georgerm 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? We know Dr. Ketchum is testing many samples for DNA and getting paid for this. Have we heard for sure that Dr. Ketchum is going the extra miles and writing a time consuming report for sure? A peer review paper sounds like many hours of work that she will receive no income from immediately. Does anyone know how many hours are required for a peer review paper? She sounds like a professional and fraud should not enter the picture. Howerver, the antiBF group will probably claim fraud if and when the reports comes out............can hardly wait and I hope not to be let down. Silver Fox, on 20 July 2011 - 09:56 AM, said: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? In all seriousness, you have brought this story to us, and if this leads to BF proof, you, Derek, Erickson, and Ketchum will go into history as the major players in this saga. Edited July 20, 2011 by Jodie edited for PG-13 rating
Guest Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I would care to 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). I was going to respond point-by-point, but by the time I got to the end of your post I realized that you are asking for people here to provide you with something "factual and substantive" regarding Ketchum's reliability, qualifications or good business practices? I have seen the tactic before that if someone doesn't like, and/or can't argue the message, then they instead focus on destroying the messenger. If that is not what this is, then please tell me the relevance of this line of questioning? Could not a hypothetical lying, cheating, homeless drunk (not a real person - hypothetical) be the one who brings forth the actual final proof of Sasquatch? Or can it only be someone "perfect"? *******, I promised myself that I wouldn't comment again on this topic until the evidence is released***
Guest parnassus Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) We know Dr. Ketchum is testing many samples for DNA and getting paid for this. Have we heard for sure that Dr. Ketchum is going the extra miles and writing a time consuming report for sure? A peer review paper sounds like many hours of work that she will receive no income from immediately. Does anyone know how many hours are required for a peer review paper? She sounds like a professional and fraud should not enter the picture. Howerver, the antiBF group will probably claim fraud if and when the reports comes out............can hardly wait and I hope not to be let down. In all seriousness, you have brought this story to us, and if this leads to BF proof, you, Derek, Erickson, and Ketchum will go into history as the major players in this saga. Too funny. How can you say she gets no immediate return when she has already gotten many thousands already, just on rumors, and you suggest how famous she may become!!??!! Again I would suggest you watch your step when mentioning fraud; no one has mentioned that but you and Mulder. Of course that's between you, dr. Ketchum and the mods. Further, skeptics would have no claim of fraud since they have not sent her any money. Edited July 20, 2011 by parnassus edited original quote
Guest Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 I would care to address the report and will if and when it ever gets published. and exactly what is you field of expertise? are you a geneticist? biologist? Primatologist? or any other gist? what are your qualifications Parn? just curious........
Guest Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 We need to redirect the topic from the fraud issue and who is going to point the finger at who regarding this report.
Guest Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Ok, once again, let me reiterate this for the 100th time on here- no one is obligated to reveal who or what they do for a living on the forum and it's not right to demand it of another poster. It violates the rule of attacking the poster and discussing a poster's background.
georgerm Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Ketchum has taken on a difficult task, and I surley hope she prevails. Can someone describe how many hours a good peer review paper takes? Has anyone done one before? Parnasty: Again I would suggest you watch your step when mentioning fraud; no one has mentioned that but you and Mulder. Of course that's between you, dr. Ketchum and the mods. Now read our posts again......and again.....and decipher the intent. 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? McNair: She sounds like a professional and fraud should not enter the picture. Mulder and I were defending Ketchum. Edited July 21, 2011 by MarkMc referencing deleted post
Guest Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Right now we have evidence that she hasn't provided satisfactory services to at least a dozen people in the past couple years, Her lab has had scheduling problems...which says NOTHING about their ability to analyze DNA, and that assumes they themselves are acutally doing the lab work, which we now know they are not doing. Ketchum is acting as "clearinghouse" and coordinator for multiple blind studies by independent labs (per her own statement). 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. No, they are NOT "relevant issues". She is only acting as coordinator and authoring the paper, the lab work is being done by others using full scientific protocols (just as Skeptics have always demanded). *edited to comply with Mod directive* Edited July 21, 2011 by Mulder
Guest Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) deleted to comply with Mod directive Edited July 21, 2011 by Mulder
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Nothing to see here. Just move along.... Edited July 21, 2011 by HairyGreek
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 Harrygeek: You have got to be kidding here. What the heck did he do to finally bring Bigfoot to scientific peer review? You missed the point. Read what was said again.....and again.TI cannot believe there are people who actually like SF. Have you gone through his posts and his blog and seen how many times he has changed his story and mis-reported facts? Some stories force facts to surface which worked otherwise you would still be in the dark...do you like the dark? Did you see some of his assumptions without any sort of veracity he has made toward others who REALLY are involved with ulocking this mystery? Man, I can't believe this. SF is like the all time internet uber-troll all rapped up in an online gossip mag. Did he force you to read his blog unless you like getting all upset. Just don't read it.If he goes down in history as anything it will most likely be the guy who almost single handedly discredited the whole project. So...woohoo for him. He uncovered a huge story that was rapidly going underground. Do you want to live in the dark? First, unlike you, I don't feel I am "in the dark". I feel everyone would have been much better off if we woke up one Christmas morning with the correct sequence of events DIRECT FROM the people involved tied up with a nice little peer review, video, and bow. Instead we got "brought into the light" by a guy who can't seem to hold onto any fact for more then a few seconds. Second, don't patronize me. I can read fine. What I was implying is that this guy is going down in my book as someone who did nothing of import at all except get a board full of people who SAY they want to find, research, or prove the existence of, Bigfoot (for the most part) worked up about something they don't even have the correct story about yet! And you claim the story is somehow out of the dark. Really? Tell me the whole story, start to finish, using names, locations, and outcome. Don't forget to site all your sources from a documentable place so I can check them all. Oh, wait. You can't. Sorry, I forgot. Tell me when you are more "out of the dark". Third, sometimes looking at the source can tell you a lot about the information. If you can listen to a guy who wrote some of the other things he did, and you see what the catchphrase to the site is, you may catch on that this guy likes to say things to get people riled up and that maybe, just maybe, HE is lying about a great many things to get that out of us all to boost his own noteriety. Meanwhile, you are praising him and giving him exactly what he wants. Good job chief. That's the kind of guy who is going to bring legitamacy to this whole deal. JMVHO
Guest bsruther Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 Something I'm curious about, are the leaks and the leakers that allegedly came from within Erickson's and possibly Ketchum's organizations. I wonder if it was discovered where the alleged leaks came from and what action may have been taken, if any.
southernyahoo Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 Something I'm curious about, are the leaks and the leakers that allegedly came from within Erickson's and possibly Ketchum's organizations. I wonder if it was discovered where the alleged leaks came from and what action may have been taken, if any. You'll have to follow the leaking stream of info back to the source. There's not that many people in the Erickson camp and fewer that were in any position to see fit to leak something.
Guest bsruther Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 You'll have to follow the leaking stream of info back to the source. There's not that many people in the Erickson camp and fewer that were in any position to see fit to leak something. There may be many smaller players, who are not part of "the team".
Recommended Posts