Guest BFSleuth Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Yes, I would think that matching results would ALWAYS help. In my view I think this is the essence of science: repeatable experiments. If Dr. Ketchum's paper is published, the findings are there for any other DNA scientist to replicate. It is by replicating the results that her findings will stand or fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Sounds like matching studies is the best possible outcome. If they don't match...? Back to square one waiting for another study? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Okay,,,, I can't be the only person on this site that knows Melba has aligned herself with the "Bigfoot talks to me" group of researchers?? If you are a member of this group - no offense and rock on!! But, one of her closest confidants is Thom Cantrall... C'mon - I can't be the only person who knows this?? LOL. Now for the ''REST OF THE STORY'' Dr. Ketchum was invited by arla to visit her property, they then proceeded to insert that EVERYTHING they do or believe in was endorsed by the Dr....nothing could be further from the truth.She accepted an invitation, was polite and has moved on. Every allegation has a backstory and it would be wise for people to look into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Apehuman, +1. This post was written very eloquently and is a true assessment of the possible rationale of those mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 It's already happening now. http://www.msnbc.msn...e/#.ULUKmrU-ORk Any proof? It's a fascinating theory. So where's the evidence? Well, there is none. Not yet, anyway: Ketchum's research has not appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and there's no indication when that might happen. If the data are good and the science is sound, any reputable science journal would jump at the chance to be the first to publish this groundbreaking information. Until then, Ketchum has refused to let anyone else see her evidence. As she should, given protocols. And Radford, as has been noted, is hardly a neutral media reporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 As she should, given protocols. And Radford, as has been noted, is hardly a neutral media reporter. I doubt my writing him will accomplish anything, but perhaps if a few of us write him or the publication??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Here's the link. http://www.randi.org/site/ I have stooped to reading it but would never post there, not on this topic at least. Anyone serious about the sasquatch knows that, at least as regards this topic, JREF is a modern Flat Earth Society. This must be where some of the Academic Mainstream Scientific closeminded spokespeople have migrated.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Yes, I would think that matching results would ALWAYS help. Yes, that would help, but what if they are different. Edited November 27, 2012 by yowiie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 "At this point I should probably remind readers that there’s not at present a shred of credible scientific evidence that a Bigfoot, or Bigfeet, exist in North America, or anywhere in the world. These are, in fact, mythical creatures. What about the paper, you say? Well, almost anything is possible. This paper, if it is ever accepted by a reputable journal, will be closely analyzed. Almost certainly it will be found to be false. At this point it is nothing more than a long line of “claims†about the existence of Bigfoot." That about sums it up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roberty-Bob Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 ... Galileo comes to mind... To me, Alfred Wegener comes to mind. I would dearly love to have Grover Krantz to get some retroactive recognition out of this too. As a skeptic, I am so rooting for BF to be proven real. I was on the skeptic side of the fence for years, hopped up onto it and then down the other side - with a hand on the fence. The last few years have made me hop back over to the skeptic side of the fence, but I'm resting against it and peering across. I Would love Ketchum's paper to blow the whole BF mystery wide open, truly. But my gut tells me this will only be another disappointment. My gut, however does not have an infallible track record, so I have my fingers crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 A lot of Ketchums past comments are coming back to bite her. The media has already gotten hold of her past promises that the paper would be released "soon." In addition, some of her associates, such as her new spokesperson, are coming off like "kooks." Her credibility is taking a beating because of these people. Anybody with a computer and a WiFi connection can Google these names and the results are not very flattering. I don't know which one is worse, the Russian scientist or the spokesperson. She really should have picked somebody else to handle her publicity. To add insult to injury, the "Angel DNA" has already made it into the media. I really hope she's being published by a reputable journal and can back up her statements with her study. Otherwise, the damage done to the credibility of this subject will make the Georgia hoax look like it never even happened. Hold on to your hats as the ride is about to get rough. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Yes, that would help, but what if they are different. Then Ketchum is wrong, Sykes is right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 As she should, given protocols. And Radford, as has been noted, is hardly a neutral media reporter. Well regardless of how Neutral his he or isn't he is right. SHE HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE !!! NONE ZERO, ZILCH, NADA !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 @Cisco - Right on. @Rockie - clarification - has not provided evidence to the public. ;-) But I agree with your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Better question: if Ketchum does the "crash and burn" will Sykes even publish? In the event of a high-profile failure by Ketchum, the blowback would attach itself to other studies. He might be well served to let things settle for 6-12 months, even at the risk of being decried for not pushing ahead to publication. Sykes has one advantage in this case: he is keeping his head down and mouth pretty well shut, and hasn't made continuous "soon" statements in public fora. Bingo. He may have an anti-blowback guard already in place. I'm not going to do Dueling Curriculum Vitae, but his I think will stand up. As she should, given protocols. And Radford, as has been noted, is hardly a neutral media reporter. My experience arguing with Radford: he's ignorant of the evidence; goes ad hominem way too quickly; and if you have seen one, you are wrong. I wouldn't bother with him at all. I no longer argue with him; I just use his writings and postings to educate people about him. Edited November 27, 2012 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts