bipedalist Posted January 15, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 15, 2012 Ok, when it hits the fan, where am I supposed to look for the splat so I won't miss it? I'd go to BFEvidence blog (Shawn's site); because unless things improve dramatically his forum will not be accessible. If not there go to facebook and link to Shawn's identity or a similar blog or info. sharing site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I know you have said this before bigfootnis, but why do think there is no study? I understand perfectly why it is taking years to complete. I was doubtful that a paper was even written but evidently Dr. Ketchum says it is. My understanding is it can take up to 18 months for peer review and you must submit the paper one journal at a time. Depending on where it is in the process, we could be waiting one more day or several years depending on Dr. Ketchum's perserverance. Jodie, I say this out of frustration. I do admit that Dr. Kethum says a paper has been written and I don't have any reason to believe she is not telling the truth. I am more frustrated by the discussion about the results of the study. Underlying the comments in this thread is that the Ketchum study has proved the existence of bf and that the discussion is whether or not bf is human or ape. It might as well have been said "I have seen Dr. Ketchum's study and it does indeed conclusively prove the existence of bf. My interpretation of the results are this and that and so and so interpretation is this and that. Somewhere else in this thread someone posted "why are we pretending like bf has been conclusively proven to exist." I have no proof of this but it feels like to me that some posters are attempting to "build faith" in the Ketchum project. The fact that this "study" is tied to a "documentary" that will be for sale raises red flags in my head. I also find the NDA excuses lacking. Finally, I do not think that a dna study can prove the existance of bf. A dna study can only tell us what bf "is" after we have obtained a body. I do think a paper will be published in some form. I am extremely doubtful that is will be published in a well recognized academic scientific journal. I do want to note that known of this comes from Dr. Ketchum. As far as I know, she has only said she has done a study and presented it for publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Oh I see bigfootnis, well I don't disagree with a thing you have said. Like you, I think you need a body to go along with the DNA results to prove it's bigfoot. I personally think there is a lot more strange and unidentified critters roaming around out in the rural areas than just bigfoot, at least in my area. I'll be thankful if we can definitively say something exists that is officially undiscovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Don't know if this is old information or not, or if it has been posted on BFF or not: http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/nabs_team_members.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 We won't say who said this on Facebook, but here's a heads up about Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA Study: "Be forewarned: The BF DNA is about to hit the fan." When questioned about the statement, the person replied: "I have been sworn to secrecy deeper than any NDA. Sorry, but watch out...." This is exactly what I am talking about. This is no different than someone saying "I know someone who ate lunch with Dr. Ketchum yesterday and advised that Dr. Ketchum is having great fun with all the nut jobs in the bf world by pretending to be publishing a paper that proves bf" This is not a quote from slimwitness but a quote from an unnamed person on Facebook by "Bigfoot evidcne blog" of which slim witness was quoting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) Parn, I didn't ask my question clearly enough. Adding US and Canada populations, one gets (311+34) million individuals. Has Ketchum found a handful of eccentrics spread out across the continent, but whose sequences aren't recorded in genbanks? I wondered to Sas, how confident he'd be that Ketchum had only gotten H Sapiens DNA, but I take your point that there is a limited number of sequences to compare. last month I drove from my home to a major city, flew from one coast to the other, then to the third coast, then to a foreign country, then to another place in that country. I could easily have returned via another city in the US. capiche? only takes one guy to collect specimens in one place, then mail them in from all over the place. Takes 20 bucks to set up a drop box. Again, I'm just giving a hypothetical, not accusing anyone of anything. The point is that provenance of the data does mean something. The obvious fact remains that specimens collected from, say, isolated tribal people, are H. sapiens, though "unusual" in the sense that they may not be in GenBank. So while Stubstad or Ketchum may get excited about them, no competent peer reviewer would allow them to be called anything other than H. sapiens. So, in this scenario, Ketchum/Paulides has to make "Bigfoot" human. How would that fly with peer reviewers? Well, as I have outlined previously, I think it's a pretty ridiculous cop out, to say that the popular Bigfoots, the possessor of all the non-human, super-human, infra-human qualities, features, and capabilities... are actually modern humans. That's my opinion. Having said that, I have no doubt that there is some journal or magazine somewhere that would publish it. Hypothetically. IMHO. Edited January 15, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 This is exactly what I am talking about. This is no different than someone saying "I know someone who ate lunch with Dr. Ketchum yesterday and advised that Dr. Ketchum is having great fun with all the nut jobs in the bf world by pretending to be publishing a paper that proves bf" This is not a quote from slimwitness but a quote from an unnamed person on Facebook by "Bigfoot evidcne blog" of which slim witness was quoting. This is a Bigfoot forum, not the editorial board of The New York Times. I've heard plenty of things that would fall into the category you're describing. I don't pass on that stuff (even though some of the information is pretty interesting). That said, it's really up to you to filter. Personally, I'd rather have the data and decide for myself. You're right though, almost everything we know about this study is second hand. Anyway, I wouldn't post something if I didn't think there was something interesting about it. In this case, I've been told the identity of the FB poster and I think he's credible. But yeah, someone could have lied to him. He could have lied on FB. Shawn could have lied about the whole thing. I could be lying right now. I get it. Typically I'll preface those kind of things with FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Jodie, I say this out of frustration. I do admit that Dr. Kethum says a paper has been written and I don't have any reason to believe she is not telling the truth. I am more frustrated by the discussion about the results of the study. Underlying the comments in this thread is that the Ketchum study has proved the existence of bf and that the discussion is whether or not bf is human or ape. It might as well have been said "I have seen Dr. Ketchum's study and it does indeed conclusively prove the existence of bf. My interpretation of the results are this and that and so and so interpretation is this and that. Somewhere else in this thread someone posted "why are we pretending like bf has been conclusively proven to exist." I have no proof of this but it feels like to me that some posters are attempting to "build faith" in the Ketchum project. The fact that this "study" is tied to a "documentary" that will be for sale raises red flags in my head. I also find the NDA excuses lacking. Finally, I do not think that a dna study can prove the existance of bf. A dna study can only tell us what bf "is" after we have obtained a body. I do think a paper will be published in some form. I am extremely doubtful that is will be published in a well recognized academic scientific journal. I do want to note that known of this comes from Dr. Ketchum. As far as I know, she has only said she has done a study and presented it for publication. Can you provide any evidence that anyone besides Adrian Erickson stands to profit from the footage he has obtained? I have seen at least a half dozen of your posts speculating that the delay or build up is some type of effort to boost DVD sales. Melba Ketchum and all of the other researchers involved have no rights to Erickson's footage, and have no reason to participate in a hype campaign to boost sales of his movie. On top of that, if reports are correct, the amount of money Erickson has sunk into his research has left little chance that he will even recoup the money he has spent on his efforts. If all of these people were involved if some hype build up, I would think they would have handled this much differently. They would have let anticipation build to a fever pitch, then delivered the payoff to maximize interest and profits. Letting their target audience become frustrated and almost apathetic isn't the most effective way to cash in. Not everything is some sinister plot to get into your wallet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Can you provide any evidence that anyone besides Adrian Erickson stands to profit from the footage he has obtained? I have seen at least a half dozen of your posts speculating that the delay or build up is some type of effort to boost DVD sales. I'm sure bigfootnis can't , other than through the possibility that Ericksons samples helps confirm the validity of others and vice versa. I don't believe he is all that concerned or "frustrated" about accurate information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Can you provide any evidence that anyone besides Adrian Erickson stands to profit from the footage he has obtained? I have seen at least a half dozen of your posts speculating that the delay or build up is some type of effort to boost DVD sales. Melba Ketchum and all of the other researchers involved have no rights to Erickson's footage, and have no reason to participate in a hype campaign to boost sales of his movie. On top of that, if reports are correct, the amount of money Erickson has sunk into his research has left little chance that he will even recoup the money he has spent on his efforts. If all of these people were involved if some hype build up, I would think they would have handled this much differently. They would have let anticipation build to a fever pitch, then delivered the payoff to maximize interest and profits. Letting their target audience become frustrated and almost apathetic isn't the most effective way to cash in. Not everything is some sinister plot to get into your wallet. Wasnt it the Sierra Shooting and the BF Steak that kicked interest in the study to all time highs? I cant see much orchestration in all this. By the way, if it is true that they can proof BF, thats nothing short of what Dr. Ketchum is mentioned to have stated publicly on a Radio show, I think, they dont need to somehow push interesst. That would be worldwide No1 News, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sallaranda Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) I've been out of the picture for a while now. Can anyone answer my simple question - any tentative release date set for the publishing of this evidence? Edited January 16, 2012 by grayjay content double posted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Not that I'm aware of..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sallaranda Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 So it's basically 49 pages of speculation, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 That's about right, hope you didn't waste your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Parn, you wrote in post #1446, "capiche? only takes one guy to collect specimens in one place, then mail them in from all over the place. Takes 20 bucks to set up a drop box. Again, I'm just giving a hypothetical, not accusing anyone of anything. The point is that provenance of the data does mean something." But Robert Lindsay reports that the 28 samples collected by Ketchum came in the form of hair, blood, a finger nail, and something associated with a skunk. How does your fraud scenario hold up if the DNA came from diverse tissues, unless Ketchum only sent off pure strands of extracted DNA to be tested? The large scale tissues can obviously be examined, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts