Guest Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 That's some cumbersome wording. The 'time coming' she refers to could be interpreted as 'once the paper is submitted'. I find it curious that she seems incapable of saying something clear like, "The paper is in review and we'll let you know more as soon as we're permitted. Thank you for your continued patience." Mountain out of molehill time apparently. It's obvious that the paper is written, has been submitted and is under review. That even moreso than the NDAs is why she can't publicly comment. If she does, they reject the paper. It's that simple. Anything other conclusion is overreading the situation.
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Again a slap in the face but you just keep up the dream ~ What's the excuse this time guys ????????
Guest Kronprinz Adam Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 What if nothing comes of the Ketchum DNA/Olympic Project/Erickson films projects? What if by, say, February's end 2012 or insert a date of your choice, no paper or publicly available films or pictures have been released? Do we wait more months or years, with bated breath, awaiting the revelations promised? Will it be the year of the sad squatchers instead of year of the sasquatch? A despressing sort of prospect....but what then? Seems like so much hope is pinned on that stuff. Just in case, .... mmm...I hope this time it will be different than the the Sylvanic videos or the Malasyan Bigfoot experiences...but If the DNA of Bigfoot turns out to be 100% HUMAN, I assume they simply took the sample from any person...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Again a slap in the face but you just keep up the dream ~ What's the excuse this time guys ???????? No excuses, Rat. Jump to conclusions much?
Bonehead74 Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Mountain out of molehill time apparently. It's obvious that the paper is written, has been submitted and is under review. That even moreso than the NDAs is why she can't publicly comment. If she does, they reject the paper. It's that simple. Anything other conclusion is overreading the situation. I was very careful not to reach a conclusion, nor did I state that I subscribed to any particular interpretation of her statement. I simply pointed out the imprecision of her language. Make any sized landform you like with it. 1
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 No excuses, Rat. Jump to conclusions much? In order to get any DNA from a BF, There has to be such a creature.
Guest Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Amazing what happens when politics, patience, hope and dreams get mixed up together hey? Derek, best of luck on all your projects Great to hear where your priority is .
Guest Jodie Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 The big question in my mind right now isn't whether bigfoot exists or not, it's whether the DNA study is going well. When you hear some of these rumors about the results it's almost like the leakers are asking you to leave your common sense at the door. But until it is all said and done, and we can read the reports and whatever paper she writes about it, there can be no final conclusions drawn about the documentation for the existence of bigfoot. RRS- What is aggravating you? You went from positive qoutes to snarkiness in two months time. I don't understand why it matters what we think, what happened?
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 It only seems snark because i no longer believe there is a BF, when i did wasn't RRS just a bundle of laughs huh!
Guest Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Adrian Erickson & the Larry Surface Video A summary of the two most talked about events in the Bigfoot world this week.
BobbyO Posted November 18, 2011 SSR Team Posted November 18, 2011 In order to get any DNA from a BF, There has to be such a creature. #87 on my list, that RRS..
Guest Dudlow Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Thanks for the update, 'rwridley'. I can't help thinking the near-human appearance of the specimen in Larry Surface's video would add some needed credibility to Ketchum's pending DNA findings which are surmised to closely parallel those of humans. A bipedal cryptid with near-human appearance would provide a convenient match to the DNA findings. - Dudlow
Guest Jodie Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 It only seems snark because i no longer believe there is a BF, when i did wasn't RRS just a bundle of laughs huh! I didn't think you ever believed based on my dealings with you, but I still thought you were a bundle of laughs. What happened? Did you just wake up one morning and just decide you needed to tell us we were all just deluded sheeple or something?
Guest Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 It only seems snark because i no longer believe there is a BF, when i did wasn't RRS just a bundle of laughs huh! I'm curious, was there one event in particular that caused you to change your mind?? Is it the lack of progress of these various projects?? I am interested in your opinion.
Recommended Posts