Guest Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I wonder what Adrian Erickson is thinking about this three ring circus between the OP, Lindsay, Justin and Dr. Ketchum? Oh wait, that's actually a four ring circus. He had the first facial footage in 2005 and then sat on it like an egg and eventually duck taped it to Dr. Ketchum. Every day that Ketchum's report is not released increases the chance of one getting taken out by a truck or for the ORIG-6 or Justin to release thier info prior and seriously degrade the value of his snipets collection. On another note I agree with some of the other posters about Dr. Ketchum needing a proper PR person. I can't believe that if she's close to publishing that she doesn't have someone who knows what they're doing advising her. Hypothetically if she was involved with Discovery, Nat Geo, the BBC or any other professional networks for a documentary of any type regarding the study I'm sure they would have told her to stop the FB nonsense months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Yeah it reads like a prepared statement. Maybe his "counsel" is helping him with how he is addressing these things from here on out instead of just reacting. Wonder if his council has assumed his identity here, that wouldn't be in line with the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest craichead Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 More speculation on which journal it is: So Dr Ketchum is on the record stating categorically that the paper is not with Science or any of the journals in the Nature group. so where does that leave us, since to my mind there aren't really any other journals like those two (she did say it was a journal "like Science.")? So I'm thinking now that it may very well be a leading anthropology journal If in fact these creatures are a relict hominid. Here's a list of the leading anthro journals I found online: http://www.sciencewatch.com/dr/sci/11/jun12-11_1D/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) Noticed that too SY, either the PR/counsel has taken over, somebody else is volunteering to do his writing for him suddenly or maybe he has a good proof reader buddy. I'm not biting on this one. I think he wrote that post. I recognize his hallmarks. This "ghost writer" business was suggested before on this forum. The difference (I suspect) depends on whether he's typing on his phone or expending extra effort to make a point. Anyway, I think most proofreaders would fix "mebla" and the other errors. I cold be wrong. If so, Justin needs to fire his editor. BTW, I think his post describing how he took the shot at the adult is brilliantly executed. That's right. You heard me. "Around this time the gun went off". Edited July 26, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I thought Smeja was scared the proverbial "spitless" that he was going to get a visit from either LE or Wildlife/Forest Service/etc if he didn't keep his head down and mouth shut. Why is he only NOW going on a PR blitz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Where can I get a look of the picture of the steak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I thought Smeja was scared the proverbial "spitless" that he was going to get a visit from either LE or Wildlife/Forest Service/etc if he didn't keep his head down and mouth shut. Why is he only NOW going on a PR blitz? Maybe because now he has conclusive proof that what he killed is not human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 ^ Conclusive? How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 ^ Conclusive? How so? I mean for his own purposes... like he has seen conclusive evidence which makes him feel okay talking about it. I'm not referring to any known "conclusive evidence", but presenting a hypothetical based on what might be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 26, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) ..... BTW, I think his post describing how he took the shot at the adult is brilliantly executed. That's right. You heard me. "Around this time the gun went off". I'll give him some "humor" points, other than that, he's mischaracterized by a certain statement IMHO. I'll go with he is getting help writing..... nice work and preferred form of communication anyhoo. Edited July 26, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Maybe because now he has conclusive proof that what he killed is not human. Which would get him out of a murder charge, but what about Wildlife/Forest Service? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Where can I get a look of the picture of the steak Bigfoot Evidence blog has the photos of the steak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Which would get him out of a murder charge, but what about Wildlife/Forest Service? Oh, he'll get a ticket from F&G if they follow the CA regulations (Section 415 if I recall correctly). Basically it states that it is illegal to shoot any animal that is not listed as game. However, in this case, there may be a special exception made.... Or if he can convince them it was a threat to his safety he may be able to skirt that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Cotter- Ca. regulation pretains to non-game thats correct, however we may not being dealing with a relic hominid and not an animal; then what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Cotter- Ca. regulation pretains to non-game thats correct, however we may not being dealing with a relic hominid and not an animal; then what. If not a relic-hominid or an animal then what are you suggesting,please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts