Drew Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 With a hatchet? Kai style? (Sorry...couldn't resist.) YES LIKE KAI! SMASH SMASH SUHMASH!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 So someone walks up to a sleeping Bigfoot, undetected, aims a camera at it, from 4 feet away, and only secures footage of it's hips and legs? Would this sleeping Bigfoot have woken up if they had moved six inches to the right and gotten it's head? Why didn't the camera man put the camera down, and jump on it with a hatchet? Even if he doesn't kill it, he's got a chunk of BF meat being carved out while on camera. I have a theory. Either they knew if the thing 'woke up' on camera, it would look like dog poo. Or they did film the thing waking up, and it looked like dog poo. So either way, we are never going to see the Asthmatic beast stand up on camera. What is the premise for the camera being 4 feet away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 So here's a question, if Ketchum's paper is sloppy and poorly constructed, how did it pass peer-review(as she claims) at the journal she aquired? Peer review is somewhat ambiguous. "Peer" by definition does not mean expert or qualified, but someone at the same level. Not to say that the reviewers were either not experts or not qualified - I don't know as I have not seen the reviews or know the reviewers. It is not uncommon for the authors to submit a list of potential reviewers, sometimes the editor takes the suggestions, sometimes not. If the editor is not well versed in the topic, I would think they might be more inclined to take these suggestions. Given that the this fledgling journal has no history (prior to MKs acquisition), makes me think this might have happened. If it was Dr. Swenson who reviewed the paper for the journal, I think we can understand how this paper passed peer review, given his comments. But this is all just speculation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I've read that one of these Matilda videos was already determined to be a hoax by Bill Munns. The walking/growling Matilda footage was just a Chewbacca mask. But we are supposed to trust them here... this video of a ballooning blobsquatch in HD is the real deal, yessiree. You know, it would be very beneficial for "verification of statement" if a link is provided. IMO, there is just way too many reported "accuracies" of which is nothing more than an alleged event.....i.e., a "rumor". No wonder there is so much division within the Bigfoot community on what is fact, and what is a fallacy. It appears with a better than 67.9% accuracy that people are relying on (or readily and willing too) "hearsay". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Given Violet's phone conversation, is it safe to say the Erickson Project is an elaborate hoax whose bluff has been called? No funding? What?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Given Violet's phone conversation, is it safe to say the Erickson Project is an elaborate hoax whose bluff has been called? No funding? What?! Has anyone here seen the footage? IMHO it could be he is wanting to make it into spme kind of a blockbuster and is not getting the bites he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) ...But, this was the ultimate goal, to get legitimate scientist to take a hard look at the DNA and Bigfoot as a living, breathing, biological entity. Bingo. Edited February 19, 2013 by PsyShroom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) I've read that one of these Matilda videos was already determined to be a hoax by Bill Munns. The walking/growling Matilda footage was just a Chewbacca mask. You're confusing several things here...Erickson had one video that was submitted to him reviewed by Bill Munns. Munns analyzed it and came to the conclusion that it used a mask. Erickson then decided not to use this video. It is not related to the footage he and his team have taken, and not related to the footage of Matilda. Edited February 19, 2013 by gershake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) What is the premise for the camera being 4 feet away? Watching the video, the camera is close to the subject, look at how slight movements of the camera make big jumps in the frame. It is less than 10 feet, 4 feet was a guess. Has anyone seen any of the peer-reviews? Why wouldn't Dr. Ketchum post the peer reviews to lend credence to her claim that the paper was peer reviewed? Treadstone, watch this video. It debunks it perfectly, and supports the idea that it is close to the camera. Edited February 19, 2013 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Big jumps by camera = digital zoom-in. If you're that close physically, it wouldn't jump as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 And how did the sample even get passed the screening process? I would think the hair samples were considered on circumstance and morphology. It's obvious that it was not assumed that the hair would not have a medulla or that they would match "human" criteria in every respect. The notable differences are in fact in the medulla and root structure followed by a cuticle scale pattern shift from proximal to distal ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Drew - what show was that clip from? They are pretty much saying what most in this community are saying... Thanks for posting the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Watching the video, the camera is close to the subject, look at how slight movements of the camera make big jumps in the frame. It is less than 10 feet, 4 feet was a guess. Has anyone seen any of the peer-reviews? Why wouldn't Dr. Ketchum post the peer reviews to lend credence to her claim that the paper was peer reviewed? Treadstone, watch this video. It debunks it perfectly, and supports the idea that it is close to the camera. Actually.... the further you are away the bigger the jump in the frame would be for slight movements. I did not watch the video but if it's built on this premise it's completely WRONG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Orygun Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Watching the video, the camera is close to the subject, look at how slight movements of the camera make big jumps in the frame. I think that supports a long telephoto lens far away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Of the anti Ketchum people, for lack of a better descriptive, as the nebulous group has believers, skeptics, and everyone in between, I would ask who, or what list of scientists would you have review the study to determine its scientific validity, excluding those who have already dismissed it out of hand? perhaps an ad hoc panel could be seated to do just this. But, isnt it customary or normal for the scientific community to do this as a matter of course, without the need to specifically ask or perhaps prod them to? I can somewhat understand scientists who view the Sasquatch field as a joke not wanting to taint their reputations by being involved due to their bias towards the subject, but really the only real danger in doing a thorough, solid review by these same scientists is that of finding the study accurate. at least in the overall goals and determinationss of the paper. Their reputations would certainly remain the same if they reviewed and found it to be inaccurate, they could, and probably would ridicule the study and just add their voices to the din. Only if they couldn't justifiably diss it and felt morally obligated to verify it, and the landmark conclusions it entails would they be subject to their reputation being affected. So maybe a real review by the science community is fraught with dangers for the scientists. Maybe personal and moral courage of the prospective reviewers will determine if the study is genuinely vetted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts