Guest slimwitless Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 What do you guys think about this statement? I have no idea who this guy is or if there is any truth to it at all. I saw it posted on blog talk radio yesterday. Thom was actually on the radio show. I haven't listened to the episode of the show yet so he may have mentioned it on there. The shows guest is Scott Nelson so it should be a pretty good show. It's up so you can listen to it now. Thom Cantrall · Univ. of WA Jon... exactly what you propose is happening in May in Richland, WA... on the same stage on the 4th, 5th and 6th of May, 2012, Scott Nelson and Ron Morehead will be presenting the case for Sasquatch Language, Dr. Ketchum will be presenting the case for Sasquatch DNA and Dr. Meldrum will be presenting the case for Sasquatch Anatomy and Locomotion... you going to be there? blogtalkradio He must be referring to this. It appears Ketchum is back on the schedule and slated to speak on the same day as David Paulides and Arla Williams. Meldrum, Nelson and Randles are scheduled to speak on the final day. There's still a blurb about Homo sapiens hirsutii on the page but Ketchum herself said there was no truth to that designation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Thanks Slim. That's sounds like one heck of a conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) PARN: A few old timers tell me you are a surgeon and beyond that I suppose enjoy it here....that's enough i suppose for me as I have no other interest than curiosity as your bias seems somewhat crystaline, although..it was me that asked if you were here b/c of the heightend passion re: kills and the responses.....I am satisfied. The bigger question now for me is why am I here? And then I see the most recent post. That is a conference that sounds leading edge... ape, those old-timers sitting around a hot stove...sometimes they tell tall tales. ha ha. As far as my participation in this forum, we skeptics are constantly asked (often rather rudely) why we participate in this forum. That chestnut has been kicked around the block more times than I can count. IMHO that question really means, "I don't want to listen to someone who doesn't agree with me." I generally don't take the bait. I'll just say that there are a few aspects of it that I find interesting. One is the Patterson film, and I pretty much see where that is going now. I was sort of on the way out when this whole DNA thing got going, and I got sucked back in!! But I think I can see where that is going now. So unless something else grabs me I imagine you'll see less and less of my crystalline bias. BTW, I would be careful about revealing the contents of PM's. That would be strictly against the rules, and in fact is one of the reasons that I tend not to engage in PM's or other exchanges of information of a personal nature here. I don't think I could be of much use to you. I hope you understand. p. Edited January 19, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Parn, I certainly want to hear arguments from you, Saskeptic, etc. How could anyone think that Ketchum's work isn't being probed with even greater rigor than we in the dark can muster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Mitch, it won't matter what gets argued here when this is published. Published science is far beyond opinions of the anonymous on a public forum. If there are valid contradictory arguments to the conclusions they should be written up and submitted for review, same as this paper. Fanatical conspiracy theories may abound, but that doesn't mean they'll have scientific merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 19, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 19, 2012 I'll be content to read the paper and maybe attend a conference where it might be discussed, other than that, I will keep one eye open for discussion on the forum............ It can be riotous when big news breaks if you can log-on amidst the pandemonium. I figure Facebook and some of the bloggers will have high times and many rich comments too, if you can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Are the powers-that-be of the forum making any preparations for the predictable rush when the paper finally comes out? I'd be pretty disappointed not to be able to log on just because half the world is checking out this bigfoot thing for the first time. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 MikeG I gather you weren't a member of the earlier forum version when the georgia bigfoot body story was breaking. The BFF and and few forum that discuss BF skeptically had their servers overload and even crash, and the BFF became members only (no guests) just to limit the traffic to what the servers could manage. So it is entirely possible, if the Ketchum Report does finally go public and is powerful, that public interest in bigfoot will see a tsunami of interest that overwhelms the forum. Sadly, the last one (the body thing) was a hoax, and once it was exposed, things quieted down. If the Ketchum work is solid and has scientific merit, the hysteria should last longer. But the one thing I've personally learned in the last 4 years of this activity is that what will occur is almost always different than I predict will occur. So I've tried to kepp my predictions to a minimum with Dr. Ketchum's report and the reaction to it. We just brace for a possible F5 tornado of interest and if it's ultimately just a gentle breeze of curiosity, we let it pass us by. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) I was sort of on the way out when this whole DNA thing got going, and I got sucked back in!! Funny, I had pretty much extricated myself from BFF 1.0 and then I heard this rumor that a couple of guys in Georgia had shot a bigfoot. . . Bill, we're on the same wavelength! Edited January 19, 2012 by Saskeptic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted January 19, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 19, 2012 Network trafic could make this server go blankly, blankly,blankly, bink. So not And i have seen it happen a few times in the past here where it has crash ed .Traffic jam ,Denial of service or whatever you want to call it.Big news bad news who cares and i sure would like to be there for this conference no matter what the out come is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 found this about media embargo's with nature, don't know if all journal's follow same process. Embargo The policy outlined on this page applies to Nature journals (those with the word "Nature" in their title). NPG publishes many other journals, each of which has separate publication policies described on its website. A current list of these journals, with links to each journal's homepage is available. Communication with the media Material submitted to Nature journals must not be discussed with the media, except in the case of accepted contributions, which can be discussed with the media no more than a week before the publication date under our embargo conditions. We reserve the right to halt the consideration or publication of a paper if this condition is broken. LINK : NATURE Okay, I'm trying not to sound too dumb blond today but didn't the participants totally deny Nature being the publisher of the report? Am I having a blond moment anyway? Is Nature Nature all the same deal, or could subdivisions of the journal be involved, and yet not be Nature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Hi Susi. My understand of this is that this is just one example of an embargo, chosen to illustrate how embargoes work. There isn't anything to read into the fact that the chosen example is "Nature", but it was probably picked because many magazines, journals, newspapers etc probably don't have an explicit written policy on embargoes freely available on the internet. I might be wrong, but I hope I've helped. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Thank you Mike! I was getting a little confused,but now I understand thanks to you. Plus 1 for your kindness too... Edited January 19, 2012 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Are the powers-that-be of the forum making any preparations for the predictable rush when the paper finally comes out? I'd be pretty disappointed not to be able to log on just because half the world is checking out this bigfoot thing for the first time. Mike This forum is slated for some upgrades coming uh .......soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) ape, those old-timers sitting around a hot stove...sometimes they tell tall tales. ha ha. As far as my participation in this forum, we skeptics are constantly asked (often rather rudely) why we participate in this forum. That chestnut has been kicked around the block more times than I can count. IMHO that question really means, "I don't want to listen to someone who doesn't agree with me." I generally don't take the bait. I'll just say that there are a few aspects of it that I find interesting. One is the Patterson film, and I pretty much see where that is going now. I was sort of on the way out when this whole DNA thing got going, and I got sucked back in!! But I think I can see where that is going now. So unless something else grabs me I imagine you'll see less and less of my crystalline bias. BTW, I would be careful about revealing the contents of PM's. That would be strictly against the rules, and in fact is one of the reasons that I tend not to engage in PM's or other exchanges of information of a personal nature here. I don't think I could be of much use to you. I hope you understand. p. Well thanks, so you are not a surgeon or you don't like it here? On PM's - I would not reveal the contents of a PM to me, w/o reading these forums rules, but my PM to you I own and have no problem sharing here, I was looking for some serious input from someone I thought fairly interested. However, I see I have revealed you did not respond for that I do apologize and must confess I did not read the forums rules...err, nor any online "i accept" contract. The moderators here seem on-it and I am sure I shall be ushered to a link to read those rules in detail! Sincerely, my apology. But, I have to admit the DNA questions are certainly inspiring and worth, I hope, waiting for. It has been a rather ragged "pre-show." I think when we have a paper to read and some real interviews/statements from the various players many of us will be content with that? I don't see that for you Parn, because with some actual data the real discussion of ancient genomes and migration begins! If you decide you want some first hand look at amateur first hand evidence you may PM me... Gracias! Edited January 20, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts