The Ketchum Report

[Guest BFSleuth]

Not looking good for whom? The folks desperate for information, or the folks preparing the information?

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

This is the impression I'm seeing from a lot of people:

Period of inactivity on her facebook = not looking good for the paper

Dr. Ketchum selling her old lab to buy a new one = not looking good for the paper

lol

Edited November 7, 2012 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest BFSleuth]

Period of inactivity on her facebook = not looking good for the paper

Dr. Ketchum selling her old lab to buy a new one = not looking good for the paper

... followed by:

Period of activity on her facebook = not looking good for the paper

Dr. Ketchum's lab remains in place = not looking good for the paper

... I think I see a pattern emerging.

[blank] = not looking good for the paper.

[Guest]

Received hundreds of thousands of dollars and still nothing to show = not looking good for the paper.

Edited November 7, 2012 by squatting squatch

[Guest]

Shoot James.. I was watching your question, hoping this thread would go to page two as no-one answered you! Not because I didn't want it answered, just think this thread's life is on support and it might die! Has this thread ever been pushed back to page 2? Anyway, perhaps we shall have information from MK to discuss here one day, hopefully anyway.

James, seems there are many agreements between MK and various parties, not all the same. I don't know the extent of those agreements, or the numbers of submitters ...but, it seems from some of the submitters here the NDA most frequently referred to by submitters is not the same as the one posted on BE....not much help there huh?

Edited November 7, 2012 by apehuman

[Guest]

Fame comes at a price.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Received hundreds of thousands of dollars and still nothing to show

References?

[Guest]

Here's a quote from David Paulides blog. " The costs of participating is being absorbed by an independent benefactor who has interest in the topic, who has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars towards this project, and, he's still contributing."

link

http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/bigfootblog.html

blog #111

[Cotter]

Drew (or anyone else):

Does Paulides state that BF exists?

If so, why would you choose to 'believe' him when he states how much money has been spent, but not that BF exists?

Maybe I'm wrong on this.....

[Guest]

I'll admit its hearsay, but isn't Paulides supposedly in the know about the study. We do know Wally was (or still) financing Ketchum. I guess only Wally can confirm the amount donated.

Edited November 7, 2012 by squatting squatch

[Cotter]

Oops...edit - sorry, I addressed drew, but meant Squatting....i do that sometimes.

*bangs head*

But anyway, I agree, there's some money there, but who knows how much actually ended up in DMK's pocket, the business, or how much REALLY was contributed.

Either way, it don't change the fact we have no paper published yet.

[Guest]

I never said I don't think Bigfoot doesn't exist. I just have a lot of misgivings about the evidence brought forth, including this dna study.

Edited November 7, 2012 by squatting squatch

[Guest]

Her not responding to conjecture, nit picking, and personal attacks as of late, is what she should have did all along.

[Guest]

If so, why would you choose to 'believe' him when he states how much money has been spent, but not that BF exists?

Since the field of bigfootery is believed to be a closed system that tends towards maximum ridiculousness, it is therefore compliant with this theory to think that spending money on anything to do with it is an expected increase in ridiculousness, whereas not spending money on it wouldn't be, so would be less easy to believe.

[Cotter]

@Squatting -

Right on. I can understand where you are coming from.