Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Parn, You can play Jedi mind tricks on yourself all you want with these theories you've been spinning these several months, but in the end you are going to have to deal with their existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I can't believe people are excusing this. If past builds ups are anything to go by we should all be skeptical of any claims made until the proof is in ours hands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 What are people excusing? The delay? The suspense? The leaks? Yep, be sceptical of all claims until they are delivered, but, I'm afraid, that just means waiting until they are delivered. Publication and film release will happen when it happens.........Don't forget, you're buying me a pint when you post on here your "wow, I was wrong" post!!! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest believer Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I believe the interaction experience enables her to talk about it with more authority when she starts the media/university circuit. She will expand upon the "have you seen one question?" the media will run with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Mike I will buy you many pints. Will the media jump on this? Its kind of like Lloyd pyes unknown alien DNA. I never saw that in the news. Will unknown primate DNA be any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 What if it isn't just DNA? What if it's DNA and supporting evidence? Video? Stills? A body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 From what I heard they purchased some video off someone, which is a huge red flag. Also they have a random piece of meat smeja found in the woods, red flag. The only thing that could be credible is if the guy on the trailer who says "we have filmed them on numerous occasions" (even though it sounds like he is reading off a script) is telling the truth. The videos would have to be pretty decent though to get the medias attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Another thought. If they released the preliminary paper, and the result was widespread jeers within popular culture, that could affect the peer review process and therefore the overall credibility of the project. It's much safer to have the paper safely vetted and published before making the case in public, it's more likely to be taken seriously. Then why not just be up front and say that or say nothing, instead of feeding people misinformation about gag orders and such? Your double facepalm is woefully inadequate for this situation, and needs to be upgraded to reflect the epic proportions of her unpublished paper. What are people excusing? The delay? The suspense? The leaks? All of it. The supposedly well-known gag rule, for this once-in-a-century, unprecedented, change the rules, private study, that would suffer from bad PR if skeptics got to see a pre-publicity version, for example. Oh if only she could have gotten Patriots head coach Bill Belichick to be her PR person. He's great at keeping things close to the vest, sticking to facts, and saying nothing newsworthy. Instead, she chose a bigfoot proponent who releases conflicting information, which only heightens my skepticism, not lessens it. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) If I might offer my own rationalizations. Nature's embargo policy is driven by their caution about confusing the lay public. They want media to be able to digest a new paper, and possibly consult with its authors before any release, so that a complex topic can be explained reliably to non-specialists. But if Ketchum's submitted paper were revised during review, then the original version would be confusing in exactly the way Nature worries about. We know from Ketchum that somewhere along the way, they were thrown a curve ball, so maybe she is trapped by submission guidelines. It may also be the case that since her paper is so provocative, Ketchum has been asked by the 'journal' to stay quiet, despite any stated embargo policy. Now, where is that dead horse? Edited February 21, 2012 by mitchw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 It's a legal issue (NDA,ect,ect) because there's money involved.... its always about the money! Doesn't matter if it's a grant money or for profit. But it's certainly not the normal academic path most scientific papers or discoveries follow. If they come thru as promised and make a profit, good for them! My advice would be keep quiet and let the paper do the talking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I think something that might play a role here is the NDA. It's between multiple people and several projects. I would think that there may be an agreement above and beyond whatever the journal requires. Nothing that has been leaked has been verified, or even that scientific for that matter. They're keeping the buzz going, can't blame them, they've got our attention - keep it. A second, wildly speculated thought I had is what if this is a paper on 'the effects of possible bigfoot discovery', and Ketchum is just a volunteer in the study while we (BF blogs, forums, websites) are the ones being studied by a third party, yet to be disclosed. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Then why not just be up front and say that or say nothing, instead of feeding people misinformation about gag orders and such? Your double facepalm is woefully inadequate for this situation, and needs to be upgraded to reflect the epic proportions of her unpublished paper. All of it. The supposedly well-known gag rule, for this once-in-a-century, unprecedented, change the rules, private study, that would suffer from bad PR if skeptics got to see a pre-publicity version, for example. Oh if only she could have gotten Patriots head coach Bill Belichick to be her PR person. He's great at keeping things close to the vest, sticking to facts, and saying nothing newsworthy. Instead, she chose a bigfoot proponent who releases conflicting information, which only heightens my skepticism, not lessens it. RayG Ray, you are making an issue about "not" doing the very thing skeptics deplore (claiming good data that isn't published). I suppose you would rather be blind sided by a study like this, but who could have collected this many samples without word getting out? If she had posted a pre-submission manuscript, you'd still be crying about it not being published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) I get Rays point completely, this is most likley a report/study/opine with hopefully some good science in it. But it has not followed the normal path of scientific papers or presentation. For him and others that raises some questions that's all. Deep breath folks it's going to be OK either way we will still have plenty to discuss regardless! Edited February 21, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudeman Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 @ Cervelo on post #2667. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I believe the interaction experience enables her to talk about it with more authority when she starts the media/university circuit. She will expand upon the "have you seen one question?" the media will run with this one. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Ketchum and her PR person have just transformed whatever she might have had, into sideshow stuff. HODS wrote: Parn,You can play Jedi mind tricks on yourself all you want with these theories you've been spinning these several months, but in the end you are going to have to deal with their existence. HODS: thanks for the Jedi compliment, but there will never be an end. You mention mind games....the mind games that man can play on himself and others will continue evermore to create monsters like bigfoot. You might be interested in the book "Imagining Monsters", by Dennis Todd, which discusses historical aspects of the topic. p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts