Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 So according to Paulides isn't it supposed to be released today or are we going to start hearing "soon" again? Yes the 7 to 10 days are up. But for kicks let's throw in another 2 days of buffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 David Claerr has written a clear and thoughtful article on all this. Sasquatch Genesis- the Origin of Bigfoot The Theory of Human Hyridization with an Archaic Hominin Lineage http://voices.yahoo....139.html?cat=37 Thanks for posting that link. I'd been waiting for Mr. Claerr to weigh in on the topic. His scenario sounds similar to Clan of the Cave Bear. And just who the hell are you to demand anything of me? Since I've said from day one, when we get final lab reports and write quick summaries, minus any conjecture or interpretation of results we'll be sharing. It appears we may do that even before processing of boots which wasn't what was originally planned. However, that will be "OUR" decision, you know, the people who went through the trouble, not some handle barking insulting entitlement demands on a forum. I suppose that if you wanted to avoid the "handle barking insulting entitlement demands on a forum" you might have waited to post the results of your DNA tests rather than telling a forum you have them but won't release them "until you are ready". I certainly look forward to reading your test results and supporting documentation of communication with the labs, etc. However, for you to take umbrage to folks on this forum for taking you to task for waving the tantalizing news of your pending release of information, while at the same time claiming "yet to be revealed" information about "red flags" regarding another forum member (Dr. Ketchum), is disingenuous. I think we all would have been better served if you had simply waited until you either release your information, or Dr. Ketchum's paper is published. Well, the milk's spilled now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 So BFS, The same applies to Ketchum does it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Did anyone notice that NASA put out word a few weeks back that the Mars rover come across some groundbreaking new discovery only for everyone to find out that while it was an interesting discovery it was nothing worth the claim they made? Maybe science is going a different direction in how its going to present its evidence and Ketchum is just following the trend, or is that just wishful thinking on my part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) The same applies to Ketchum does it not? The same what? I don't recall her coming on this forum to complain about folks complaining about her after posting on the forum, do you? However, you are correct to say that the idea of complaining in any venue once it is revealed that you have pending information that can't yet be shared is applicable to any party. In Bartlo's case, he's not bound by any NDA's or encumbered by any other party whether to release his information, while Dr. Ketchum is bound. Bartlo volunteered to post his "reveal" on this forum, Dr. Ketchum didn't. Edited December 5, 2012 by BFSleuth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Nice diversion BFS. You know what i meant. You are attacking Bart for the same thing you are giving Ketchum a pass on. In particular.... I think we all would have been better served if you had simply waited until you either release your information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I don't recall "giving a pass" to Dr. Ketchum for her revelations. However, I have noted that Dr. Ketchum has had to contend with the likes of RL et al that have leaked information about her efforts. Bartlo to my knowledge has not had to respond to leaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Yep another dna claim with results that can't be released. If they were really being transparent they would just release the emails and results has it happens, not come to this forum and taunt us with it will be released "soon". That word is getting real old. Is it possible that Bart's results came back as some known animal and he's holding back until Ketchum releases her results. This way he can throw them out to refute her findings if she claims the steak was bigfoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Hopefully you won't have to eat your words squatting squatch. I'm still betting Bart's group comes through before Ketchum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) Yes the 7 to 10 days are up. But for kicks let's throw in another 2 days of buffer. I believe Ketchum said weeks instead of many months. I'm not sure Paulides is an official spokesman for the study. Look, as much as I'd love to join you in taking the safe bet, I'm going to wait and see what happens. This is the closest she's been to definitive on a release date. I don't think there's much wiggle room left under the circumstances. As far as Bart's lab results, it surely doesn't take months to identify coyote or bear (contaminated or not). JMHO Edited December 5, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Hope your right Slim. Week 1 is over tomorrow and in 3 more weeks it turns into month's territory. So I guess we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Hopefully you won't have to eat your words squatting squatch. I'm still betting Bart's group comes through before Ketchum. Hopefully I do have to eat my words. The sooner the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) The same what? I don't recall her coming on this forum to complain about folks complaining about her after posting on the forum, do you? However, you are correct to say that the idea of complaining in any venue once it is revealed that you have pending information that can't yet be shared is applicable to any party. In Bartlo's case, he's not bound by any NDA's or encumbered by any other party whether to release his information, while Dr. Ketchum is bound. Bartlo volunteered to post his "reveal" on this forum, Dr. Ketchum didn't. BFSleuth Reveal what? Because I said if there's deviations their could be an issue. I'm didn't come here to reveal anything as we don't have final lab reports yet. I came here to clear some misperceptions thrown about earlier in the thread that had to do with my statement somewhere else... Period. Did you even read what I wrote or just what you or someone else interpreted without reading. Nothing has changed from our original promise of releasing data except that we may decide to share results actually "earlier" (before boots processing) "when" we have them, which it appears we're finally getting close now. My purpose of sharing my feelings on her press release initially were precipitated by her going public, in turn flooding my email and fb boxes with emails from bigfooters, family and friends either congratulating me or assuming because of my researching the Sierra Kills incident there was some understandable (because people don't pay attention to details) association with her. There's not, never has been and I'm not blessed with the free time some others have to frequent the internet all day and preferred a blanket statement which would be much simpler. I shared my thoughts because I was asked quite a bit and I saw some here, unintentionally were confused from their statements made and I came in and clarified and stated my position. Bottom line I hope she succeeds but I don't have confidence in her (something I get asked repeatedly I'm sure you could imagine) and there's reasons for that. Slim- one thing I've learned very quickly and humbly the last 6 months is we shouldn't be assuming anything when it comes to dna processing. I think we all need to be a little more educated in the processes before making blanket time determinations. Im really looking forward to sharing that with everybody through the email communications. I think that will be a good educational piece for researchers in general moving forward. At least to those who are interested in taking the time to read them. Edited December 5, 2012 by BartloJays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Mulder, questioning something is much different than "attacking" or "challenging" it. It's as if you take any sort of questioning, double-checking, or independent verification as some kind of full-frontal assault. That's obviously not what's going on here. I have no problem with independent tests being run. More tests means better chance of confirmation. My problem is with the claims by Bartlojay and Rockiesquatching that impute sinister motives and deception to Dr Ketchum without providing even a single piece of supporting evidence. I also was pointing out that when the additional samples were sent out by Smeja and his associates, they violated scientific protocol in at least one case by not sending out the sample "blind" (that is, w/o withholding the information about what they wanted testing for). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Slim- one thing I've learned very quickly and humbly the last 6 months is we shouldn't be assuming anything when it comes to dna processing. I think we all need to be a little more educated in the processes before making blanket time determinations. Im really looking forward to sharing that with everybody through the email communications. I think that will be a good educational piece for researchers in general moving forward. At least to those who are interested in taking the time to read them. Fair enough. Do you know if any hair experts have ever examined the sample? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts