Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) "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." A science blog with Eric Berger What he said! Edited November 27, 2012 by summitwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 ouch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 If that is an actual quote, I just...I don't even....I mean, why would you even say something like that, even if you believed it to be true. That shows a real lack of self awareness of how to handle the media and questioners in general. So much for speaking with Meldrum in confidence hey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA 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." A science blog with Eric Berger What he said! Really? "Almost certainly it will be found to be false"? Can I see a list of what he thinks the well-equipped science blogger should have? I'm betting "Ouija board" is way up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Was that meant to be in confidence? If that is the case, it was not fair of Dr. Meldrum to state it on his facebook page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Really? "Almost certainly it will be found to be false"? Can I see a list of what he thinks the well-equipped science blogger should have? I'm betting "Ouija board" is way up there. I think it's no secret that there are many people who are emotionally invested in these creatures never being proven to be real. Edited November 27, 2012 by HODS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 For what it is worth, to me Ketchum and camp have never sounded worried about their data, the tone has always been grounded and confident. Yes, frustrated by delays and naysayers, but not about the work. Maybe Ketchum et al do not really care anymore about the rumor mill since the paper has been accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Official Moderator Statement I would like to take an opportunity to remind everyone that there are rules regarding conducting discussion in a civil manner. I know that this subject is such that the rules are really taxed to their limit, but zeal and passion are no excuse for anti-social behavior to be displayed by anyone in the discussion of the report, its possible findings or those that participated in or have evaluated either the actual report or press release. Also, I expect both the skeptical and proponent alike to behave according to the forum rules and guidelines. Please, folks - Don't make the closing of this topic necessary to deal with reported content. Be on your best behavior to keep this from being needed. If the thread is closed by the staff, it will be because of the membership's failure to adhere with our rules. This is an official warning. Punitive measures may be necessary if the civility doesn't return to an acceptable level. Thanks, See 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." A science blog with Eric Berger Going section by section: "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. In his opinion, and ignoring the copious amounts of evidence on proffer. These are, in fact, mythical creatures. And his evidence is? This paper, if it is ever accepted by a reputable journal, will be closely analyzed. Ok, so he gets something right... Almost certainly it will be found to be false. I thought Science didn't believe in psychic predictions... :confused: What he said! So you have the evidence that he lacks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) 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. Okey dokey.. If you say so. Sure there is always a back story - but Melba has admitted some of these things and those admissions have been outed by those closest to her. I frankly don't care what she personally thinks about this animal and frankly it's not my problem to look up every sorted thing she has said. But, if you don't think the Media is going to make far more of this you are very wrong. For me it's about the science and can her science hold up to the scrutiny. Others will look for other ways to discredit her and her findings - problem being they don't have to look all that hard and she provided the ammunition. Don't blame the messenger. Edited November 27, 2012 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted November 27, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 27, 2012 ^^ for him. Those who have had encounters just laugh at stuff like this. I am curious about why Ketchum made the release but perhaps too lazy for my own good. Did she get some sort of permissions from the publisher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) 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. Regardless how anyone feels about it, this is why the "pro-kill" camp wants a specimen. Because when that specimen gets in front of the experts, all the sideshows will be revealed for what they were. 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. Well, you are how a skeptic ought to sound on this - questioning all assumptions, including the easy (and lazy) assumption that this isn't real. And rooting for the truth more than for your personal desired slant on what the truth should be. Good for you. I always tell people that True Believers of either end of the spectrum are not where the fun is on this - or any - topic. And too many 'skeptics' come off as True Believers In The Mundane. Edited November 27, 2012 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I think that until this issue is settled, "pro kill" MUST come off the table. If they are close enough to us to be human relatives, then I cannot in good conscience argue for shooting one just to "prove" something to the "Scientific community". Honestly, can't justify it even if it isn't a human relative. The days of "shoot and mount" zoology are supposed to be OVER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 For what it is worth, to me Ketchum and camp have never sounded worried about their data, the tone has always been grounded and confident. Yes, frustrated by delays and naysayers, but not about the work. Maybe Ketchum et al do not really care anymore about the rumor mill since the paper has been accepted. Great point, and I see it the exact same way. All of this back and forth is moot if they either have HD footage or a body, and I really suspect they might have both in the Erickson footage and Sierra Kills specimen. If that's the case, I could almost see the comments that have "leaked" to be BAITING those who want to pounce on the paper, to make it look that much better when they play their 4 aces. I have really thought they must have SOMETHING like this (one can dream). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I think that until this issue is settled, "pro kill" MUST come off the table. If they are close enough to us to be human relatives, then I cannot in good conscience argue for shooting one just to "prove" something to the "Scientific community". Honestly, can't justify it even if it isn't a human relative. The days of "shoot and mount" zoology are supposed to be OVER. Well, I did toss in the caveat. Personally, I hope we get confirmation some other way. And if anyone kills a sasquatch it isn't going to be me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts