Guest slimwitless Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 There's obviously some confusion here. Can you post the actual statement(s)? Perhaps seeing things in context will make more sense. I'm not sure I want to go through the hour long interview to find the quotes. I recall it went something this. The interviewer said, "some people think the photo of the steak looks like bear". Smeja replied in agreement but added he felt there were differences. That's how I remember it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me he would instead deny the photo was legit if that were the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted July 24, 2012 Admin Share Posted July 24, 2012 Actually, I just meant Ketchum's remarks. I've seen the Smeja interview and there are quite a few red flags for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Masterbarber - do you mean the statement Ketchum put out today? This is the statement put out by Ketchum in reference to the flesh samples - this was posted here (on the BFF) today by Gershake. "The manuscript is NOT at the Nature Group! How many times do I have to say this? There is no pub date yet! Those pics are not real either, it looks like the hair is mounted on something fake (or tanned) and it really looks more like tanned coyote hide. The morphology is wrong for BF hair. Talk about grasping at straws. I wish people would stop bombarding me with emails every time all this fiction gets posted but that is all it is, fiction. Geez.... Ok, now that I have responded this time, this is the last post I am going to comment on the subject of this blog....and I am not going to waste my time answering any emails on it either. Just know, whatever that blog says as it pertains to ANYTHING we are doing or know, it is NOT true and I will not address this again. There are no leaks from our group and NOBODY, even the submitters, know anything at this time as the dynamics of the study have radically changed. I have way too much to do to than to answer a lot of emails. I don't want to be rude and not answer so I am posting this as an answer to all. Please do not expect anything further until the paper is released. Thanks everyone and I appreciate the support." Gershake, It's all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) Actually, I just meant Ketchum's remarks. I've seen the Smeja interview and there are quite a few red flags for me. Here's the relavent bit from what she posted on Facebook today. Those pics are not real either, it looks like the hair is mounted on something fake (or tanned) and it really looks more like tanned coyote hide. The morphology is wrong for BF hair. The main photo has been circulating for awhile. I haven't heard anyone suggest it wasn't the real deal. Justin's comment in the interview seems to confirm it's authentic. Can I ask what red flags you picked up from the interview? Edited July 24, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I've not heard that Derek or General have confirmed the photo of the steak is what was sent to Dr. Ketchum. It sounds like they've commented on what the steak looks like but it isn't clear whether they were made about the photo on Lindsays blog or the steak it'self. We should remember that Dr. Ketchum didn't receive the whole chunk according to the OP and General so a positive ID from her end may not be possible looking at the photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted July 24, 2012 Admin Share Posted July 24, 2012 When I get some time to sit down, review the video again and make notations then I'll post them. In general (no pun intended), it has to do with neuro-linguistics combined with body language and some of his verbal responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Proof Yahoo? She said the pics aren't even real and that the dynamics of the study have radically changed. So how do you add up fake pics, radically changed dynamics, call it evidence and then call that questionable evidence "proof". Methinks most reasonable people would correctly not call that proof. BTW WTB1 I wasn't talking about photo's of samples earlier . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I've not heard that Derek or General have confirmed the photo of the steak is what was sent to Dr. Ketchum. It sounds like they've commented on what the steak looks like but it isn't clear whether they were made about the photo on Lindsays blog or the steak it'self. We should remember that Dr. Ketchum didn't receive the whole chunk according to the OP and General so a positive ID from her end may not be possible looking at the photo. I wasn't under the impression the photo represents what was sent but rather what was left. I agree she might not be able to make an ID from the image but I think it's odd she wouldn't consider that possibility before making such a strong statement about it. I'm pretty sure Justin and Ro were discussing the photo of the hide that was circulating. (I believe it was Guy Edwards from Bigfoot Lunch Club that originally suggested the hide looked like black bear based on the first photo). I'll retroactively retract my comments if I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I think this will take Dereck or Justin to settle it. It was a red flag to me that Lindsay even had a pic of it, then had his copyright on it, but no confirmation or denial from DR or JS on here. I don't know if it was to ignore Lindsay so as not to encourage any more of his rubbish, or some sort of controlled leak, but to Lindsay? Bangs head! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Southernyahoo said: I think this will take Dereck or Justin to settle it. Do you think a yes or no from one or both would really settle anything? If they said "No, this is not the sample" there would be people saying, "this is clearly a flesh sample of some kind. What are they trying to hide and why would they try to hide it?" If they said, "Yes, this is a photo of the sample" someone will come along and say, "Really, because Dr. Ketchum says it's not." I think they are smart to just not say anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Unless they wanted to show a photo of the real steak. It wouldn't bother me to put Lindsay in his place if he posted a fake photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Actually, I just meant Ketchum's remarks. I've seen the Smeja interview and there are quite a few red flags for me. I think there are bits of info in there that give a broader view of what's going on with all involved in the project and the sierra story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Derek responded to a question about the photos here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 How many times to you have to say it? Well, dozens of times if you have nothing to back it up. Only once if you can substantiate what you say. Mike Quoted for truth. Lies must cover lies, but truth will stand on its own. Dr. Ketchum if you are reading this, you really need to work on public relations and adopt a more formal, professional tone in your correspondences with the public. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 As I understand Dr. Ketchum's statements there has been no changes in the status of the paper. She has not confirmed that the paper has been accepted for publication. She has confirmed that there is no publication date. Unless someone can confirm otherwise, I believe it is pretty safe to assume as of today that the paper has not been accepted for publicaton. I think it also reasonable to assume that the paper may not be accepted for publication. I hope I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts