• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Bigfoot follies

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/03/ketchum-now-extracting-dna-from-giant.html#moretop
Ketchum (DVM) says "I gotta love science!"

Except what it says about her self-published paper.

Even manually his techniques are SO fantastic that I was able to get usable DNA from cremated remains in two separate cases (one cat and one human) and I never thought we could do that, especially without robots.



Her extraction techniques are so good she can extract DNA from her imagination.
 
My question is, does she really believe what she is saying or is this just more money gimmick smack? Because the first option is much more disturbing to me.
 
I think the truth about Dr. Ketchum might be truly disturbing. Judging by a lot of what she has said,both her and Robin Lynne fantasize about what they call the "forest people" living in their backyards. Robin Lynne is like an artist at it. There's an interview with her where she basically makes a bunch of stuff up Sasfooty style http://www.thecryptocrew.com/2012/09/hairy-friends-in-backyard.html

I'm still a proponent by the way. No amount of footy fraud will make me change my opinion :cool:
 
I think the truth about Dr. Ketchum might be truly disturbing. Judging by a lot of what she has said,both her and Robin Lynne fantasize about what they call the "forest people" living in their backyards. Robin Lynne is like an artist at it. There's an interview with her where she basically makes a bunch of stuff up Sasfooty style http://www.thecryptocrew.com/2012/09/hairy-friends-in-backyard.html

I'm still a proponent by the way. No amount of footy fraud will make me change my opinion :cool:

Well, the fraud certainly doesn't help the cause.

Nor do the ridiculous accounts of interactions.
 
Yet OS has raised an interesting point - that of fantasy and make-believe within the World of Bigfoot. It is like legend-tripping - which is usually defined as a ritualised folk-performance of supernatural belief and a rite of passage for adolescents - but in reverse: adults imaginatively re-experiencing the thrill of youth via Bigfoot.

Amatuer enthusiasts, internet discussions, and shows like Finding Bigfoot provide the blueprint for such Bigfoot legend-tripping. The experience may be real (fear + ambiguity can produce some wonderful results) but the creature is not...
 
...adults imaginatively re-experiencing the thrill of youth via Bigfoot....
Excellent point. I'm convinced a majority of these rabid/fanatical/lunatic Bigfooters are doing it for exactly that reason. And I'd bet serious money a poll of such present-day 'bleevers' would also reveal the majority had a genuine (if not serious) childhood interest/curiosity/fascination with the beast. I doubt many die-hard BFF types simply woke up 4 years ago and 'believed' in Bigfoot.
 
Melbas Nobel prize

As mentioned here earlier, melba has stated that her paper is "Nobel Worthy".

So lets do a bit of actuality!
The Nobel prize is awarded in 6 catagories, the original 5, Literature, Physics, Medicine (including physiology), Peace, and chemistry, the 6th was added in the late 1960s, that being Economics.

So where does Melbas paper fit in?

Certainly Economics: How to raise 500 K from thin air when your business is non existant! Hell governments all over the world ought to be intently interested in that!

Literature? are you kidding - of course this brilliant piece of writing deserves a place in the annals of literary genius!

Chemistry? why not, Nominated for Novel use of househiold cleaning chemicals in the creation of a new species/business!

Peace prize: Obviously, not only for bring lasting peace and closure to 3 factions at war for several years now - the habituators, the Believers, and the skeptics. Besides that raising the plight of a previously unrecognized people in their simple quest for humanity and peace, and their own homeland!

So obviously 4 of the 6 she certainly qualifies! Somebody call Stockholm - we have a multiple field nominee. Hell when they see this brilliance, they will probably just call off the vote, fly her in and dump all the money on her!
 
Somebody call Stockholm - we have a multiple field nominee. Hell when they see this brilliance, they will probably just call off the vote, fly her in and dump all the money on her!

And they'll whisper calm assurances as they tighten the straps to her new coat before the kind people take her away for her prize. A nice multiyear stay at some psychiatric clinic.
 
Excellent point. I'm convinced a majority of these rabid/fanatical/lunatic Bigfooters are doing it for exactly that reason. And I'd bet serious money a poll of such present-day 'bleevers' would also reveal the majority had a genuine (if not serious) childhood interest/curiosity/fascination with the beast. I doubt many die-hard BFF types simply woke up 4 years ago and 'believed' in Bigfoot.

This, then, raises some interesting questions:

When and where does make-believe end and belief begin?
What are the observable differences between belief in Bigfoot and make-belief in Bigfoot?
Can one exist without the other?
 
In my experience it tends to fall along a spectrum with footers, it's not an "all" or "nothing" position.
 
Based on some self-reflection and months at the BFF, I think not only is there a spectrum between belief and non-belief, but also between true belief and make-belief as well.

Can one exist without the other?

If someone thinks they saw one clear as day then I think it probably can.
 
I think the make believe ends around the time you empty a shotgun in the direction of people out for a stroll in the woods, drinking iced tea, and minding their own business.

I think you are too far down the rabbit hole at that point.
 
If someone thinks they saw one clear as day then I think it probably can.

The highlighted is the operational word. It's difficult for humans to admit they've been fooled by their own senses and clearly for some, it's easier to claim to have seen an unevidenced and unlikely cryptid, than admit the same foibles of human cognition to which we are all subject.
 
I think the make believe ends around the time you empty a shotgun in the direction of people out for a stroll in the woods, drinking iced tea, and minding their own business.

This.

If anything about that 2010 incident is to be believed, the shooter emptied a shotgun, perhaps not in the direction of, but certainly close enough to two bystanders that they fled from the site in haste great enough to damage their vehicle. The shooter claims to have heard their car door slam as they sped away, so he was pretty close. Prior to that he had absolutely no idea they were there. This incident came very close to being a real tragedy - and this is from the version of events these people have been willing to put out as the public story. Who knows how close a shave it really was.

Lessons for 'footers:

1) These "wilderness" areas you think harbor only bigfoots and rugged Navy SEAL types like yourself have been and continue to be visited by humans more often than you think. Sometimes, it's even by a dude and his girlfriend taking a walk on their lunchbreak.

2) If you're shooting at a bigfoot you're not, because there are no such things as bigfoots. Thus, if you are successful in your attempt to shoot that bigfoot in front you, then it's going to end badly for you because you have just shot something that is not a bigfoot.

3) When people like me say we'd need a body of a bigfoot to prove there's a bigfoot, that doesn't mean you - or anyone - needs to go shoot one. If bigfoots are real, then one will eventually get hit by a snowplow or wash out of a streambank somewhere.
 
The shooter claims to have heard their car door slam as they sped away, so he was pretty close. Prior to that he had absolutely no idea they were there.

How do you know that the shooter didn't know about the others? How do you know that he didn't plan the shots as part of the hoax? How do you know that the shooter actually thought he was shooting at a genuine Bigfoot instead of just pretending?

How do you know that this Bigfoot hoax didn't turn out just like the hoaxer intended?
 
This.

If anything about that 2010 incident is to be believed, the shooter emptied a shotgun, perhaps not in the direction of, but certainly close enough to two bystanders that they fled from the site in haste great enough to damage their vehicle. The shooter claims to have heard their car door slam as they sped away, so he was pretty close. Prior to that he had absolutely no idea they were there. This incident came very close to being a real tragedy - and this is from the version of events these people have been willing to put out as the public story. Who knows how close a shave it really was.

Lessons for 'footers:

1) These "wilderness" areas you think harbor only bigfoots and rugged Navy SEAL types like yourself have been and continue to be visited by humans more often than you think. Sometimes, it's even by a dude and his girlfriend taking a walk on their lunchbreak.

2) If you're shooting at a bigfoot you're not, because there are no such things as bigfoots. Thus, if you are successful in your attempt to shoot that bigfoot in front you, then it's going to end badly for you because you have just shot something that is not a bigfoot.

3) When people like me say we'd need a body of a bigfoot to prove there's a bigfoot, that doesn't mean you - or anyone - needs to go shoot one. If bigfoots are real, then one will eventually get hit by a snowplow or wash out of a streambank somewhere.

If Brian's non-profit organization is based on preserving bigfoot's habitat, or some other similar nonsense, why are they trying to kill one? Doesn't that go against their goal, and would the IRS like to know about those efforts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom