Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I was thinking about the hide/skin chunk, having seen it on Cryptomundo. In considering HOW it got there, I was thinking...Could it be a strip blown off during the exit of the bullet from the sasquatch? I have seen 'flaps' of skin on deer and hogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) I am a realist, . . . and I know it's going to take much longer for scientists to "sign on" even IF the paper is published. How long it will take will depend in part on which journal it is, and what is included to back up the claim. If the paper were to come out in Nature, for example (and I'm NOT suggesting it even might), everyone would immediately give the claim some respect, even if they weren't ready to fully sign on right away. Somewhere I read that Bryan Sykes's DNA study paper was expected to be published sometime this month (December). Does anyone have a source for that? Was it just a 'maybe'? Who made that claim? I am wondering if Ketchum decided to go forward at this time with her press release primarily because of that possibility. After she spent nearly five years messing around with this stuff, along comes Sykes in the late spring of 2012 and asks for samples, and then a few months later he, or someone associated with him, claims that a paper may come out in December. The proof of bigfoot's existence will be an historic event. Perhaps Ketchum wanted to announce her results in some way before her paper was actually published to insure she's the first. (And if that's the case, it's possible the paper really is still being peer-reviewed, and it will be a month or more before it's out.) Edited December 3, 2012 by Oak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 How long it will take will depend in part on which journal it is, and what is included to back up the claim. If the paper were to come out in Nature, for example (and I'm NOT suggesting it even might), everyone would immediately give the claim some respect, even if they weren't ready to fully sign on right away. Somewhere I read that Bryan Sykes's DNA study paper was expected to be published sometime this month (December). Does anyone have a source for that? Was it just a 'maybe'? Who made that claim? I am wondering if Ketchum decided to go forward at this time with her press release primarily because of that possibility. After she spent nearly five years messing around with this stuff, along comes Sykes in the late spring of 2012 and asks for samples, and then a few months later he, or someone associated with him, claims that a paper may come out in December. The proof of bigfoot's existence will be an historic event. Perhaps Ketchum wanted to announce her results in some way before her paper was actually published to insure she's the first. (And if that's the case, it's possible the paper really is still being peer-reviewed, and it will be a month or more before it's out.) If your speculation is indeed what Ketchum did, she should know that in science they remember the ones who were right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I am hoping the video Dr.K referenced is the same grooming video that knocked HRP off the fence. I have been wanting to see it myself. I had forgot about that clip. There is other evidence out there. We know it. But it's generally a close contact of a bigfooter that has it and won't release it, and the bigfooter is sworn to not disclose. No offense intended here- but they are leaning on Melba to deliver the goods, and don't see us doing the same thing with them. We want to see what you have. I think it is not only the DNA that will prove it, but an overwhelming collection of evidence. Think of a crime scene being tried in a courtroom. Prosecution has the perps DNA from the scene as exhibit A. Do they stop there? Heck no! Survelence video, a weapon, eyewitnesses, probable cause, and personal testimony make a case to prove something happened. All apply to proving these things to be real. There are ways to get it out without identifying the owners. Melissa, I didn't mean you specifically when I mentioned bickering. Can't say who or someone will lock the thread . You have released a clear pic and supposedly have more (I hope!?). I know your previous stance, but if there was ever a time to release this stuff, it is now. Overwhelm the skeptics. Release s clear still from the Erickson footage, not a sleeping pile of fur. It's been leaked by Igor, and is in the moment, don't let it slip away into history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 If your speculation is indeed what Ketchum did, she should know that in science they remember the ones who were right. Indeed. And she might be very confident that she is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 How would Bobo know it was a chunk from the leg, if all that was found was the "steak" or hide or skin or tissue that has been seen in photographs? How would he know it was leg and not back, or arm, or shoulder, or chest? My guess is because that's where they cut it off the body in the freezer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 How long it will take will depend in part on which journal it is, and what is included to back up the claim. If the paper were to come out in Nature, for example (and I'm NOT suggesting it even might), everyone would immediately give the claim some respect, even if they weren't ready to fully sign on right away. Somewhere I read that Bryan Sykes's DNA study paper was expected to be published sometime this month (December). Does anyone have a source for that? Was it just a 'maybe'? Who made that claim? I am wondering if Ketchum decided to go forward at this time with her press release primarily because of that possibility. After she spent nearly five years messing around with this stuff, along comes Sykes in the late spring of 2012 and asks for samples, and then a few months later he, or someone associated with him, claims that a paper may come out in December. The proof of bigfoot's existence will be an historic event. Perhaps Ketchum wanted to announce her results in some way before her paper was actually published to insure she's the first. (And if that's the case, it's possible the paper really is still being peer-reviewed, and it will be a month or more before it's out.) You know you bring up a good question - in a round about way.. I have been wondering if Dr. Sykes could have been approached for a "rebuttal" type paper - because I have been told in most journals there needs to be a separate study which either confirms or denies her findings.. But, if this were the case - wouldn't Dr. Sykes have went to Ketchum for samples? Hum.. I think it's odd that Sykes would release so soon ---- it took Melba 5 years? If Dr. Sykes is releasing his findings already - that I would find very odd and interesting for many reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Money makes the world go round, maybe he just had better funding so was able to move forward more quickly... who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Hum.. I think it's odd that Sykes would release so soon ---- it took Melba 5 years? If Dr. Sykes is releasing his findings already - that I would find very odd and interesting for many reasons. Well, I don't know where the 'December' claim came from anyway, so it may be imaginary. (I didn't imagine it, but no source was given for the information where I read it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I believe it comes from Sykes description of his study, am running out the door, so unhelpfully cannot find link...now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I remember that Sykes was only asking for hair samples. That would not be as extensive as Dr Ketchum's research, I would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted December 3, 2012 Moderator Share Posted December 3, 2012 I do not believe that hair samples is a good source for DNA since it will come up inculclsive.Blood or flesh does way better then Hair and will be more detailed.I have heard that some hair was anylyzed at U of M and it came back as human and pig ,but this is a rumor I have heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 My hope is that a successful paper will have several effects. Scientists need money for their research, so maybe the normal sources of funding will open up to likes of Jeff Meldrum. Then Wally won't be have to be Atlas.(thanks Wally) Also, if the traits and signs of Bigfoot which many here refer to as 'evidence' become more widely known, then regular 'sane' folk may begin wondering just what that noise or stink in their Maryland backyard was. I also expect ever more tendentious attacks on the science, no matter how many times the findings are confirmed. One avenue already being showing to us, is a battle over the interpretation of the data. Should be fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 If you know of any 'good' clear pics or footage (ahem, Sas, Melissa, KC, etc) bring 'em on and help the cause. It's now or never folks. Help with the cause if you can. Sorry, but I can't help the cause with pictures. Mine are not clear or close. My best video was taken from a long distance away & there were only 3 good frames. There's one frame that I may release at some point, (it looks like Patty's twin sister), but I don't think it would be convincing to skeptics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Now is the time Ms. Footy . What's there to lose? Don't cost nothin'. I posted Sykes December results since I had read it and also heard him say it on C2C a while back. Maybe we shod push George to get him back on for 3 hours again? All I'm trying to day is- ya gotta strike while the iron is hot. Melba has got it hot right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts