Guest Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 Meanwhile, it's not the only game in town. We have Sykes/Satori on deck, the Falcon Project in the hole, and the "game" goes on if Ketchum somehow strikes out.
Guest Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) I thought we didn't care what scientists think? And who's on first? Edited February 2, 2013 by LTBF
Guest Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 I thought we didn't care what scientists think? And who's on first? Please do not misrepresent me again like this. I made it clear in that thread that I consider science a useful tool when it's properly used. Not all scientists are "bad" (though many may be considered not entirely "good" either), nor does having problems with particular misapplications and improper applications of science make one "anti-science". Get it right next time.
Guest Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 Who decides when it is properly used? You said science says bigfoot does not exist, but we are waiting on science to provide the DNA to say it does. Funny how science suits us when it supports our beliefs but is mostly bad when it opposes our views. Do we like Sykes/Satori/Meldrum? I guess we must wait to see what they say first. I don't care what you say you made clear, From now on, I will ask for you to be the official arbitor of a scientists credibility. FYI, I don't consider Ketchum a scientist and this is not an attack on her personally, just the combination of qualifications and poor scientific protocal.
Guest Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) To above question...Dennis Pfohl is with the Falcon Project last I read. I don't think any effort can come "to nothing" if it is ever released. Definitive work seems to elude most, and Ketchum appearing no different yet, for whatever reasons. Oxford looks like our future, whatever the outcome. I for one am determined to accept it! I do "know they are real - whatever they are," but am not interested in pushing that boundary if our best scientists cannot produce results...do you think a year from now is too soon to hope for that study? Edited February 5, 2013 by apehuman
GuyInIndiana Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 Whether or not anything ever comes from either study, I and the folks I camp and research with will just continue to do what we're already doing now. It's not going to change anything.
Guest Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 I don't care what you say you made clear, Any further misrepresentations about what I said, since you have been corrected on the issue I will let the Mods handle. FYI, I don't consider Ketchum a scientist I'm sure the school that educated her and the industry that employs her is shaking in it's boots. and this is not an attack on her personally, just the combination of qualifications and poor scientific protocal. Until you have seen her study, you cannot comment on her protocol. You have no idea what her protocol was, nor the protocols of the independent confirming labs.
Guest DWA Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 What if nothing comes of the Ketchum DNA/Olympic Project/Erickson films projects? What if by, say, February's end 2012 or insert a date of your choice, no paper or publicly available films or pictures have been released? Do we wait more months or years, with bated breath, awaiting the revelations promised? Will it be the year of the sad squatchers instead of year of the sasquatch? A despressing sort of prospect....but what then? Seems like so much hope is pinned on that stuff. Just in case, .... Nothing. I expect nothing to come of these 'projects,' and I have since day one. The evidence for sasquatch continues to stand unchallenged. My mind won't change a bit. (The TBRC is the horse to bet on, if one must bet a horse.)
Recommended Posts