Guest Tontar Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 ^ Argggg! The pain of it all. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 How many people are on Dr. Ketchum's team? How many labs are involved? What is the probability that no one in the mainstream scientific community has heard about any of this? Why have the leaks only come from loopy folks who support her claims. I don't think even scientists can keep secrets this well. Surely with this many people involved who must know what the DNA evidence shows, someone would have been saying "game changer" Forget MM, it is very improbable that no one has wispered in the ear of Disotell or any of the other top guys. This argument is in a permanent loop and we want know unless she shows her cards, which I don't think is going to happen. Show your results to one top, mainstream geneticist and scientific journals would be beating your doors down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 How many people are on Dr. Ketchum's team? How many labs are involved? What is the probability that no one in the mainstream scientific community has heard about any of this? Why have the leaks only come from loopy folks who support her claims. I don't think even scientists can keep secrets this well. Surely with this many people involved who must know what the DNA evidence shows, someone would have been saying "game changer" Forget MM, it is very improbable that no one has wispered in the ear of Disotell or any of the other top guys. This argument is in a permanent loop and we want know unless she shows her cards, which I don't think is going to happen. Show your results to one top, mainstream geneticist and scientific journals would be beating your doors down. Well, I've thought about too, particularly Disotell's point that he should have heard about it from one of the other reviewers. It's true that reviewers will sometimes share stuff off the record even though the review process is anonymous and they're not supposed to. But in this case I can absolutely imagine the reviewers keeping their mouths shut and not admitting to their colleagues that they had anything to do with the "Bigfoot Paper." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 They wouldn't even have to say the "Bigfoot Paper." The buzz would be of the chart for any new primate, much less one purported to be near human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 And of course nobody would connect the dots and figure out it was about bigfoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) Maybe I missed it, but isn't today the day where someone says, "it's Thursday again..." Weeks have turned into months, again. Not quite yet. We have 7 more days for weeks to turn into 1 month and then another month after that. With some buffer room it will be technically months on February 7th. Edited January 3, 2013 by rockiessquatching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I'm just saying people talk. Scientist gossip just like other folks. Quantum physicists gossip, there are camps, but word gets around if one camp has something revolutionary going on. Who are the other scientists involved here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Thinking back to the CERN Higgs Boson results, those scientists did a pretty good job of keeping the lid on a groundbreaking outcome. Not forever, mind you, but the majority of all particle physicists on the PLANET were involved in the project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I don't know if these lectures by Pratt and Paulides will advance any new information, timed to coincide with Ketchum's report publication, just to sell books, etc. At Oklahoma Science Museum in Oklahoma City in a couple of weeks. http://www.sciencemuseumok.org/bigfoot_dna.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Check Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Isn't "weeks, not months" the first we've heard an actual time line placed on this other than "soon"? I wonder what might happen or be said should that time pass us by. I know it's wishful thinking, but I'd love for her to say she'll show her cards by a specific date should all else continue to get delayed/derailed. Obviously I recognize she owes me absolutely nothing, but I would sure appreciate it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Not quite yet. We have 7 more days for weeks to turn into 1 month and then another month after that. With some buffer room it will be technically months on February 7th. I said last month that this week would be the earliest I was expecting any paper to come out, and that assumes that nothing else has happened to slow things up. She just sent the revisions in recently. Nothing says they couldn't ask for more revisions. Do any of our people "in the know" about journal papers know what the record number is for revision requests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) Agreed, she owes us nothing. It does boggle the mind for someone to make the assertion that, not only is Bigfoot real, but the claim that we share the planet with another kind of human. This kind of claim cannot be made by press release with no supporting data. Is the time frame the only thing that makes this claim different than other Bigfoot claims over the years? Smitty in Florida, good analogy. What if one of those scientist made a press release that we have found the Higgs Boson particle, but you will just have to trust me on the data. Also to your point, almost every physicist was on board because it makes the math work. I did not hear many of those particle physicist laughing at the science ahead of the results. It is water under the bridge now, but either wait to say anything, or at least get a heavy weight in genetics to offer some suggestion that what you say could be true based on science. Edited January 4, 2013 by LTBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 ^^^ Just the nature of this subject, it really is an eye opener. With the HB particle it was big in different circles, but soon as you mention BF, everybody's head picks up. It's a much harder subject to keep under wraps. She is going to be able write a book just on what she went through trying to release the study. How happy will she be when this finally out ? I predict a week long party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 That is a very good point. Noooo, it's not a good point, because it has been rehashed many times, and the labs (the ones Bart and I used, I can't speak for Melba's) addressed this concern with their methods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I said last month that this week would be the earliest I was expecting any paper to come out, and that assumes that nothing else has happened to slow things up. She just sent the revisions in recently. Nothing says they couldn't ask for more revisions. Yes but the "weeks" not "months" was her prediction. If that prediction doesn't come true wouldn't you think an explanation is in order ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts