BobbyO Posted September 5, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted September 5, 2012 people in general have been more than patient with this. its been what, 3 years and nothing? That is hardly "wanting it now". So what ? It's nothing to do with you how long it takes, you didn't contribute to it, you're not helping by doing anything with the samples, the only thing you're doing is moaning about the time that's being taken doing the study for your own selfish reasons, the need for " knowing " one way or the other the outcome of the study. I would say " Who do you think you are ? " but you answered that yesterday and made me spit my Coffee all over the screen when you did.. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 so nobody finds this odd. lol I don't think she received the whole sample and the hairs vary in length and color on the sample, so making a positve ID of the donor chunk would be tenuous to start with just looking at photo's. Also from what I read, all Randles said was that the photo resembled the specimen that he saw. That's not a positive ID. What smeja did, I don't know, he could be toying with the bloggers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Let's not forget in all of this that Dr. Ketchum never once announced that this study even existed. It was revealed by he who shall not be named that the report even existed at all, and that is how ALL of this speculation started. She didn't start it, and was forced to respond to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Actually, I think Dr. Ketchum did make a public request for samples from the bigfoot research community. At that point it came to public attention before any DNA research was completed. The blogosphere ran with inaccurate information about the project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 .......say what? That's right. Show me where Ketchum has confirmed a paper has been submitted and that its in peer-review. Nobody has been able too yet. Just a bunch of hearsay. 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? Just like if I had a test to take and someone asked me why I'm studying. so when I take the test I'll pass. Doesn't mean I'm taking the test right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 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? ^ Quote above quoting MK. Is this not an indication it is indeed in peer review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 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. all hearsay. Nothing confirmed from the authors of the paper. RL is not a reliable source. So do you believe Ketchum has proved dogman through dna also then? ^ Quote above quoting MK. Is this not an indication it is indeed in peer review? no not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 With all due respect to those of you questioning Dr K I would just note that there is an awful lot more involved than many of you seem to be considering. Having said that, I think she did real harm to the validity of the study by the constant promises of *soon*. Most folks interpretation of *soon* means immediate. Still, there is a lot more involved in the delay than most acknowledge. I'll make this wager.... I'll bet the farm that the Ketchum Report will be released prior to it being proven that the PGF is Bob Hermonious in a modified Morris suit. Any takers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 How big did you say that farm was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 So what ? It's nothing to do with you how long it takes, you didn't contribute to it, you're not helping by doing anything with the samples, the only thing you're doing is moaning about the time that's being taken doing the study for your own selfish reasons, the need for " knowing " one way or the other the outcome of the study. I would say " Who do you think you are ? " but you answered that yesterday and made me spit my Coffee all over the screen when you did.. I haven't been asking for results, just simple questions about the state of the paper. Evidently you can show anything, so you resort to calling me selfish. Well in my opinion, Ketchum is being selfish to all the bigfooters who are counting on her to prove the existence of bigfoot. She's been dragging this on for years and won't release the tiniest bit of info to keep the faith up in the people that believe in her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 SS, you are entitled to focus your energies wherever you like on the forum, of course. It's just that I'm struggling to understand why you seem to spend so much time in this one thread asking the same question 27 different ways, and displaying a little irritation with every answer you get. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 How big did you say that farm was? Over 2100 acres of prime real estate. Someone will have to come up with something comparable so the wager is fair but I'm game if they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 I haven't been asking for results, just simple questions about the state of the paper. Evidently you can show anything, so you resort to calling me selfish. Well in my opinion, Ketchum is being selfish to all the bigfooters who are counting on her to prove the existence of bigfoot. She's been dragging this on for years and won't release the tiniest bit of info to keep the faith up in the people that believe in her. Perhaps one of the forum members with a close relationship with Dr. Ketchum can contact her and let her know that squating squatch on the BFF needs the tiniest bit of info so he can keep up the faith? Will that help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) no. I don't have any faith in this paper. I'm trying to figure out why anybody does. After three years all you got is some people sent some samples to Ketchum and signed nda's. Melba says the results are beautiful That's it. that's all you got. Realistically you don't even know if the samples have been tested yet, or a paper submitted and to top it all off,Now we have a discrepancy with the sierra kills sample .Lots of faith here. The pgf I understand that. You atleast got a film to study and speculate about, but this study? I don't get it. Edited September 5, 2012 by MikeG ..please do not quote the preceding post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 So then you are advocating on behalf of "all the bigfooters who are counting on her to prove the existence of bigfoot"? That's very nice of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts