Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I'm just gonna go ahead and agree with you rather than take the time to google the word "lesula". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Well Bart, why are you sitting on your results if you have them back? What's the hold up? We could end all of this right now if you go ahead and make Smeja's test results public. He said "eventual results", so evidently they are not finished Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I wonder what the reaction would be if you did Bart? salted specimen=fox smeja's flesh= bear Now that would at least put one story to bed but considering you are still friends and associating with him I'm assuming they didn't come back as something so common, so what is it? You might as well say because it seems like you have let the cat herd out of the bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I'm just gonna go ahead and agree with you rather than take the time to google the word "lesula". Its that newely found species of monkey, the ones that looks like Gene Wilder. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I want this to be real but the media thinks it's profoundly weird. They can't take it seriously and call it speculation built completely on hearsay. If something isn't shown soon this will be the greatest disaster to the Bigfoot community ever. It's not just disappointment, this will be worse than the Georgia body because so many are involved. Not to mention the time wasted on this by loyal footers. I really hope my gut feeling is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) OK Bart, well let me ask this then, what types of tests are you going to run on Smeja's specimens then and what tests have already been done? I want this to be real but the media thinks it's profoundly weird. They can't take it seriously and call it speculation built completely on hearsay. If something isn't shown soon this will be the greatest disaster to the Bigfoot community ever. It's not just disappointment, this will be worse than the Georgia body because so many are involved. Not to mention the time wasted on this by loyal footers. I really hope my gut feeling is wrong. I agree with you 100% on this. For every wrong step it takes 100 right ones to build back a reputation or rapport. I can't see that happening any time soon for the community that didn't have the best reputation to begin with. Edited December 5, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I don't think Bart owes anything (info) to anyone here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted December 5, 2012 Admin Share Posted December 5, 2012 I may be misinformed, but doesn't SY 'KNOW' the results of the paper? How could he if it's not finished yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) No, he doesn't, and if he chooses not to answer then that's his choice. But he came here to express his point of view so I think it is absolutely appropriate for anyone to ask for clarification on why he has that opinion. Edited December 5, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I'm confused, I thought there were only two teams working on DNA extracted from Smeja's samples, who is Bart working with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Talk about trying to twist things around. Really? Dude... did I say it was a fact? Wow, just wow. I have no words. The lack of objectivity is terrifying. My Claim: "There is no paper"Proof: As of today's date no paper has been provided, released, shown, documented, etc. Your claim claim would be an imperative statement, and taken as a believed fact. As usual, this is to avoid making a rule violation towards a member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Your claim claim would be an imperative statement, and taken as a believed fact. As usual, this is to avoid making a rule violation towards a member. Nonsense, it's not the rules that are being avoided. We all just want this mess cleaned up if it's real, and if not we just want it to go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I may be misinformed, but doesn't SY 'KNOW' the results of the paper? I'd have a tough time arguing with people who don't know any better, if that's the case. I know what I've been told. It is enough for my opinion of what the paper will present. Some of what I think I know, is from piecing together other statements made publicly by Dr. Ketchum and from my own observations of my own sample. A case made on this evidence will entail morphology along with DNA. Nonsense, it's not the rules that are being avoided. We all just want this mess cleaned up if it's real, and if not we just want it to go away. Impatience can be our own worst enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) I don't think Bart owes anything (info) to anyone here. Then why thumb his nose and essentially go "I know something you don't know..." There seem to be a few regular (and not so regular) posters who to take delight in such behavior, it pertains to this thread insofar as we are seeing people casting aspersions on the motives of Ms Ketchum or the veracity of her claims yet never divulging more than a flippant comment or an inflammatory remark. You have something that makes you question Ms Ketchum or the project? BRILLIANT! Now share it with the group, please. Personally, I'm a hopeful skeptic; I've held an interest in many 'fringe' areas since a young age, but I also view and review any new evidence with an analytical eye (and a lot of questions). The field in question has been rife with hoaxes but the one thing that sets this study apart for me is a simple, logical question: Melba Ketchum's career, business and livelihood hinge on her professionalism. Why would someone put all these and more at risk by knowingly releasing false information, by allowing herself to be misrepresented, by not covering all bases (with regards to provenance, method, technique, failsafes, documentation et cetera), or by taking such large steps into the media spotlight without confidence in all of the above? After all, this isn't Billy-Joe Jim-Bob the farmhand whose only fallout from fallacious claims is a bit of stick from his colleagues. She says that she has the goods, and I see no evidence to the contrary. Sure there is plenty of conjecture but nothing of substance. So the hopeful part of me places trust in her word (based on the logical questioning outlined above) and the skeptical part of me just wants to get his hands on her data so I can see what we're up against. And I can't wait. Edited December 5, 2012 by penski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) How could he if it's not finished yet? Sorry....His individual sample. Unless this is a blatant hoax, which it doesn't appear to be, then I'm inclined to believe the Dr., as opposed to the patients, even if the good Dr. allows her emotions to dictate her actions, occasionally. Edited December 5, 2012 by PacNWSquatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts