Guest Cervelo Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Cervelo, is that you on the video? No but it could have!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Haven't you been following the thread, no body, no crime There'll be a certain portion of the public calling for his head, with or without evidence to justify charges. It could get messy, but there's no way anyone could make a murder charge stick. Personally, I think the fact that he shot something believed to not exist covers him. I say this without having followed the Shooting thread, though, so if he's said anything that could be held against him of which I'm unaware, that could come into play. If someone shot a hypothetical UFO with a shotgun and somehow downed it, I doubt anyone would prosecute him for firing on an aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 My prediction is that if there is a paper that is ever released it will not be in a scientific journal, but on a website that each and every person that wants to see the paper, pics and vidoes, will have to pay for. Why else would you hold back on photos or videos that she has? Those wouldn't have a thing to do with her paper being approved. We'll see one day I suppose. Nalajr You really can't see another reason? What happens to every photo or video that comes out these days? It's ripped apart by many, usually with cries of "where is the corroborating evidence? Why do we only ever get photos?" So, it seems to make perfect sense to me to wait until you can GIVE that corroborating evidence, and then show your film and photographic evidence, which people will then be more disposed to look at objectively. She's already said this in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Thanks JDL, that's what I was asking. But what if the DNA revealed HUMAN? And he is saying he shot it....could he say it didn't look like a human to escape charges? I mean, true enough, "no body" would give him room to say he never killed it, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 A little off topic perhaps, but what if the DNA results reveal that the DNA is human, or hybrid human.....would the hunter (Justin) face any criminal charges? The DNA was tested before being submitted for peer review. If the results were human, there would be no need to send it in for scientific recognition. Non human DNA means no murder. Maybe they will try to fine him for poaching, but I hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 My prediction is that if there is a paper that is ever released it will not be in a scientific journal, but on a website that each and every person that wants to see the paper, pics and vidoes, will have to pay for. Why else would you hold back on photos or videos that she has? Those wouldn't have a thing to do with her paper being approved. We'll see one day I suppose. Nalajr My prediction is that it will be published in a recognized scientific journal, and if you want to read the actual report you will need to pay about $27 to buy a copy or pay for a year's subscription to the journal. That's just the way science journals operate. Regarding why hold back her photos, etc. I think it is probably out of respect for all the people that have signed NDA's that have submitted samples and are holding back their photo evidence because of the NDA's. The NDA's expire on publication from my understanding, so I predict we will have a flood of people coming out with their sample collection stories, photos, videos, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 (edited) BFS I agree that she will get a paper published in some scientific journal, sooner or later. I have always said that. Could be next week, could be in a month, or next year. That has never been a question in my mind. There are probably 100 journals that she could submit it to. You could (and people do) rank them from 1 to 100 based on the quality of the articles they publish. Google Eigenfactor. She probably started somewhere near the top and worked her way down her list. How far down she has to go depends on the quality of her paper and on the interest that a particular journal has in a particular subject. In turn, the quality of the paper depends on the quality of the data and the quality of the analysis of the data and the conclusions. I could break down each of these factors further but... I hate to fasten on one word, but I found it "interesting" that Ketchum quoted a department head as saying the material was "interesting." To me that tends to support what I have seen in the copyright papers and in the Stubstad data: that what she has is "interesting", not "groundbreaking", ie "interesting" modern human DNA, not "groundbreaking" DNA of a new species. As many people have pointed out recently, "bigfoot" is "interesting." The television show Finding Bigfoot is quite popular. People are "interested." Journals are "interested." So I suspect, given the interest in the subject, that if she is willing to forego claims like "this proves bigfoot exists", and simply say, "this is what was submitted to us from people who claim to have seen bigfoot," and includes all of the results, including other animals, then she may get her paper accepted in some reasonably good journal. It would be an ambiguous result; everyone would say, "it's interesting." But some people would look at it and say, "see, she got her paper published in a peer reviewed journal! Eat crow, parnassus!" Others would look at it and say, "there's nothing there about bigfoot except more stories," and "if you claim this modern human DNA is from bigfoot and not from, say, an unknown Boy Scout, then you have to bring in a body/part." Conversely, if she refuses to back away from making claims about some "interesting" modern human DNA proving bigfoot, then she will not get this paper published in a very good journal. I am equally confident of that. She would have to go way down the list, to some journal that, well, never mind. Again, in that case, we would have some ambiguity. I won't go into that, because I don't think she will do that. I think she will choose to make lesser claims and get it into a better journal. oops, my crystal ball just went dark. I'll let you know if it comes back to life. p. Edited April 27, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheellug Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Hmm... I'll go with .. interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Anyone else excited to see the video of family of 5 Sasquatch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 (edited) ahh the crystal ball came back on. There is one more factor I would add: it isn't just the journals that would cause her to moderate her claims: it's also the involvement of a number of other more scientific (and more objective) type individuals in analyzing what she has and in writing the paper. Not only would they write the paper in a more defensible way because of their objectivity, but they are also not interested in having the paper fall to a low quality journal, because for academic type people, the ranking of journals actually matters. p Edited April 27, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 (edited) OntarioSquatch- Did she say she had video? I thought she only referenced she saw them.... That would be HUGE if she did have video. But like a few have mentioned here lately, I wonder if we will have to pay to see. Edited cuz Parn's crystal ball came back before I could post. Edited April 27, 2012 by bananasquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 I think we'll see a lot of really good, and really crappy, video come out after the release of the paper. Parn, I really appreciate what you've written up there. I think, for the skeptics view point, it is a very tenable and reasonable position. I am hopeful it will be more than 'interesting', but I do appreciate the way you've articulated your point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 It doesn't matter. The TBRC will have this settled before the paper even comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Parn, if it's "modern human" DNA, there is no paper at all, as others have pointed out. "Modern human" is a non-starter as an interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 I think we'll see a lot of really good, and really crappy, video come out after the release of the paper. We've already seen enough crappy video!!! 105 posts. May you have 105 more.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts