Guest Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 And the army of strawmen just gets bigger. "Once wrong, always wrong"? Is that the broad brush we've come to? Not to pile on or anything, but the irony here is just awesome. I love the accusations of a strawman, followed by the use of a blatant strawman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Yes, I would consider that a possibility. I mentioned this up-thread somewhere, and I would like to see your thoughts on this. Apparently Dr. Ketchum's report will validate the Ibarra sample (and sighting), the Sierra kills sample (and the accompanying story), and the Erickson habituation samples (and accompanying videos said to show a family of Bigfoot). Yet the creatures described in these accounts seem not to be closely related species at all, especially comparing Ibarra's decidedly human sasquatch with the Sierra kill ape and the Kentucky chewbacca. What do you think is behind this? Poor observation by the witnesses? Hoaxes mixed with true Bigfoot accounts? The DNA will show more than one type of sasquatch? Sasquatch's incredible variation? Some of these samples will not be validated? They are all really the same type of animal, regardless of the reports. This aspect of the issue really puzzles me, even if others seem to find nothing out of place with it. The Ullibarri sample was one that kicked off this study, though if I remember correctly, Dr. Ketchum didn't get too far with it. and had used up the amplicon before she had Identified some of the targets in the DNA and developed a method that would get the DNA. Some samples are less viable if they are just the hair shaft, so it might be that we shouldn't expect the full work up on that one. I say this because of some comments on the Coast to Coast interview where Dr. Ketchum mentions this, though it may be in reference to another early sample. I think Harvey Pratt is pretty good at drawing what a witness describes to him, so I expect the appearance to vary a bit, and that might give us some heads-up that the DNA will as well. Some variation in appearance could be attributable to different artistic styles in the sketches, individualism in the species, different species, genetic isolation , witness memory, or even interpretaion from phographic evidence. All of the above should be considered along with possible fictional reports. Matching the DNA results with differing appearances could still be a challenge when all is said and done. knowing which accounts are true + accurate in a given area may not be clear in each case, but we will know that some are, if the samples prove BF are where the reports eminate from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Not to pile on or anything, but the irony here is just awesome. I love the accusations of a strawman, followed by the use of a blatant strawman. I'm not the one trying to paint Dr Meldrum as being unreliable on the basis of individual cases where he erred or changed his position. They are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Yeah, but you ARE the one who constantly takes "S"keptics to task for using "dirty tactics" such as straw man arguments, and yet here you are blatantly doing so yourself. Is it wrong to hold you to the same standards you hold to everyone else? Edited June 28, 2012 by PJam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Righto folks, this is enough along these lines. You will please return to the subject of the Ketchum report, and stop discussing each other. Please also note that Dr Meldrum's expertise or otherwise is not part of, nor relevant to, the Ketchum report, and there are plenty of other places on the forum to discuss this and all the other extraneous stuff. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Yet another thursday passes, and news and interaction from Dr Ketchum has bcome less and less over the last month or so. I'm begining to wonder if even she is losing faith in the results ever being published? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 ^It could be a lot more Thursday's bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 "Yet another thursday passes" Isn't it Thursday morning right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Not in the UK!! Shaun (and I) are both UK based. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Yeah, but "Thursday noon" obviously goes for Ketchum's time zone. I believe that's somewhere between 7 and 9 pm my time, which would mean 6 - 8 pm British time. Also, @Shaun: Commenter: "havent left a message for a wile u still on track?" Ketchum: "Yes, absolutely." from 3 or 4 days ago. https://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum/posts/460864557258999?comment_id=5911363&offset=0&total_comments=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Sally Ramey's original explanation was that the embargo would be lifted on a Thusday at 1:30 EST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 @gershake - That has been the case for almost two years now though... She's definitely cut back on her interactions online. Which, makes me wonder if she's maybe realising this isn't going anywhere and she's quietly beacking away from 'public life'. Let's hope not though, eh? Timezones! Tsk! Lets hop the preverbial hits the fan later today then! I'll no doubt check numerous time, as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 If its released on any Thursday of this year I'm betting it will be on either November 8 or another later Thursday in November of December. If not, I doubt it will ever be published, except maybe on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Branco, are your speculations based on anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Just my usual Thursday afternoon check-in on this thread. I see that the study is still pending...oh well. One more week... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts