Guest Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 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. Well, if I could be honest, it's probably because you've interjected so much of your own opinion, and possibly at the expense of the truth. I could see how that could be wildly frustrating.
Guest Posted July 20, 2011 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. Don't confuse criticism of what and how you report something with who you really are. One has nothing to do with the other.
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Don't confuse criticism of what and how you report something with who you really are. One has nothing to do with the other. I don't mind the down side so much, if I could get some of the upside from minor fame. Where's the money and the women? Especially the women?
southernyahoo Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 So Silver Fox, When was the first samples from the Erickson project sent to Ketchum? Was it after the Destination truth show on the Yeti sample in late 2009?
Guest Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I don't mind the down side so much, if I could get some of the upside from minor fame. Where's the money and the women? Especially the women? Well if you would quit putting me on ignore, I can give you a virtual makeover that might help.
Guest Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Thought this might belong here... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7178-squatchdetective-radio-jul-242011-bigfoot-dna-the-inside-story/
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Well if you would quit putting me on ignore, I can give you a virtual makeover that might help. You're not on ignore.
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 So Silver Fox, When was the first samples from the Erickson project sent to Ketchum? Was it after the Destination truth show on the Yeti sample in late 2009? I am sorry. I don't know.
Guest Posted July 20, 2011 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. I'm just going by your statement on a radio interview where you called him your enemy and you hated him. You said at that time you had no interest in interviewing him. I just assumed this was your opinion of him all along.
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I'm just going by your statement on a radio interview where you called him your enemy and you hated him. You said at that time you had no interest in interviewing him. I just assumed this was your opinion of him all along. At the time I interviewed my source, I asked him if I should interview Randles or the shooter, and he said, "No way! Don't do it!" He said they were dead set against this getting out, would yell at me for breaking it and maybe threaten me not to publish it. He also said they would probably lie a lot. So I didn't interview them. My source didn't like the shooter too much, but I didn't know anything about the guy at all and no opinion of him. My source was a redneck himself and the other guy I interviewed from that site was also a redneck. After I published the story, I learned a lot more about the guy and came to dislike him, but that was long after the story was published. I've since calmed down a lot, and at this point, I would probably talk to him. After all, I talked to Randles. I actually put the shooter in touch with a local attorney to help him out. So, it's not true that I didn't interview the guy for the story because of some personal hostility. I interview all kinds of characters. I don't like a number of the folks I interview, but I usually give them a nice writeup anyway. My formal interviews are always "friendly."
Guest Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 At the time I interviewed my source, I asked him if I should interview Randles or the shooter, and he said, "No way! Don't do it!" He said they were dead set against this getting out, would yell at me for breaking it and maybe threaten me not to publish it. He also said they would probably lie a lot. So I didn't interview them. My source didn't like the shooter too much, but I didn't know anything about the guy at all and no opinion of him. My source was a redneck himself and the other guy I interviewed from that site was also a redneck. After I published the story, I learned a lot more about the guy and came to dislike him, but that was long after the story was published. I've since calmed down a lot, and at this point, I would probably talk to him. After all, I talked to Randles. I actually put the shooter in touch with a local attorney to help him out. So, it's not true that I didn't interview the guy for the story because of some personal hostility. I interview all kinds of characters. I don't like a number of the folks I interview, but I usually give them a nice writeup anyway. My formal interviews are always "friendly." Understood.
Guest Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 From this information it would appear that Ketchum may pass Meldrum and may challenge Moneymaker for the most money made off those who believe in Bigfoot. The numbers are fragmentary so I could be wrong. Would you care to address the actual science of the report, which we now know IS being done in a proper and objective manner, or would you prefer to continue making barely veiled accusations of fraud?
Guest Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 From this information it would appear that Ketchum may pass Meldrum and may challenge Moneymaker for the most money made off those who believe in Bigfoot. Just curious. How does one make money off of those who believe in Bigfoot?
Incorrigible1 Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Shhh. I don't want Parn to stop sending me a monthly BFF fee.
Guest parnassus Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) Would you care to address the actual science of the report, which we now know IS being done in a proper and objective manner, or would you prefer to continue making barely veiled accusations of fraud? I would care to address the report and will if and when it ever gets published. Right now we have evidence that she hasn't provided satisfactory services to at least a dozen people in the past couple years, and she has taken in many thousands of dollars from believers; has been embroiled in at least one legal action, and we have no evidence that she has met the schedule she herself set, or provided any results to anyone for all that money, or is doing anything of value on Bigfoot. Further, I have seen no evidence that she has any formal training in primate evolutionary genetics or human population genetics or any academic publications on these subjects. No disrespect to Dr. Ketchum but these are all directly relevant issues; she herself is aware of the history of purported Bigfoot discoveries and knows this history is in the backs of the minds of intelligent people. I would welcome anything factual and substantive that you or Ketchum or anyone else can offer on these subjects (not your customary non informative parsing please, but you are of course free to post as you please). So I will post on the subject within the rules of the forum. Feel free to challenge all the other posts in this thread as they have not dealt with Ketchum's results (because she hasn't published any). Oh and your not-even-thinly-veiled straw man is probably not appreciated by Dr. Ketchum. But whatever. Edited July 20, 2011 by parnassus
Recommended Posts