bipedalist Posted November 4, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 4, 2011 Did you get your crystal ball on eBay or is there a specialty shop in your area? The preemptive strike never comes off well. Nope, the ubiquitous Magic 8 Ball, remember. Flash: Update! 'Oh great smooth, swarthy, ovoid, octo-afflicted one: Do I see Hairy Man-Monkey dna on the horizon? "Yes, it is certain!"' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 PS- you can NEVER have too much Halloween candy ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Where's that "ignore" button? Parn, what color is the sky in your world? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Translation: I had to throw up my hands. It looked good in the beginning when Stubstad explained it to me but now I just don't know. It's very confusing. I haven't been able to put it all together into a paper that doesn't depend on one or two anecdotal reports. I sent all my results to someone who knows a lot more about primate and population genetics than I (and Stubstad) do and they will get back to me on what it all means. Until then I'm at a standstill. When the findings comes out and states what they claim is proven true, are you going to like 99% of the skeptics and just redirect to some other animal or pick the findings apart for miss spellings and wrong dates and claim the whole project null and void. Or will you take it like a man and profusely apologize to all the people you have belittled and embarrassed though all your post and eat your rightfully so, steady diet of crow, morning noon and night for a year ? Edited November 4, 2011 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frosstman Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) November 4, 2011 - Melba Ketchum http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000063763125 Copied and pasted: "Ok, for the sake of time ( and I hope all of you understand), I will answer everyone publicly here. I keep getting a lot of emails from everyone wanting to know the status of the project. Though I cannot give details or timing, I will assure everyone that all is well and we are continuing to move forward. Good science cannot be forced or quickly completed. If it is not extremely thorough, then it will all be for naught and any paper rejected outright. So, I ask you to be patient and understanding and realize that extreme scientific overkill is required in order to convince a world full of skeptical scientists. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". This is what we are doing. When we started this, I thought we would be finished in a few weeks, but instead as Sasquatch are known to do, they threw us curve balls even with their DNA which can be as elusive as they are. Thank goodness we are past that! As a result, we have assembled a renowned team, each of us with our own specialties to make this project "extraordinary". If everyone will hang in there, I promise it will be worth the wait. We have the proof, now just give us the opportunity to present it in a form that will even convince skeptics. Thanks so much for all of your emails and support. Best wishes to all." - Melba Ketchum Just noticed that this was already mentioned in the previous Ketchum thread. Can be deleted. Edited November 4, 2011 by frosstman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I'm always flattered when someone quotes me. But Dr. Ketchum is a member here, so you prolly broke the rules by posting that. Nope your just miffed because you got BUSTED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Nope, the ubiquitous Magic 8 Ball, remember. Flash: Update! Oh great smooth, swarthy, ovoid, octo-afflicted one 'Do I see Hairy Man-Monkey dna on the horizon? "Yes, it is certain!"' Actually LOL PS- you can NEVER have too much Halloween candy ... Correct; it really wasn't a mistake.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Did I? Or did you infer that? Well, we all inferred from your hint that the paper wouldn't appear in Nature because there can't be simultaneous submissions with scientific journals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Nope your just miffed because you got BUSTED! Nah You did exactly what I expected. Thanks!! LOL Well, we all inferred from your hint that the paper wouldn't appear in Nature because there can't be simultaneous submissions with scientific journals. Ahh, you inferred a causal relationship between the two statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I meant the link for Ketchum's statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Nah You did exactly what I expected. Thanks!! LOL Nice try at the shake off LOL Edited November 4, 2011 by EdSmith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted November 4, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted November 4, 2011 I meant the link for Ketchum's statement. Tim, it's her FB Status, it's on her Wall.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Ahh, you inferred a causal relationship between the two statements. Actually, the statements have a direct relationship. In fact, all these statements by you have a direct relationship: The story that the journal is Nature is false. That is not a joke nor is it speculation. I will tell you this much and no more: A manuscript can be submitted to only one journal at a time. I am only willing to share what I have already said. It's not speculation. I'm not sure what your definition of hint is, but I have to tell you flat out, those are hints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 November 4, 2011 - Melba Ketchum http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000063763125 Copied and pasted: "Ok, for the sake of time ( and I hope all of you understand), I will answer everyone publicly here. I keep getting a lot of emails from everyone wanting to know the status of the project. Though I cannot give details or timing, I will assure everyone that all is well and we are continuing to move forward. Good science cannot be forced or quickly completed. If it is not extremely thorough, then it will all be for naught and any paper rejected outright. So, I ask you to be patient and understanding and realize that extreme scientific overkill is required in order to convince a world full of skeptical scientists. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". This is what we are doing. When we started this, I thought we would be finished in a few weeks, but instead as Sasquatch are known to do, they threw us curve balls even with their DNA which can be as elusive as they are. Thank goodness we are past that! As a result, we have assembled a renowned team, each of us with our own specialties to make this project "extraordinary". If everyone will hang in there, I promise it will be worth the wait. We have the proof, now just give us the opportunity to present it in a form that will even convince skeptics. Thanks so much for all of your emails and support. Best wishes to all." - Melba Ketchum Just noticed that this was already mentioned in the previous Ketchum thread. Can be deleted. moved this here from another new thread... he supplies a link, where im not sure the previous post quoting her did so... Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 When the findings comes out and states what they claim is proven true, are you going to like 99% of the skeptics and just redirect to some other animal or pick the findings apart for miss spellings and wrong dates and claim the whole project null and void. Or will you take it like a man and profusely apologize to all the people you have belittled and embarrassed though all your post and eat your rightfully so, steady diet of crow, morning noon and night for a year ? I think that if the results are published in a respected journal (and not one operated by cryptozoologists) that all the skeptics will in fact, be happy it has been proven to be true! (if the DNA evidence is complete and absolute in it's findings). Most of the skeptics want Bigfoot to be real, they just haven't seen enough evidence to convince them it is so. I'm sure there are those who come here to antagonize, but I don't think it's nearly as many as you suspect. I'm skeptically optimistic in regards to Bigfoot. If the evidence is real, peer reviewed and confirmed, I'm on board! BTW, just because someone spends time one here debunking what they consider lousy evidence or misrepresentations of evidence doesn't mean they hate Bigfoot. It means they demand evidence to be real and based on facts and not conjecture and hopeful determinism. (not to mention, that if this all turns out to be true, it doesn't mean that all the evidence ever presented about Bigfoot somehow magically becomes real either! The skookum cast could still be an elk, Patty could still be a suit, Bigfoot could still NOT be telepathic and dropped off from UFO's!) I'm cautiously optimistic that this all gets released over the next few months.... But I'm not of the mind that it will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts