Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, three, LTC, three references that were supposed to be jokes.......well I'm just speechless. I think I could have come up with some references better than that but I heard her funding has been cut off, maybe it wasn't worth the effort in that respect.

And the sad thing is that these "tongue in cheek" papers have been posted on the BFF many times before. If they had just looked at the bibliography they would have recognized these articles.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
So she has used 2 3 references that no one who did 10 minutes worth of research would ever have used...

That tells you a lot.
Click to expand...

Well the humor in those papers is kind of subtle. You've got to be able to understand what the heck you're reading to get the joke.
 
Is it also true that she cites "Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modeling" as support for bigfoot?
 
I don't think she ever sent it out, this is obviously a work of Robin's on the fly. It probably took weeks for her to write.

I wonder what Paulides and Igor think of this? I haven't heard one word from the amen corner since she posted her literary masterpiece.
 
Last edited:
The Shrike said:
Well the humor in those papers is kind of subtle. You've got to be able to understand what the heck you're reading to get the joke.
Click to expand...

Well just mentioning Bigfoot kinda starts the joke right off no matter what one is talking about, be it serious or not, it's great if one can understand the scientific stuff for the gags and punchlines but for most it just ain't needed, I for one know I'm into some good olde traditional American campfire folk law laughs soon as BF makes it's way into the conversation.

Tim :)
 
But these articles have been posted on the BFF numerous times, there is no excuse for the footers not to have caught on if they looked, none........I was feeling sorry for them for being taken advantge of but if you can't be troubled to look at the sources you get what you deserve. That's just plain dumb.
 
Last edited:
Again, just when you think it could not get any funnier, the Ketchum Hokum continues to raise the bar.
 
Last edited:
Any peer review should certainly have made Ketchum aware of the nature of those references, even if she didn't notice herself.

I think the references nail it down as fact that there was no peer review at all.

Clearly Swenson didn't review the references, either.
 
You got that right, I doubt we will hear one word. There isn't anything left to say at this point.
 
Jodie said:
But these articles have been posted on the BFF numerous times, there is no excuse for the footers not to have caught on if they looked, none........I was feeling sorry for them for being taken advantge of but if you can't be troubled to look at the sources you get what you deserve. That's just plain dumb.
Click to expand...

On the old bff melba would have been torn to shreds, this new one has nothing to do with reality, it's just a forum of wannabe's that refuse to look at known fact's if they don't fit into their belief, the forum is useless when it comes to real fact's, they have proven this time and time again, they are a disgrace to any real science, and although they put in disclaimers within their guidelines, it is just for looks, they adhere to only what servers them at the moment.
The new BFF has been nothing but a disappointment from those that staff it too those that use it as a safe haven for their bogus claims​


Tim ~ Dig
 
LTC8K6 said:
So she has used 2 3 references that no one who did 10 minutes worth of research would ever have used...

That tells you a lot.
Click to expand...

Not exactly! i actually cited the bigfoot eco niche modeling paper in a grant proposal to the National Science Foundation. Hell, half the reason i wrote the darned grant proposal was so i could be the only guy on the planet with big enough brass ones to cite bigfoot in an NSF proposal ! (still waiting to get the NSF reviews of the proposal back, wonder what they thought of it?

And thats a fact Jack, and I can prove it!
CWB
 
Last edited:
RRS is right. In its current form, the BFF is a joke. Bigfoot on there is what I've feared it really is for so long. A religion. With the BFF being the church and characters like Melba and Rick Dyer being Jesus or something. A place where people will believe in claims simply because they want to believe. Hoaxers and researchers use this to their advantage and make money off of it or sometimes just get attention. It's almost painful to see.
 
OS, what happened? Did you get banned for posting the BFF's materials over here or is this a completely unrelated issue? You sound about like I did last year.
 
OS ~ There is a real BF that roams the land, I won't discount all the sightings and or encounters over the years, the thing is it's not a giant monkey that is responsible, it's known animals that either are demonstrating behavior that has not been caught yet or has been refused to be acknowledged by those that choose to see another reason, some advice if i can ~ go slow with what you read here and take the time to reason it out, you can't play both sides or it will eat at ya, choose what you know in your mind and heart and go from there.

Tim :)
 
Last edited:
calwaterbear said:
Not exactly! i actually cited the bigfoot eco niche modeling paper in a grant proposal to the National Science Foundation. Hell, half the reason i wrote the darned grant proposal was so i could be the only guy on the planet with big enough brass ones to cite bigfoot in an NSF proposal ! (still waiting to get the NSF reviews of the proposal back, wonder what they thought of it?

And thats a fact Jack, and I can prove it!
CWB
Click to expand...

I meant that no one would have used them to support that paper, not that no one would use them for anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom