Guest Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Oh ya. This is the biggest rumor mill on the net. You have that right for sure. My hope is that whoever has the other half of the chunk is as far away from the project as possible and can come forward of this project never comes to a completion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 And to be fair, the reports of infighting haven't come from the supposed infighters. They've come from unidentified sources and people with connections to Biscardi. He did turn in some samples early on in the project, but none that he acquired, and I have no idea if the samples made the cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted October 17, 2011 Admin Share Posted October 17, 2011 Merged with SS from A-Z. The lead topic is broad enough to include this discussion. Please carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 No disrespect intended, still kinda new here. But why are so many threads merged together? It is nearly impossible to go back 40 pages if you want to reference a comment. I try to make a specific question out of one piece of a topic, and it gets rolled in with a bunch of other stuff. Someone logs in tomorrow and sees the most recent page, and they won't even see a question I asked. It is just a comment amongst the other thousands. I don't know how everyone else uses the forum, but I log in and check for "new" questions and topics. It would take all day to read a 40 page thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 You ain't alone there ~ CROW ~ Tim ~ Me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Post #1162 from the " Sierra Shooting from A-Z " thread added to the growing List.. I think we need a separate thread for those posts (since they all say the same thing and add little, if nothing, to the discussion). We could call it, "History Is On My Side (Or Why The Ketchum Project Will Fail)". Posts critical of the project will still be allowed elsewhere but they have to be substantive. They should contain revelations like, "Ketchum is leaking info to Robert Lindsay while secretly betting against her own success on a prediction market in Ireland" or "DNA Diagnostics is a front company financed by Jack Links Jerky." This next one would really blow my mind: "The mailing address for NABS is a mental hospital for the criminally insane." In other words, I'd actually appreciate hearing some criticisms based on more than an obvious hunch. The real question for me is whether I'll actually press the "Add Reply" button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 In other words, I'd actually appreciate hearing some criticisms based on more than an obvious hunch. The real question for me is whether I'll actually press the "Add Reply" button. I am not sure what you mean here. Are you saying the criticisms of the Ketchum Erickson projects are baseless and merely someone's hunch. Show me some a video or some other evidence and I will give you a criticism if one is merited. Otherwise, when absolutely zero evidence is presented, we are all just speculating. The burden of proof rests with those who are arguing the positive. ie (Ketchum has a paper based upon dna analysis of a bigfoot shoot by a bear hunter that will end the debate of the existence of bigfoot) not with those who like me are taking the position that there is nothing to all of this until proven otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 No disrespect intended, still kinda new here. But why are so many threads merged together? It is nearly impossible to go back 40 pages if you want to reference a comment. I try to make a specific question out of one piece of a topic, and it gets rolled in with a bunch of other stuff. Someone logs in tomorrow and sees the most recent page, and they won't even see a question I asked. It is just a comment amongst the other thousands. I don't know how everyone else uses the forum, but I log in and check for "new" questions and topics. It would take all day to read a 40 page thread. agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 The burden of proof rests with those who are arguing the positive. Sorry, this is the writer in me parsing words and this is a small but important distinction. The burden of proof rests with those you make an affirmative statement. It is possible to affirm a negative. People do it quite often. These two statements are affirmative but have opposite meanings. “Dr. Ketchum has nothing.†(Affirming a negative) “Dr. Ketchum has proof.†(Affirming a positive) Both are saddled with the burden of proof. It’s the declarative statement that gets people in trouble because no one outside of the study knows for a fact whether Dr. K has proof or doesn’t have proof. The solution? Use a qualified affirmative. “I believe Dr. Ketchum has nothing.†“I believe Dr. Ketchum has proof.†Now you're removed from having to back up your statement with indisputable facts (If credibility is what you're going for). If the qualifer isn't used, it's fair to require skeptics to produce facts to support their statements, even if the statement is a negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alpinist Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Anyone who is presently arguing that there isn't evidence or enough evidence right now, pre-DNA report, hasn't read Dr. Bindernagles books or followed his arguments and presentations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 The burden of proof rests with those who are arguing the positive. No, the burden of proof rests with the accuser, not the accused. You don't win a court case for libel just by stating they are lying because there is no proof. You need to be able to show your own proof of your claims so people can't just go around accusing everyone of being liars or exaggerators for not getting what they want out of something. It is easier to accuse Ketchum of failing to provide evidence then it is to prove that she doesn't have any, isn't it? That burden goes on you if you claim she has nothing. Luckily our justice system doesn't work the way you had in mind in your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Anyone who is presently arguing that there isn't evidence or enough evidence right now, pre-DNA report, hasn't read Dr. Bindernagles books or followed his arguments and presentations. Did he write about the report that Ketchum is doing on the greasy hairy meat section that "General" found in the area he shot a "bigfoot"? Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 I am not sure what you mean here. Are you saying the criticisms of the Ketchum Erickson projects are baseless and merely someone's hunch. Show me some a video or some other evidence and I will give you a criticism if one is merited. Otherwise, when absolutely zero evidence is presented, we are all just speculating. The burden of proof rests with those who are arguing the positive. ie (Ketchum has a paper based upon dna analysis of a bigfoot shoot by a bear hunter that will end the debate of the existence of bigfoot) not with those who like me are taking the position that there is nothing to all of this until proven otherwise. Stating emphatically that Ketchum has no evidence and will fail isn't a criticism, it's a hunch. You can criticize her for not revealing what she knows but unless you have inside information, you can't make a blanket statement about her odds of success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Anyone who is presently arguing that there isn't evidence or enough evidence right now, pre-DNA report, hasn't read Dr. Bindernagles books or followed his arguments and presentations. you are probably correct that they haven't read his books. But that's probably also true of 6 billion other people MOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Crowlogic, where is this farm at? Is there good deer huntin, corn field's? Any food plots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts