Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 What penski (#10664) and ThePhaige (#10678) said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Just relax and be patient no one is going to POP as we wait. It's too late the public has already formed the opinion that this is a hoax with the help of skeptic gurus like Benjamin Radford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) Ok Mulder ready here is one for you... My Claim: "There is no paper" Proof: As of today's date no paper has been provided, released, shown, documented, etc. Not proof. Not even evidence. Yes. I could be wrong if said paper is indeed released. I actually hope I am. I hope the paper lives up to all the hype and blows mainstream science out of the water. But as of right now my claim is backed up with facts. Right now at this moment there is no paper in that it has not been released. Ah, so now you're maneuvering for dodging room by saying (overlooking the grammatical error above) "paper that has been released". Not the same thing, not even close. Note: She did not deny Burtsev's claims. Which does not make them true. Mulder- First off, I never said here was no paper and she’s deceiving you. I said question highly if both of those things are happening for **** good reasons I have. That's a big jump by you saying I defintively said differently. I'd appreciate it if you quote me correctly as I don't have time to sit here and clarify your misquotes all day. Anyone who cares to can go back and read your numerous attacks on Dr Ketchum's credibility and judge for themselves. I stand behind my assessment of your statements vis a vis Ketchum. What “confirmation protocols?â€We’re the checks and balances, two laymen, that took the tissue piece to two independent labs (one university & one private, “independent†of each other & Ketchum) first to one that was “blind†in that they initially had no idea what we were assuming the piece could potentially be from. That's not the way it works, Bart, and you know it (or should). You are not "the checks and balances". You did not send ALL your samples "blind" for lab testing, which is a violation of scientific protocols for genetic identification. The lab is not supposed to know ANYTHING about the sample to eliminate potential confirmation bias. *cut for length Edited December 5, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Why do you patent something in the first place? It isn't to "freely" share is it? You would patent at test, which may include a primer that targets a locus. That way, Sas samples could be indentified more quickly, without having to sequence the whole genome. That would be a valuable tool in biological surveys, and documenting their habitat, range etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Part 2, starting with Bartoljay again: The second lab was from a referral as an additional checks and balances to not only test another sample of the same tissue piece but also the salted piece Meldrum and J Mio examined on site during the remains search in July 2011 (to confirm or not if they were from the same subject species). it's really that simple. No, it's not. By your own words you said only one lab was sent a "blind" sample. If you’re concerned about the reputability of the labs and directors we contracted, in case you’re not happy with the eventual results or vice versa, you’ll be able to perform all the due diligence you wish because the names and communications will be provided for you. It’s really going to be that simple. Again, it's not. The process was breached. That doesn't necessarily make the result absolutely invalid, per se, but it does raise a debatable issue due to the possibility of confirmation bias on the part of the 2nd lab. We have a vested interest (obviously) to know the origin of the tissue and brought it to two reputable institutions to get it examined because one, we see and saw more red flags then a North Korean army rally, and two, it would be the prudent thing to do anyway, even if Ketchum had not given us reasons to be concerned. Did you or did you not just claim above NOT to be accusing Ketchum of dishonesty...and here you are, caught "red handed" insinuating exactly that. Either way, when you put that in context, it’s very telling to me for someone to be fearing potential results. I don't "fear" anything. I'm asking you to pony up evidence to support your insinuations about Ketchum. If anything, you should be relieved and embrace the opportunity that “if†there’s any major deviations in results with her paper, they will be addressed and she will be challenged earlier rather than later. Am I missing something? I’ve been investigating this for a year and a half and have much more time, energy, money etc… invested in the Sierra Kills case then both of you (even got unexpected thermal footage from there Aug 23rd, not definitive visually imo, but compelling with circumstances and witnesses) and I don’t potential fear results, I want answers….so why do you? See above. My comments on Ketchum aren’t based off of her results because I haven’t seen any, have you? Or were you just told everything was looking great? They were precipitated by my disappointment in her using a lame excuse for selfishly going public without any substantiation (a reflection on all of us) and they were based off personal knowledge and experience internally, including as well, many of same things some of you should be questioning (I know many of you do) you should see externally. As rockiessquatching stated, she has leaked out definitive claims from day one. No, Paulides, Lindsay, Stubsted (sp?) et al did. Now the Russians are getting in on it. If Ketchum is being honest, Again with the challenge to her integrity. What evidence do you have that she is not being honest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 David Claerr has written a clear and thoughtful article on all this. Sasquatch Genesis- the Origin of Bigfoot The Theory of Human Hyridization with an Archaic Hominin Lineage http://voices.yahoo.com/sasquatch-genesis-origin-bigfoot-11922139.html?cat=37 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pruitt Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Mulder, questioning something is much different than "attacking" or "challenging" it. It's as if you take any sort of questioning, double-checking, or independent verification as some kind of full-frontal assault. That's obviously not what's going on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 David Claerr has written a clear and thoughtful article on all this. Sasquatch Genesis- the Origin of Bigfoot The Theory of Human Hyridization with an Archaic Hominin Lineage http://voices.yahoo....139.html?cat=37 Thanks Grayjay, that is a very interesting working hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) The way you guys have an excuse for every red flag is the biggest red flag of all. Edited December 5, 2012 by Woodswalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Mulder, Please enlighten us on scientific protocols and procedure. Should we all assume you have a strong background in the subject or are you just waxing praetorian from the mount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spader Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Thanks Grayjay, that was an interesting story/scenario, the credit links are also very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Mr Claerr has always been well written, done his research and been a calm voice on the topic of bigfoot. With all the ''noise'' lately I was pleasantly surprised to see he's given a lot of thought to this and isn't tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 No, he doesn't, and if he chooses not to answer then that's his choice. But he came here to express his point of view so I think it is absolutely appropriate for anyone to ask for clarification on why he has that opinion. And just who the hell are you to demand anything of me? Since I've said from day one, when we get final lab reports and write quick summaries, minus any conjecture or interpretation of results we'll be sharing. It appears we may do that even before processing of boots which wasn't what was originally planned. However, that will be "OUR" decision, you know, the people who went through the trouble, not some handle barking insulting entitlement demands on a forum. Part 2, starting with Bartoljay again: No, it's not. By your own words you said only one lab was sent a "blind" sample. Again, it's not. The process was breached. That doesn't necessarily make the result absolutely invalid, per se, but it does raise a debatable issue due to the possibility of confirmation bias on the part of the 2nd lab. This is laughable, you do realize Mulder, by your own standards you just disqualified the whole Ketchum study don't you? "She" first collected the Sierras sample among others, tested them (has said so as first person) and purportedly outsourced them to other labs for confirmation (only coming from one source). "She" is a proud, biased bigfoot proponent who's had sightings since doing her work and has released statements of bias and conjecture throughout the process via facebook and other media sources with her "PR" people. "She's" also gone public and made the claim prior and without any scientific substantiation. She's not biased?? So why are you defending a breached and bias process? I think you should learn the difference between a "study" and "examination," and I don't know, maybe get an understanding of appropriate scientific protocols and apply them objectively to each situation. Looks like it would help you a bit My point is, and I guess the rest of the world would agree, until it's substantiated, it's "nothing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 So according to Paulides isn't it supposed to be released today or are we going to start hearing "soon" again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) It's too late the public has already formed the opinion that this is a hoax with the help of skeptic gurus like Benjamin Radford. The public as a whole has certainly not formed an opinion. I don't know a single soul other than those I've told about this who have heard squat about it. Folks know I have an interest in this and I'm certain that if any of my friends or family had read or heard about it they'd ask me what I thought. So far not one single person has come to me. So all this worrying about what the public thinks is silly. Besides most folks go to hoax or crazy when the topic of bf or nearly any other cryptid comes up in conversation. Let's just wait and see what comes out and it will come out in due time. Personally my only concern with Ketchum's report is that she is supposedly a Fundamentalist Christian, and if so this will cloud her interpretation of the data. But none the less whether she's misread the data or not others can and will see it with clearer lenses. The problem with the BF world is that everyone is so aligned with one or the other rival camp and there are too many egos and attitudes. Calm down folks the truth will come out eventually. All things in their proper time and not a minute before. Edited December 6, 2012 by AaronD to remove religious material Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts