Guest ChrisBFRPKY Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Any "Erickson/Standing relationship" has nothing to do with the Erickson Project and speculation about it is honestly a waste of time. As I have said before, there is no "hype" being perpetrated and no "milking" of the project, the Erickson Project is in an agreement with Ketchum to release simultaneously. Real research takes time. Thanks Sasky, that was my point exactly, all we have is speculation. The facts will come out when they come out. I hope you understand that I was using "hype" as in "to stimulate, excite, promote interest" As evidenced in this trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yq9DoA_g8k I've always held Adrian Erickson in high regard. I know the man is not going to make any outlandish claim that he cannot back up with proof. Chris B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted May 11, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted May 11, 2011 Except from one day Erickson has his link on his website promoting Sylvanic, and the next he presumedly owns everything that was tied to it? Doesn't make sense. Bear in mind that yeah, the Standing www. was linked but was prommptly removed when www.'s like this stared asking questions regarding it.. As B pointed out, who's to say there wasn't just an " initial relationship " that happened due to soemthing along the lines of the Canadian connection &/or the same interest in teh Subect ?? That " initial relationship " soon deteriorated publically with the Standing link being deleted form the EP Website & rumours that Erickson " bought Standing out ". If i had what AE allegedly' has, i'd too pay someone who i found out to be a Hoaxer who could potentially pollute what i had, very near to the time i was ready to go big time public.. That'd be a no brainer for me & part of something that i'd have calculated into the Project, in all honesty, as these things will occur where Huamn Beings are concerned & the subject that are are talking about. Think abotu it, Standing's a proven Hoaxer, would we all agree that based on teh previous $5 USD to view the Vids before that he's in it to make a few Bucks ?? If so, he's buyable to move out of the way & clear the path completely, & thats' what i think may have happened here.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Really!?! That's the thought process he's buying out the hoaxers to pave the way for the truth? It sounds more like buying up the competition to clear the field, so he can recoup his money or paying people to go away and be quiet. This guy didn't become rich by investing in something that never pays out IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 (edited) Thanks Sasky, that was my point exactly, all we have is speculation. The facts will come out when they come out. I hope you understand that I was using "hype" as in "to stimulate, excite, promote interest" As evidenced in this trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yq9DoA_g8k I've always held Adrian Erickson in high regard. I know the man is not going to make any outlandish claim that he cannot back up with proof. Chris B. Thanks Chris, for your clarification. I apologize for seeming to lash out at you. I've just grown weary of people claiming that the EP has been aggressively promoting their project and the upcoming documentary and are only in it for the financial gain. When in actuality they have been extremely quiet for the last six years, working tirelessly on the research and ignoring people's criticisms that they should be more forthright about the evidence. As for your question, Susiq, we do not know when the results will be released because, as Dr. Ketchum has said, peer review takes time. Edited May 11, 2011 by Sasky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted May 11, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted May 11, 2011 (edited) Really!?! That's the thought process he's buying out the hoaxers to pave the way for the truth? It sounds more like buying up the competition to clear the field, so he can recoup his money or paying people to go away and be quiet. This guy didn't become rich by investing in something that never pays out IMO Nope, that's me summising, which i thought was pretty clear.. But what do you mean " competition " ?? Standing wasn't competition, Standing was/is a Hoaxer, no ?? There's a big difference anyway in " buying up the competition " & " getting rid of things that may have a very negative effect on a very lucrative long term plan ".. & good luck to AE too, he'll be one of my Hero's if he nails this.. Edited May 11, 2011 by BobbyO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fanofsquatch Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 I don't think AE would even dare to visit Sylvanic in case you don't recall anyone brave enough to make the trip WILL PROBABLY DIE!!!! The link to standing on the webpage is the only troubling thing. It may have been an initial contact when he was shopping for a doumentary film maker, Standing is one, and has an interest in BF seemed like a perfect fit. We can sit here and speculate but we have to remember thats all it is, speculation. The real test will be when it comes out, it will either hold up or it wont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted May 11, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted May 11, 2011 We can sit here and speculate but we have to remember thats all it is, speculation. The real test will be when it comes out, it will either hold up or it wont. Bingo !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 As for your question, Susiq, we do not know when the results will be released because, as Dr. Ketchum has said, peer review takes time. If we know at what stage of review the paper is in, then we will know about how much longer. It may vary some with the journal, but reviewers typically must submit their comments within a month from the paper going out for review. A paper is usually sent out for review within a couple weeks of submission. If a paper is accepted in the first round of review, there may be a few touch ups, the review of proofs, and then the on-line publication, all of which happens in a couple weeks to a month. If the reviewers reject the paper, there is the author's objections, and possibly a second review, which can prolong the process by an extra month to six weeks. So usually, a paper is either published within 4 months of submission, or being submitted to another journal (repeating the process). My impression was that Dr. Ketchum submitted back in February or March, which would mean June-July for on-line publication, if the reviewers had only mild objections. By now, Dr. Ketchum should have definitely received the first comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Considering the controversial nature of the subject, I expect that the process will take longer than your typical paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 My impression was that Dr. Ketchum submitted back in February or March, which would mean June-July for on-line publication, if the reviewers had only mild objections. Oh, goody. I can hardly wait. That is only in a couple of months! Dare I get my hopes up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sallaranda Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Oh, goody. I can hardly wait. That is only in a couple of months! Dare I get my hopes up? Please don't. With a paper of this magnitude with implications as big as this one, it will likely take much longer than normal. I expect June/July of 2012 to be about the time we have an answer to all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Nah, implications cannot be a valid objection to a paper. Telling the editor, "I reject this work because of the implications", is equivalent to saying, "please don't ask me to review a paper ever again." Implications might be a reason to scrutinize the work more thoroughly, or ask more questions, but "accept after addressing these 20 points", is about the same as "accept after addressing these 10 points." The only thing the reviewers can do is determine if all of the ducks are in a row, not second-guess the reported data. The only reasons to reject a paper are: 1) The results are not significant. 2) The topic is not pertinent to the journal. 3) The paper is poorly written. 4) There are obvious errors in the methodology, as reported. Obviously, the results are significant. I should think any anthropology or evolution journal would be applicable. I doubt the paper will be poorly written. The reviewers might have some questions, but probably nothing that would need a second review. I doubt that Dr. Ketchum would make obvious errors, and has probably written the paper to cover the most common ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 More news from the Erickson Project. Not good news in my opinion... read the comments on Cryptomundo. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/films/brisson-mcdonald.htm http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/brisson-bf2010/ Is another hoaxer involved in the Erickson Project? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 This is the first time I've seen Randy Brisson associated with the Erickson Project. They don't list him on their site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts