Guest Darrell Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 ^Now both of those are funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) Again with the demands for proof. People can make wagers on when the paper will come out if they want, without having to have anything factual or substantive to base their predictions on. Do you have anything factual or substantive to add to the mix that you'd be willing to disclose? Or are you simply trying to put the lid on anyone speculating freely? Funny- all I want is facts to work with- why is that "putting a lid on" unfounded speculation? My assumption is that such learned participants in the conversation would base their speculation on something factual. Anything fact based would be great to talk about. Otherwise, and I'm not asking because that wouldn't be within the rules, the motivation to repeatedly post baseless non-factual opinions is a mystery to me. besides, if you don't care about being factually unsound in public why would you care about someone pointing it out? Tim B. I'm guessing the speculation method concerning this reports' release is EXTREMELY similar to the following- Tim B. Edited August 9, 2012 by TimB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 What? Why am I, or Darrell, "skating up hill"? I think that we are waiting to see what happens just like everyone else. What's so crazy about that? You're doing far more than that. You're trying to stir up doubts about Dr Ketchum (and her study's) reliability based on irrelevant, extransous issues that have nothing to do with her scientific credentials or accuracy. Again with the demands for proof. People can make wagers on when the paper will come out if they want, without having to have anything factual or substantive to base their predictions on. Do you have anything factual or substantive to add to the mix that you'd be willing to disclose? Or are you simply trying to put the lid on anyone speculating freely? When your "speculations" are not-so-thinly disguised attacks on the character and reputation of another, expect to be required to pony up some proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 There are people(Some on the form) that know what is going to happen with the report . you and tontar can keep trying to ice skate up the hill, and when it's published, I throw a rope down for you. And that's the last time i'm gonna kick the only 2 bones left of that dead horse. Are you talking about a factual statement like this. I don't see any proof to back this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I'm guessing the speculation method concerning this reports' release is EXTREMELY similar to the following- Great scene but I prefer this method... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I think the October rumor from earlier this year is probably right. As I recall, the October rumor was being thrown around for October 2011. We are now 10 months past that date without even a confirmation that the paper has been accepted for publication. I am assuming at this point that it has not been accepted for publication. I am not saying it won't be accepted for publication. I am saying that right now the paper has not been accepted for publication and that means we are going to be waiting around awhile longer. I wonder at what date Ketchum will give up on the idea that the paper will be published in a major journal and move to releasing the paper through an alternative means. Again, I am "assuming" the paper has not been accepted for publication as of today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 They have the results. And so will Brian Sykes Never has there been a study where scientists openly ask for Bigfoot samples from different people. The DNA exists, therefore so does Bigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 OS, could you please show the evidence that they have results. I don't recall any results being released for viewing. Melba or anybody else saying they have results does not make it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 "The DNA exists, therefore so does Bigfoot" I hope they have the results, and I hope that it is as you say it is. But until everyone sees the results and hopefully something more than just a paper, I think you're putting the cart a little before the horse. The DNA exists when it is confirmed to exist by someone other than the ones simply saying so. It needs to be confirmed by objective colleagues. And even if the DNA is shown to be viable, I would think that in order to conclusively make the claim that "bigfoot exists", it would have to be shown that the DNA has come from living individuals. It's gonna end up coming back around to the same old song, there will need to be a specimen, a real, biological, in the flesh specimen. If the DNA studies prove to be good, and the world accepts that it's good DNA of some unknown primate, then possibly that would be enough to steer more serious research into finding and studying the creatures it came from. But no new primate species known as bigfoot, or sasquatch, or the north American ape is going to be adopted into the text books based on a DNA study alone. First it has to be confirmed that there is in fact DNA to support the claims. Then there will need to be a specimen, and so on. But all that aside, we still can't confirm on the DNA study yet. That's what everyone is waiting for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 As I recall, the October rumor was being thrown around for October 2011. We are now 10 months past that date without even a confirmation that the paper has been accepted for publication. I am assuming at this point that it has not been accepted for publication. I am not saying it won't be accepted for publication. I am saying that right now the paper has not been accepted for publication and that means we are going to be waiting around awhile longer. I wonder at what date Ketchum will give up on the idea that the paper will be published in a major journal and move to releasing the paper through an alternative means. Again, I am "assuming" the paper has not been accepted for publication as of today. LOL. How could I forget? I'm talking about the *other* October rumor first circulated by Guy Edwards. Did you notice I said, "earlier this year"? His supposed source (although arguably "connected" to some of the players) denied it pretty vigorously. I'd love to get a better accounting of what went on there. Anyway, although somewhat reinforcing, that particular rumor isn't why I suggested an October surprise. Let's just call it an educated guess. If that offends anyone, I apologize. Who listens to anonymous strangers on the Internet anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I do Slim, and I also send my bank acct info to princes in tanzania.... Their uncles get wrongly imprisoned there an awful lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 First it has to be confirmed that there is in fact DNA to support the claims. Then there will need to be a specimen, and so on. But all that aside, we still can't confirm on the DNA study yet. That's what everyone is waiting for. LOL, But you don't get DNA without a specimen, so the specimen is there first. The DNA will define what the specimen is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Ah, but a sample is not the same as a specimen. A sample might be a tooth, or a claw, or a fingernail, or hair, or blood, or skin, and such a piece of sample tissue might be unrecognizable as what it really came from. A specimen would be a whole animal, something that could really, conclusively be called something. For example, the best sample so far, I think, is the Smeja sample, the skin shard. Hard to build a morphological animal from a piece of hairy skin. So you have a piece of skin, which has viable DNA, which does not match anything else on record. Does that mean we have a bigfoot piece of skin and bigfoot DNA? Hmmm, I'm not so sure that would be the peer reviewed conclusion. Like I tried to say way back when, you can't feed DNA code into some sort of synthesizer and have it draw out a model of what the DNA is supposed to represent were it a whole animal. Unknown DNA is just that, a mystery still. Now, hopefully there will be additional supporting evidence. If it's true that Ketchum is having repeated contact with these things, hopefully the scientist in her will have acquired photos of them. I've read some things supposedly form her that seem to border on the lighter side of the bigfoot proponents, the ones that get all flower childish about them and just want the world to leave them in peace, and don't want to disturb them by taking their picture, and so on and so forth. If she's going to turn twitterpated with them after having physical contact with them, I just hope that she stayed scientific enough to get photos or video before jumping over the edge. Because a piece of skin without its wearer is pretty hard to call a "specimen", it's more like a "sample". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 DNA is used as scientific proof these days. No need for an entire body Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Hah, can't wait to see that make the 6 o'clock news. Bigfoot exists, no longer considered a hoax. Well no, we don't have one, don't have a photo, don't know exactly where they are, but we have some DNA from one a guy shot and left for scavengers... I can just see Suzanne Malveux doing the interview on CNN. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts