Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 It has always been moving forward. yawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Why would it make many important people unhappy? You mean, it could raise more questions than it answers? Aaron, well, I can't get into it too much, but it would make those people's whose belief systems exclude BF's existence unhappy, because he doesn't "fit" too well. Though I did see an interesting car bumper sticker that I can't explain here due to the rules... ugh. If you're interested, go look at bumper stickers until you find one that tells you "aha!" There's a lot of money invested in science and other institutions to keep the status quo. Adding BF to the family bush would upset a lot of folks out there - though they might just decide to not believe it's existence regardless. Also, think of the environmental stink about spotted owls and the logging/lumber industry. Can you imagine the effects if a hominoid was discovered in ALL the forests of North America (which is where it seems to be!) A friend of mine who worked on saving the infamous spotted owl thinks it's a "code word" for bigfoot habitat and it's protected under other auspices under the rug, so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 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. The Journal wants images? Why does that sound so very strange to me. Images of what? The steak? The samples? Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Images of the Sasquatch of course. It's rumoured that Adrian Erickson has videos that are even better than the PGF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 They have been asking for Dr. K to beat the bushes and come up with video/photos of BF. I assumed it was to accompany the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Well sure. It makes sense that if you are attempting to say this DNA is a previously unidentified (currently existing) species, I can see why they would want images of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Thanks for at least letting us with what you know or heard. At this point who really knows the truth other than Melba and she's not formally announcing anything on the paper being approved by a peer review committee. So the publishing part and needed photo's, etc, may be a front towards getting more info to a second peer review committee as their not comfortable in endorsing what she has so far within her report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) My guess is the journal is thinking 'how can all these groups have tissue and no decent photos'? They are just gilding the lily, imo. Edited October 16, 2012 by indiefoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 In this context, photographs are useless...the science is in the DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest baboonpete Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 In this context, photographs are useless...the science is in the DNA. which doesnt prove a thing without a validated specimen, nothing to compare it to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Again the amount of animals put into the book without a specimen are legion. A lot of them are primates. A few bones is all it takes. Really have to be a broken record to make a point sometimes. So to recap, you do NOT need a specimen to have a new species recognized and accepted. Stating that you do is ignorance to history and science. Melba needs pictures and video? Interesting indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 + from me Woods... It is blazingly apparent that some folks choose simply to not study prior to making comments or are simply choosing to assign certain requirements willy nilly. DNA will most CERTAINLY prove an undicovered primate exists (if such DNA from said creature is tested). Bottom line.... What that primate looks like and the behavioral traits will have to be described by Dr. Expert once the species is somehow corralled and studied. Here's an update, a certain former bff member has made a post that he/she ran into Sally Ramey in a chat room and Sally confirmed Ketchum claims to have dogman dna. That's funny! Drew - can you provide me a link to that chat room? I had a pal that was pretending to be Sally on a chat room to hoax some skeptics trying to dig up some dirt on the study. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 If the hold up is due to the journal requesting pictures or video it may have less to do with requiring it as a confirmation of the species and more to do with adding value to the marketing potential of the article. Pictures sell more articles. I'm sure by now the editors are aware that there are a number of images and videos that haven't been shared with the public, and they would likely be willing to pay top dollar for the rights to them. Once the images are obtained, and if the paper has been accepted, then it boils down to layout, scheduling publication, plating, printing, binding, and distribution. Videos would be an add on for web presentation, and if the publication has ties to television or has plans for a documentary then they may want to acquire rights for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Again the amount of animals put into the book without a specimen are legion. A lot of them are primates. A few bones is all it takes. Really have to be a broken record to make a point sometimes. So to recap, you do NOT need a specimen to have a new species recognized and accepted. Stating that you do is ignorance to history and science. Melba needs pictures and video? Interesting indeed. How true Woodswalker and Mulder ........ The science and DNA will speak for itself, and then the Sykes study will ram it home.. The skepts are simply left with speculation at this point. The Ketchum and Sykes releases will open the flood gate of the silent majority, with volumes of information, ( pictures,stories, bones, hair ...etc ) that has been hiding from the vocal wrath of the disbelievers,skeptics, and those with an axe to grind.... The documentary,with volumes of pictures ( and some stories), will place the diehard skepts ( those that remain ) in the flat world society mentality.... It will take Melba and Sykes DNA studies., To turn around the mentality of the scientific scouts who retain tenure on skepticism, not scientific curiosity. Once scientific curiosity on Bigfoot begins, the big money institutions will jump in full blast....(Don't think they are not already planning this ...the Skye's study is just the first), Leaving the mainstream "true Bigfooters" on the outside looking in. IMHO... Teased with a tad of skeptical speculation. Once again my money is the week before Thanksgiving, the week after elections. But I'm just saying ...IMHO. Now with 3$ you can go buy a cup of coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 PIctures are useless unless there is proof that the DNA came from the "thing" in the picture. From what I understand there is only a single submitter which has film and/or images of their subject's DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts