Guest Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 this is by far, the most quite it's ever been about the paper, witch is probably a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 This is purely a guess, but, how about Nov. 8, 2012 as a date for the paper to come out. Think about it. It seems logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest childrenofthenight Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Lol because it's after the election? If the journal really wants to dominate media coverage with it, then that date or even a little bit later is likely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Some nitty gritty and insight: I love at 8:45 Stubstad says Melba tells him to pay me, so Erickson has to come in with the money to keep it going. So when did Wally take over with the funding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 I think Wally paid for the Olympic Project's testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) If the date keeps getting pushed, let's go for December 21, 2012 and lets call it the thing that changes the world as we know it! We (human species) are not alone... there is other intelligent life in the universe and it's right HERE - not out THERE! How ironic that we have spent billions searching the stars for intelligent life and it was here with us all along. (But, I also think it's out there, too). Actually, the proven fact of another hominid species sharing our planet with us could definitely be earth shattering for many, many people who view humankind at the top of the pyramid of life. It would shake the foundations of many institutions that might not want to be knocked off of that "top dog" designation. The facts might make a great many important people very unhappy. Which is why I doubt the Report will ever come to fruition. I will guess that eventually they'll say everything was contaminated and no definitive answer exists. And there will be howls of "Conspiracy!" from bigfooters and everyone else will nod sagely and say "See we told you so, there's no such thing, it's been proven by DNA". My sarcastic, disappointed two cents. Edited October 15, 2012 by madison5716 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 DNA can't disprove BF exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest baboonpete Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Can somone update us on the Ketchum Report? Please, I don't want to go back through all of the posts. it's washed up or stagnated. Doubtful it will produce anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) I prefer to think that it is the "Calm before the storm"... I love storms... (without tornadoes) Edited October 15, 2012 by chelefoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) It pssed peer review a few monthes ago. They are putting together the art (photos, video) to go with the paper. I was told they had been talking to Nat Geo last year, don't know if that went anywhere. Erickson has going back and forth, first he's in with her then he's on his own, then he's back, then he's not. Sally was asking about photos again just before she got the boot. Thanks.. As I may be a day late on this answer. Just for us who like actual documentation or statement to reference, vs one's own word, no disrespect, from the peer review committee saying something like "Congratulations, your submitted report has been approved"? Along with of course who the bodies of that committe are approving the report. Or has Ketchum herself formally announced on her site that her submitted report has been approved, etc. By seeing this will help folks like myself and many others move forward with the discussions to where it's at now. Closure on such a topic, even at mid stages is important.. Pretty simple.. Again, my sincerest apologies if this has been well shared or communicated in this thread. Thanks again for your reply.. Edited October 15, 2012 by St.Croix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Thanks.. As I may be a day late on this answer. Just for us who like actual documentation or statement to reference, vs one's own word, no disrespect, from the peer review committee saying something like "Congratulations, your submitted report has been approved"? Along with of course who the bodies of that committe are approving the report. You just have my word.... sorry. I made a distinction between what I knew and what I had heard second hand. What I know I got from Dr. K, I didn't ask for proof. I know that she told me a few months ago that they were handing the paper back in with what she believed to be the final revisions and had been asked for video/photos to go along with publishing the paper. Sally wrote and asked about photos and video just before they parted ways..... I assume the journal still wants images. I also assume she does not have access to AE's video at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Listening to Richard's interview, it sounds like she hired a bonehead lawyer, that was over reaching to fill their pockets, and caused all kinds of litigation issues regarding who is entitled to what. not that was the whole hold up, but probably took some time to iron it all out. Lawyers, their always the fly in the ointment. Reminds me of the joke, What do you call a bunch of lawyers that are stuck in a elevator and cannot be freed ? A good start... :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 The facts might make a great many important people very unhappy. Which is why I doubt the Report will ever come to fruition. Why would it make many important people unhappy? You mean, it could raise more questions than it answers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I suspect she needed help with the paper, but the ingredients for a successful discovery are there. She has the right DNA samples and knows how to analyse them. Plus, she has close connections to many great people like Dave Paulides, Derek Randles and Adrian Erickson. That is enough to keep me optimistic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Glad to hear the paper is still moving forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts