Cotter Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 ^ True, and when (if) the DNA shows up somewhere undiscovered on the primate line, the semantics will start that 'it does not prove bigfoot' as we cannot know what the creature that provided the DNA looks like as compared to blurry video (or the PGF) and eye witness accounts. The word game will continue to ramp up until a specimen, or large portion of one is dumped onto a table to be shared with the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) While Mulder does get on that particular argument like a dog on a bone, it's for good reason. DNA comes from a biological entity and to my knowledge would be impossible to "hoax". Even without a type specimen the finding of DNA that might place the biological entity somewhere between man and the closest known ancestor and that would be able to place it on the taxanomic tree would be sufficient to establish the existence of the species. Holy smolly now your repeating what he's been saying for years lol I get it, already Come on Cerv- you know he means that DNA IS a body part. I believe the way to resolve it is for you to say it's not a significant body part in your eyes. You want to see the shape of the part. Tim B. Well at least you get it! ^ True, and when (if) the DNA shows up somewhere undiscovered on the primate line, the semantics will start that 'it does not prove bigfoot' as we cannot know what the creature that provided the DNA looks like as compared to blurry video (or the PGF) and eye witness accounts. The word game will continue to ramp up until a specimen, or large portion of one is dumped onto a table to be shared with the world. Exactly! And there you have it folks the whole discussion in three easy steps!! Edited September 28, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 ^^ LOL Cerv. Plus from me pal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhunter Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 ^^ It certainly took a while to get here lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Guys give the girl some time. I know some fans have pleaded with her to keep the information secret forever just to protect Sasquatch. If in the end that is what she does then the mystery will live on, and she will become a hero in the Sasquatch circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 ^^^^^ If she does that, her name will be right up there with Biscardi and the Georgia boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 "... pleaded with her to keep this information secret ..." ??? Simply put, that is bad comedy ... I'm not Michael Vick, so I have no dog in this fight (aside from my curiosity with the Bigfoot phenomena), but statements like that smack of 'hoax'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 That will totally contradict what she set out to do, protection of the species. It's just a matter of time before one is shot or hit by a truck. paper or no paper, it's going to be proven one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Holy smolly now your repeating what he's been saying for years lol I get it, already Apparently not, since you keep harping on "don't mean nothing w/o a body/part..." And there you have it folks the whole discussion in three easy steps!! No, what you have there is the trapdoor the Skeptics will try to use to ignore any DNA finding that supports the case for BF. Classic goal-post moving. Your side has been harping for years about "hard" evidence. It doesn't get any "harder" than DNA science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted September 29, 2012 Admin Share Posted September 29, 2012 Just want to remind everyone to please keep the discussion civilized... don't attack each other, attack the argument. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) Well to be honest your theory has obvious holes in it. 1) What's to prevent a journalist from getting the information from a "scientist" that has no investment in the paper being published? 2) Who is qualified to be considered a "bigfoot" scientist? 3) How do you know the results haven't been shared with other scientists? Perhaps there are more and they are honoring the embargo as well. Perhaps those that don't know aren't qualified to be shared with. I know I fit that bill. 4) If, say, a heart surgeon publishes a paper on a new technique with surgery but wants to share his moustachy information with his peers, I'm guessing it won't hit the mainstream news and affect the publishing process. There just isn't nearly as much interest in heart surgery and other fields as there is in Bigfootology. If a "bigfoot" researcher were to share his or her results with other bigfoot researches, it would be all over the internet before the researcher finished the presentation. I am pretty sure that would be considered sharing info with a journalist. Those are the easy reasons a thoughtful person would see. I'm sure there are many more for greater minds than myself. Tim B. I think the biggest hole in the "super secret journal argument" is that there is NO requirement for top level security stated or even implied by the answer that BFSleuth got in the reply. Why would anybody think that scientists at a conference would be held to secrecy? Why would anybody think that these conferences are not attended by journalists or people that talk to journalists? The answer that BFS got clearly states that Dr. Ketchum and others are encouraged to discuss their finding with their colleagues and at conferences! That is NOT what a news blackout is. The response clearly identifies only a direct contact with a journalist for the purposes of confirming or giving out any information (i.e. an interview) regarding a study is prohibited. I think the slippery slope is the term 'journalist'. I'm an independent freelance journalist, with connections in the newspaper business throughout the midwest. Would Dr MK talking about info on this site, with me as a member, violate the above? Thing is, the media is nearly everywhere. Exactly. If the journal had a complete embargo and news blackout of anything related to the paper why would it encourage people to discuss their work and findings with their colleagues and at conferences? There are people who are going to attend that conference who are journalists. Other scientists who attend that conference are going to discuss the work they heard about with others either in person or in classes or on blogs and that information could reasonably be expected to find its way to a journalist. Just the first clue might be to go back and read the OP of this thread. You might recall that this entire thread was started by (.... drumrolls...) the media. So then, publishing confirmation of which journal she has submitted the paper or whether it is in peer review on Facebook or on this forum would constitute what? It would constitute publication that is accessible to the media. Now put yourself in the shoes of Dr. Ketchum and assume that you have a paper that is well into or might even be through the process of peer review. For what good reason would you publish information about the status of the paper at this time (other than of course to throw a bone to quibbling forum members)? The journal staff, Dr. Ketchum et al, and the peer reviewers know. Beyond that, nobody. Again, if she is encouraged to discuss her findings with her colleagues and at conferences where everything can be heard or found out by the media then this forum is no different. The answer you got only prohibits Dr. Kethum giving an interview answer to a journalist specifically. This board is certainly not a recognized news blog or have anything to do with inteviews conducted by journalists. Check this out and tell me if any of those conferences are being held with top level security and super secret handshakes and no-one allowed to talk to anybody else about anything said in the conference. http://www.conferenc...Medical Science Edited September 29, 2012 by Transformer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted September 29, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted September 29, 2012 I'm going out on a limb and saying that it is not only the embargo but the project's desire to keep copyright tightly reigned in on any proprietary genomes that could be obtained as the key here. Not sure that would be germane but if so it could pay back in spades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) I am going on out on a limb and say this whole thing has gone south. Nephilim? What ever happened to unidentified primate? Edited September 29, 2012 by RayG --Removed inappropriate content-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted September 29, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted September 29, 2012 Mindreading? What's with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Did they really need to put "no Bigfoot forums" in the embargo rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts