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.) My understanding is that Sykes' initial estimate for publication was December/January. At some point, there was a delay either in obtaining and/or processing samples, so it may have been pushed back to at least January/February. 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. Most proponents and researchers have learned their lesson well. There is no point really in bringing forward new testimonies, photos, etc because they will be met with the same blanket dismissals of "inconclusive" or "fake". (Cue the usual back and forth.). Of course, Skeptics being what they are, they then turn around and tar researchers and proponents for "not providing evidence" to support their claims. Condemned if they do and condemned if they don't. So they just don't "play". 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.) Sykes' initial announcement of the study included a rough timeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Paulides said 7-10 days one week ago. Still think we are on track ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 If these are academics publishing the paper, they'll be wanting to enjoy their holiday break pretty soon. But I'm all out of excited anticipation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Now is the time Ms. Footy . What's there to lose? Don't cost nothin'. What's there to lose??? My temper & my sanity. What's there to gain? Nothin'. Ask Melissa how she enjoyed her recent "show the picture" adventure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Got any reports from 15,000 years ago? Just this.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) What's there to lose??? My temper & my sanity. What's there to gain? Nothin'. Ask Melissa how she enjoyed her recent "show the picture" adventure. Everybody wants to know. Me too. That's why I'm waitiing for proof. These forums have a pro bono community aspect to them that needs to be protected. The whole membership is in on it. And the whole membership can ruin it, if they choose. Different people have different approaches to proof; one of them is: I have my proof. I've watched this going on with bipto's generous offerings on what's going on with the TBRC. When stuff is offered for the good of the community, that is usually short of scientific proof, which, remember people, we don't have yet. Pushing for it right here, right now, from people who are just sharing info with like-minded people doesn't have any useful outcome that I can see. Save it for public claims that need to be backed up. Edited December 3, 2012 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Just this.... Trouble is you've got the roles reversed. The female was human not the male. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) 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. I think you need to read up on how long it takes to sequence Melissa, it's odd that it took Dr. Ketchum this long but it's possible the work was done long ago and it has taken a year and a half to try to find a publisher...too many "maybe's" at this point. Dr. Sykes is not doing any nuclear sequencing, only mtDNA and looking at specific genes that will identify a species, that is why he finished quickly. With Dr. Ketchum it was a little bit more in depth. 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.) When the announcement was first made it was on his site with the time line laid out. Edited December 3, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) Sykes' initial announcement of the study included a rough timeline. . When the announcement was first made it was on his site with the time line laid out. Thanks Edited December 3, 2012 by Oak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted December 3, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted December 3, 2012 Here it is Oak - http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/academic/GBFs-v/OLCHP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 W, That's a good one!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Here it is Oak - http://www.wolfson.o...ic/GBFs-v/OLCHP Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) I don't think a video is going to add weight to the study results, unless the BF(s) are in the act of performing superhuman feats. Given today's technology, and the ability to create lifelike creature suits, a few hairy actors sitting around grooming one another could very well invite more detraction from the study rather than attraction to it. I don't really understand why any video would be associated with the Ketchum study in the first place. The DNA results are what will tell the story. Edited December 4, 2012 by Thepattywagon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Yeah, I just rechecked that video, and he said a chunk from the leg, and he made a slight hand gesture at his own leg when he said it. I'm not trying to confuse things, I'm just trying to figure out what is what with the story because between watching the various Bobo interviews on different TV shows, reading the various posts here and elsewhere, it's a bit hard to keep it all straight. 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? It is still very interesting Bobo said that, I can't help but fully believe the bodies are around. I can believe you would find a flap of meaty hide laying around and not the main carcass. Do you remember Melba saying she had more than enough of a sample implying it was substantial in size? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) It was something like August 2010 when MK said she was preparing a peer reviewed report of part human DNA. How much longer does she need? Edited December 4, 2012 by Tim Kota Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts