Guest Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) "... it is worthy of mention that those who are loudest in denouncing him as a fairy-tale-teller are least anxious to put the wild man's existence to the test of investigation." - The Canton Daily Repository, 3/17/1885 Just borrowed this from another post ..... ThankFully some professional Sceintific types have exposed themselves to the world and are in the process of doing field work some, maybe at the expense of their High Positions in their Profession.... If you do the Field work then you risk your Title... But if you are a Skeptic then you have no risk ... The actions of some of these Scientific types have formed my thinking to the Science Skeptic position. Basically we really don't need them to make Progress... They impede progress. Edited July 14, 2012 by MikeG ......To bring into compliance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Let me repeat something I've already said. I am a skeptic. At this point in time and having read, researched and investigated the evidence/information for decades, I have come to the conclusion that BF most likely does not exist. A conclusion that is not supportable by the evidence. In fact, the evidence shows just the opposite. There is at a minimum a very strong liklihood that BF exists. It is the simplest, most logical explanation for the massive amount of evidence to hand, including highly technical evidence of types that make any potential hoaxing extrememly UNlikely. It screams "belief system" as opposed to objectivity. And how does your certitude that BF most likely does not exist differ, given the massive amount of evidence against that position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 true that.... however, some of the witnesses might disagree with the lucky aspect of the encounter, as some are still dealing with issues of PTSD. I would like to add another cautionary note as a moderator in the event of the publication of the Ketchum Report. In order to read the actual report you will need to either be a subscriber to the journal or purchase a copy from the journal (usually about $20 per article). If you don't then you are relegated to reading about the report in the media. PLEASE DON'T POST COPIES OF THE ACTUAL REPORT OR OTHERWISE VIOLATE ANY COPYRIGHT RULES OF THE BFF. Does anyone have a view on the top 3 likeliest journals to carry the article? I may just go get a year's subscription on each of them in order to get the scoop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 My vote would be published in The National Geographic. Growing up it was always The best read for the public interested in Scientific findings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 ^What is Nat Geo's reputation these days? I've heard they're considered more "pop science" than they used to be. I think the best place for it in terms of fostering acceptance would be one of those journals with a stuffy title that starts with something like "The Proceedings of..." that only those in the field and hard-core laymen read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) Mulder. Different people have different levels of evidence they will accept before they determine a conclusion. I'm speaking individually here, not for science. I have evaluated the evidence and reached my conclusion. I will happily change it if proof comes. I've read all the major and many of the minor books on the subject, countless days in the field and really countless internet reading. Going over in detail each scat sample, each hair sample and each video and arguing with you what each could be is not something I have time to do or care to do. But I have gone through them and reached my current position. Edited July 15, 2012 by MikeG ..........To bring into compliance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter O. Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) At this point in time and having read, researched and investigated the evidence/information for decades, I have come to the conclusion that BF most likely does not exist. (Serious question from a relative noob.) Have you come to any conclusions about a possible, or probable, alternative explanation for the phenomenon? edit: Is there a good thread I should look at discussing alternative explanations? Edited July 14, 2012 by Peter O. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Mulder. Different people have different levels of evidence they will accept before they determine a conclusion. I'm speaking individually here, not for science. I have evaluated the evidence and reached my conclusion. I will happily change it if proof comes. I've read all the major and many of the minor books on the subject, countless days in the field and really countless internet reading. Going over in detail each scat sample, each hair sample and each video and arguing with you what each could be is not something I have time to do or care to do. But I have gone through them and reached my current position. Which you are entitled to do. Just as I am entitled to point out that said position is not only wrong, but illogical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Sure, point it out. But pointing something out doesn't make it correct. I arrived at my conclusion on sound logic, study, research and reason. I will add that I became privy to some information that, whereas before I gave BF a one % chance of being real to a 10% chance. You are free to go on saying I'm wrong. I don't mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 People There is too much talking about each other, and not about the Ketchum report. There is a bit of cleaning up to do in the thread already, and I don't want to do anymore. Stick to the subject, or head off somewhere else. If your post vanishes, it is being looked at by mods. Don't repost. Thanks very much. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 PM'd you Peter 0 so as to not go off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Does anyone have a view on the top 3 likeliest journals to carry the article? I may just go get a year's subscription on each of them in order to get the scoop. It will be far cheaper to buy the single article than to subscribe to three likely journals. Subscriptions can cost hundreds of dollars for each. Also, be forewarned that the article itself will likely be very technical and may be a difficult read. I'll be purchasing the article myself and try to learn the finer points of DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Apparantely Dr. Ketchum is unhappy with Robert Lindsay. The leaked info comes from people who are involved with Dr. Ketchum and it looks like she doesn't want anything getting in the way of the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Ultimately, I leave the I-dotting and T-crossing to the experts. A simple "we have proved the existence of a heretofore undocumented higher primate/hominid" is all I need to hear (assuming that is the finding) Apparantely Dr. Ketchum is unhappy with Robert Lindsay. The leaked info comes from people who are involved with Dr. Ketchum and it looks like she doesn't want anything getting in the way of the paper. Do you have a source? Dr Ketchum being unhappy with Lindsay would add credence to what he is saying. Otherwise she could just say "he doesn't know what he's talking about" and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 ^Precisely. And here's a source. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.ca/2012/07/dr-melba-ketchum-as-usual-it-is-more-of.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts