Guest Strick Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Thanks for the heads up on the location, Slimwitless. That darned Honobia place sure is the place to be if ya wanna spot those pesky Bigfoots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 See the post at the top of this page Ketchum has said a lot of things, the one thing she hasn't said is, "Here is the paper." Other than her word and a few others who claim knowledge you really don't know for sure, do you? You know what happens when you assume don't you? I'm not going to trawl back through this entire thread just to satisfy you. Maybe you should have because you would have found out that your were talking out of your posterior and showing everyone else the same. I found the first mention of Nature rejecting the article and posted it right here for you. Here is the link to the post and the quote by slimwitless again just in case you're too lazy to click the link above. Is slimwitless a skeptic? Is the Bigfoot Evidence bog a skeptical blog? Bigfoot evidence blog is reporting the paper has been rejected. A thread was started, then merged into this one. That is fact. It sure was, who disputed that? Just to shut you up though, Parn brings the whole issue up (complete with assumptions about the paper and it's contents and the reason for rejection) here: Nice, you're going to "shut me up" huh? Well sport, Parnassus posted his statement 6 days, 6 pages and 178 posts after slimwitless posted that the blog "Bigfoot Evidence" reported that the paper was rejected by Nature. Here's another piece of trivia for you. Ready? Pay attention now. Parnassus' statement that you just linked to was made 3 days, 4 pages and 92 posts after you posted this enlightened statement. Proponents didn't start this, Ray...Skeptics did by posting that Nature had rejected the paper, and you kept bringing it up time after time after time. I challenge you to find a post by a skeptic stating that Nature rejected the paper that was posted before slimwitless posted that the "Bigfoot Evidence" blog reported that it was rejected. Having an agenda against science and skeptics is one thing but making statements that are factually baseless is another. Especially when they are so easy to refute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Good info, thanks. So Saskeptic, as a scientist, let's say you decided to pursue any particular piece of "evidence" like hair or blood splatter for the possibility of opening up a formal case study. If you asked the person presenting the claim (what I'm guessing is the first protocol question), "Where did you obtain the sample?" and the answer was "I'm sorry but our research location is a secret". Would you follow through with your study? Or pass? ETA Along what with you said, what I'm also getting at is that people sometimes prefer to do the research themselves in this field and deny "institutional science" the proper data. They are not taking this burden on themselves because they were turned down by science. They want the credit (nothing wrong with that). I'm not blaming anyone. Only stating it. Furious, keeping a sample location secret from this forum is warranted. You wouldn't know if the location was given to a scientist, since that info isn't given here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) He answers your question IN the quote you cited. He finds it unusual that a human would simply step on the screwboard in the manner the intruder did. I'd further add to that the immense size of the foot, based on the number and positioning of the screws with material adhering to them as documented in the Monsterquest ep. Implicit in my question is the issue, that given the fact that the DNA was "identical" to human with the stated exception not ruling out human, why would he or anyone else jump to the conclusion that it was less likely DNA from a human than from a Bigfoot. (And what is Bigfoot, exactly?: A descendant of Gigantopithecus, a relict neanderthal, a surviving homo erectus, etc. These candidates are better explanations for the finding of human blood on a screw trap? Really? ) It seems that folks in the Bigfoot community are so acclimated to the idea of Bigfoot, that mundane explanations seem odd and chimerical explanations seem mundane. If one cannot imagine a scenario of how human blood came to be on a screw trap on the front porch of a cabin, then ........... As to the documentation of the foot size on the screw trap, could you refer me to a scientific report or discussion that truly documents, without dissent or question, the size of the foot? What you saw on Monsterquest was pandering for dramatic effect. Dr. Meldrum should have sealed the screw trap as potential evidence for later examination, instead of holding it up to the camera and marking on it. No doubt the producers wanted something more dramatic than Dr. Meldrum securing it for later examination. Edited January 4, 2012 by grayjay 1E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I immediately got the idea she saw them on a video, maybe. She could mean that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Will you do the right thing and apologize to Mr. Fasano for your disrespectful ethnic remark? And apologize too to all the folks of Italian descent who come to BFF seeking enlightenment, not endarkenment? Being married to an Italian American for 15 + years, and having the utmost respect and love for my Italian family, I'd like to petition Italians to apologize for Fasano. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Good info, thanks. So Saskeptic, as a scientist, let's say you decided to pursue any particular piece of "evidence" like hair or blood splatter for the possibility of opening up a formal case study. If you asked the person presenting the claim (what I'm guessing is the first protocol question), "Where did you obtain the sample?" and the answer was "I'm sorry but our research location is a secret". Would you follow through with your study? Or pass? ETA Along what with you said, what I'm also getting at is that people sometimes prefer to do the research themselves in this field and deny "institutional science" the proper data. They are not taking this burden on themselves because they were turned down by science. They want the credit (nothing wrong with that). I'm not blaming anyone. Only stating it. Furious George aren't double blind studies done all the time? If I'm reading you right. The location info could always be ammended at the conclusion of the study. Just off the top of my head archaeology sites are location sensitive usually until later in the dig ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GreatBIGFoot Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) 1325643143[/url]' post='130720']I immediately got the idea she saw them on a video, maybe. She could mean that. Hmmm She said: "as a former skeptic before hitting the field so to speak and actually observing them. I had no fear, the ones I encountered were peaceful and gentle." Sounds more direct than a video IMHO. Edited January 4, 2012 by GreatBIGFoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 On an MNBRT Blogtalk show covering the Honobia conference last October, a guest named "Arla" was quizzed about where Melba Ketchum supposedly saw a "family of Bigfoot". This person was reluctant to talk about it but I got the feeling the location was in Oklahoma...perhaps around Honobia. Good catch Slim. I caught this also when and may have mentioned it in the Ketchum Report thread as well. I am sure someone here knows who Arla is and can make the connection to Ketchum sort of like the Kevin Bacon game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 4, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 4, 2012 Well it seems our RL blogger friend has been reading the BFF again and has thrown in a few more tidbits.......posted yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Implicit in my question is the issue, that given the fact that the DNA was "identical" to human with the stated exception not ruling out human, why would he or anyone else jump to the conclusion that it was less likely DNA from a human than from a Bigfoot. (And what is Bigfoot, exactly?: A descendant of Gigantopithecus, a relict neanderthal, a surviving homo erectus, etc. These candidates are better explanations for the finding of human blood on a screw trap? Really? ) It seems that folks in the Bigfoot community are so acclimated to the idea of Bigfoot, that mundane explanations seem odd and chimerical explanations seem mundane. If one cannot imagine a scenario of how human blood came to be on a screw trap on the front porch of a cabin, then ........... As to the documentation of the foot size on the screw trap, could you refer me to a scientific report or discussion that truly documents, without dissent or question, the size of the foot? What you saw on Monsterquest was pandering for dramatic effect. Dr. Meldrum should have sealed the screw trap as potential evidence for later examination, instead of holding it up to the camera and marking on it. No doubt the producers wanted something more dramatic than Dr. Meldrum securing it for later examination. There was a single polymorphism that the Minnesota entomologist Nelson thought wasn't human. He was wrong. He spoke out of ignorance. That polymorphism was characteristic of the Native Americans of the area. The narrator of the program said that the odds were 5000 to one against it being human. Nelson denied that he told the producers that. whoof. Someone did. Most vandals are young men who are drunk. They tend to be pretty careless about where they walk. The pattern of tissue or blood on the screws doesn't mean that the foot or feet were shaped that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) Ketchum has befriended two Arla's on Facebook. One is from Winnipeg. The other has lots of BF friends. I'm guessing that's her. FWIW Edited January 4, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Furious, keeping a sample location secret from this forum is warranted. You wouldn't know if the location was given to a scientist, since that info isn't given here. SY, I'm not speaking about what is given on the forum. Addressing Mulder's point towards blaming science, (hypothetically) I'm asking Saskeptic or any scientists if they would spearhead a case study where the defining priorities cannot be analyzed because they are being withheld. I'm guessing the answer will be "no way". Especially when the evidence is presented without consideration of alternative interpretation. I'm also guessing that there will be a few answers of "yes". Furious George aren't double blind studies done all the time? If I'm reading you right. The location info could always be ammended at the conclusion of the study. Just off the top of my head archaeology sites are location sensitive usually until later in the dig ? GrayJay, I'm not speaking about participants accepting the Pepsi Challenge where you would have a blind study as to not say "Pepsi" every time. They have those to avoid bias. There is a difference between a double blind study and taking a leap of faith. It's about a scientist putting everything else on hold to base a case study on something that might or might not be tangible. Would a scientist take on a study based on my one piece of evidence of a body in a block of ice in Georgia after I said that they could not see the body? Just write up something sciencey, and then I'll show you the body and we're all good to go. It will never happen. There must be construct validity. Any holes in the validity of the evidence is a deal breaker for science to do a formal study. Just my guess of course. Me withholding my evidence (again hypothetically) because I want the credit is a hole in the validity for another scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 SY, I'm not speaking about what is given on the forum. Addressing Mulder's point towards blaming science, (hypothetically) I'm asking Saskeptic or any scientists if they would spearhead a case study where the defining priorities cannot be analyzed because they are being withheld. I'm guessing the answer will be "no way". Especially when the evidence is presented without consideration of alternative interpretation. I'm also guessing that there will be a few answers of "yes". GrayJay, I'm not speaking about participants accepting the Pepsi Challenge where you would have a blind study as to not say "Pepsi" every time. They have those to avoid bias. There is a difference between a double blind study and taking a leap of faith. I was also thinking about drug trials, but can see I read your question wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 In regard to Melba stating publicly on facebook that she believes in and has had experiences (or an experience) with BF, is a scientist not allowed to believe in his subject matter or to experience it in other situations than a lab prior to the peer reviewed paper being published? That seems pretty ridiculous. Its about the certainty of the words. Its no problem to say I assume, its likely and so on. e.g. I have never heard Meldrum talking about prove and such things. The problem is that anything you dont prove you only can believe in, but believe is no scientific value. Either you got the scientific part done and KNOW or it becomes believe. What would it been worth if she had said one year ago that she had seen BF? It wouldnt prove anything more than that shes human. No prove for anything but the phenomena itself. It could still just be hallucination, misidentification and so on... her background alone doesnt make it more scientific. The way her last comments are written indicate certainity and relieve. It seems like the classic situation, where you got a decisive exam, get the mark later, but the teacher already told you that you made it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts