southernyahoo Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 All this posturing about nothing.... woodape crowd vs human crowd LOL, they are both hominins. They describe the exact same creature, and there is evidence from their investigations of their common witness and location that should settle it for good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Where does this stuff come from????!?! I admit to some frustration here. Never, not once, anywhere ever, ever has the nascent protection group solicited for, raised, or indicated it will in the future solicit for money. Ever. Find a single legitimate reference that backs that up and I'll send you a donation. In fact, the protection group, the facebook group for which I belong to, has done nothing but solicit members for ideas and feedback on possible strategies for garnering protection for the species once the paper is released. I can't discuss what has been talked about in there, but I can confidently say 100% that not once has any mention of solicitation of funds, or even thinking of starting a fund been mentioned an any serious way by those who set the group up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Ontario, I don't think it's a holdup for publishing, I believe it has not passed peer review yet and it's still being shopped around. Nature first, then Science and the other biggies, and will end up at Mad Magazine. I think some members need to catch up on who Paulides is and what his agenda is. North American Bigfoot Search website will provide an education. This was started by Paulides and he HIRED Ketchum. He is the pulling the strings on this whole project. I hope I'm wrong and it comes out very soon, but I don't see it happening. I believe you are correct Hoosierfoot. I remember Dr. Ketchum asking David Paulides about what information she can and can't give when they were talking on air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) Never, not once, anywhere ever, ever has the nascent protection group solicited for, raised, or indicated it will in the future solicit for money. Ever. Find a single legitimate reference that backs that up and I'll send you a donation. You guys are right, it was intended as an observation and I accidentally stated it as fact. I edited the original post, sorry about that. I still think it's not much of a stretch to envision such a scenario as ultimate motivation for a hoax, that's the point I (not-so-successfully) was trying to make. Edited June 7, 2012 by PJam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Moderator Statement Be careful about accusing a fellow forum member of hoaxing or engaging in potentially illegal behavior. Dr. Ketchum is a member of the BFF in good standing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) Some of the initial mtDNA testing was accompanied by a 200 dollar charge... Around 100 sample submissions. So we have 20,000 or so collected in fees. Now Adrian payed a lump sum to have the nuDNA run on his samples. Money spent on testing. Additional monies spent on testing were provided by Wally Hersom. I'm guessing the preservation society is a not for profit, and they have not to my knowledge solicited or accepted any funds. I'm having a hard time seeing a profit motive here let alone the fact that whatever is happening prompted Dr Sykes to jump in feet first, something I doubt he would do if there was the slightest chance it were a hoax. I was told by someone I trust to know the truth that the revisions asked for are completed and the paper has been handed back in to the journal. Now we wait for publication. Edited June 7, 2012 by indiefoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Where does this stuff come from????!?! I admit to some frustration here. Never, not once, anywhere ever, ever has the nascent protection group solicited for, raised, or indicated it will in the future solicit for money. Ever. Find a single legitimate reference that backs that up and I'll send you a donation. In fact, the protection group, the facebook group for which I belong to, has done nothing but solicit members for ideas and feedback on possible strategies for garnering protection for the species once the paper is released. I can't discuss what has been talked about in there, but I can confidently say 100% that not once has any mention of solicitation of funds, or even thinking of starting a fund been mentioned an any serious way by those who set the group up. I'm also a member of the group and can confirm the above statement. Furthermore, I don't see how Dr Ketchum can benefit from any kind of hoax. I also don't think people running wild conspiracy theories that suggest how she is or might carry one out for financial gain is positive in any way to Sasquatch research, or interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 It should be noted that Dr. Ketchum is in the business of doing DNA testing. IMHO it would be incredibly risky to knowingly attempt to perpetrate a hoax as some are intimating, simply because of the potential damage in the reputation of her business. Who would want to use the DNA testing services of a person identified with hoaxing DNA? That simply boggles the mind. If anyone feels the need to cling to some vestige of problems or difficulties with the Ketchum Report, then I think speculative effort could be better spent theorizing that there are issues related to interpretation of the DNA, or perhaps legal issues associated with sample submitters protecting their rights, etc. That is, if you feel a great need to speculate.... then fire away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) I'm still saying Ketchum will publish her report on her own website or do a commercial book endever, but we will never see an actual article published in a mainstream academic journal. And while I wont say she is doiing anything for profit, maybe she just wants to have her 15 minutes of fame and make some scratch on the side. She starts out with some internet and facebook controversy, gets a book deal, goes on late night radio and some BF podcasts, and gets on some documentaries and TV shows like Meldrum does. Maybe she just wants some exposure. There is a lot we can speculate about but time will reveal if the Ketchum supporters or Ketchum skeptics are right or wrong. Edited June 7, 2012 by Darrell Personal comment removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) If this is not a hoax or publicity stunt ... then I believe this is exactly what is going on, and to take it a step further, a conjecture already made by the people working on the Erickson project might be the "Raison d'être" for possibly biased conclusions of the DNA paper. I'm guessing that they observed (or fooled themselves into seeing) human-like behavior and now they're trying to prove their "humanity" through DNA. An obvious Confirmation Bias in the paper could destroy any chance they have of decisively demonstrating whether they are humans or animals. I too would be much happier if the study turned out to simply be a descriptive paper to the effect: we found a new species of primate, and here is it's gene sequence. Leave the "what is it" questing for a Phase II study. Humans are a subset of animals, and I suspect that when the report comes out that we'll find that it isn't quite so easy to define exactly what "human" means any more. The lines on that particular Venn diagram will be a little more blurry....... Mike May well be... If it were a hoax, who all would have had to be involved? Multiple independent laboratories at a minimum. All of whom would be putting their businesses on the line, as a confirmation of hoax would ruin their credibility forever. I need a little help explaining all of this to someone who is not following along, never heard of any of this, and doesn't believe there is a bigfoot. How would I do it on what we have so far? I was thinking of something like this; They have dna. Dna is from a critter. They are extremely busy so they hired someone to not answer questions on a facebook page, but they pulled that page down now because they are busy. The dna may be manipulated, which comes from a manipulated critter. Is that about right? Simple short answer: no. *Edited because the Mods already addressed part of what I said.* Edited June 7, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) [F]or those who think it is a likely hoax, do you think that there is no paper/journal at all, and we've been strung along? What would the purpose of that scenario be? I don't see how Dr Ketchum can benefit from any kind of hoax. I also don't think people running wild conspiracy theories that suggest how she is or might carry one out for financial gain is positive in any way to Sasquatch research, or interest. You may not find my or any of the hoax scenarios posited here as 100% plausible, but I don't understand how you can get upset with them being posted here when you specifically ask for an explanation of how she can benefit from a hoax... Not to mention the whole "I don't see how she would benefit from this" response has clearly been stated: money. Now do you think it's not enough money to be plausible? Not enough money to be worth the risk to her reputation? These are all viable counter-arguments, but you HAVE to see that "It just doesn't seem like she would do it" is a statement presented without any evidence whatsoever! I think an outright hoax is a bit of a stretch. This things gone too far for that. Besides which, she has a business that will need to keep some form of credibility. I honestly can't see what anyone would gain if this was a hoax. It should be noted that Dr. Ketchum is in the business of doing DNA testing. IMHO it would be incredibly risky to knowingly attempt to perpetrate a hoax as some are intimating, simply because of the potential damage in the reputation of her business. Who would want to use the DNA testing services of a person identified with hoaxing DNA? That simply boggles the mind. A) Usually people who hoax or are doing something illegal (note, I'm NOT say Ketchum IS doing this!) think they can get away with it. It's not a person tries to shoplift from a store thinking, "This candy bar is going to be so great until I get caught." B ) People with reputable businesses commit crimes all the time. There's even a term for it: http://en.wikipedia....te-collar_crime None of this says Melba Ketchum is hoaxing us! It would be awesome if this thing pans out. But just because you admit the possibility of a hoax doesn't mean you have to think it's likely, and just because you believe she's got the goods doesn't mean you can't acknowledge there is a chance, however slight, the wool is being pulled over our eyes. Objectivity is a good thing, and there's nothing that we know about this study (VERY LITTLE!!!) that allows us to conclude much of anything. Edited June 7, 2012 by PJam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 ^Problem is that loose talk like that is how rumors start, and rumors like that can have repercussions. Unless you (or any hoax theorist) have concrete evidence of some sort of hoax, it should not even be mentioned. Not given the potential consequences for a professional's career and maybe for the rumor mongers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 ...........time will reveal if the Ketchum supporters or Ketchum skeptics are right or wrong. I think it is important to say that this isn't binary........ie the population doesn't divide into supporter and sceptic groups. I'll bet most interested people will be like me........100% neutral, and interested as hell in reading the science.There's a false dichotomy in dividing people interested in bigfoot into two camps, and exactly the same false dichotomy in trying to put people into camps regarding an as-yet-unpublished scientific paper. Mulder, whilst I agree with you about rumours, what a lot of people seem to forget is that their words are here in-perpetuity. Careless talk will be revisited after the fact, and lots of people are going to be embarrassed by what they have written over the last 9 months or year. We can't stop people calling "hoax".....but we can challenge them to substantiate their words now, and we can drag those words up later and ask them to repent. Or they might do the same to us. In the meantime, like I've said 3 or 4 times in this thread.......I'd never want to be put on trial with some of these folk as jurors. There are an awful lot of minds made up (on all sides of the discussion) before any of the evidence has been produced. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I think its time to call a digging implement a shovel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 So long as you stick to our rules, you can call whatever you like whatever you like. However, be prepared to have others disagree with you. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts