Guest Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 For those of us who have not seen one for themselves, giving countenance to the existence of bigfoot takes one hell of a leap of faith. I take that leap every time I visit this forum. Believing that the strictures of a scientific paper proving the existence of said being demands absolute secrecy prior to publication ain't really that big a leap in comparison.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) For those that didn't get childrenofthenight's quip - Lindsay has just posted one his juiciest updates in a long while... Which one are you talking about? Buying out Erikson or the Nat Geo post? or is it his "laundry list" of claimed leaks" Edited September 4, 2012 by Particle Noun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 I'm not mocking YOU, i don't know you from Adam nor have any interest in YOU personally nor even really recognise your User Name as someone i have in the merest bit interest in. I was talking about people in general, but if you so happen to fall into that category that i wrote, such is life. Don't be so full of yourself . people in general have been more than patient with this. its been what, 3 years and nothing? That is hardly "wanting it now". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Well that 3 years has been cut down quite a bit if you factor in having to change course due to the Sierra Shootings. That happened in 2010, and didn't really get reported until 2011. So by the time the samples got submitted to Dr. Ketchum and the paper got reworked to include it, you're looking at a year-and-a-half. Not as ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) ^^^Why would she have to change course because of that? All that did is give her another sample to test. Which brings up another reason I'm leary about this paper. Ketchum claims the sample she got from Justin doesn't look like the picture of the "steak". She claims they are fake. Smeja and Randles both confirmed the pictures are authentic and thats what was sent to her. So whats the deal? I've already heard the excuse that she was confused. She didn't sound confused to me, as a matter of fact she sounded quite sure it was not the same. here are some links incase people forgot http://bigfooteviden...resolution.html http://bigfooteviden...ba-ketchum.html Edited September 5, 2012 by squating squatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 I think it was confirmed that they are from a different parts of the full chunk that was recovered by General, which is why there are discrepancies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 ^^ read what Justin said. It came from that same pieces that are in the pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 A few pages back I made a statement that said something like, wouldn't everyone want the study and evidence to be examined over and over again? Evidently patience is not a virtue to those that are complaining but try it. Relax, take a deep breath and try to imagine what is going on here. There are a lot more than just a few samples from what I gather and so it's obviously going to take a while. Chill........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 ^^^Why would she have to change course because of that? All that did is give her another sample to test. Which brings up another reason I'm leary about this paper. Ketchum claims the sample she got from Justin doesn't look like the picture of the "steak". She claims they are fake. Smeja and Randles both confirmed the pictures are authentic and thats what was sent to her. So whats the deal? I've already heard the excuse that she was confused. She didn't sound confused to me, as a matter of fact she sounded quite sure it was not the same. here are some links incase people forgot http://bigfooteviden...resolution.html http://bigfooteviden...ba-ketchum.html Ok well maybe not change course, but include more samples, which means the paper wasn't completed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 ^Or that she was asked to do additional testing by the reviewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 ^^^Why would she have to change course because of that? All that did is give her another sample to test. Which brings up another reason I'm leary about this paper. Ketchum claims the sample she got from Justin doesn't look like the picture of the "steak". She claims they are fake. Smeja and Randles both confirmed the pictures are authentic and thats what was sent to her. So whats the deal? I've already heard the excuse that she was confused. She didn't sound confused to me, as a matter of fact she sounded quite sure it was not the same. here are some links incase people forgot http://bigfooteviden...resolution.html http://bigfooteviden...ba-ketchum.html so nobody finds this odd. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) Robert Lindsay wrote this back in January: Ketchum DNA paper has definitely passed peer review. We can now conclusively state that the Ketchum DNA paper recently passed peer review, possibly by December 31, 2011, and will apparently be published by a journal soon, probably some time in the next nine weeks. We don’t have a date, and we don’t even know the name of the journal. There are a huge number of folks speculating that there is no paper and that no journal will publish it, but that is absolutely not true. Edited September 5, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 "The time-lag problem: there is a time-lag of, on average, 12 months between finishing a paper, and it being published." Richard Price, The Future of Science, Tech Crunch, April 29, 2012 According to our "trustworthy" blogosphere sources, the earliest that the paper was "finished" was end of last year. Dr. Ketchum's FB page has noted a more recent finish date. Let's say for argument's sake we split the difference and the paper was actually finished sometime around the end of March. Then publication date (and release from embargo) could be sometime next year on average. Longer in some cases and shorter in other cases. So, for all those who are beating on the "there's got to be something wrong" drum... ... perhaps go back and watch Happy Gilmore, the Happy Place scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 I agree with Squating squatch. I read that link 2 times and when it was originally posted and there is not a single word in there from MK that says anything about it being submitted to a "journal," being in peer review or some kind of publishing schedule. NOTHING. Nalajr MK Quote: "it is being handled correctly whether it takes a day a week, a month or a year to clear peer review." Does that alone not tell us it is in peer review?????? Why speak of it clearing peer review if it is not even IN peer review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Considering the lack of evidence, I think its a pretty accurate opinion .......say what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts