Dr. Melba Ketchum Schedule To Speak About Sasquatch Dna On October 1, 2011

[Guest]

Did anyone hear David Paulides on Coast-to-Coast last night? He was only one for a few minutes in the first hour and he said the DNA project was 90 to 95% complete. My radio reception wasn't that good, but I believe he also said that six Ph.D.s were involved in writing the paper that was going to be (or is in?) peer review for publication in a major journal.

It's from the August 25th show here. There's a 2 minute news section on Paulides, starting about the 6:56 mark.

[Hairy Man]

Dude - you rock! Thanks for posting that. So it's six Ph.D.'s working on the paper and it has not been submitted as yet. There is no way that Ketchum can discuss the results then in October. The paper is only 90-95% done and no journal can move that fast. Personally, if I had to chose, I would go to the TBRC Conference and listen to Ian Redmond - who is probably one of the coolest humans on earth.

[Guest gershake]

If this is true, I'm going to gnash my teeth, pull my hair out, and scream.

:D Very nice translation, Jodie.

[Guest]

:D Very nice translation, Jodie.

I aim to please most of the time.

[slabdog]

It's from the August 25th show here. There's a 2 minute news section on Paulides, starting about the 6:56 mark.

So Paulides (Notice I'm keeping this focused on him) decides to give an "update" (which wasn't much of an update by the way) on Coast to Coast.

The very same show that strung us along with the "Bugs" hoax.

Wow.

Nice.

Smacks of entertainment and hype to me.

So much for an NDA.

_______________

(Back to patiently waiting mode)

[bipedalist]

A followup after a year and a half of one minute about says it. BTW how does one determine when one's paper is 90-95 percent done? Stick a fork in it?

[Guest slimwitless]

I'm just glad to hear they're "probably" still looking for a body.

[Guest]

parnassus wrote:

"Whether or not you are able to objectively criticize your own posts or the many other posts that are blowing smoke, giving misinformation or actual gibberish, you might consider a more "moderate" approach to posts of those with whom you disagree or towards whom you have some animosity".

With all respect Jodie, I think he has a point here.

Edited August 27, 2011 by tuckybuzzard

[Guest]

parnassus wrote:

"Whether or not you are able to objectively criticize your own posts or the many other posts that are blowing smoke, giving misinformation or actual gibberish, you might consider a more "moderate" approach to posts of those with whom you disagree or towards whom you have some animosity".

With all respect Jodie, I think he has a point here.

Well I need someone to tell me who it is that I disagree with or have a problem with first, then we can go from there, because I have no idea what either of you are talking about. If it is in this thread let me suggest that you both go back from the start and reread where I came in, otherwise, if there are any complaints, with all due respect PM the admin about it.

[gigantor]

A followup after a year and a half of one minute about says it. BTW how does one determine when one's paper is 90-95 percent done? Stick a fork in it?

I thought it was already out for review and we were just waiting to hear whether it was accepted or not.

Seriously, if it's not even out for review yet, then most of the hype is bs. It could easily be another year before the paper gets rejected by many journals. Then they'll have to keep shopping until one agrees to publish it.

Edited August 28, 2011 by gigantor

[Guest]

Straw man. How many times do I have to write "speculation." really. This board is 98 or so percent speculation woven around a light sprinkling of facts.

You left out the heavy overspicing of Skeptic cynicism...

I've gone over this several times. It's connect the dots. Snelgrove Lake fiasco. Population genetics. Paulides statements. Paulides books, and Paulides- Ketchum internet radio show. Ketchum statements. Ketchums background. PaUlides background.

The Skeptics are the ones that keep bringing it up...

The odds of suddenly obtaining multiple samples from across the country of a very very hard to find animal.

That may turn out to be easier to find (at least trace evidence of) than we thought. This is the first time a reputable scientist has been willing to give the evidence the full workup.

The marketability of the "Bigfoot is human" story within the target demographic.

Certain connections I have within the scientific community.

Special knowledge pleading...one of the tell-tale signs of a psuedo-argument.

The apparently truthful statement that at least two samples of mtDNA are human.

And that invalidates all the other samples how?

All in all, another round of "poisoning the well"...make sure you sow plenty of doubt about a paper you haven't even seen yet...

[Guest]

Sas, That's not fair comparison about the bird vs. BF.

One person saw the one bird once in decades in a secluded swamp!(Perhaps)

How many BF reports do we have about BF?

How many:

Reports from reliable witnesses such as Game Wardens, military men on deployment wood training,Policemen,everyday citizens who are terrified, researchers, and just plain ole folks?

That's way too many people to entirely dismiss, not to mention the pictures from just regular folks.

And the hairs, and the tracks, etc etc...

[Guest slimwitless]

Maybe I'm reading too much into Paulides comment that they're probably still looking for a body or complete skeleton (forget about the word "probably" for now). Doesn't that speak volumes as to whether he believes sasquatch is human? After all, wouldn't there be ethical and legal considerations if someone called and offered up what Paulides believes to be a human body (however unusual) as a specimen?

[Guest]

Maybe I'm reading too much into Paulides comment that they're probably still looking for a body or complete skeleton (forget about the word "probably" for now). Doesn't that speak volumes as to whether he believes sasquatch is human? After all, wouldn't there be ethical and legal considerations if someone called and offered up what Paulides believes to be a human body (however unusual) as a specimen?

That's a good point.

[Guest]

All in all, another round of "poisoning the well"...make sure you sow plenty of doubt about a paper you haven't even seen yet...

More spite aimed at the skeptic, heh Mulder? Parnassus has offered speculation concerning the upcoming DNA report based on his understanding of the issues. I have done likewise. It is a good exercise that puts one's cards on the table before the last hand is dealt. It is honest and it is a test of one's ideas concerning Bigfoot phenomena.

Now, why don't you join in and give us your speculative prediction? That is one of the hallmarks of rational thought, is it not? If we have an understanding of an issue, we should be able to predict certain future outcomes, more or less, right? None of us have read the report yet, that is true. That is the point. Give us your speculation and the reasoning behind it and get out on the limb with Parn and me, Don't hide behind pot shots at skeptics.

Also, I think it would be great for other regular posters to give us their predictions with attendant reasoning. This would be an interesting experiment in thought, testing our understanding of the many issues involved. Perhaps, a new thread would be warranted.