Ronnie Bass Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 It was either a hoax or one of the greatest discoveries in history. The public is now leaning hard toward the hoax side so she is out of time. Got anything to back this up? Polls or what have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Got anything to back this up? Polls or what have you? When I search I'm reading it everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 2, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) Right RA we've got a mod statement above with imminent warning points coming if responses to that tack continue. Edited December 2, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC Removed quote of a post that was removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 And I agree with Mulder that if you have a piece of flesh, you can determine where on the tree of life, and specifically where within the primates and homonids, the animal falls. Flesh of bigfoot equals proof of a previously unrecognized homonid. Some people seem to have a problem equating "unrecognized hominid" with everything associated with the word "Bigfoot". They want to see a carcass on a slab that fits the thousands of reported eyewitness descriptions. Otherwise, it's a bust to them. If her paper published without ever interpreting an unknown primate result as sasquatch, it would be equally significant (and mind-blowing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) Some people seem to have a problem equating "unrecognized hominid" with everything associated with the word "Bigfoot". They want to see a carcass on a slab that fits the thousands of reported eyewitness descriptions. Otherwise, it's a bust to them. If her paper published without ever interpreting an unknown primate result as sasquatch, it would be equally significant (and mind-blowing). Agree 100%. ETA: it would be as profound, or more so, than discovering a living group of Neanderthals. Edited December 2, 2012 by Oak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Some people seem to have a problem equating "unrecognized hominid" with everything associated with the word "Bigfoot". They want to see a carcass on a slab that fits the thousands of reported eyewitness descriptions. Otherwise, it's a bust to them. I don't think it would be a bust to anyone if she would just produce the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 I don't think it would be a bust to anyone if she would just produce the paper. You don't seem to get it that it's not up to her at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 I think the public would get serious about BF and research if she has what she says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 I don't think I've every disagreed with you on that but you keep repeating it for some reason..... Just don't think a study that is suggesting something like this is going to fly without some pretty good back up. *image omitted per rules* if that's what the DNA shows, then that's what it shows. DNA does not require "back up". It is dispositive and conclusive assuming no laboratory mistakes are made. She might produce something, it just won't be BF related DNA, or anything of substance to prove BF is real. Then what is it you propose she WILL prove? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 I'm not sure if that's the case here Mulder, in that too many have already smeared her that it will require other sources producing the same results to have this stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 I think the public would get serious about BF and research if she has what she says. And I agree with that 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) I disagree. The Sierra Kills reports seem credible, although with some inconsistencies (which have been explained in part by the participants' fear of a homocide prosecution). And I agree with Mulder that if you have a piece of flesh, you can determine where on the tree of life, and specifically where within the primates and homonids, the animal falls. Flesh of bigfoot equals proof of a previously unrecognized homonid. And I do not for a minute think Ketchum was sloppy, or that if she was, any sloppiness wasn't subsequently corrected by those confirming her work. In any case, the paper itself and its supporting evidence will stand or fall on its own. Everyone keeps focusing in on Ketchum as if her lab was the only one involved in the study. There were multiple independent labs involved with samples sent "blind". Confirming results in such a case are highly probative of accuracy. Got anything to back this up? Polls or what have you? As loath as I am to admit it, Kota has this part right. The overwhelming majority of the mainstream reaction has been Skofftical. She needs to get this paper out. Unfortunately, she has no way to force reviewers to work any faster than they care to work. Some people seem to have a problem equating "unrecognized hominid" with everything associated with the word "Bigfoot". They want to see a carcass on a slab that fits the thousands of reported eyewitness descriptions. Otherwise, it's a bust to them. If her paper published without ever interpreting an unknown primate result as sasquatch, it would be equally significant (and mind-blowing). Fair point. I'm not sure if that's the case here Mulder, in that too many have already smeared her that it will require other sources producing the same results to have this stand. Not if we are being intellectually honest and logically consistent. But who ever accused people of being either on a great many issues? "perception = reality" is an unfortunate truth even in this so-called "scientific age". And I agree with that 100% I hate to say this, but I could also easily see people saying "So what? Why should we waste money studying that?" Realistically, we're living in a collapsing global economy. Even if BF were proven, I can't in my own head justify spending public resources researching it, any more than I can justify spending them to send robots to Mars to take worthless pictures. Edited December 2, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Agreed Mulder, I just fear the smear campaign has had some effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 ^Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Some people seem to have a problem equating "unrecognized hominid" with everything associated with the word "Bigfoot". They want to see a carcass on a slab that fits the thousands of reported eyewitness descriptions. Otherwise, it's a bust to them. If her paper published without ever interpreting an unknown primate result as sasquatch, it would be equally significant (and mind-blowing). I think that attitude is going to be much more prevelant among the hard core skeptics. I don't see the general public taking such a hard line given the history of Bigfoot reports in this country. The thing that has me worried about the demands for a body is where does it end? Do we need a body for the red ones, the black ones, the white ones, the ones with necks and hairless faces? I can understand why some people really don't want these to be proven, because the search is going to be extended to every part of our country and the planet where reports have been coming from. It's going to hell on earth for them I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts