TimB Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Shawn Evidence just posted a comment from Tim Fasano saying that Dr. Ketchum's paper was rejected. No peer review. Dr. Burtsev said it will be submitted to a Russian Journal. First we have to consider the source. If true this is disappointing but not surprising. Remember Galileo. OK it is time for action. Mr. Smeja, please roll out the body. Failing that, Texas, time to step up and produce one. this will be an interesting day. Why would you post this without posting a link? Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) I can't tell from BE what's going on, but it sounds like even if not "respected" Us/Euro Journal, it's going to Russia and Igor sounds as though he has confidence in that... which might mean another several months for a yeah or nay there. I don't know that it tells us too much, except it wasn't accepted, but we don't know why and can still only speculate. For those of us that know BFs exist we do have confidence it wasn't because they aren't real. Peer-review really is essential to move anything of this magnitude into courts/law...regulation - reality. And one paper would not have done that IMO, but two..and the supporting evidence...still not "proof" in the legal sense (or necessarily scientific) would be nice to have out on the table now, before things like Spike TV BF hunt and so on...on the other hand, it might be nice to see a flippin TV show actually pay out...lol doubtful. So? Will submitters and those with supporting evidence sit it out for several more months? Don't see why not...unless some other "opportunity" arises, and I can't imagine what that would be...it already has in the form of Oxford...and Oxford is testing mtDNA which we are told by Stubstad all showed 100% human, although an older haplotype (sorry if not right word..you understand I hope) ....so where will that leave BF wanna prove it groups? Tim B, I'll answer for the other poster...probably b/c everyone here knows easily how to get to BigfootEvidence...or it's in the browser memory... Edited December 6, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 No paper still...... **** it feels good to be a gangsta. Stop! Russia time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Well that George Knapp guy seems convinced anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 It is not clear. A single hybridization shouldn't be the start of a new species. It should be diluted over the course of several generations. She makes it sound like the start of a new species when she says that bigfoot is a hybrid that came about by a female modern human mating with an unknown hominin. Agree I took her to mean the (first?) hybridization event took place 15,000 years ago. It seems absurd to suggest the unknown "paternal" species originated 15,000 years ago. If that's the takeaway, no wonder the guy is incredulous. Would it be fair to assume that she looked at the number of nucleotides that differed in the purported BF mtDNA from present-day human mtDNA, and cacluated a 'genesis' date therefrom? I'm no DNA expert, but I'm taking the Occam's Razor approach on how she would come up with a seemingly precise(ish) figure like this without any other obvious available evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Renie Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 So when would the ndabe lifted? Was there a timeline to them, or is it a "forever" type deal. Will we get some of the details even IF it flunked peer review and doesn't get published? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) I heard that Bourtsev posted on FACEBOOK that the paper was rejected. TODAY. I am looking for a link It is found at BIGFOOT EVIDENCE, and it is not Bourtsev, but Steven Streufert Edited December 6, 2012 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Renie Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/smartbigfoot/ Edited December 6, 2012 by Renie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 See? Was that so hard? Now we know what you are talking about! Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) I heard that Bourtsev posted on FACEBOOK that the paper was rejected. TODAY. I am looking for a link It is found at BIGFOOT EVIDENCE, and it is not Bourtsev, but Steven Streufert Oh gosh! This sounds like all kinds of official... I'm breathless... Edited December 6, 2012 by BFSleuth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Renie Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 See? Was that so hard? Now we know what you are talking about! Tim B. ME? I put a link in my first post..I thnk you are addressing the wrong poster if that was meant to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I heard that Bourtsev posted on FACEBOOK that the paper was rejected. TODAY. I am looking for a link It is found at BIGFOOT EVIDENCE, and it is not Bourtsev, but Steven Streufert Not true, it was not rejected, the journal has asked for revisions at some point. It is also in review in Russia at the same time as here in the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) This is the correct link to Burtsev's comment: http://www.facebook.com/russian.yeti Edited December 6, 2012 by Didi68 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) The 'science' can be sound even if the paper is rejected. It might just be that the hypotheses/conclusions are not acceptable. I really hope the tests are sound. Edited December 6, 2012 by corvus horribilus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) It is found at BIGFOOT EVIDENCE, and it is not Bourtsev, but Steven Streufert Streufert was the guy that said BF DNA was "about to hit the fan"...many months ago. That said, I can't find any silver lining in Burtsev's broken english. I hope Bart isn't the only person saving their correspondence. Edited December 6, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts