bipedalist Posted August 11, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted August 11, 2012 I'm actually more concerned about where the skeleton's are? LOL. (obviously not in the closet). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Is this land owner super rich? If the video is that great, then it would be worth millions. I still don't get it. Even millionares like to have another million. Sorry for the derail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 See one in November? I know it is a bit of a side track, but has the land owner discovered that the bigfoots are always hanging out in the same location? Also, I would like to know how he approached closely enough to record them without being (immediately) spotted and evaded. I hate to put it this way, but bigfoots do not lend themselves to being observed all that often. There is clear evidence of a continued bigfoot presence in the Cook - Kane - McHenry - Lake county corners area, with a likely habitation site just below some houses and baseball fields, along a busy bike trail, and like heck we could ever get a glimpse. The only accounts are some long-distance, dusk sightings and a snow print trail. I think they hang out inside a few acres, which is fenced off, thick with woods, and contains a retention pond for a quarry operation. I would love to mount a low-light camera and recorder on one of the light poles overlooking that trail. You might also tell him that his property is unlikely to be over-run. As near as I have been able to tell, bigfoots are almost everywhere. I do not think there is a single 10 square miles patch of land, with forest, that does not contain some amount of bigfoot sign. On the Ketchum note: By now, the paper has most definitely been accepted for publication and has passed review. If it had been rejected, resubmitted, rejected, resubmitted and rejected, we would know. It is almost a given that genetic proof and identification of bigfoot would be an earth-shattering publication. As the skeptics like to say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If I was editing, I would have connected Ketchum with an independent lab with similar capabilities, and would have them analyze the same samples, and have them submit a companion article which I would publish back-to-back, Ketchum's first, the second work on the following pages. If there were ANY discrepancies or holes in the water, I would require that they be explained or filled. At this point, any serious discrepancies (i.e. non-reproducible results) would have caused rejection of the paper, so they are probably trying to hash out minor differences. The kinds of differences which can arise just because the labs might use different brands of equipment, or caused by aging of the samples. Like, this mitochondria sequence was "CCTAAGACT", but we got "CCTAAGGCT", neither are a perfectly human sequence, but they don't match. It is possible for single mutations in the same individual, and we have established that mitochondria can be inherited from both mother and father, so things like that can just happen, but can hold up an article where you want to get EVERYTHING perfect. I suspect that if another study were imminent, the editor would decide to ignore those minor differences and publish, so as not to let his journal get scooped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 11, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted August 11, 2012 (edited) Personally, I don't think anyone keeping their eye on the prize publishing this kind of research is seeking perfection. That is exactly how you get scooped. Not that you have much control, but the publisher of such a huge finding would not be after perfection either. Edited August 11, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted August 11, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted August 11, 2012 No, a bunch of Skeptics have pronounced it 'debunked', offering no evidence to support that claim whatsoever outside their pronouncements. If my stance on that leads me to be labelled a skeptic, then for the first time in my life i am mighty PROUD to be a skeptic in the BF Community.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest craichead Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 HRPuffnstuff- Any chance you could give us a little more detail about this grooming video? What exactly is taking place? What do they look like? Can you see faces? Opinion on where they stand on an ape to human continuum? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted August 11, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted August 11, 2012 Puff, BobbyO and any others that would like to elaborate. I know the "grooming video" is the guys property and has the choice to NOT share. But that doesn't mean that I personally do not understand it. Can't the video location kept secret? If it is "mindblowing", and it were mine, I'd copyright it and start making money hand over fist. Who doesn't like more money? Why the Ketchum report has not come out yet is beyond me as well. But, guess there's plenty I do not get. I know plenty of people that don't have the appetite for money than people like me, and i guess you too COG, have. In my opinion, there's no way in the world that someone who is just looking at that Video, someone who doesn't know that immediate area very, very well, would ever be able to distinguish where the video location is/was, no way. Would i release it ? Yeah, maybe, not entirely sure. I don't see how it would much great deals of money though. Ultimately it would still just be a video of something that doesn't actually exist so forget Animal Planet etc, you might a few hundred bucks out of a new series on Sci Fi or something but you'll never get anything substantial because that majority, no matter how good it is, just won't believe it due to the sort of stuff that can be done on computer > camera these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 lol. that about sums it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 ajciani and craichead, thanks for the questions but they are better held elsewhere as this thread is devoted to The Ketchum Report. You can each garner more info here.... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/31331-most-probable-other-than-pgf/ I think that thread and my posts there will answer many of your questions. Please post any responses there or just hit me up in a PM with any additional questions. I'm a bit limited in what I can share but will share what I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 See one in November? I know it is a bit of a side track, but has the land owner discovered that the bigfoots are always hanging out in the same location? Also, I would like to know how he approached closely enough to record them without being (immediately) spotted and evaded. I hate to put it this way, but bigfoots do not lend themselves to being observed all that often. There is clear evidence of a continued bigfoot presence in the Cook - Kane - McHenry - Lake county corners area, with a likely habitation site just below some houses and baseball fields, along a busy bike trail, and like heck we could ever get a glimpse. The only accounts are some long-distance, dusk sightings and a snow print trail. I think they hang out inside a few acres, which is fenced off, thick with woods, and contains a retention pond for a quarry operation. I would love to mount a low-light camera and recorder on one of the light poles overlooking that trail. You might also tell him that his property is unlikely to be over-run. As near as I have been able to tell, bigfoots are almost everywhere. I do not think there is a single 10 square miles patch of land, with forest, that does not contain some amount of bigfoot sign. On the Ketchum note: By now, the paper has most definitely been accepted for publication and has passed review. If it had been rejected, resubmitted, rejected, resubmitted and rejected, we would know. How would we know if the paper was rejected when no one has confirmed that the paper has been accepted for publication. How do you know that the paper "has most definitely" been accepted for publication when no one has confirmed that it has been accepted. Do you have inside information? Do you see Ketchum's failure to confirm that the paper has been accepted for publication as a sign that the paper has been accepted for publication. I make the opposite assumption. I know some have indicated that the failure to confirm that the paper has been accepted for publication is due to non-disclosure agreements. I would think that she could at least confirm or state "I can confirm that the paper has been accepted for publication. However, due to non-disclosure aggreements I cannot provide the name of the publisher, the date of publication, and the details of the study." I am assuming that the paper has not been accepted for publication until Ketchum confirms that it has been accepted. As of today, she has not confirmed that the paper has been accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiiawiwb Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I think that withholding evidence is a crime against knowledge. If someone is sitting on 'the proof', then it is their DUTY to present it so that knowledge may be served and the issue settled. *EDIT* Not that I'm holding it against HR. My beef is with the rights holder who is denying us evidence and knowledge. I couldn't disagree more. There are some who believe that once BF is proved to exist, that revelation will spell its demise. Were I lucky enough to be sitting upon earth-shattering evidence, I'd withhold it from the public too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 There are some who believe that once BF is proved to exist, that revelation will spell its demise. Maybe they need to think it through. Sasquatch will be as just as difficult to come across once it's proven. And if there are laws put in place, it will prevent incidents like the Sierra Shooting from happening with the people who actually do come across one. Therefore, it is actually the other way around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I honestly dont think the desire to protect bigfoot, no matter how strong the conviction, would trump the desire for the all mighty dollar. Money has always dominated this phenomina and IMO always will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Yes sir, ask what is the motivation for everything. Here you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 I though Dr. K has a team ready to go at a moments notice to mobilize and protect Sassy once this "paper" is released. So what's the worry? Safe as a in his mommas womb. Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts