Over under on Ketchum study

What does the community think? I will set it at October 31st.... Over ? Or under ?

Of what year?

I was thinking 2012, but you make a good point. lol... I know she fancies herself the future Jane Goodall of the Squatches, figured Smeja & Oxford has lit a fire under her a$$....

I hope it is released soon, this has been dragging on for ever. I will pick October 31st and keep my fingers crossed.

I'll take over on that. If it does get published, I would think it would be in conjunction with the Sykes study. I have nothing to back that up, it's just a hunch.

Samsquanch wrote:Of what year?

Lolololololololololololol. I'm getting SICK of waiting, myself!

SasquaiNation wrote:I'll take over on that. If it does get published, I would think it would be in conjunction with the Sykes study. I have nothing to back that up, it's just a hunch.

I can't see any reason why Dr Sykes would want to be anywhere near Ketchum's mishandled "paper". He has a scholastic reputation to uphold. he reputation was in shambles before she even started this "paper".

Remember it was coming out in 2011 then march this year then April then may etc


There is no paper.

You really think if there was a paper of this magnitude it would be kept hush? The media would be ALL over it, other scientists would jump on the bandwagon to be the first to make the discovery.

At best she found some rare native american DNA. Bigfoot is human are the rumours. Big woop. What does that prove? Humans live in north america? Well isn't that just the discovery of the century. Give me a break.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I'm curious; do you believe this creature may exist? If not, curious as to why you would haunt the forums. Are you a skeptic who thinks there's a CHANCE BF is real? Just curious.

Definately over Oct 31st.
everyone who has their hopes set on the Sykes Study needs to re-read the parameters, it's a very narrow scope contained strictly to hair samples. If that worked, we wouldn't need DNA from Denslovian teeth, or Neanderthal teeth...or Gigantopithicus teeth......

Of course he can bring it to a speedy publishing date!
But the results are will be within the scope of the very narrow testing he can do on hair.
I call rigged.

The Woman is one more exploitive loon in the mix. Who cares?

Ain't never coming out. There will be some excuse for that.


Squatchanini

StankApe wrote:

SasquaiNation wrote:I'll take over on that. If it does get published, I would think it would be in conjunction with the Sykes study. I have nothing to back that up, it's just a hunch.

I can't see any reason why Dr Sykes would want to be anywhere near Ketchum's mishandled "paper". He has a scholastic reputation to uphold. he reputation was in shambles before she even started this "paper".

Actually, I was thinking it would be the other way around. Her paper, if there is one, riding on the coat tails of Dr. Sykes' study. He is widely known and he's written a few books on the subject of DNA.
I never though for a moment that Dr. Sykes would follow Dr. Ketchum. I should have been a bit more clear on my post above.
Again, it's just my personal opinion. I'm sure something will go sideways in the Bigfoot world between now and then.
I still say "over"

I trust him much more than she.

He is an esteemed PHD, a highly cited expert in his field

She is a vet who's lab she started to test animal bloodlines has a poor BBB rating, AND she caused Texas A&M to get sued for doing something sketchy(then then removed their affiliation with her)

He isn't coming into this with pre-conceived notions of results and will report the findings yeah or nea

She claims to have been a skeptic then posts goofy diatribes about visiting with them often then posts pictures of stick piles and tells fairy tales about braided horse manes and such


he is a scientist, she is a dog doctor.... big difference

I realize that StankApe and I agree with what you said. I think we're on the same page, just getting the point across differently.
My point being, if Dr. Sykes does have something to show on the positive side, then Ketchum can ride that wave.
However, if Dr. Sykes gets nothing conclusive, then Ketchum can still catch a ride by saying "but look what I have".
I'm well aware that the two Dr.s' are in different leagues.

When pigs fly.

You are forgetting,
This paper is suppose to be in peer review.
What this means is MANY people in the field of DNA will be reading it. Some will also have the same samples of what she has so they can review the results for themselves to see if her science and conclusions are based in good research and science.
You may not like her or think she is not professional but if her paper passes a Peer Review and gets published she has proven at least to the other members in her community that her research was valid and scientific.
So to dismiss her just because you don't find her creditable is silly if her peers find her creditable should be enough.

Sometimes it takes someone crazy enough to go out on a limb away and possibly destroying their reputation in the process till they are proven that they were correct.

Above post was mine.

I would hope the paper is released early September like i have been reading.
But I am not sure if it will or not.
I am curious if it will also be presented in the Journal of DNA as well as the supposed Wildlife Journal