Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Yes, but regardlnes of whether insiders may know the publication schedule, there is the well-known and roundly discussed gag rule until the embargo is lifted. Also, there certainly is a restriction on leaking information pre-publication, as has been clearly laid out by Sally Ramey. Edited February 21, 2012 by Christopher Noel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Something to remember as well, this is a private study, funded by private money,and that could very well influence how accessible it is to the average academic. I am sure when private companies are conducting research, and they consider it sensitive, it is well protected. Erikson I am sure, would have some influence on when the publication would go public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Ketchum:..."They shun electronics to a large extent so getting pictures is very difficult".... This quote strikes me as odd. A scientist working within the upper echelons of technology says technology can't take a covert photo? Either I hear the faint ring of alarm bells or my tinnitus is acting up again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Difficult, not impossible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 First FB post Ketchum made about having a sighting. Posted a little over a month ago. Figured it was relavent. "My sighting is not a big deal. I saw one silhouetted between me and a white gooseneck trailer in bright moonlight at about 25 yds. It was about 10 feet tall as it walked by. I saw eyeshine from 1 nearby. I was alone at the time. I don’t ever take cameras in case it scares them off. Not trying to prove anything here and do not care if I am believed or not. The DNA takes care of that for me. I should not have even brought it up. Any investigation on my part is purely to satisfy my curiousity (which got me into this in the first place), for my enjoyment and edification and no other reason." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 That does seem at odds with her latest two posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 It shouldn't matter if she has a publication date or not, there's no actual restriction on publishing a pre-submission version, or even the original submitted version. Well, unless she didn't submit it to Nature. RayG Ray, I simply think it would be bad PR to release anything that is suppose to meet scientific rigor without it actually passing that process first. This is bigfoot, not a new bug or tiny breakthrough in medicine. We all know what a time skeptics would have with that, and I don't see anyone falling for the incinuation that witholding data until publication is being deceptive about the actual findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 She is a scientist, not a Bigfoot researcher, she can be as "flighty" as she chooses,just so long as what she specializes in, is up to standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Just to note. If this is a "proof" of BF paper, then it is unprecedented. The rules change with this one, so don't bother claiming that protocol has not been met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Wonder why David Paulides wasn't mentioned, when she was thanking everyone for making it all possible. Thought they were like, a team or something. Seemed that way anyway. Edited February 21, 2012 by bsruther Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Your right about that Gigantofootecus, especially if it comes back with a Human DNA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest believer Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 The camera statement is probably related to her host's concerns. I feel any interaction possible must be from a position of humility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Just to note. If this is a "proof" of BF paper, then it is unprecedented. The rules change with this one, so don't bother claiming that protocol has not been met. I agree that if they can prove BFs existence, then it's a once-in-a-century paper and would probably be handled differently. At this point the whole process seems to be dragging out. And now there's a Foundation, Preservation etc. They seem to be taking on new tasks. The future is always uncontrollable so I hope the tail isn't beginning to wag the dog. Who knows what difficulties they are going to face just shepherding the study into the public eye, let alone trying to be advocates for BF. It seems best to get your message out cleanly than to try to enlarge your original scope. IMHO. Does anybody think someone else might try to beat them to the punch? I would guess that the BFRO evidence doesn't amount to that much or they would run it up the flagpole. Perhaps they are working with her and will piggyback their evidence on her study. If anybody out there has good pics or other evidence the time to release it seems to be before the Ketchum report comes out. I would think it would have the greatest impact and get the most resultant scrutiny before her study rather than after. If her report is what they are making it out to be, all other evidence will be subsumed by theirs for quite some time. In the public eye, I guess I mean. Financially, I have no idea when it would be of most value! People have different motivations, but I imagine anyone would want their evidence to get the attention it deserves. GK Yes, but regardlnes of whether insiders may know the publication schedule, there is the well-known and roundly discussed gag rule until the embargo is lifted. Also, there certainly is a restriction on leaking information pre-publication, as has been clearly laid out by Sally Ramey. She stated on her facebook page that she didn't have a publication date. I think that has to be taken at face value to mean there is no publication schedule (or there would be some sort of a date). I enjoy yr work, BTW. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 " Yes, I have heard them "speak", very interesting to hear. I can't divulge where my site is, not even the state (since I am an easy drive to 4). As with most people that have contact with them, I want them safe and protected from people that would hurt them. I would give up the property lease if I had to do so to keep it secret and them from harm." Now she has heard them speak!!! This is the kind of stuff that really gets people to take this field seriously!! Besides, any serious scientists all know of each other in these specialized fields, if she is onto something huge, there is no way she is just 'dropping' FB tidbits like this. It would be either top secret, since as someone called it, it's the paper of the century, or every paleoanthropologist, primatologist, physical anthropologist, or whateverelseologist on the planet already knows about this. It will be massive news, she would give two hoots about bigfoot hunters and their questions on some FB page. This isn't someone describing some new bug from deep in some cave, this is another bipedal hominid sharing the planet with us. Anyway, I'm ready and willing to accept Sasquatch, nobody will get more of a kick out of proof than I will. But this story does not add up. She (the real Doc) may be really onto something, but to me the FB page doesn't seem right, not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Mulder, I think we're getting way off course here, but I also think you're wrong if you're trying to say I fit either of these definitions: 1. A person who believes all people are motivated by selfishness. 2. A person whose outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative. I'm guessing you're referring more to my avatar than me as an actual person, or you're just throwing ad homs around out of frustration. I can only base my opinion of your (and other Skeptics') mindset on the statements you make, and between all the speculation about making money vis a vis the study, and the ongoing put-downing of Dr Ketchum's work (sight unseen) as well as the work of Drs Meldrum, Swindler, Schaller, Fahrenbach, et al along with Officer Chilcutt and Tom Moore I can only conclude that they in fact DO fit. Are you a cynic in general? I make no claim. On the subject of BF? Absolutely you're a cynic. T he first definition is a logical fallacy as I would never believe ALL people are motivated by one single thing, no more than I would believe that ALL rabbits are grey, ALL scientists are right-handed, or ALL aircraft have propellers. Not "all" in the literal sense, but "all" as in "people as a group or in general" would certainly fit. I don't ever recall using the word selfish in any of the 1,000+ posts I've made, I've never made any such claim about anyone, or even implied that anyone was motivated by selfishness, so that definition seems misplaced. As much as we've butted heads over the past few years, I'm pretty easy going, and I would not hesitate to clink beers with you or buy you lunch. I think you would find I'm not nearly as negative as you have pegged me to be.Trust me. RayG Probably not. Nor would you find me in general to be as fiercely combative as I am posting here. I'm kind'a like those old "coyote/wolf and sheepdog" cartoons where both sides are pounding the ever-loving crap out of one another (or trying to), but when the whistle blows for lunch can sit down and chat while they eat perfectly amicably then go right back after each other when the meal is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts