Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Apehuman, There are rumoured to have been 200 or more samples in the report, or at least, submitted to the Ketchum team. Can you imagine trying to keep that lot from leaking if every single one of them had been given the full results? I'm not sure what your point is regarding the understanding of the results. Have you ever tried reading a scientific paper.....even on on a subject that you that you knew quite a bit about? They are so full of technical terms as to be virtually incomprehensible to the unannointed. The summary is the only part that most are going to read. Mike Many - my professional legal experience in complex scientific litigation, as well as prior employment as chemist and engineer. But, I make no claim to expertise in genetics (or chemistry). I can get far enough in understanding to ask enough of the right questions to find the answers that would allow others to judge which expert is right! Who knows? Every important (or well funded) case I worked had an expert on both sides of the docket. ok I must go...I am worried this forum is an addiction and try and limit mysellf! also it did strike me as odd...in tone, so many words for the understanding challenged to say, "We doubt you will understand our paper, but if you must try go to a library that subscribes to the journal. You will only find an abstract or truncated version online." But then, I use a lot of words to say very little! So, it's all good? Edited February 24, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I'm a skeptic and I too am having a hard time trying to find a post anywhere here where someone called BF proponents "crazy lying kooks". I'd wager that if I do find a post like that the poster has likely been banned. Anyway, what are the chances the paper will come out next Thursday now? Slim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 No one knows. One of the contradictions is its stated an embargo lasts 1 week, yet its been many Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Anyway, what are the chances the paper will come out next Thursday now? Slim? I'll be able to hazard a guess after I follow-up on something I just heard. If this is true, then probably not. http://www.mid-americabigfoot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4065&p=20629#p20629 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I think that is confusing the idea of a Press Embargo and the notion stated my Ms. Ramey that the journal forbids discussion of the paper under review. The embargo is for the press who are given information a week in advance in order to prepare stories, but can't release those stories until the embargo is lifted. The researchers are not under that 'embargo' but under the Journal's terms for the submitters. Or something! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Do you think moneymaker has been told the results of the study? After all he's the boss of big footing and I'd feel sorry for him if he wasn't told after putting in 25 years. One would think that after 25 years he and his group could have chipped in a few samples and had the same inside knowledge as anyone else. My group found a sample after just two years. If the BFRO doesn't have a sample in the study, it is because they purposely excluded themselves from it. That includes another well known organization, the TBRC according to Bipto.I know they have samples, but it seems they just were'nt into sharing in this discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Someone asked Sally about it on Ketchum's public page. We'll see. Edit to remove Facebook link. I'm not sure it's meant to be "public". Hopefully the question will show up soon on Ketchum's page. Edited February 24, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 latest... Dr. Melba Ketchum ‎@ Chris Hooper I am the first author of the paper. Yes it is a legitimate scientific manuscript and will be published in a well respected journal. It is not a forensic paper but a comprehensive study of the genetics of these creatures. It is legitimate science and every conceivable safeguard has been put in place to prove the integrity of the study. Thanks for putting this URL on. Once published, how long do papers remain in the review process or do they just stay there while scientist check the results? When other scientist comment on the paper, then is this when BF begins to become a fact or fiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I won't be paying a penny to see any videos Would you consider them selling videos as an indication of them being hoaxed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) I'm a skeptic and I too am having a hard time trying to find a post anywhere here where someone called BF proponents "crazy lying kooks". I'd wager that if I do find a post like that the poster has likely been banned. he wasn't quoting anyone, you can use whatever words you like but they all come down to the same meaning. There is 1000's of people that say they had a sighting/encounter, a good number can be dismissed , but some people have very good credentials and had very good observations. When you state on a BF forum that your not a believer, your pretty much calling these people that are adamant about what they saw, untruthful , do not have the proper skills to correctly interpret what they saw , and/or were hallucinating. If I went on a forum about something, say ghost for example, I didn't believe in them ,state that I don't believe in ghost and people that say they see them are wrong,I can't expect people are going to respond to me in a favorable manner. what would my purpose be to be on that forum other than to argue, tell people their wrong, and their is something wrong with them for believing in ghost. I don't understand why people would waste their time trying to tell people they are wrong for believing in something that they do not believe in.In today's world, there are so many better things you can waste your time on, then trying to prove people wrong about something that really has no impact on anybody by believing what they do. Edited February 24, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 @Zig I won't speak for anyone else, but to the credible people here or elswhere who are sincere in their sighting, I simply say.......I don't know what they saw. Hoaxed or mistaken? Possibly. I'm here for the very slim chance that those people really saw a real BF. Of course, I'm here too for the interraction. Mostly though I like to debate the evidence with those who believe but have not had a sighting. We can debate on the same ground. I won't debate someone who's had a sighting and is convinced after ruling everything else out. What would there be to debate? If they're sure they did and are not mistaken then all I can say is, I don't know. Because as far as I know, right now, BF as a real creature doesn't exist. And there's nothing wrong with that position, nor should it insult or anger anyone because it's not intended that way. One day I hope to have enough evidence to say I know. But an eyewitness account is not enough evidence. Love reading them and seeing them in my minds eye and thinking....what if they're real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Would you consider them selling videos as an indication of them being hoaxed? pretty much yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 @WTB1 I was talking about the whole subject, just using eyewitness accounts as a part of it , I should have mentioned the data, evidence,etc... The biggest problem is the position that if their is a way of hoaxing it, then it is stated that it is a hoax without one speck of an investigation, casting doubt from a keyboard because they assume it can't be real, that isn't a debate that's falls in where this all started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I'll be able to hazard a guess after I follow-up on something I just heard. If this is true, then probably not. http://www.mid-ameri...&p=20629#p20629 This could be terrible news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Someone asked Sally about it on Ketchum's public page. We'll see. Edit to remove Facebook link. I'm not sure it's meant to be "public". Hopefully the question will show up soon on Ketchum's page. I've asked them. Think it's public. My question has been deleted - read into that what you will, but seems to me that Ed Smiths story has some truth in it. Got an answer: @Shaun - Sally here - That's a new one! Nope, just a rumor. Nothing is "holding up" the paper outside of the normal, lengthy process and what it usually involves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts