bipedalist Posted July 20, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 20, 2011 Yah, some of those cheaters get identified by the crowd and get tackled before they can cross too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Cheaters. I'm just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 It's cool Bsruther, just keeping it lite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) More than that. They have a total of 20 samples that have tested positive for BF's so far, or to put it in a better way, they have samples from 20 separate BF individuals. A better way to describe Erickson's samples is that they come from 6 different BF individuals. How do we know 20 samples tested for BF? Were the DNA test for nuclear DNA? Were the results published? The intensity is building! Let's hope the truth pops out rather than more mockery for bigfootery. Edited July 20, 2011 by georgerm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 'SweetSusiq', thank you so much for your efforts in posting the New Update. It condenses, consolidates and simplifies the confusing details discussed in so many different threads here on the Forum. I now have a more accurate picture of what is really going on. - Dudlow Thank you Dudlow. I live for the day when some of Ketchum's work will bear the fruit of a video capture, or a body is discovered before the BF family buries it. I think that a body is truly needed to verify this species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I can understand a bit of showboating, everyone wants their due credit. This here from Hairygreeks post, sounds like Erickson is giving credit to Paulides for opening Ketchum's mind with one of his samples. Paulides writes about it in his book, and even prints a copy of the letter Ketchum wrote him. BTW I'll vouch for her writing style on that one. She was already working with Erickson by the time she worked on those first two samples. Erickson is deliberately distancing his project from her in public statements possibly due to legal reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) Well you must be after something SF, didn't you want to be the one who broke the big story? Duty and all that. Don't mind breaking the big story, but can't handle all the criticism, frankly. Though I'm getting better at it. Try some minor fame some time. I can wake up every morning and go on the Net and read for 2 hours people just smashing away at me. See how you like it. I'm an introvert. Edited July 20, 2011 by Silver Fox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 How do we know 20 samples tested for BF? Were the DNA test for nuclear DNA? Were the results published? That's from my source. He told me that there were samples of 20 different BF's in Ketchum's study. The ultimate source is probably Erickson, as my source is close to Erickson. They were probably tested for NuDNA, as that would be the only way to prove that those samples came from BF's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Don't mind breaking the big story, but can't handle all the criticism, frankly. Though I'm getting better at it. Try some minor fame some time. I can wake up every morning and go on the Net and read for 2 hours people just smashing away at me. See how you like it.I'm an introvert. That explains it a bit. You are getting the negative because you sprung the story without being able to reveal your sources and back the claims with evidence. You shouldn't have thought that you could put that responsibility on the players. They want to present the entire package all at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Don't mind breaking the big story, but can't handle all the criticism, frankly. Though I'm getting better at it. Try some minor fame some time. I can wake up every morning and go on the Net and read for 2 hours people just smashing away at me. See how you like it. I'm an introvert. That is... refreshingly honest. Credit where it is due- you are the reason this forum has been abuzz with chatter about two BFs that got killed, and you are the reason people with different opinions and agendas came out to clarify the events, causing me to believe that it happened. I, for one, appreciate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 That is... refreshingly honest. Credit where it is due- you are the reason this forum has been abuzz with chatter about two BFs that got killed, and you are the reason people with different opinions and agendas came out to clarify the events, causing me to believe that it happened. I, for one, appreciate that. Actually, I had that story for several days before I published it. I did the interview, knew I was onto something hot, but was too scared to publish it. I was practically shaking. I think I talked to my girlfriend and she said go ahead and do it anyway. I took a big gulp and did it. I don't exactly rush this stuff into print breathlessly. I was really scared to write this story up for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 She was already working with Erickson by the time she worked on those first two samples. Erickson is deliberately distancing his project from her in public statements possibly due to legal reasons. SF - Erickson's page on Dr. Ketchum with the description I attached to my post has been the same for quite some time. Way before you "broke" your story. I have to say as well, based on your few comments above and peoples responses, I DON'T appreciate what you are doing or how you have done it. You have attacked several people's work ethic and integrity and then gotten your feelings hurt when they have responded in kind (I have been to your "blog"). You have made blanket assumptions about people whom you do not know personally and then gotten mad when others have done the same to you. Sorry I can't find a tear to shed for you. I joined this board because the BFRO was stiffling and block about anything that doesn't glorify or agree with them. But if you are the polar opposite of that, then I am not sure it is worth it. Whatever happened to responsible journalism? You need to go back to school. Breaking a story doesn't mean you have to break others down. You have a lot to learn about how to gather and present research. Maybe you can learn from the OP, EP, and Dr. Ketchum. They were all at least waiting until they had everything ready to drop their bomb. You may want to try that next time instead of throwing a story out that you can't defend because you were a third party. I know this may seem a weird reference, but if you want a good lesson in Journalism 101, read issue two of the comic Astro City. Don't bash it until you read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Actually, I had that story for several days before I published it. I did the interview, knew I was onto something hot, but was too scared to publish it. I was practically shaking. I think I talked to my girlfriend and she said go ahead and do it anyway. I took a big gulp and did it. I don't exactly rush this stuff into print breathlessly. I was really scared to write this story up for some reason. I agree with NiceGuyJon. The story got pretty wild and off-track a few times, but it had to be told. My one criticism is that since you had the shooters name I think you should have at least tried to interview him. Like him or not, that would have removed some of the burden of confirmation of your shoulders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I agree with NiceGuyJon. The story got pretty wild and off-track a few times, but it had to be told. My one criticism is that since you had the shooters name I think you should have at least tried to interview him. Like him or not, that would have removed some of the burden of confirmation of your shoulders. Not liking the guy had nothing to do with it. I had no opinion of him at all. My source did not like him, but I knew nothing about him. I asked my source if I should interview Randles or the shooter and he said, "Don't do it!" He said they were both dead set against this story getting out and they would be furious at me for breaking the story. He also said it would not be very useful because of them were probably going to lie a lot to cover for the shooter. I don't interview hostile sources. I'm still looking for the original thread from Taxidermy.net but the webmaster is not being helpful. I have subsequently included a lot of the shooter's version into my account of events, but not all of his version, that's for sure. My method at the moment: I have 4 sources: "Bear Hunter" from Taxidermy.net Another source from that site Randles/shooter himself Another source close to Ketchum and Erickson I have looked over all 4 accounts and tried to put together my account based on some sort of amalgamation of all 4 account. In a lot of cases, I go by "majority rules." In other cases, I go by the earliest version of the events from the website in November. In other cases, I try to go with the most plausible version of events. I don't know why Randles is so angry. I think he's going to be famous. I hope I can help him be famous, if that's in the cards for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Not liking the guy had nothing to do with it. I had no opinion of him at all. My source did not like him, but I knew nothing about him. That's funny. I thought you said you hated his "redneck" type and said he was the kind of person who used to beat you up in your younger days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts