument any less unsupportable than yours? and if so how? Seeing as how you cannot support it at all, and reasonable people understand that credentials are not given out like Crackerjack prizes, I'd say your argument is entirely unsupportable. Unless you have some convincing evidence that Drs Meldrum, et al have in someway not earned their credentials and expertise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Well I guess you will prove me wrong on all points when the report comes out? Right? So when is it comming out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) Dr. Ketchum isn't being too defensive or going around trying to get attention, which I guess is a good sign. The typical hoaxer would be a bit different. I still watch the calender. The guy from 2 weeks ago said it will come out sometime between june 6-11 Edited May 25, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Dr. Ketchum isn't being too defensive or going around trying to get attention, which I guess is a good sign. The typical hoaxer would be a bit different. I still watch the calender. The guy from 2 weeks ago said it will come out sometime between june 6-11 Ontario, have you been to her facebook page? she is trying to get lots of attention. But I hope to be silenced and eating crow burger with cat sauce by the 11th. But what happens if the report is'nt out again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Ontario, have you been to her facebook page? she is trying to get lots of attention. But I hope to be silenced and eating crow burger with cat sauce by the 11th. But what happens if the report is'nt out again? I've seen her page. I thought posting the stick structures wasn't a good move. I think people will start to lose confidence and they will want explanations if it doesn't come out soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Have you also noticed that she doesn't post anything really anymore. It seems she learned that lesson the hard way, but it has been learned. I would expect to hear nothing at all, and have no questions asked until the study is released at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I thought the stick structure pic and the post about observing the cavorting family of 5 bigfeet was quite out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts