Guest MikeG Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 ".........if there were a lab that was doing a DNA study that disproved the existance of bigfoot........." Tell me how that's going to work? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) I do think that the vehement dismissal of the BBB complaints as groundless is total Ketchum apologetics. No, it's accurately pointing out that none of the complaints were about RESULTS from the lab, but rather business matters regarding report deliveries, etc. Her SCIENCE is unchallenged. This BBB nonsense is the same sort of character assassination BS that Kita tries to pull with his "Roger Patterson didn't return a rented camera/got sued/etc, therefore the PGF is a hoax" blather. Edited August 6, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) Are you trying to say patterson's character was above reproach? Because I'll call BS on you with that one. Edited August 6, 2012 by MikeG ........Please don't quote the preceding post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 What I am saying is there is a bias for Ketchum on this forum. Certain standards of character, integrity and conduct that should be expected of her are routinely dismissed because everybody thinks she is going to be the one to prove bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Are you trying to say patterson's character was above reproach? Because I'll call BS on you with that one. No. I'm saying that personal shortcomings does not prove a film is hoax, nor do problems in the buisness office side of Ketchum's lab mean anything about the legitimacy of her DNA study. There is ZERO linkage between the two. What I am saying is there is a bias for Ketchum on this forum. Certain standards of character, integrity and conduct that should be expected of her are routinely dismissed because everybody thinks she is going to be the one to prove bigfoot. And I'm saying that what you call "bias for Ketchum" is nothing more than reasonable people pointing out that you are trying to smear her with irrelevant side issues to try to draw her scientific expertise into question. Put another way: would you throw out the Theory of Relativity because Einstein couldn't balance a checkbook? They do not equate. Nor do the BBB reports impeach her lab's scientific credibility, nor those of the outside labs she included in the study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 And there's your problem right there, Drew. You only consider dispositive proof (ie, a body) to even BE evidence. You would look favorably on photos, tracks, eyewitness accounts for wolves or bears or whatever (or at a minimum not dismiss the matter out of hand), so you should, if you are intellectually honest, give BF the same due consideration. ONE evidence bar for ALL claims = scientific integrity I'll see your Splash, et al and raise you Dr Meldrum, Sarimento, Swindler, Schaller, et al. Your comment is just a veiled cheap shot at all those worthy scientists. I'm sick of legitimate scientists who are pro-BF being accused of "not utilizing 'critical thinking' ", as if no rational individual could look at the case to hand and find sufficient evidence at a minimum to establish the strong liklihood of an unknown primate existing as the source of the evidence. Mulder,I'm talking about people like JDL who claim to do research with the forgone conclusion that Bigfoot exists. The evidence might suggest something but even the scientists you name recognize that their evidence isn't definitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) What I am saying is there is a bias for Ketchum on this forum. Certain standards of character, integrity and conduct that should be expected of her are routinely dismissed because everybody thinks she is going to be the one to prove bigfoot. And the bigfoot believing community should be angry with her instead of worshipping her because she's using their good nature to take advantage of them and their money. There are others (one in particular) who also do this but we'll leave that for another time and another thread. Edited August 6, 2012 by FuzzyGremlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 ^ huh? Taking advantage of the bigfoot community and taking our money? That's a new one on me... she's taking our money? Please post a link to that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 6, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) Mulder,I'm talking about people like JDL who claim to do research with the forgone conclusion that Bigfoot exists. The evidence might suggest something but even the scientists you name recognize that their evidence isn't definitive. Where did JDL ever claim to be a researcher? ... <<edit due to misunderstanding>> ... Certainly, he has theorized and hypothesized as any lay member of this forum has over time for sure. So I guess we have a fifty percent membership that are researchers then, correct? Edited August 6, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 If she were, at this point, to be accused of anything, the only thing I could imagine her even remotely culpable of would be raising people's hopes. Thus far there haven't been any calls for money, funding, or the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 6, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) Right, I'm keeping my billfold close to the hip but am fully awaiting some form of resolution to this problem. Though with six to twelve more month predictions seen in some postings elsewhere I have to admit this is getting tiring. Esp. when we have people like GenesRUs come into town, tell us these samples could be wrapped up on a per basis four weeks apiece max. and then move on to the next one, it doesn't take a Ph.D. mathematician to figure out that something is not adding up. Even a couple 180's in the curve balls should be resolving before now. Edited August 6, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 I really do not think that anyone mentioning 6-12 months actually knows anything, but that is just my own p.o.v. If they were really an insider they would be keeping mum about the time frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) Mulder,I'm talking about people like JDL who claim to do research with the forgone conclusion that Bigfoot exists. The evidence might suggest something but even the scientists you name recognize that their evidence isn't definitive. Correction, I was thinking of Nice Guy John, not JDL. I'm getting my forum members confused. Edited August 6, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 6, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) Correction, I was thinking of Nice Guy John, not JDL. Duly noted and my responsive post edited accordingly. I really do not think that anyone mentioning 6-12 months actually knows anything, but that is just my own p.o.v. If they were really an insider they would be keeping mum about the time frame. Maybe, maybe not, we are left to our own devices aren't we? There have been leaks, mum must be defined in ways I'm not familiar with? There have been multiple false alarms and calls for upcoming events and then delays. Canceled conferences, speaking engagements, etc. etc. It is part of the history of the BFF in hundreds of posts in several threads here. Edited August 6, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Mulder,I'm talking about people like [NiceGuyJon] who claim to do research with the forgone conclusion that Bigfoot exists. The evidence might suggest something but even the scientists you name recognize that their evidence isn't definitive. Sorry, but your foot has not yet been fully removed from your mouth. Please show me where I claimed to do "research" about Bigfoot. I do no such thing. I did engage in a hypothetical conversation with someone in this thread to point out how I feel evidence is sometimes dismissed out of hand. It is not a forgone conclusion that Bigfoot exists, and I have never said as much. In fact, I have gone out of my way to say many, many times on this forum that while many of these things certainly are evidence, that none of them constitute proof. I only ask that the proper distinction be made. What I HAVE said is that I have come to MY OWN conclusion that Bigfoot does exist, because the mountain of circumstantial evidence and specifically the many CREDIBLE eyewitness accounts are enough for ME to believe. I have never said that science should accept them as proof, because I understand that's not the way science works. HOWEVER, "science" should not think of itself as all-knowing, and that is the attitude it takes when members of the scientific community dismiss potential evidence for something spectacular for no good reason. AGAIN- there's plenty of good reason not to take it as "proof", but no good reason to dismiss it. Or maybe it wasn't actually me you were thinking of either? Looks to me like you are about knee-deep at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts