Guest Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 ^ Reminds me of the old Irish joke- "I wouldn't start from here..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 To the best of my knowledge at this time, the paper is not rejected. I think it has been in review for a period of time sufficient to reject it if it did not have the impact value most Journals would die for. Thanks! That it has not been rejected is good to know! GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Could you post a link to the statements you are claiming that she made about the "paper?" I'd like to read those myself. Thanks Nalajr She also claimed to have field experience watching them, claimed hearing them talk and numerous other things that would make her the luckiest researcher ever (next to Patterson who happens to be making a BF documentary and captures the only clear 'BF' footage in 50 years of people trying to do so). But I think there is nothing to it, there will be nothing of value from this camp, there will be no proof of BF or associated DNA. In the end the report, if it ever surfaces, will contain as much new evidence of BF as these last 258 pages of posts have. Just sayn'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I would have to agree with you. Who knows, but Im on record here saying there is nothing to this study and never will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Are you suggesting that the paper hasn't even been submitted? That there really was no DNA analysed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Whether it be Sykes or Ketchum, does anyone think that if scientists come out and say "this is undocumented ape DNA", that will make any true difference in changing the public's opinion on a Sasquatch? I don't. It'll be just another "unknown". The only way to do that is a body. I know, I know, that may not be the intent of either studies, just sayin.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Whether it be Sykes or Ketchum, does anyone think that if scientists come out and say "this is undocumented ape DNA", that will make any true difference in changing the public's opinion on a Sasquatch? Yep, most people don't have any counter evidence to challenge published science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I don't see how there has been no new leakers recently. Her staff, submitters, Erickson, journal sources, other labs, etc.... Even our own US govt and military has leakers all the time. This had been silent for weeks now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 At this point, it's probably out of her immediate influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) Are you suggesting that the paper hasn't even been submitted? That there really was no DNA analysed? Well that is not exactly what I am suggesting. There may have been some DNA analysis and maybe she wrote something. I dont think the report concluded anything and I dont think believe anything was ever submitted. I have no inside line or other info to the contrary but thats my opinion. If I am wrong then Im wrong. Edited September 10, 2012 by Darrell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 start at the beginning of this thread and keep reading until you find it. They're in here somewhere. I've started from the beginning and have made it through 50 pages so far and haven't found any statement yet. 200 more pages to go. This is going to take a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Here's a quick video on the Snelgrove Lake DNA sample results: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I've started from the beginning and have made it through 50 pages so far and haven't found any statement yet. 200 more pages to go. This is going to take a while. Well, you only really need to do that if you are actually interested in having an open mind and possibly learning something, so that might save you a bunch of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Why would anyone think it worth bringing in Todd Disotell now that bigfoot DNA analysis is looking to make real headway. He has had something like 16 years to find anything of relevence and built his reputation in never finding anything.of interest while being an unreformed scoffing sceptic. I find it strange that he can say the snelgrove lake samples had no DNA, this is hardly possible given the ubiquitous and persistent nature of DNA then saying there was DNA but it was a contaminent. Bigfoot DNA is clearly going to come into its own, probably this year to break the log jam of many years. The principle heroine in all this should be Dr Melba Ketchum and this started when she had the guts to make public that she had identified something new and primate in a hair sample provided by geoff gates of the monster quest series. There are others of course like Dr lars thomason, Dr nelson and professor Bryan Sykes. We are in the same sort of situation as in olden days when it was difficult too distinguish between the different apes and humans that were being discovered and to say waht they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted September 10, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) Hoosierfoot, on 10 September 2012 - 09:51 PM, said: I don't see how there has been no new leakers recently. Her staff, submitters, Erickson, journal sources, other labs, etc.... Even our own US govt and military has leakers all the time. This had been silent for weeks now. It's quite impressive really. Edited September 10, 2012 by BobbyO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts