Guest Darrell Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 IMO we have allowed this to become a house of cards that will collapse under its own weight in time. Even if this paper or report is ever published I dont think it will be what everyone hopes it will be, and that is docmented proof in Sasquatch. If the Ketchum study is the basket you are putting all your eggs into, it might be time to get a new chicken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter O. Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 The Oxford study should squawk before the end of the year. Still hopeful, but transferring eggs as we speak... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I don't think this paper has a chance to be published. If it had, at least publication date would be known by now. it might be published by a tabloid but if a legitimate journal had any interest the paper would have had plenty of time to go through reviews and corrections. I believe it was submitted and rejected from all legitimate journals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I'm putting the same egg in every legitimate basket so I'm bound to get atleast one bigfoot chick out of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 NatGeo magazine has degenerated to ads and pretty pictures (and constant reminders to renew your subscription). Somewhat understandable though, with internet being the preferred medium these days. I forget to self tax on this one. National Geographic has been an amazing influence on my life. It's a simple economic dynamic as far as I can tell. We buy the magazine, they pay for the pictures. I would like for the pictures to continue. High quality pixel dense pictures that can be embiggened if. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter O. Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 @southernyahoo: LOL fair enough! I don't know what to make of the latest statement from Justin contradicting what Ketchum said when she denied the steak. If she is trying to distance herself from the pivotal sample, then... then what? Just to deny she has any leaks in the organization? Hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I think it's to extinguish anyones notion that Lindsay can be relyed on for valid information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I no longer find Robert Lindsay a valuable source for information. He's been mixing his opinion with rumours a lot lately and presenting them as facts. The grain of salt has now turned into a whole tablespoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I think it's to extinguish anyones notion that Lindsay can be relyed on for valid information. No offense but I don't understand how she was successful. The person that submitted the sample says she's wrong on this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I would like to hear Melbas explanation for that statement. D. Randles says the picture looks like the sample Justin recovered, Justin doesn't deny the pictures of the "steak", But Melba says its a lie, not real? ok. And don't start with "Ketchum just got a little sample, so it looks different". That don't cut it. If she was asked for pictures and video for publication to help show chain of custody of the samples she received, she would have been privy to the photos of the "steak". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I don't think this paper has a chance to be published. If it had, at least publication date would be known by now. it might be published by a tabloid but if a legitimate journal had any interest the paper would have had plenty of time to go through reviews and corrections. I believe it was submitted and rejected from all legitimate journals. I have bolded the problematic words. If you have anything to substantiate this, you would have mentioned it, I'm sure. As you haven't mentioned it, I am putting your comment down as pure unadulterated speculation. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I've got another question. What's going on with the bloody boots? Those seem to have faded into the back ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 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. I wish I could +1 this. I totally agree. She needs to stop talking and hire someone who actually understands PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 @ Melissa, why can't you A+ his post? Poignant has some pretty amazing info on a lot of relevant subjects! But I do support the suggestion that Melba get a representative to do the PR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I thought that was Sally's job... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts