Guest Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 The journal would only be careful if the information is flawed, but would want it to be thorough, to suggest they would not publish sound information based on public opinion is to suggest bias in the scientific community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 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. i've seen figures that it is around 5% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 It depends where you go. In Washington state it's well over 30%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 It depends where you go. In Washington state it's well over 30%. That's because we have Bigfoot Java here, on the corners not taken up by Starbucks! Those that don't believe in Starbucks roaming the skies believe Bigfoot roams the woods. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 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. I'm not taking anyone's word on anything. I am merely relying on what he SAID to the PRESS when the study was announced. They said the results would be made available to the public. In one single press conference they have released more information than this study has in 3 years, I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt on their word for 6 months, NOT 3 YEARS without a shred of concurring evidence to suggest ANYTHING is actually going "as planned." I can totally understand that bringing up these VALID questions makes a lot of you uncomfortable, if it makes you feel better to attack me or anyone else raising the same questions, that's OK. That won't make the questions stop though. Nalajr I will give you all one thing, you can sure come up with a different excuse for every single day of the year and on a moments notice too. I shake my head wondering even if you all are believing the stuff you post. So now the study is so earth shatteringly unique and controversial and has such a high number of skeptics that EVERYONE involved has to be SUPER-T-DUPER secret and tight lipped. Is that the new one now? I wonder if there is someone at this "journal" that gets every submission on their desk and then declares a "CODE FORCE RED 43 PROTOCOL" when a really controversial paper WITH proof comes in? And then a Journal-Wide email blast goes out to ALL employees mandating a total LOCK DOWN on ALL info and comments about said study and a Special Journal Secrecy AIDE is dispatched to the author(s) and Peer Reviewers to shadow them 24 hours a day until the study is published making sure that CODE FORCE RED 43 PROTOCOLS are NOT breached in ANY WAY and if there is a leak to implement the Special Security Addendum Part C to get it quieted down as fast as possible. Man I'd like to have that job....... Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 the Difference in between the Oxford study and Ketchums is Sykes isn't trying to pass the blame of not releasing results on the journal. They came right out and said "they" are not releasing data until the embargo lifts, not "the journal won't let us release any data before the embargo". The Oxford study seems imho to be much more open from the start and I think we will see results from this long before Ketchums paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Feel better Nalajr? You obviously came here to "win" this discussion, and it seems as though you have claimed victory. Congratulations! Nobody is "uncomfortable" with your questions, and nobody is "attacking" you. You came here to ask "questions" you had already decided there were no answers to, and thus any answers we gave would just be "us people" making excuses. And whaddaya know, we did just what you thought we were going to do! I understand that there are 220+ pages to this thread and nobody is expecting you to read the whole thing. But the fact is, the only reason anybody knows anything about this study- the only reason this thread exists- is because of information being leaked in the first place. Sure there is frustration on all sides- the people who leaked are frustrated that it's moving so slowly, the people who have seen the animal are frustrated that their vindication is taking so long, the people who think they know much better than "us people" are frustrated that the paper hasn't already been released, failed, and been ridiculed. The fact is, this frustration wouldn't exist if news of the study hadn't been leaked in the first place, but there is nothing Ketchum can do about that. She has a plan in place, and is sticking with the plan. Or she doesn't, there never was a study, there never was a paper, and it was all a lie. If that seems reasonable to you then great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 I'm not taking anyone's word on anything. I am merely relying on what he SAID to the PRESS when the study was announced. They said the results would be made available to the public. In one single press conference they have released more information than this study has in 3 years, I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt on their word for 6 months, NOT 3 YEARS without a shred of concurring evidence to suggest ANYTHING is actually going "as planned." The only information you have for the Oxford study is that they may be testing samples right now. How is that any more info? http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/academic/GBFs-v/OLCHP PUBLICATION PHASE Results from DNA analysis will be prepared for publication in a peer-reviewed science journal. No results will be released until any embargoes on publication have passed. the Difference in between the Oxford study and Ketchums is Sykes isn't trying to pass the blame of not releasing results on the journal. They came right out and said "they" are not releasing data until the embargo lifts, not "the journal won't let us release any data before the embargo". The Oxford study seems imho to be much more open from the start and I think we will see results from this long before Ketchums paper. Sykes seems to be saying the same thing to me. One is just as open as the other, and same info so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. However, I am suggesting that DNA in itself, is not the same, nor is it similar, to a type specimen, an actual organism. Regardless of whether there is a finger, or a slice of skin with hair on it, that has DNA that is useable, there is no way to reconstruct an animal from that DNA, so in other words, if Ketchum has DNA that is a lot like human DNA, and a lot like gorilla or chimp DNA, or is a lot like Neanderthal DNA, it still doesn't produce an image of what the source animal really is, or was, or would look like. It might as well be from a miniature aquatic human as from a giant hairy human, since I think it quite unlikely that the DNA can be deciphered enough to tell what size the source animal was, whether it had hair or scales or feathers, a tail, or no tail, webbed feet or clawed feet, went on all fours or was upright. DNA in itself does not demonstrate what sort of animal it came from if it is truly "unknown" DNA. There is no Rosetta Stone for DNA, with which anyone can recreate what an animal was like that gave up the unknown DNA sample. In other words, using DNA as a way to document the existence of an unknown animal, in the absense of a body, is useless. What would anyone draft up for it's physical description? I just had to come out of "lurk mode" to say that this is probably the most out there and rediculous idea I've heard yet. Tontar, does the DNA stop being what it is just because we can't give you an 8x10 color glossy of the critter it came from? Does it magically become "not DNA", or become some other type of genetic material OTHER than the DNA of whatever type the lab work says it is? Of course not. People accuse ME of being "anti-science"...I have to shake my head in wonder at that given statements like the above. Either it's DNA or it isn't. Either that DNA will establish a new type of primate or it won't. DNA is probably about as close as we have to 100% objective science. Unless of course it's BF, then all bets are off and the science goes out the window, according to Skeptics. Relurking now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 I would love to see her videos and photos of the Sassy's she captured on her lease. I think that would go a long way to placating a lot of the nay sayers and those that are getting on her. If she posted photos and videos that were really good, as good or better than PG, many people would take note of it and be willing to give her a lot more time without being critical of it. Will it silence everyone, no. It would help her out a great deal though. I don't know why she said she had that data if she didn't plan on letting people see it to bolster her credibility and efforts with this study. I think more information is always better than little or no information. Nalajr I misspoke in my earlier post when I referred to you all attacking me. That didn't come out properly and I wasn't able to get my idea written the way I was thinking. I don't believe anyone is attacking me or piling on or anything like that, so forgive my reckless accusation in that post. I'll try and watch closer what actually ends up in my posts. Sorry for that statement. Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) The only information you have for the Oxford study is that they may be testing samples right now. How is that any more info? http://www.wolfson.o...ic/GBFs-v/OLCHP Sykes seems to be saying the same thing to me. One is just as open as the other, and same info so far. Your right to a point, but Sykes just started his study and there have been numerous media stories about what he's trying to acomplish. He's not trying to keep everybody in the dark about it. I haven't heard anything about people who have submitted samples signing nda's (please correct me if I'm wrong) and he's given an estimated time frame to publication. Now if Sykes still has not got his paper published by this time next year and starts telling us it will be "soon", Then makes a facebook page where he uploads pictures of blurry stick structures, then declares he's having interactions with a family of five bigfoots on his property, but won't show the video or pics that he has, I'll be asking the same questions that I am about Ketchums project. Edited July 7, 2012 by squating squatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 I would love to see her videos and photos of the Sassy's she captured on her lease. I've yet to see a link quoting Dr. Ketchum on this claim. Misinformation much? Your right to a point, but Sykes just started his study and there have been numerous media stories about what he's trying to acomplish. He's not trying to keep everybody in the dark about it. I haven't heard anything about people who have submitted samples signing nda's (please correct me if I'm wrong) and he's given an estimated time frame to publication. You know about both studies, who is in the dark? Dr. Ketchum has likely said and told more than Sykes ever will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 I would love to see her videos and photos of the Sassy's she captured on her lease. Nalajr Frankly, I've been following this fairly closely and unless severely mistaken, I am unaware of any such claims of video or photographic evidence coming from her/Dr K's *lease*. I think there is video and photographic evidence included in the report but as I understand it this is provided by a secondary source and is an additional add-on/corroborative evidence to her study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) Several pages back there were numerous posts talking about it and why she refused to post the pics and videos. There were even people questioning her fortunate find on a piece of property that she leases. Before her FB was shut down, she said posting the pics and video wouldn't do any good as the people would pick it apart and not believe it anyway so she is just not going to post it. Go back and check it. I'm sure there are quite a few more than me that recall these exchanges several pages back. NO, I am NOT referring to the STICK DRAWINGS that she posted on her page. Nalajr Edited July 7, 2012 by Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Here are some comments from Dr. Ketchum about her having video evidence (of course the links don't work anymore since she deleted her facebook page): Dr. Melba Ketchum Yes, MSK responding. I have been very fortunate to obtain a good site in the last year. I have seen them and have learned volumes about them. Never even thought I would see one. I was so wrong. They are truly amazing! This makes me so much more determined to get protection for them. So, not only do I have DNA, but now have massive field experience. 20 februari om 10:39 Dr. Melba Ketchum I have a lot of samples and yes I have evidence. I can't imagine how this is going to go..... What an uproar there will be, no doubt. 25 april om 15:19 Dr. Melba Ketchum I will address what I have learned eventually, but the paper has to come out first. Dr. Melba Ketchum I didn't say that I didn't have pictures either. I just don't take a camera when I want to interact with them. I do have good video that I will show at a later time....after the paper publishes. Unfortunately I didn't copy the post with her explaining why she probably wasn't going to show the video anymore. I still think the Ketchum study will come out (against all odds) and I see no problem with the delays. I also cannot see how she would be able to hoax so many contributors. Wouldn't they have found out by now it it was all a hoax? The PR is a mess, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts