Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 @ ss ....It's no reason to get upset, unless the lab would like to tell someone how to interpret it. That would get settled among peers. When you pay a lab to do a test and report their findings then the transaction is complete when they send it.. If they stand by the fact their results are reliable there is no issue. Rigging the game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted December 25, 2012 Admin Share Posted December 25, 2012 So MK thinks we should leave them alone because they don't want to be studied? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 God bless her. She's doing the best she can. Great interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted December 25, 2012 Admin Share Posted December 25, 2012 (edited) Listening to the interview, a great one by the way, some of the points that come to mind which Dr Ketchum made: 1) They have a complete DNA sequence. 2) They have a good chain of custody for some of the samples 3) They have video evidence of a subject when a sample was collected 4) They have 100+ samples 5) Most samples are hair, a few tissue and some "fluid". 6) The samples have been blind tested by independent, certified labs 7) The conclusion is that BF is a type of human, "tribes" exist in North America BF is as smart as humans 9) There is a paper under peer review 10) There are many PhD and Master scientists who are co-authors to the study 11) They have samples from both genders 12) She was present when a sample was collected from an individual 13) The samples tested are "fresh", meaning recent. 14) BF is smart enough to evade humans and many more. Edited December 25, 2012 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 Listening to the interview, a great one by the way, some of the points that come to mind which Dr Ketchum made: 1) They have a complete DNA sequence. 2) They have a good chain of custody for some of the samples 3) They have video evidence of a subject when a sample was collected 4) They have 100+ samples 5) Most samples are hair, a few tissue and some "fluid". 6) The samples have been blind tested by independent, certified labs 7) The conclusion is that BF is a type of human, "tribes" exist in North America BF is as smart as humans 9) There is a paper under peer review 10) There are many PhD and Master scientists who are co-authors to the study 11) They have samples from both genders 12) She was present when a sample was collected from an individual 13) The samples tested are "fresh", meaning recent. and many more. Great summary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted December 25, 2012 Admin Share Posted December 25, 2012 (edited) Not that I buy all of what she said, but she did come across as matter of fact and sincere. One more thing she mentioned is that if her study gets rejected, she will release all of the data so that people can study it. She also said that there are two kinds of labs that did the blind testing: university and forensic labs. She indicated that the U labs are more political, which makes sense. The forensic people are more practical. This I agree with, U people are basically government like run institutions. The private sector consistently outperforms them in quality, initiative an innovation. Edited December 25, 2012 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 I find it interesting how she said she wishes she could just leave the whole thing. I can't really blame her. Just look at the stuff that is being written about her on a daily basis *cough* Robert Lindsay *cough* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 I find it interesting how she said she wishes she could just leave the whole thing. I can't really blame her. Just look at the stuff that is being written about her on a daily basis *cough* Robert Lindsay *cough* And apparently her email and website has been hacked. Not that I buy all of what she said, but she did come across as matter of fact and sincere. One more thing she mentioned is that if her study gets rejected, she will release all of the data so that people can study it. She also said that there are two kinds of labs that did the blind testing: university and forensic labs. She indicated that the U labs are more political, which makes sense. The forensic people are more practical. This I agree with, U people are basically government like run institutions. The private sector consistently outperforms them in quality, initiative an innovation. That was eye opening for me as well. Pros vs. amateurs it sounds like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 (edited) You do realize it's George Knapp, not George Noory doing these interviews with Ketchum and Paulides. Noory is the one that banned Biscardi from c2c, not an interviewer you want when the evidence is lacking. Edited December 25, 2012 by squatting squatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 I'm listening to the c2c Ketchum interview right now and at hour 4 she starts going on about how her results don't match in gene bank. At 24.27 in hour 4 she starts saying it's novel because it not in gene bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 You do realize it's George Knapp, not George Noory doing these interviews with Ketchum and Paulides. Noory is the one that banned Biscardi from c2c, not an interviewer you want when the evidence is lacking. Lacking ? she has over 100 samples for the study ( has even more now) and one sample was taken while being filmed and witnessed by her, that doesn't describe lacking, sounds more like compelling evidence. I could see where the skeptical camp is going to start tearing at every corner they possibly can before this comes out, with there one dimensional thinking, believing that modern man knows everything there is to know about the world we live in. I'd bet the Engineer that designed the Titanic was a skeptic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 Rigging the game! Cutting bias out of the equation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 (edited) I find it interesting how she said she wishes she could just leave the whole thing. I can't really blame her. Just look at the stuff that is being written about her on a daily basis *cough* Robert Lindsay *cough* I have followed lLndsay's blog's on Bigfoot like many (whether they admit on not!) and I agree a great deal of that is distressing, on the other hand, just to be fair....all of this info has already been published by Lindsay..it's is nice to see it confirmed by Ketchum:....and well, the future may illuminate more of his claims...... (that said, it does appear there are forces deeply committed to stopping this study as well?) gigantor, on 24 December 2012 - 11:34 PM, said: Listening to the interview, a great one by the way, some of the points that come to mind which Dr Ketchum made: 1) They have a complete DNA sequence. 2) They have a good chain of custody for some of the samples 3) They have video evidence of a subject when a sample was collected 4) They have 100+ samples 5) Most samples are hair, a few tissue and some "fluid". 6) The samples have been blind tested by independent, certified labs 7) The conclusion is that BF is a type of human, "tribes" exist in North America BF is as smart as humans 9) There is a paper under peer review 10) There are many PhD and Master scientists who are co-authors to the study 11) They have samples from both genders 12) She was present when a sample was collected from an individual 13) The samples tested are "fresh", meaning recent. :I also caught that "regret," and thought, well nothing to prevent her from exercising free will and stop now, or change course....? How can she regret and say wouldn't do again and yet be planning to test giant skeletons and heading up a continuing testing effort or Preservation effort? I think I get it actually, the opposing forces internally/externally that make it a struggle....but, I would prefer to hear stronger commitment ..we have all been maligned in some manner by association in Bigfootery, some innocently, some not...it is part of any endeavor that is so "open" and so "closed"....not well said...but most here know the struggle... I personally feel the rumor mill from Bigfootery will pale in comparison to a future with Global (we can hope?) attention. And the words "strap in" come to mind.. Edited December 25, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TH68 Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 (edited) I just listened to the C2C interview. Thanks for the link. I was impressed by her candor. Her forensic experience and qualifications as an expert witness in criminal cases in Texas certainly came through in the interview. LIstening to two minute squibs as previously posted do not convey the depth of her expertise like this extended interview did. . 2013 will be an historic year. I am so looking forward to it. I believe Dr. Meldrum reads this forum. To you Sir I say that you are a true visionary and pioneer for devoting your scientific career to this field. Once discovery is confirmed by DNA when Dr. Ketchum's paper publishes, you will be vindicated. Edited December 25, 2012 by TH68 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 No i havent seen it. Why do you think it's flawed? Have you seen the study? Nice try, but not biting. I'm not the one dismissing the study out of hand. You did that. What evidence to you have to support your claim that the study is scientifically deficient? When listening, I recommend not expecting to be provided answers about the study but rather look for the answers as to why she's doing all this. Care to elaborate on that? You obviously suspect something. Halfway through it. Couple nuggets so far. 3. Regrets taking the study on. Said if she could go back she wouldn't want anything to do with it. That is a shame. Scientific inquiry of any sort should never be treated so poorly that a scientist would regret working on a given topic. This is the perfect example of "enforcing the orthodoxy" or "heretic hunting" effect at work. Also seems to be closer to scrapping it and just releasing her info to get it out. I think she knows what we have all known. It'll never pass peer review. Open it up for the public to see! Release the vids! Did she say something to this effect, or is this your "take" on the interview? History should tell you - the information we release and what is discussed about the person are always two different things. I noticed you said nothing about Patterson and what he went through - or what Bob Gimlin goes through today even though he has explained fully. My "position" on P&G is fairly well-documented. I don't think the crap thrown at either by the "skeptical" community is in any way valid either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts