Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I TRULY believe that 12/5/12 will be the day of days in the BF world,it will be known as B DAY !!! You'll get nothing and like it ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 ^^My guess is we have the 3 sequences from the Sierra steak, Kentucky pancake plate, and the pipe that had a skunk ripped out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) You'll get nothing and like it ! 12/4 off a day, and how do you like your crow , in sauce or stir fry ? Edited November 30, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 ^^^I think you should be asking yourself that question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) I hate to say this but that paper sounds like an individual with a rare brain disorder was studied in order to determine the genetic basis for the disease. Edited November 30, 2012 by HODS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Newswise has a interesting one due next week with these keywords.....Journal highlights, Genetic Variation, Pleitropy, serotonin signaling, Data analysis, mutant genome sequences !!! , epigenetics, complex traits http://www.newswise....egory=embargoed Ketchum's paper, based on the descriptions we have so far, has nothing to do with "mutant genome sequences." She is talking about a hybrid entity created from two closely-related but distinct species. No mutation (accidental change in a particular genomic sequence) was involved. And her paper certainly has nothing to do with serotonin signaling. Her paper is probably not yet at the embargo stage. "Weeks, not months," until release, she said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 ^ what Oak said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 No chance Zigo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianmk Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 @Oak - When Dr Ketchum was asked about the publication date technically I believe she said "we don't have the exact date yet but we are hoping weeks instead of months" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 So she doesn't even know? Yawn. Very tired of all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I'll add one simple thought here folks. Some are mocking the outlets reporting as being negative or skeptical. That's not bad of them or mean. It's not their job to prove or disprove. Until we have a peer reviewed report, the skeptics are right. Bigfoot does not exist.....yet. I have seen 2 reports and the pics associated were of Biscardi and M Moneymaker. Those are skewed and pathetic. Another thing- when she does an interview, MENTION ERICKSON'S VIDEO of them. If it is still to be included. "we have their DNA, we have clear video, we have hairs, we have a chunk-o-squatch (steak), we have a toenail, etc." She is clearly not as comfortable on camera explaining as a good pr person would be. Not Sally, not Robin. A GOOD PR person. Hire one. Not selling it very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest azguy Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 How can anyone take a scientist like Dr. Ketchum seriously when she has acted anything but like a professional..... In my opinion, this is one of the reasons that "naysayers" will have plenty of rounds of ammo to fully dismiss this study and the subsequent findings. Something like this needs to be done with full and un-obscured transparency. Virtually zero weight can be put on these findings until "real" experts weigh in and agree with her conclusions. After all this time, this study proves nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 How can anyone take a scientist like Dr. Ketchum seriously when she has acted anything but like a professional..... In my opinion, this is one of the reasons that "naysayers" will have plenty of rounds of ammo to fully dismiss this study and the subsequent findings. Something like this needs to be done with full and un-obscured transparency. Virtually zero weight can be put on these findings until "real" experts weigh in and agree with her conclusions. After all this time, this study proves nothing. Perfect, now you can keep a closed mind no matter what the paper says! It's that easy folks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 azguy you saw the study already? Could you be a little more specific about the parts that prove nothing? How she acts, does not change the fact that she is a professional, with credentials, and is working with other professionals, with credentials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest osskar Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Erickson videos...! when? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts