Guest BFSleuth Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 The only thing I might add to your summary is that several forum members have confirmed that they have submitted samples with documentation of how they were collected. They are under NDA's until the report is published, at which time they will be able to report their work in collecting the samples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 at the time I was trying to parody RL's style at the time to show how silly it is to spew whatever you want, call it a fact, and expect it to be believed. I told whoever it was that has it that I meant it sarcastically, but it's still in his sig line. But no biggie.. Thats the first I've heard you mention that it was in sarcasim....at the time, it seemed you were challenging people to prove you wrong...If it is officially retracted as you're opinion of the facts, I'll remove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Well actually, since it wasn't meant to be taken literally I shouldn't have to retract it. But I will explain further...read what I wrote again, keeping in mind how RL acted when he was here. I was trying to make a point. I even threw out his "sources" trick. To be clear. I am of the opinion that no one can say, there is no DNA, no one ever shot a BF or what the Erickson video shows, factually. Anyone is free to give their opinion that such and such is ********, but that's hardly factual. Read what I wrote. With that in mind can you see how I was being over the top now to make a point about RL? BTW I thought I already told you this. Apologies if I was mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I thought it was absolutely clear that you were being sarcastic when you made this posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 They are WORTHLESS because unless you have 10's of thousands of dollars to hire lawyers to march into court, file papers and then take endless depositions and then go to a trial to enforce your NDA, then it means NOTHING. Does Ketchum have that kind of money, and we're talking probably close to 100G's to play it out to the end, where she could take someone to court to prove damages and get injunctive relief where even that wouldn't necessarily give her a nickel for it being broken? Let's suppose that a couple of people that have a NDA with Ketchum,both in different states, decide that they have had enough and simultaneously publish websites with EVERYTHING listed on it that has been in this "study." What could she do? You just can't call the police or file papers and go into a judge and say "hey looky, these guys broke their word with me and have damaged me and my work." She wouldn't be able to do a **** thing about it except hire lawyers and start a legal process that would take YEARS to wind its way through the system and in the end she might not be able to prove any damage to her at all. Same thing with a patent or a trademark. Unless you have the money to march into a court and ENFORCE your paperwork, it means NOTHING. It's no more than a wall decoration and you all know it. To give these papers the standing that you all do is mind boggling. Nalajr Yeah, who on Earth would want to honor a contract? How dare us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Don't you think the distinction is that you can go "pick" these flowers... look at them... smell them... photograph them, and even take them home with you. There's no disputing that they are real. It's just not the same THING as Bigfoot. I don't think you can take them home with you. Unless I'm mistaken they're endangered: a lot of the plants in that region are. Although many nations don't allow you to bring plants in to the country due to agricultural concerns about diseases etc. Now, bigfoot you can take home. They're not listed with CITES and being native they couldn't possibly bring in any new diseases. I don't know MikeG personally but from what I can see from his posts he is a man of honour and I think he is talking about the fact that he made a agreement and gave his word when he signed his NDAs and that nothing is going to make him break his word. I don't know the people involved with the study either but it seems that their word might mean a whole lot more to them than legal shenaningans. I am surprised that someone would come out and advise another person to break their word because in their opinion there could be nothing done about it. Plus one well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) Well actually, since it wasn't meant to be taken literally I shouldn't have to retract it. But I will explain further...read what I wrote again, keeping in mind how RL acted when he was here. I was trying to make a point. I even threw out his "sources" trick. To be clear. I am of the opinion that no one can say, there is no DNA, no one ever shot a BF or what the Erickson video shows, factually. Anyone is free to give their opinion that such and such is ********, but that's hardly factual. Read what I wrote. With that in mind can you see how I was being over the top now to make a point about RL? BTW I thought I already told you this. Apologies if I was mistaken. You made the post on the 13th page of the "Blockbuster News" thread on July 9th 2011. This is what you said just 3 posts before it on the same day. "Honestly I cannot see after reading this many times and very closely how anyone can take any of this story seriously. I don't mean "there may be just a grain of truth" kind of disbelief. I mean I find the entire thing a camp-fire story. Complete fiction" Maybe this is why we totally missed your sarcasim???? Hairy Greek called you out later in the "Sierra Kills" thread for making declarative statements. You then vowed to back them up, and it is then that you mention sarcasim, but I still wonder why you can't just say what you "really" mean. ETA... yes I see your intent now, but the sarcasim following what appeared to be your true opinion, was not the best timing in context, to say the least. Edited April 25, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Judas: I'll take a stab. It is my understanding that the Ketchum DNA project started years ago, collecting various samples from across NA to be tested for BF DNA. Then along came Justin, who alledgedly shot and killed 2 BF (hugely debated, no solid proof or evidence provided to the public). Introduce Adrian Erickson who claims (per their website) to have video and samples of BF, the samples of which are in the Ketchum Study (hugely debated, no solid proof or evidence (except a pic of what is claimed to be a sleeping BF that is hard to identify)). Erickson site has been unchanged and quiet for months. That slack has been taken up by the Ketchum DNA camp who, on facebook, have been making some pretty bold statements and cryptic claims, setting up a protection agency for BF, and when inquiries are made, reply with the study will be released 'soon'. Add in about 159 pages of speculation, debate rule discussion, thinly veiled insinuations and insults, and now you are up to page 160. No new evidence or proof. Just a small hope that the Ketchum camp is legit and going to change the world 'soon'. Folks, did I miss anything? Thanks. I haven't been keeping up with this thread either and was looking for the erikson thread earlier. Appreciate the synopsis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) Some speculation this is it...don't know if the link will open or not: http://www.newswise.com/articles/channels?channel=106 "EMBARGOED" Edited April 25, 2012 by bananasquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Yeah, a few of us found that a few pages back. I'm keeping my eye on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Huh - guess I missed it. It's hard to follow this thread most days. Apologies for repeat!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 No need to apologize. 98% of this thread is complete retread and repeating, so there is no way to avoid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Agreed...thanks. So what does it mean on the Newswise site that the info was released to "reporters" on 4/23...? Seems the media isn't much good at keeping things quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 You know. I get the feeling there is someone out there that is literally dying for that paper. It's almost scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 (edited) Released to reporters means that reporters who have a good relationship with the journal will get the information ahead of time, so they can prepare their newstories in advance. Sally Ramey, Dr. Ketchum's publicity person, laid this all out really well at some point, but basically, it's an honor system. She's done this for other papers, and says that if a journalist jumps the gun and releases something early, they are ostracized, and won't get the chance to get in pre-embargo again. That said, I don't think this week is it. On no, two more posts until 100. Must....resist the urge.... Edited April 25, 2012 by Particle Noun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts