Guest Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Can you provide any evidence that anyone besides Adrian Erickson stands to profit from the footage he has obtained? I have seen at least a half dozen of your posts speculating that the delay or build up is some type of effort to boost DVD sales. Melba Ketchum and all of the other researchers involved have no rights to Erickson's footage, and have no reason to participate in a hype campaign to boost sales of his movie. On top of that, if reports are correct, the amount of money Erickson has sunk into his research has left little chance that he will even recoup the money he has spent on his efforts. If all of these people were involved if some hype build up, I would think they would have handled this much differently. They would have let anticipation build to a fever pitch, then delivered the payoff to maximize interest and profits. Letting their target audience become frustrated and almost apathetic isn't the most effective way to cash in. Not everything is some sinister plot to get into your wallet. I don't think delay is related to profit. I think the delay is that the paper has not been accepted for publication. As already pointed out by some, the so-called premise of the paper is untestible and unsound. I am not so sure about some of the build up. What is the point of all of these so called NDA'a if not to protect some type of profit.? Why do we keep hearing from various second hand sources all of the time that the release is imminent or soon? Why are so many people making all of these claims yet hide behind NDA or unnamed sources? If you singed an NDA, then by all means keep your mouth shut. Don't go spreading info through third parties. Tell me who exactly said the release of the paper would be very soon. I want the person who knows for sure. It is Dr. Kethcum's paper and she is the only valid source. All of the other statements are either accurate descriptions of what she has said; or someone is misinforming everyone or has been misinformed by someone else. All good political hacks no that if you want to spread a message but don't want that message attributed to you, you spread via leak or rumor. That way you avoid accountability. If you going to tell your friend something about the project knowing good and well your friend is going to post in on the net. Go ahead and post it yourself. This is a Bigfoot forum, not the editorial board of The New York Times. I've heard plenty of things that would fall into the category you're describing. I don't pass on that stuff (even though some of the information is pretty interesting). That said, it's really up to you to filter. Personally, I'd rather have the data and decide for myself. You're right though, almost everything we know about this study is second hand. Anyway, I wouldn't post something if I didn't think there was something interesting about it. In this case, I've been told the identity of the FB poster and I think he's credible. But yeah, someone could have lied to him. He could have lied on FB. Shawn could have lied about the whole thing. I could be lying right now. I get it. Typically I'll preface those kind of things with FWIW. Your point is well taken. It is what it is and what we say hear one way or another doesn't effect the validity or fact of any publication. And in my mind a forum is primarily a place to discuss and not a place to gather accurate information. Parn, you wrote in post #1446, But Robert Lindsay reports that the 28 samples collected by Ketchum. Who is Robert Lindsay and how is he related to this project. Is he a co-author with Dr.Ketchum? Does anyone know where he gets his information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) I don't think delay is related to profit. I think the delay is that the paper has not been accepted for publication. As already pointed out by some, the so-called premise of the paper is untestible and unsound. I am not so sure about some of the build up. What is the point of all of these so called NDA'a if not to protect some type of profit.? Why do we keep hearing from various second hand sources all of the time that the release is imminent or soon? Why are so many people making all of these claims yet hide behind NDA or unnamed sources? If you singed an NDA, then by all means keep your mouth shut. Don't go spreading info through third parties. Tell me who exactly said the release of the paper would be very soon. I want the person who knows for sure. It is Dr. Kethcum's paper and she is the only valid source. All of the other statements are either accurate descriptions of what she has said; or someone is misinforming everyone or has been misinformed by someone else. All good political hacks no that if you want to spread a message but don't want that message attributed to you, you spread via leak or rumor. That way you avoid accountability. If you going to tell your friend something about the project knowing good and well your friend is going to post in on the net. Go ahead and post it yourself. Your point is well taken. It is what it is and what we say hear one way or another doesn't effect the validity or fact of any publication. And in my mind a forum is primarily a place to discuss and not a place to gather accurate information. Who is Robert Lindsay and how is he related to this project. Is he a co-author with Dr.Ketchum? Does anyone know where he gets his information. Some like him, some hate him. I'll let you decide. Edited January 17, 2012 by grayjay Content, D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Richard Stubstad leaked non-NDA info to Mr. Lindsay....Mr. Lindsay also refuses to post a reciprocal link back to the BFF. So...we won't be sending people to his website in the spirit of fairness, he's been banned from here and was non-cooperative with the BFF Forum Rules. Most of this is in the previous pages of this thread anyway. Just a friendly reminder for the new folks who don't know. Grayjay Edited January 17, 2012 by grayjay content double posted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Parn, you wrote in post #1446, "capiche? only takes one guy to collect specimens in one place, then mail them in from all over the place. Takes 20 bucks to set up a drop box. Again, I'm just giving a hypothetical, not accusing anyone of anything. The point is that provenance of the data does mean something." But Robert Lindsay reports that the 28 samples collected by Ketchum came in the form of hair, blood, a finger nail, and something associated with a skunk. How does your fraud scenario hold up if the DNA came from diverse tissues, unless Ketchum only sent off pure strands of extracted DNA to be tested? The large scale tissues can obviously be examined, too. Mitch Stubstad says those three aren't part of the study. I can't account for the Sierra kills steak. I really can't, but the original story, and the stories about guard hairs, etc, make me pretty skeptical about that. I don't know exactly what Ketchum reported on that, either; Derek is pretty closemouthed about the exact wording; she seems to be the master of the ambiguous statement. As time goes by, and there is nothing but stalling, as we come up on three years, I'm thinking the whole thing was either a scam from the beginning or has basically collapsed once they discovered that they were wrong about the SNP's. How about you? p. Edited January 17, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) I am exasperated, Parn. I think a hoax is not as likely to be the explanation as that the paper has been subjected to a very high standard in the review process. I think there were weaknesses in the original paper which would not have survived scrutiny upon publication. Since I have read Paulides' Hoopa Project, I have reason to believe he conducts himself well professionally. If this whole thing were a hoax, more suckers should have been drawn in by the group, just for a bigger kick. And I think we would have seen a hoax unravel already, with someone spilling the beans. I keep in mind that there are precious few people just dying to read the paper. Most people are watching football or the Kardashians; I, like you, can't help paying attention to this bigfoot thing. Edited January 17, 2012 by mitchw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 As time goes by, and there is nothing but stalling, as we come up on three years, I'm thinking the whole thing was either a scam from the beginning or has basically collapsed once they discovered that they were wrong about the SNP's. How about you? p. Three years since what Parn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Three years since what Parn? SY, as we come up on three years since the first specimens were sent to Ketchum, per dates quoted by Lindsay/Stubstad. p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 SY, as we come up on three years since the first specimens were sent to Ketchum, per dates quoted by Lindsay/Stubstad. p. Well, that got me to thinking, how long was it from the discovery of the Denisova Cave bones and publication of their DNA sequence? I looked it up. The bones were discovered in 2008 and publication was in 2011. Three years. Seems to me three years would be pretty normal for the length of time for gathering specimens, sequencing DNA, crafting a paper with help from a team of scientists, submitting for publication, rewriting, resubmitting, etc. etc. That's a lot of work and scheduling between the research team, editorial and peer review team, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Well, that got me to thinking, how long was it from the discovery of the Denisova Cave bones and publication of their DNA sequence? I looked it up. The bones were discovered in 2008 and publication was in 2011. Three years. Seems to me three years would be pretty normal for the length of time for gathering specimens, sequencing DNA, crafting a paper with help from a team of scientists, submitting for publication, rewriting, resubmitting, etc. etc. That's a lot of work and scheduling between the research team, editorial and peer review team, etc. Further research leads me to a publication date of 2010 for the Denisova DNA, so it is two years from the time of discovery to publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Further research leads me to a publication date of 2010 for the Denisova DNA, so it is two years from the time of discovery to publication. I think the fundamental difference between the Denisova case and the Ketchum/ Erickson project is that the Denisova team gathered all the information they required right at the start (ie all the samples that required testing were gathered relatively quickly). They were then able to do the tests, write it up and submit in sequence. My guess is that the Ketchum study has acquired samples all through the process, and with the huge importance of the study they have extended the project continuously in order to test each new sample, write it up , and strengthen the paper. The chunk of thigh(?) from the Sierra kills was only received, for instance, in the last 15 months or so I believe. Furthermore, I imagine that the new tests they (Ketchum & team) had to set up took some time to develop, and that the paper might have been even more intensely scrutinised during the peer review process than normal due to the extra-ordinary nature of the claim, and its implications. I doubt whether the Denisova people tested 100 different samples, which is what we are told Ketchum has done. Hence the inordinate teasing of the expectant bigfooting world! Oops, sorry, I mean the longer-than-usual time between gathering the first data and publication. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I doubt whether the Denisova people tested 100 different samples, which is what we are told Ketchum has done. Do they really claim 100 samples? I thought it was something like 4 or 5. If it's really 100, then we're expected to believe that over the past few years, researchers have collected 100 DNA samples of bigfoots, but we still can't get one decent photo of one. That strikes me as . . . unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Primate Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Unlikely but true . There were 100 samples of which 20 were included in the final round of testing as they wanted to focus on the fresher samples and leave the bones and teeth for later.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Our erstwhile fellow-forumite Robert Lindsay claims they examined over 100 samples, 28 tested presumptive for sasquatch, and that that represented over 20 different individuals. In view of the controversy over this chap with the forum, which I only heard about yesterday, I shan't link to his site.........but google is your friend should you want to read it for yourself. I suggest you don't read anything he writes on any other subject! Unlikely but true . There were 100 samples of which 20 were included in the final round of testing as they wanted to focus on the fresher samples and leave the bones and teeth for later.. In the murky world of bigfoot rumour, you seem remarkably sure about this. As a newcomer here I have no idea what is going on most of the time, so could you let us (well, OK....me!) know how you know this for certain. Do you have a direct line to the inner sanctum of the study? Innocent question. Mike Edited January 17, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 apparently the footage adrian bought was legit...but then he sunk all his money into ketchum.Alot of money..millions and she has gave him nothing. She should be prosecuted if you want my opinion. Anyways she told me Biscardi submitted a toe nail that came back as bf. There is your red flag right there...Not to mention the bigfoot "steak" has been examined by people with knowledge of what canine hair looks like. They said it was coyote. I really dont think this was a hoax on adrian's part just that Ketchum seen the $ and ran with it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Do they really claim 100 samples? I thought it was something like 4 or 5. If it's really 100, then we're expected to believe that over the past few years, researchers have collected 100 DNA samples of bigfoots, but we still can't get one decent photo of one. That strikes me as . . . unlikely. The OP alone has submitted over 100 samples. Other groups have also made submissions. I heard 28 were chosen, only 3 were fully sequenced from that group. The samples Stubstad referred to weren't used in the study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts