AaronD Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 They'll do whatever they have to in order to receive the most mileage out of it you can bet on that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Someone commented on Lindsay's blog that Guy Edwards (the man behind Bigfoot Lunch Club) has "divulged" that Ketchum's paper is "officially slated for release in October 2012". Does anyone know where (and if) Guy actually made that claim? I know he's been somewhat skeptical of the study so I'd like to find out the context. This just posted/tweeted by Sally Ramey. Sally here - There is NO truth to the rumor that the paper will be published in 26 weeks. I still don't know if Guy Edwards made the October, 2012 claim but I'd like to find out. Google has failed me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Fair points, well made. However, one of the effects of the internet is that there is a reduced difference between high and low status information, if I can put it that way. The internet is overloaded with a mixture of information and opinion, and it is difficult to separate them sometimes. The layman can easily think that good information is rubbish, and that rubbish info is good. Mike Very true. But I think Dr. Ketchum could post her findings or a link to her findings on many college threads and in scientific forums. I am sure people with the education and knowledge necessary to review the science and conclusions would be able to then read it even if it was only out of curiosity or wanting to refute such findings. Enough qualified people going "Hey this looks pretty darn interesting!" would surely start a larger number of qualified people looking and that would be all that was needed to bring it into the major adademic circles if the science and conclusions were OK. Like I said though I do not think this is the way to go now but it is a valid fallback position "if" the conspiracy theorists are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I really think this is a dead-end. It will give everyone the excuse they want to say "see, told you so, it couldn't even get published in a science mag. It must be rubbish" Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) Well if she can't publish in a journal she can always write a book, I'ld buy it. Edited April 23, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I really think this is a dead-end. It will give everyone the excuse they want to say "see, told you so, it couldn't even get published in a science mag. It must be rubbish" Mike I'm all in!! If bigfoot exists, then we have the DNA in all probability. So if that is unpublishable, and unacceptable there is no point in pursuing proof. I'm hanging my F&B researcher hat on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I agree. If there's no proof in the DNA (with samples from some of the more credible BF orgs in the country), it's likely there's nothing to the phenomena...or para ape was right all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 In my experience, they do exist in a distinct, physical, "is this thing about to kill us or not" sort of way. So DNA exists, and the possibility that some of this DNA has made it into analysis exists. If the Ketchum Study does present findings based on material containing DNA and the "discovery" is rejected after the Denisovans were described from part of a single piece of finger bone indistinguishable from either human or nenderthal except by its DNA, then I have to say that societal resistance to recognition of the species is part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Well if she can't publish in a journal she can always write a book, I'ld buy it. Yebbut, Jodie, millions of people bought Erich von Daniken's books and Immanual Velikovsky's books. Almost every word on every page in every book they wrote was pure nonsense, but millions bought them. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I really think this is a dead-end. It will give everyone the excuse they want to say "see, told you so, it couldn't even get published in a science mag. It must be rubbish" Mike It's sort of funny as the rumors I'm hearing are running rampant but one can tell that the release is imminent and will be made soon just by the vibes. I've been told that it will be *mind-blowing* and skeptics will eat crow. I've been told it will be underwhelming and proponents will be greatly disappointed. Dunno, just tell me something at this point I guess. But I reckon southernyahoo and I are akin in our stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dudlow Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 ...I have to say that societal resistance to recognition of the species is part of the problem. Michael Cremo, the 'Forbidden Archeologist', terms this curious phenomenon of denial, 'knowledge filtering', whereby the dominant hegemony of scientific belief forces the dismissal of any data that gets in the way of their preconceived notions; and in so doing maintains the status quo, regardless of sometimes overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Ya, ain't science great whenever there is money, status and prestige at risk? - Dudlow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 But I reckon southernyahoo and I are akin in our stance. I would be too, if I knew what F&B stood for!! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I would give it some more time and and see how things play out. Then take it from there. For all we know they could have a Sasquatch body by now lol Certainly would explain the 'past due' deadline (year of the sasquatch), as well as the reduction in comments from a FB page..... ;-) From many reports I've read, seeing bigfoot is quite an experience, some being so traumatic that control of bodily functions have been momentarily lost. Not to say they are all that way, but I think it depends on what behavior you witness, which certainly isn't consistent. There are people being treated medically for PTSD after sightings. It can really mess up ones' mind when they see a 'mythological' creature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I would be too, if I knew what F&B stood for!! Mike F&B stands for the "flesh and blood" hypothesis for the bigfoot phenomenon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) Rumors are dumb, m'kay? But, here is the link to the mysterious press embargoed article which is coming out today. And unlike most of the other articles under embargo I can see there, this one has "A reporter's PressPass is required to access this story until the embargo expires on 4/23/1 5:00 PM EDT". That goes against the Thursday release posited, so this is probably nothing. Keywords? Niche conservatism, Climate change, mammals, geographic range, cenozoic, pleistocene extinction, mgafauna, deep time, north america, taxonomic diversity, paleontology. A few of those might fit, but a lot of those don't. http://www.newswise.com/articles/channels?page=1&search[status]=3&search[sort]=date+desc&search[channel_id]=10&category= edit: It's the only one with out a title because it's the only one listed there that is still under embargo. Cue head slap. Sorry. Edited April 23, 2012 by Particle Noun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts