Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 You keep pitting this us against them stuff, If the proper scientific procedure was taken it would be seen as totally legit even if the material was proven to be a genuine BF, what is in question is the sneaky way it was done, science is not practiced behind closed doors unless your building a new missile, this is a world class thing she is trying to prove, not some new breed of hamster. Your opinion flies in the face of known facts. She CANNOT talk about specific data or she risks losing her chance to publish the paper. This is standard protocol for scientific studies: you do NOT discuss the actual study data until publication. This has been explained repeatedly. It is fact. She has not done anything "sneaky". She has given us everything she could and probably more than she should in accordance with scientific protocol. Mulder I don't know whether Melba truly believes in her results or not, but she has a poor sense of how to manage public perception in my opinion. Her first mistake was getting personally involved in the community by establishing the sasquatch preservation group,.That alone could have affected the study and subsequent paper's ability to be published. And she did that on her own, that was not a third party hearsay endeavor. I never said she didn't handle the PR poorly. I've made the same observation myself. But her PR problems are not at issue. What is at issue is a whole raft of people on BOTH sides who feel entitled to have the full study data "NOW NOW NOW" stamping their feet and waving their fists to try to bully her into torpedoing her own chances at publication by breaking protocol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 I think Dr. Ketchum believes in her results, but the Bigfoot community has bullied and criticized her to no end. And all simply because they did not agree with her results or did not agree with the way she handled things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) Your opinion flies in the face of known facts. She CANNOT talk about specific data or she risks losing her chance to publish the paper. This is standard protocol for scientific studies: you do NOT discuss the actual study data until publication. This has been explained repeatedly. It is fact. How about the FACT that she did talk about specific data in the paper. Talked about how Bigfoot is a human hybrid, sequencing of 3 genomes, modern human mother. Those are pretty darn specific things. Mulder you really really need to stop using the word fact because things like the above don't support anything factual about what you are saying. You are and have been using the word fact to mean "fact in addition to whatever else you consider acceptable". Game Set Match!!! Edited January 12, 2013 by rockiessquatching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 I never said she didn't handle the PR poorly. I've made the same observation myself. But her PR problems are not at issue. What is at issue is a whole raft of people on BOTH sides who feel entitled to have the full study data "NOW NOW NOW" stamping their feet and waving their fists to try to bully her into torpedoing her own chances at publication by breaking protocol. She broke protocol by establishing the sasquatch preservation group. In doing that she declared that the creature existed before her data was peer reviewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 12, 2013 SSR Team Share Posted January 12, 2013 What am I missing here ? https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/officially-recognize-sasquatch-indigenous-species-and-have-them-lawfully-protected-laws-banning-any/FlSBT2vj?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl Do they not realise that if they release a paper showing this animals existence, they'd be getting 25 million signatures on this, not 25 thousand ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 It would make too much sense to do it that way BobbyO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 12, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) ...But her PR problems are not at issue. What is at issue is a whole raft of people on BOTH sides who feel entitled to have the full study data "NOW NOW NOW" stamping their feet and waving their fists to try to bully her into torpedoing her own chances at publication by breaking protocol. Actually, no, her PR problems are part and parcel of THE ISSUE. Glitzy page holder websites like Erickson project and Sasquatch Genome do not cover for choice of PR reps. A PR rep has to be someone really gifted and so connected that name recognition and skill=base is obvious. I don't think that was ever accomplished by Ketchum..... yet. And personally, I fear it is too late. I agree with BobbyO's observation that cart--before--the--horse thinking and reactionary poling, focus groups and politization of the "science" is misplaced effort and should not have been necessary in the first place. Hindsight is 20/20 I suppose. How would the project look if there was no Richard Stubstad, no Robert Lindsay, no Igor Bourtsev, no Sally Ramey, no facebook pages etc etc. and no need to whip up the conspiratorial co-collaborators of a science gone rogue and awry? Do you think there would be no tsunami of opinion regardless? What would be sucked into that vacuum instead? Would we be on any certain kind of trajectory then? Would radio-silence have been maintained? Once the project originators made a public plea on C2C for samples they sort of started this snowball rolling did they not? Oh, and I almost forgot, those initial copyrights on Sasquatch the Tribe, all of the startup genetics companies and partnerships that have popped up with identifiable names that seem related to Ketchum.... are they greasing the skids for a real release of science or simply a commercial effort to make money ......or both? It would make you think this project is heading somewhere, correct?! OR NOT?! Yes, it is easy to read between and behind the lines sitting here looking at the project longitudinally never having been a team member. But that is what this forum is for.... is it not?! Edited January 12, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 But that is what this forum is for.... is it not?! Bingo! I might add I don't see how any forum could sway any sort of genuine scientific protocol, judgement, opinion,outcome, etc. it's just a talk/gossip forum and if anyone used it for anything more than that well, they should not be involved with professional science to begin with. What am I missing here ? Do they not realise that if they release a paper showing this animals existence, they'd be getting 25 million signatures on this, not 25 thousand ? The folks that believe BF is truly a real creature is relatively small, more think it is just the same as the LochNess monster or UFO's, Bigfoot gets balled up with that stuff and not taken seriously. Besides the 25,000 is the lowest number needed to bring the petition to the White house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 What am I missing here ? https://petitions.wh...mpaign=shorturl Do they not realise that if they release a paper showing this animals existence, they'd be getting 25 million signatures on this, not 25 thousand ? It was an independent person associated with the Preservation group who started this Bobby, not MK... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) Bipedalist put it quite eloquently in his post. Edited January 13, 2013 by AaronD to remove character assessment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 12, 2013 SSR Team Share Posted January 12, 2013 It was an independent person associated with the Preservation group who started this Bobby, not MK... Come on V, you're better than that. You telling me she didn't give it the thumbs up ? See the FB post on her own page for proof that she most certainly did. She even deleted my comments saying what i said on this thread about the 25 million, even though she replied to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Well, she definitely put her stamp of approval on it. Perception is reality, and MK isn't dealin' with a full deck, in regards to her numerous mistakes, or blunders, as I would call them. She doesn't act like somebody who has profound evidence of anything, aside from an insatiable appetite for attention and recognition, and someone who is clearly profit-driven. The t-shirts were just the icing on the cake. I want to believe her so bad, but ever single day, she, or someone she is associated with, does something so asininely trivial, that it forces me to question her abilities as a doctor. Bipedalist put it quite eloquently in his post. In an effort to be a glass-half-full kinda guy... maybe what she has is so locked up and airtight that she doesn't have to worry about "perception"? Like maybe the science can't be disputed plus she has HD pics and vids? I know this is not likely but if that were the case then she would pretty much have free reign to do and say whatever she wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 If she'd really kept to protocol, there would have been NOTHING released at all, but she decided to respond to the leaks, which was a huge mistake. And she got pounded for "claiming but not showing evidence". She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. And then she loses the chance to get her paper properly reviewed and published, which would give Skeptics all they needed to dismiss it as illegitimate. The process calls for data sequestration until the end of the process. You can't condemn her for trying to maximize her chance to make it to publication just to satisfy a bunch of self-righteous Internet Skeptics (and a few proponents) with inflated senses of entitlement. And then she loses the chance to get her paper properly reviewed and published, which would give Skeptics all they needed to dismiss it as illegitimate. The process calls for data sequestration until the end of the process. You can't condemn her for trying to maximize her chance to make it to publication just to satisfy a bunch of self-righteous Internet Skeptics (and a few proponents) with inflated senses of entitlement. I fail to see where or how Ketchum has been transparent in any way. I've only heard fantastic claims. What if Ketchum never publishes? What if she branches out into sasquatch merchandising and DVD sales of said report instead? (with no backing data offered to date, one must question what has been reported) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 12, 2013 SSR Team Share Posted January 12, 2013 In an effort to be a glass-half-full kinda guy... maybe what she has is so locked up and airtight that she doesn't have to worry about "perception"? Like maybe the science can't be disputed plus she has HD pics and vids? I know this is not likely but if that were the case then she would pretty much have free reign to do and say whatever she wants. It's a possibility of course. But if that's the case, where's the logic in releasing details of that petition BEFORE the release of the paper. Like i said to her, if she released it AFTER the paper came out, she wouldn't be looking or needing 25k signatures, she'd be looking at 25m signatures, no danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 It's a possibility of course. But if that's the case, where's the logic in releasing details of that petition BEFORE the release of the paper. Like i said to her, if she released it AFTER the paper came out, she wouldn't be looking or needing 25k signatures, she'd be looking at 25m signatures, no danger. Because if it really is as air-tight as I had described, then there is a financial windfall on the horizon for her, and any kind of buzz she can create is good... ESPECIALLY if you can stick it to nay-sayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts