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

[Guest]

I think it has been beat to death in other threads, so for the sake of the forum's capacity, let's just leave it in this thread for now.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

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

Don't you admit that there are no bf hairs found yet?

It can be true but in order for it to be accepted, it has to be proven. No? Hairs are more than an idea or story. They are tangible. Unlike eyewitness accounts and photos, bf hairs can be proven to be (or at least proven to be dissimilar to anything known). People can say they have bf hair but they must show that they do in order for it to be true with me. If I were playing poker against the person I trust most in the world, they can't just say they won. They must flip over their cards. If they don't, they are probably hiding something that they don't want me to see. I can't accept anything less. Try this as an experiment as to what I am saying; Go to a racetrack and tell the mutual clerk that you won the first race. When the guy asks for your ticket, say "no, it's not needed". What happens next applies to what I am saying.

Unfortunately, there have been no bf hairs found yet.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Don't you admit that there are no bf hairs found yet?

It can be true but in order for it to be accepted, it has to be proven. No? Hairs are more than an idea or story. They are tangible. Unlike eyewitness accounts and photos, bf hairs can be proven to be (or at least proven to be dissimilar to anything known). People can say they have bf hair but they must show that they do in order for it to be true with me. If I were playing poker against the person I trust most in the world, they can't just say they won. They must flip over their cards. If they don't, they are probably hiding something that they don't want me to see. I can't accept anything less. Try this as an experiment as to what I am saying; Go to a racetrack and tell the mutual clerk that you won the first race. When the guy asks for your ticket, say "no, it's not needed". What happens next applies to what I am saying.

Unfortunately, there have been no bf hairs found yet.

Using that logic, you also question the footprints as well then I take it. Not saying I disagree...just asking.

[Guest]

Go to a racetrack and tell the mutual clerk that you won the first race. When the guy asks for your ticket, say "no, it's not needed". What happens next applies to what I am saying.

It worked! Awesome!

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

I realize everyone should be able to think what they want. This is just my opinion, but yes, what made the footprints has to be proven to me as well in order for me to accept it. I'm not a skeptic, I'm just waiting.

If you are a skeptic, there probably is only one answer to what made human-like footprints, man. If you are a proponent, there should be nothing less than two answers at this point to what made them, bigfoot or man. Two doesn't cut it with me. It has to be only one possible outcome, which can be proven. A bf that made any set of prints has not been proven to me at this point. If a proponent is able to get it down to one possible outcome, that would be fine. It's great news if someone finds prints because it might be a lead, but it might be the results of a hoax as well. Is it right to dismiss either possibility without proof of either?

I won't conclude that it was man that made the footprints either, if that has yet to be proven.

Sorry about the rant, this was just an average boring fence-sitter philosophy. Nothing really new or groundbreaking from me here. October 1st is taking too long to arrive.

It worked! Awesome!

Schweeet

I hope it was a large bet.

[Guest]

I realize everyone should be able to think what they want. This is just my opinion, but yes, what made the footprints has to be proven to me as well in order for me to accept it. I'm not a skeptic, I'm just waiting.

If you are a skeptic, there probably is only one answer to what made human-like footprints, man. If you are a proponent, there should be nothing less than two answers at this point to what made them, bigfoot or man. Two doesn't cut it with me. It has to be only one possible outcome, which can be proven. A bf that made any set of prints has not been proven to me at this point. If a proponent is able to get it down to one possible outcome, that would be fine. It's great news if someone finds prints because it might be a lead, but it might be the results of a hoax as well. Is it right to dismiss either possibility without proof of either?

I won't conclude that it was man that made the footprints either, if that has yet to be proven.

Sorry about the rant, this was just an average boring fence-sitter philosphy. Nothing really new or groundbreaking from me here. October 1st is taking too long to arrive.

I understand that, but if you do not think they are all outright hoaxes, yet you don't think it is necessarily bigfoot or human, then you must at least admit that whatever phenomenon is causing these "human-like" footprints is quite mysterious in-and-of-itself, regardless of whether bigfoot is involved at all.

There's something out there causing all of these footprints- you admit they exist. WHATEVER is causing them is unknown to man; bigfoot or otherwise.

[yowiie]

Don't you admit that there are no bf hairs found yet?

It can be true but in order for it to be accepted, it has to be proven. No? Hairs are more than an idea or story. They are tangible. Unlike eyewitness accounts and photos, bf hairs can be proven to be (or at least proven to be dissimilar to anything known). People can say they have bf hair but they must show that they do in order for it to be true with me. If I were playing poker against the person I trust most in the world, they can't just say they won. They must flip over their cards. If they don't, they are probably hiding something that they don't want me to see. I can't accept anything less. Try this as an experiment as to what I am saying; Go to a racetrack and tell the mutual clerk that you won the first race. When the guy asks for your ticket, say "no, it's not needed". What happens next applies to what I am saying.

Unfortunately, there have been no bf hairs found yet.

FG,

Correct me if I'm wrong, I do beleive that hair has been collected and documented as being from BF. DR Fahrenbach has analised hairs from the USA and has stated that they are from a primate beleived to be BF/sasquatch hair

[Guest RayG]

How can that be when no bigfoot has been collected and documented?

And Fahrenbach himself has said that the hairs he has are "effectively indistinguishable from a human hair", "too fragmented to permit gene sequencing", and that he is "concentrating now on blood or tissue, as the hair holds no promise."

RayG

[yowiie]

How can that be when no bigfoot has been collected and documented?

And Fahrenbach himself has said that the hairs he has are "effectively indistinguishable from a human hair", "too fragmented to permit gene sequencing", and that he is "concentrating now on blood or tissue, as the hair holds no promise."

RayG

Is it really necessary for a bigfoot to be collected and the hair analised. If there are enough samples collected from around the globe with identical properties, surely this would help the cause.

[Guest]

More spite aimed at the skeptic, heh Mulder?

No, calling Skeptic psuedo-argumentation for what it really is: an attempt to ruin the all-important "first impression" of the Ketchum Paper, sight unseen.

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.

Any other time and Parn (and you, and Ray, and a half dozen others) would be climbing the walls griping about "unfounded speculation" on the part of proponents...now suddenly you're INVITING it?

Sorry, jerry, not falling for it.

Perhaps, a new thread would be warranted.

Frankly, THIS thread isn't warranted. It's done more harm than good by allowing Skeptics to throw mud and poo all over the paper before it's even out. Dr Ketchum has had her personal motivations, business ethics and scientifc credentials drug through the mud in an attempt to make her results look questionable when no one knows what those results even are (at least no one who is talking, Paulides' claims notwithstanding).

Don't you admit that there are no bf hairs found yet?

It can be true but in order for it to be accepted, it has to be proven. No? Hairs are more than an idea or story. They are tangible. Unlike eyewitness accounts and photos, bf hairs can be proven to be (or at least proven to be dissimilar to anything known). People can say they have bf hair but they must show that they do in order for it to be true with me. If I were playing poker against the person I trust most in the world, they can't just say they won. They must flip over their cards. If they don't, they are probably hiding something that they don't want me to see. I can't accept anything less. Try this as an experiment as to what I am saying; Go to a racetrack and tell the mutual clerk that you won the first race. When the guy asks for your ticket, say "no, it's not needed". What happens next applies to what I am saying.

Unfortunately, there have been no bf hairs found yet.

FG,

Correct me if I'm wrong, I do beleive that hair has been collected and documented as being from BF. DR Fahrenbach has analised hairs from the USA and has stated that they are from a primate beleived to be BF/sasquatch hair

As did Tom Moore, of the Wyoming Department of Fish and Game, back in the 70s. Multiple hairs from different finds, all typed, analyzed and found to be "unknown primate" hairs, not matching any other primate on record.

How can that be when no bigfoot has been collected and documented?

And Fahrenbach himself has said that the hairs he has are "effectively indistinguishable from a human hair", "too fragmented to permit gene sequencing", and that he is "concentrating now on blood or tissue, as the hair holds no promise."RayG

That simply means that he is no longer actively persuing new hair analyses...he has not recanted his initial findings, nor would any such recantation rebut the independent findings of Moore (among others)

Edited August 29, 2011 by Mulder

[Guest slimwitless]

That's a good point.

I think so. But I don't think I made it very well so I'll offer this variation.

If Paulides still thinks bigfoot is human (a Native American of some sort) would he be on the radio asking for a body or a skeleton for inclusion in the study?

I think his views on sasquatch are either more complicated than I've read here or they've evolved as a result of Ketchum's findings. That's all.

[southernyahoo]

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.

My only prediction could be that bigfoot is not entirely fiction. I've been told certain things about the circumstantial physical evidence found in an area of sightings. I tend to take the word of credentialed scientists in good faith until I have good reason not to.

[Guest Forbig]

My only prediction could be that bigfoot is not entirely fiction. I've been told certain things about the circumstantial physical evidence found in an area of sightings. I tend to take the word of credentialed scientists in good faith until I have good reason not to.

On October first when Ketchum breaks out the news we won't have to wonder what is fiction and what is not. We probably won't even get to talk about anything on any Bigfoot forum because there'll be all these closet bigfooters coming out congesting the websites. We'll have to take a sabbatical until things calm down.

[Guest gershake]

On October first when Ketchum breaks out the news we won't have to wonder what is fiction and what is not. We probably won't even get to talk about anything on any Bigfoot forum because there'll be all these closet bigfooters coming out congesting the websites. We'll have to take a sabbatical until things calm down.

Your word into you-know-who's ear...

Edited August 29, 2011 by gershake

[Guest Forbig]

Now that they turned it into a Festival I have to decide if I should go, maybe all of us on the intrigued side can plan to meet up there.