Guest Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 You have to have something purty for the journalists who need to digest this into palatable chunks for public consumption. Clear(ish) photo's and videos will do that in spades. Paragraphs of talk about Devinsonian man and Heterozygotes won't. Wouldn't the inclusion of photos and video with the release/publication of the papaer also make up for the fact there is no...er, actual specimen?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 It will go a long way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 The DNA makes up for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 In this day of Photoshop and kids in their rooms creating unbelievable videos and movies on their MACBOOKS, why on earth would a scientific journal want pics and/or video submitted to include with the paper? Judging by nearly every scientist I have ever heard, seen or read talking about Sassy, the photos and videos don't mean a thing to them, right next to USELESS on the scale of importance. Even if they did want pics or videos, wouldn't that simply be a few mouse clicks away from getting it to them? It's not like they are wanting her to dub it to VHS. I'm still betting on some kind of website submission on a membership basis. Why else have the videos? The people that are going to be reading this journal are not the kind of people that care or are impressed by pics and videos. Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Nalajr, I think the situation might be different if the photos/film are directly related to samples taken and shown to be from an unclassified hominid, don't you? It makes them much more relevant, in any case. I don't think we're insinuating that pictures like "sasquatch peeking behind mound" be included in the paper... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Well if they submit the video of the bigfoot lying on the ground (the one they apparently have a zoomed HD shot of her face moving) and they are able to say, "this is the one that licked the glass shards glued to the plate, I think that really helps to put a face to a sample. At least it shows that it isn't some type of Native American tribe that just hasn't been put in GenBank or something. It clearly would show that they are trying to establish that these are hairy, very non-human creatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 In this day of Photoshop and kids in their rooms creating unbelievable videos and movies on their MACBOOKS, why on earth would a scientific journal want pics and/or video submitted to include with the paper? Judging by nearly every scientist I have ever heard, seen or read talking about Sassy, the photos and videos don't mean a thing to them, right next to USELESS on the scale of importance. Even if they did want pics or videos, wouldn't that simply be a few mouse clicks away from getting it to them? It's not like they are wanting her to dub it to VHS. I'm still betting on some kind of website submission on a membership basis. Why else have the videos? The people that are going to be reading this journal are not the kind of people that care or are impressed by pics and videos. Nalajr Exactly. A reputable paper would not require or want any such crap because videos and photos of unestablished provenance are useless to science. Such things are what the popular media is for. If the DNA exists and it has been examined and conclusions drawn and if such evidence and conclusions pass peer review that is enough. A dog and pony show is not neccessary or required in a reputable science journal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I don't think anyone is saying they are required. They may be useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I don't think they are asking for pictures of dogs or ponies... But seriously, if their request has to do with photographic or videographic evidence that directly ties DNA samples to a creature, then that would be of great interest for any science journal. I've been thinking about this issue today, and the thought occurred to me that part of the delay may be due to acquiring publication rights to the photographs or videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Any guesses on which journal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter O. Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 In this day of Photoshop and kids in their rooms creating unbelievable videos and movies on their MACBOOKS, why on earth would a scientific journal want pics and/or video submitted to include with the paper? Nalarj, in this day of Photoshop, you would be hard pressed to replicate the verisimilitude of an actual living creature. A still photo is hard enough, but have you ever looked at the progress they are making with realistic video games and animated films? None of those could remotely be confused with a real person or animal. The best that can be done is to hide the fakeness of a costume with poor quality video/photography. That's what all those hoaxed blobsquatches you are referring to you are doing. Nobody is creating a creature from scratch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Don't think of BF photos/videos the way they are thought of now. Think of them in the context of the release of a paper that slam dunk proves the existance of the subject. Makes a difference IMO. If you have a possible photo of something that is known to exist you look at it differently, even if it's not a glamour shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I don't think they are asking for pictures of dogs or ponies... But seriously, if their request has to do with photographic or videographic evidence that directly ties DNA samples to a creature, then that would be of great interest for any science journal. I've been thinking about this issue today, and the thought occurred to me that part of the delay may be due to acquiring publication rights to the photographs or videos. That is a valid point. Dr. Ketchum being first and foremost a veterinarian may have overlooked the fine print that others used to publishing and media releases take as a matter of course. That is not a criticism by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I think GOOD pics and/or videos would assist her with the masses if they are released with the study with documented and verified DNA evidence. When a great deal of people watch these crime shows where the criminal is nabbed and convicted in 60 minutes from the CSI retrieving a used cigarette butt in the parking lot, a scientific paper along with those pics and videos would go a long way to making Sassy real to a LOT of people. I just don't see the relevance of videos/pics to the REAL experts that are giving the Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down on this paper/study. I'm not saying it would be easy to create such a fake film, I know I couldn't even begin to know how they do it. But there are some amazing pieces of software out there and very powerful systems to run it on. You match that with some very inspired and mischievous people and it's hard telling what you'd end up with. How many people thought that DogMan video was real when they first saw it? Of course there are lots more examples out there that you all know more about than I do. It's easy to be hornswaggled when you want so much to believe. I hope I do end up eating a GIANT CROW and apologize to the board when that paper ends up in a verified scientific journal, I think it would be fascinating TV for a while and it would also shake loose a lot of the stuff some people have been keeping under wraps for many years out of fear they be called a NUT. Right now, I still believe the website angle though. Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I hope I do end up eating a GIANT CROW and apologize to the board when that paper ends up in a verified scientific journal... I think technically that would be a raven... In the event the paper is published in a science journal, I'm anticipating that a number of forum members may be finding their previous quotes brought up for "review". Hopefully we will have a good time celebrating together on this forum, without too much gloating or rancor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts