Guest Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Wise choice of emoticon use. I wish I did as well as you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 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. It's not disrespectful to ask this type of question at all Hoosier... Right now- staff's main reason for keeping an eye open for similar threads, and posts that have long quotes in them with "i agree" afterwards and duplicate posts etc etc is driven by the fact that we are in a daily battle to keep the site performing as it should. Since the new BFF 2.0 came into creation, there have been periods of incredible membership growth- one of which we're experiencing right now. As that happens, and each member stores an avatar, a signature, and starts creating threads and adds their new posts to existing threads- its started to exceed the sites bandwidth capacity and storage capacity- in other words the site starts running slower, and problems like error messages, duplicate posts, and private messages and posts that just "disappear" become much more common. There is an anticipated switch (when exactly i do not know) from the current ISP server to a virtual server- one which will be (im told) an extreme improvement in regards to meeting the crush of new members and all their content. In the meantime- we have to look for opportunities to compress what's here, and to combine common topics of discussion. Your patience and understanding is appreciated.... Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) Edited October 19, 2011 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 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. I won't quibble with you on the above point about an affirmative statement about a negative. So here is my affirmative undisputed factual statement. "as of this date, Dr. Ketchum has presented zero dna evidence to the public that bigfoot exists" I welcome any evidence that disproves this fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I don't think anyone here would disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 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. I don't disagree with you when you say that such a statement is a hunch. Unless you have inside information, all statements on this issue is a hunch. What I disagree with is that I can't make such a statement if it is made in a respectful manner. A hunch is based on life experience and common sense and it is not baseless. For example, the first person to have bf proof will gather much more fame and money than the second person. Tesla? Therefore, there is a strong motivation to make public proof of bf as quickly as possible or risk being upstaged by the guy who runs over bf with a truck. If the Georgia boys really did have a body, do you think we would be discussing this right now? These are the type of facts and arguments that inform my "hunch." A hunch is not baseless. Instead, it is not dispositive. There is a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I won't quibble with you on the above point about an affirmative statement about a negative. So here is my affirmative undisputed factual statement. "as of this date, Dr. Ketchum has presented zero dna evidence to the public that bigfoot exists" I welcome any evidence that disproves this fact. Thats very revealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 SY- I don't think I've ever said thank you for posting the picture of your sample on here. I think that's more than most people participating have done. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Can you link me, please? I missed that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Can you link me, please? I missed that! He posted a pic in one of the threads, but it's all here. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 He posted a pic in one of the threads, but it's all here. Tim B. Your welcome for the pic and sharing of the evidence, we are trying to be as transparent as possible so that people can follow the progress of analysis on the sample. This is a better page to review our research and observations on the hairs, the DNA work obviously is under NDA and belongs to Dr. Ketchum. http://www.texlaresearch.com/hairanalysis.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) Your welcome for the pic and sharing of the evidence, we are trying to be as transparent as possible so that people can follow the progress of analysis on the sample. This is a better page to review our research and observations on the hairs, the DNA work obviously is under NDA and belongs to Dr. Ketchum. http://www.texlaresearch.com/hairanalysis.htm Why does testing of hairs result in them being kept secret and belonging to someone else? I've seen examples of hair samples sent to labs before and the procedure usually goes like this: Send in the sample - get the results. Also, it seems like they are "testing" these now for quite a long time. Exactly how long does it take to perform the DNA test on the hairs? Sure seems like something is awry. Almost every lab I've checked (many) give hair DNA test results in 5-7 days. Edited October 20, 2011 by 127 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted October 20, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted October 20, 2011 A primer on hair analysis: http://www.cengagesites.com/academic/assets/sites/4827/chapter3_Bertino.pdf Scroll to 11 of 28 (p. 58) for DNA. Slanted towards forensics but a good primer. Also: http://www2.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2005/standards/2005_04_standards02.htm#p11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) I disagree that the burden of proof lies on the skeptic. We aren't in court and Bigfoot isn't accused of "not existing". When it comes to the scientific evidence of support of a position. First the supporters of the "new discovery" must present their evidence "proving" their hypothesis. Then the skeptics, peers and what not get the chance to peruse said evidence looking for discrepancies, problems, false positives...etc Then , and only then, after the evidence has been judged to be on the up and up and definitive, is the new subject then allowed to be entered into the modern taxonomy. In other words, it's the burden of the believer to prove it's existence. Not on the skeptic to prove it doesn't... edit: a dead body isn't the only proof. I don't think that new ox thing they found in Asia a few years back was killed. They just interacted and filmed it and took tons of measurements. They then were able to take other scientists back to see it for themselves... Nor all of those new reptiles in Madagascar. But they had nice, detailed closeup photos and video, and scale drawings...etc Edited October 20, 2011 by StankApe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts