Guest Darrell Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Mike, I will not insinuate that Ketchum is pulling off a hoax as that is against forum rules. But does anyone think her actions to date are consistent with a scientist and buisiness owner? IMO She was a media hound and when the drama got to thick she pulled stakes and ran for the hills, of course that is my opinion and understand those views are not necessariy the views of this forum or its members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I am not suggesting hoax in any of this, however, don't ever think that a business like Dr. Ketchum's will be ruined if she is perpetrating a hoax. Or that money couldn't be a incentive to hoax. Dr. Ketchum's business is mainstream DNA testing. Just how much business would she loose from the mainstream DNA testing if it was found out that she hoaxed a bigfoot DNA test? Frankly, I would be worried about loosing my mainstream DNA testing business if my customers found out I was in the bigfoot DNA testing business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) 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... Firstly, I'm not upset at all. This is merely a discussion. Secondly, where did I specifically ask for an explanation? I've checked my posts and can see no such thing. Edited June 7, 2012 by Shaun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Mike, I will not insinuate that Ketchum is pulling off a hoax as that is against forum rules. But does anyone think her actions to date are consistent with a scientist and buisiness owner? IMO She was a media hound and when the drama got to thick she pulled stakes and ran for the hills, of course that is my opinion and understand those views are not necessariy the views of this forum or its members. I don't understand this viewpoint, and I've seen it represented by multiple people. She went on the radio back in 2010 asking for samples, and has had a few media engagements since then. She has a private facebook page, where she made a few of her more controversial comments, and a professional facebook page, where she also made a handfull of comments, some apparently controversial (family of squatch, stick structre) but most in the vein of "sorry I can't answer that right now". How is that a media hound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) Just how much business would she loose from the mainstream DNA testing if it was found out that she hoaxed a bigfoot DNA test? All are Good points but I'll address this one. If (and I'm not saying she is) she is shown to falsifying any DNA related material she would probaly lose whatever license is need to operate her business. Even the insinuation of her poor credibility would be enough to lend reasonable doubt to anything her lab has produced. So anything going thru her lab pertaining to any legal proceedings could be questioned by either defense counsel or prosecution depending on who she did the work for. So say someone submitts a sample to determine paternity, the contesting party can use the credibility of the lab doing the work to call into question the results and give reasonable doubt. Maybe Ketchum's lab does not do DNA work for legal or criminal proceedings and if so it probably wouldnt effect her business much. Please note this is my opinion and understand these views are not necessariy the views of this forum or its members. Edited June 7, 2012 by Darrell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (I) understand those views are not necessariy the views of this forum or its members. The forum doesn't have a view, Darrell. Our view, if you like, is the collective range of views of our members. And as you will see reading back through the 200 pages of this thread, the views are many and varied. You are perfectly entitled to differ from everyone else's view if you choose, and you don't need to keep using caveats to that effect. Put your view, defend it, robustly even........but stay within our rules. That's all we ask. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 How is that a media hound? Please, I am not at all insinuating she is associated with the canine family. Would publicity enthusiast be better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shoot1 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 After reading what has been written since my last post, i want to clearly state that i don't think ketchum is hoaxing anything and i don't know how that would even be possible with DNA. That aspect of this is above my head and i see no reason to question her ethics. I do question her approach to publicity, though and I'm wary of there being any biased conclusions made in the DNA paper due to Erickson footage or because of the claimed observation of creatures by Ketchum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I am going to guess that someone from the journal read the facebook page and asked her to take it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Well, I am targeting page 200 and will still hold out hope this all ends well soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) I am not suggesting hoax in any of this, however, don't ever think that a business like Dr. Ketchum's will be ruined if she is perpetrating a hoax. Or that money couldn't be a incentive to hoax. Dr. Ketchum's business is mainstream DNA testing. Just how much business would she loose from the mainstream DNA testing if it was found out that she hoaxed a bigfoot DNA test? Frankly, I would be worried about loosing my mainstream DNA testing business if my customers found out I was in the bigfoot DNA testing business. I cannot believe you actually said the above... Of course her reputation would suffer. Hoax one result and no result from that day forward is free of taint, and it can cast doubt on previous results. The reasoning being that if a person has been shown to hoax once, there is every possibility that they have hoaxed before, and simply not been caught. Reputation is everything in business. And for your last line, that says more about your thought process than it does about Dr Ketchum. No legitimate scientist is afraid to give an issue of science a fair and objective hearing. 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 Personally I´ve had it. I throw in the towel! I do not think that the Ketchum Project is hoax, more like a non-flyer, as in "scientific data not living up to promises" (speculation on my part). The choice of going silent looks to me like damage control (speculation on my part), maybe taking time to formulate a less "revolutionary" paper. I´ve followed all 199 pages, but it is really the output from the Ketchum-camp over time that makes me give up following this thread. There has been great discussions and great input from both "camps", but the point of discussion, "The Ketchum Project" seems to be evaporating. So I´ll leave for now, assured that if anything interesting comes out of this, I´ll be alerted by usual news channels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Probably a safe bet either way, darwinist! I can't imagine there is really anything left to say at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 hey, what's a few more months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Around 62 days, give or take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts