Guest BFSleuth Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 From the moment that funding for the project started it became something of a business enterprise, as far as I can determine. I think Dr. Sykes has financial backing of a university, although I remember someone indicating that the BBC may be helping to fund this latest DNA study. On the other hand Dr. Ketchum doesn't have funding from a university, she has funding from private parties. Then NDA's came into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this.It's not that they can't talk about it, it's that they shouldn't in order to maximize the earning potential of such a spectacular discovery. Whenever or however it happens, the person who definitively proves the existence of Sasquatch WILL make money off of their discovery. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's the way it is. And IMO there is absolutely nothing wrong with playing it smart in the interest of financial gain. Sure there will be those who have convinced themselves that making money off of this would somehow be immoral, but that's not going to matter. If this report is the real deal (I still think it is!), then they are doing EXACTLY what they should be doing. At NO TIME, not a single instance has the author or anyone attached to the project EVER admitted or even discussed this "study" or "paper" being about MONEY or PROFITS. Here again, I don't know where in the world you and the others are getting your information. You are talking about things that have never been mentioned. In fact the author has said the interest is in PROTECTING the creatures,and NOT MAKING MONEY from it. I can only speak for myself and the fact is that I would have absolutely NO PROBLEM AT ALL if she came out and said "OK everyone, in order to preserve the money making potential of this study and associated media and materials, I, or anyone else connected with this undertaking will say ANYTHING AT ALL about what is going on until it is published so don't even ask or expect anything." If that's what it's about, that would be great, just ADMIT IT. But no such admission has ever came out. I know I have believed for a while that money is what this whole endeavor has been about from the start. I suspect others believe that as well. Niceguy, where did you get such information about the "study" and when did you hear it? Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Doesn't anyone find it strange that a team from OXFORD can announce a study of their own in the paper, ask the people to send them supposed DNA material, perform the testing on it and then tell everyone that the data will be presented by the end of the year with the actual paper to follow and yet NOTHING even close to that level of detail has been transmitted from this study. Wait a minute, You would just take the word from the team at Oxford that they will do all these things they claim? Now you've flipped on the idea and say Dr. Ketchum has no similar claims to back up? You're just ranting Nalajr, and attempting some sort of flip standard. The Oxford team says they will not make any results public until the embargos are lifted on their paper, so you;'ve got some more waiting to do , no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 It looks like Dr. Ketchum should have done a poll before starting so that she could identify what would cause red flags for forum posters before starting her study. Lets note this for future professionals to consider... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 6, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) From the moment that funding for the project started it became something of a business enterprise, as far as I can determine. ...Then NDA's came into play. The part that grates me is the early involvement of the TB team (even if it was just kept to samples submitted). Somehow Stubstad being involved then seemed to lead to this inextricable interrelatedness going down the mtDNA route. Had TB not been involved on the front side though, would Stubstad even have come into play and would this project have gotten wings? That is the larger question I have unless I have missed something. Without Stubstad (on it's face) would the project have made it? If TB had not been involved early on I think the project would have a more squeaky clean pedigree, however (FWIW). The two juxtapositions listed have always left me with a bitter taste of the larger project, especially since the NDA's were upgraded and Stubstad and apparently others then excluded by choice (maybe even forced-choice?) or by circumstance, team players or not. Just thinking out loud here. Hope the study does get published reputably and does not just become another commercial foray. Edited July 6, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 How many people who read this thread, are thinking: "Ketchum has Bigfoot DNA, they just can't publish it" ? How many people who read this thread, are thinking: "Ketchum has nothing, thus they can't publish it"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 How many people read this that are relevant to Dr Ketchum at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 At NO TIME, not a single instance has the author or anyone attached to the project EVER admitted or even discussed this "study" or "paper" being about MONEY or PROFITS. Here again, I don't know where in the world you and the others are getting your information. You are talking about things that have never been mentioned. In fact the author has said the interest is in PROTECTING the creatures,and NOT MAKING MONEY from it. I can only speak for myself and the fact is that I would have absolutely NO PROBLEM AT ALL if she came out and said "OK everyone, in order to preserve the money making potential of this study and associated media and materials, I, or anyone else connected with this undertaking will say ANYTHING AT ALL about what is going on until it is published so don't even ask or expect anything." If that's what it's about, that would be great, just ADMIT IT. But no such admission has ever came out. I know I have believed for a while that money is what this whole endeavor has been about from the start. I suspect others believe that as well. Niceguy, where did you get such information about the "study" and when did you hear it? Nalajr Why would she come out and say that? There's accepting reality for what it is (whoever proves Bigfoot will make money off of their discovery), and then there's behaving with a bit of grace and tact (not formally announcing that you plan on building a career and getting rich off of your discovery). I'm not saying that I have any kind of proof of the existence of any paper, or what that paper may or may not say. All I'm saying is that if the paper DOES prove the existence of a previously unknown North American primate, then the best thing for her to do from a financial standpoint would be to play everything close to the chest until you have everything in order and are ready to present. What could possibly be the benefit of prematurely announcing her results to a public that has no intention of believing a word of it until they can see proof? Do you get what I mean? If there is a paper, and that paper proves the existence of Bigfoot, then she is doing exactly what she should be doing if she intends to profit off of it. That does not include announcing "I intend to profit off of this". We are all adults; we should be able to read between the lines a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Drew- for one, I think Melba & co. have a study that is so unique that it can't be published without further clarity and coraboration; just saying. ptangier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 How many people who read this thread, are thinking: "Ketchum has Bigfoot DNA, they just can't publish it" ? How many people who read this thread, are thinking: "Ketchum has nothing, thus they can't publish it"? I still think they "can" publish it. There is no deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 It looks like Dr. Ketchum should have done a poll before starting so that she could identify what would cause red flags for forum posters before starting her study. Lets note this for future professionals to consider... +1 TimB. Nothing like keyboard courage to get the world all irate. How many people who read this thread, are thinking: "Ketchum has Bigfoot DNA, they just can't publish it" ? How many people who read this thread, are thinking: "Ketchum has nothing, thus they can't publish it"? None of the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LJSLaw Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I would think that a scientific journal would be extremely careful -- we are talking about it's own credibility here -- before they publish a scientific study that purports to prove the existence of a creature that 87% of the public believes is as mythical as unicorns and mermaids. Extremely careful. Unprecedented careful. The reputation of a scientific journal IS the scientific journal. I would suspect many journals wouldn't publish this thing even if the result had been blind verified by a thousand universities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) My thoughts exactly. If the DNA study did yeild positive results, I'm sure the tests will be run several more times to reduce/eliminate a possible error. I would think also that an outside lab would then be used to do the tests and collaborate the findings. Edited July 6, 2012 by MikeG ...Please do not quuote the preceding post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I would think that a scientific journal would be extremely careful -- we are talking about it's own credibility here -- before they publish a scientific study that purports to prove the existence of a creature that 87% of the public believes is as mythical as unicorns and mermaids. I understand the point you are making and agree. However, your figure of 87% of the population not believing in the existence of BF may be incorrect. I've seen figures as high as 30% that believe in the existence of this creature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 That has so far seemed to me the most likely scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts