Guest Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 I think that paper needs to publish soon, otherwise she might not be the one who makes the discovery. One of the people who has been involved with her and knows what the results are says Brian Sykes will be the person who puts this in the history books. Can we speak the name of the source of this tidbit? Maybe we have, and I missed something in this monster thread... I am personally past my expiration date on the whole debacle, and have honestly not been following for a bit. I think to say that the Sykes study MUST be the one to put the whole deal into the record books (or to completely ruin it, depending on findings) is not too strong a statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 It was Rhetmann Mullis from Bigfootology. He made the statement on C2C am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 How about just betting the farm that she RELEASES the "study?" Nalajr I don't know how many times it must be said that publication in a respected Journal is not in the control of any author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 I agree with SY and furthermore, how is it that people do not understand how monumental this is and imagine the direction we go after this? I am not surprised that it is taking this long but I'm glad. This means instead of just some slipshod study, the evidence is being examined, and examined, and examined........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 There's only so much "examining" that can be done. The DNA sequence is what it is. Analyze it, describe it, publish it. If she has a new specie of primate on her hands, then she needs to "get 'er done", or she's going to be scooped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 I am sure it has been said before, but if there are possibly more than one types of Sasquatch in the samples wouldn't that merit more work and refinement in the paper? If that were the case it would be a delicate art to get all of that included in one paper and have it be perfect, I would assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 I see it a little differently. I don't see it as a for sure race to get papers published, otherwise one or the other will be "scooped". If Ketchum dallies long enough that Sykes gets his paper done before her, that doesn't mean she'll be scooped at all. he might come up with a negative finding, no DNA, no new primate, no nothing. That's not scooping anyone, and if that's his conclusion, imagine the effect that will have going into the history books. Until someone produces conclusive evidence that is peer reviewed, published, and passes the test of authenticity, there is no proof, no new primate evidence, no nothing. If Ketchum doesn't produce, it;'s a zip. If Sykes does his study and it comes up negative, then zip. Until someone comes up with something more solid than what we have already, then there's no reason to assume that either has or will have anything. Everyone's acting like she's got the goods, and that's yet to be established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbhunter Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 All papers have been submitted and is in peer review. It will be released when it is released, DR Ketchum wants it done worse than anyone here. HRPuff is correct, there is much more involved in simply Dr Ketchum "releasing" the paper. KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 It was Rhetmann Mullis from Bigfootology. He made the statement on C2C am. Thanks for the info. Not to be petty, or ugly, but...why do we believe him? Is he really "in the know" or is that just another guess? No offense to Mr. Mullis, but ...Had anyone ever heard of this guy before VERY recently? So, is he a credible source? Like I said, I am not out for character assassination (he may be a member here), but why do we take HIS word? I should probably listen to his interview on C2C before commenting further...Mr. Mullis, if you are a member here, please understand that I, like many members and armchair 'footers, am just reasonably skeptical about the whole deal, so PLEASE try not to take offense...none was intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Define "credible." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Im of the opinion that the Sykes study will amount to nothing in the end. Either it will not publish or publish with a negative conclusion. This is just my opinion but lets see what happens by this time next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest THRILLER 1 Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 (edited) I agree with SY and furthermore, how is it that people do not understand how monumental this is and imagine the direction we go after this? I am not surprised that it is taking this long but I'm glad. This means instead of just some slipshod study, the evidence is being examined, and examined, and examined........... I too am glad that this is being gone over and over before released. As for monumental findings and the direction we go......for me. 1) more time in the woods or 2) chasing ufos... Edited August 26, 2012 by THRILLER 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 I think we have the cart before the horse. We are discussing when the paper will be published or released. However, it has not been confirmed that the paper has been accepted for publication. So I think the issue is whether or not Ketchum's paper will be accepted for publication. The more time that passes without the paper being accepted for publication the more likely it won't be accepted for publication. In my opinion anyway. One thing I am sure of is that I won't being paying any money to read the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 I don't know how many times it must be said that publication in a respected Journal is not in the control of any author. Oh yeah, I forgot. The whole Super-D-Duper Vault-like mandate that the journal puts on their authors. What in the world was I thinking? Or I guess it could be that the "journal" just can't fit this earth shattering discovery into their publishing schedule. Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Define "credible." Good point... A person who has: A.) either submitted samples to the Ketchum study and is aware of findings for their submission, or B.) is an insider, i.e. research assistant or co-author. Is Mullis such a person? If not, I suggest he may be no more a credible source than Robert Lindsay (well maybe slightly more credible LOL - anyone is more credible at this point)... Any other source is hearsay. Maybe good, maybe bad, but hearsay regardless, IMO. Most credible sources are currently under NDA, so they would not be sources at all....so we are once again left with the waiting game. vs. R.E.O Speedwagon..."Heard it from a friend who..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts