Incorrigible1 Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 The problem with the hallucination hypothesis as an explanation for sasquatch sightings is that it is difficult to explain simultaneous hallucinations of the same nature in multiple people. There are plenty of alleged sightings where multiple people report essentially the same thing. Try again Sasceptic, maybe you can think of a better one. Yet what he stated does possible account for a large percentage of reports. It's not completely back to the drawing board, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Ok, I still don't follow. Thats , because Zigo's question was an aside from the matter of publishing a paper. Our senses are not above being fooled, so no, seeing does not always equate to believing. RayG Well, it's your only shot at accepting BF's existence, whether you are looking at evidence or a dead / live specimen, unless ofcoarse you can accept the words of a scientist. Short of that, well I was gonna say something funny but don't want to get too cute about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I don't see the relevance to the portion you quoted regarding publication of Ketchum's analysis, but I'll play along. If I had the experience you described I would very much be open to the possibility that I had hallucinated it. Hallucinations happen every day to many many people, and the whole reason people believe they are real is because they can be incredibly vivid, involve multiple senses, etc. As much as I might subjectively want my experience to have been authentic, the only way to objectively approach it would be to consider that we have abundant evidence confirming the existence of hallucinations, but no such evidence confirming the existence of bigfoot. The principle of parsimony, therefore, would dictate that it's far more likely that I had hallucinated the event than that I had actually encountered a real bigfoot. That said, it would be very difficult for me to ignore my personal experience, and it's hard to imagine remaining skeptical in the wake of an experience like you described. Spock might be able to do it, i.e., stick dispassionately to logic, but I doubt I would. I Asked The question to view your perception of this phenomenon so I could understand your dubious position towards the Ketchum report,Ketchum and all involved in the study. Ketchum herself, was skeptical at the start of sample testing. IMO, when people take a 180 degree turn on there beliefs,especially when it could be detrimental to there livelihood, their must have been substantial evidence for that to transpire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I wonder if there is something stirring amongst the DNA Scientists, because of some potential results by Dr. Ketchum? Hope its OK to post this Link? http://ohio-archaeology.blogspot.com/2011/12/rare-dna-variant-may-disprove.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I wonder if there is something stirring amongst the DNA Scientists, because of some potential results by Dr. Ketchum? Hope its OK to post this Link? http://ohio-archaeology.blogspot.com/2011/12/rare-dna-variant-may-disprove.html That's something they've been tossing around for awhile but doesn't get a lot of airplay here. It should tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 This "crap" you refer to is me pointing out an error in your characterization of the origin of Henry Gee's opinion of cryptids, offering you the opportunity to do the honorable thing and apologize to the BFF for that error, and confirming that the petulant "No I won't" reply you offered really was the display of character you wanted to stick with. There's crap here alright, folks . . . I'm not going to apologize for saying something that I maintain is factually correct, given the information to hand. To wit: Henry Gee says he's open to BF papers. According to reports (which may or may not be accurate, but assuming for purpose of discussion that they are), Nature rejected the paper. Again according to reports (same caveat as before), the criticisms received had nothing to do with either results or methodology (how the results were obtained), but were meaningless crits along the lines of that the presented paper "had no testable hypothesis". I have now answered that question twice. This third time, my answer remains the same, but I'll expand a bit if it helps.I just did a bit of checking on acceptance rates for Nature. Of all the manuscripts submitted, about 2/3 are rejected out of hand. This is "handed back" - these are not sent out for review at all. They are winnowed out by the editorial staff. Note that people generally submit their highest quality research to this journal, so that's thousands of manuscripts each year, written by really smart people who think the work is really important, that never even make it to being considered for review. Of the 1/3 or so that do get reviewed, only about 1/4 will ultimately get published. According to, you know, Nature, the journal received 10,287 submissions in 2010 and published 809 of those papers, for a roughly 8% acceptance rate. So basically to get published in this journal, your submission must be better than 92% of the best work of the best scientists in the world. None of which means a thing, given the nature of the reason for rejection reported. So here's a great example of your lack of critical thinking on this issue, Mulder. Rather than going to the source for actual data to provide a better understanding, you prefer to lob thinly veiled insults at myself and other skeptical BFF members to the effect that somehow we are the reason Dr. Ketchum hasn't published her paper in Nature. We've trumped up Henry Gee's willingness to consider cryptid submissions as one of our diabolical skeptical tactics to keep the world from learning about bigfoot (or something like that - I'm having a hard time figuring out what you really think is the problem here, given that I've already illustrated that our perceptions of Gee's willingness to consider crypto-papers comes from Gee himself.) If you had taken a moment to actually learn something about this journal, you'd have seen for yourself that Nature rejects over 90% of its submissions. Given that information, why on earth would anyone assume that a manuscript submitted there would, indeed, be published? See above. On what basis would you assume this, given that we don't even know if a manuscript was submitted there? The statement about assuming the publication of the paper was a caveat to forestall the anticipated objection about the lack of proof of said paper in submission. On what basis do you know that such a paper (if it exists at all) "passed on its technical merits?" What does that phrase even mean? None of the crits cited have anything to do with the actual science of the study. As I stated in an earlier post, (and you subsequently either didn't bother to read or chose to ignore), the nature of the study (as I understand it [another caveat before you ask]) is that: X number of samples were submitted to Y number of labs and Z was the results obtained. No one has yet reported a crit that challenged ANY of those three factors which make up the study (it's "technical merits"). Therefore the only conclusion we can draw is that there was no criticism OF those factors. Instead, the purported crits were nothing more than meaningless pseudoscience babble about "testable hypothesis", which is irrelevant in the case of a study to document laboratory findings.l I'm glad you won't be holding your breath because I have not made any claims about the contents of peer review evaluations of a manuscript submission that I am not even convinced exists. You personally may or may not, but your Skeptic bretheren have, and I replied to the claims. If Dr. Ketchum prepared such a manuscript, submitted it to Nature, and had it rejected, then she would have received a written explanation for the journal explaining why. If that's the case, she's free to share that information with whomever she likes. I don't understand why people choose to wind their panties in knots over bits and pieces of "leaked" information, the veracity of which is not at all established. Well, if it's so darn meaningless, Ray, why do the Skeptics keep bringing it up? At one point there was even a thread whose headline touted the rejection of the study. Which skeptic posted that Nature rejected the paper? Quotes with links please. Look back earlier in the thread. The posts from the thread were merged into this one. to be fair, it seems that the sentiments you are addressing are mostly the product of one member, who blames the absence of bigfoot evidence on scientists, yet assumes that Ketchum is an infallible scientist. He seems not to be concerned with the irrationality of his position. Nice backhanded slap, parn...which still doesn't address my point as outlined in my rebuttal to Sas above. How about one of you guys actually address the issue for a change? Or is that too much to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Yet what he stated does possible account for a large percentage of reports. It's not completely back to the drawing board, eh? I wouldn't say large, our visual perception is very reliable outside sightings of the unknown, halucinations are not observable by science through any means other than anecdote, which gives them no higher value than a true sighting of a bigfoot. The halucination explanation can never be proven, it is an...... wait for it......" untestable hypothesis". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 None of the crits cited have anything to do with the actual science of the study. As I stated in an earlier post, (and you subsequently either didn't bother to read or chose to ignore), the nature of the study (as I understand it [another caveat before you ask]) is that: X number of samples were submitted to Y number of labs and Z was the results obtained. It's difficult to comment on the actual science of the study when there's been no actual confirmation of anything. Lots of fodder for rumors, but no actual facts. We still don't know the name of the scientific journal the report was supposedly submitted to, never mind what the results were. So, while you are complaining about skeptics bashing the results, some skeptics are pointing out the lack of any results to begin with. No one has yet reported a crit that challenged ANY of those three factors which make up the study (it's "technical merits"). We've yet to see any evidence that the report was even submitted for any critique, so your indignation seems a bit premature. Therefore the only conclusion we can draw is that there was no criticism OF those factors. The only conclusion? Hardly. Instead, the purported crits were nothing more than meaningless pseudoscience babble about "testable hypothesis", which is irrelevant in the case of a study to document laboratory findings. What laboratory findings? Who? Where? When? Were they submitted for possible publication or not? Submitted to who? Accepted for publication or rejected? Well, if it's so darn meaningless, Ray, why do the Skeptics keep bringing it up? Because it's meaningless. You think I enjoy pointing out what should be obvious? Claims have been made by bigfoot proponents concerning the procurement and testing of supposed bigfoot DNA. Without any verified evidence for these claims, the claims themselves are meaningless, and without confirmation that report results were actually submitted to a scientific journal, arguing about the possible acceptance or rejection by that journal is also meaningless. I hope that clarifies my viewpoint and why I choose to call the non-results meaningless. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Yet what he stated does possible account for a large percentage of reports. It's not completely back to the drawing board, eh? Yes,I agree, and not to forget the film they try to get and when you stop to think about it, that's pretty brave because most people would head in the opposite direction from the BF. Sadly,I'm afraid that I'd run screaming after seeing the size of these creatures from the safety of our car, and The Yahoo Drawings posted here.. I was talking to hubby about why has the journal not published yet, and hubby, wise man he, said why would they even consider publishing *until* they had verified every part of the release? He said with ground breaking new species news coming out the journal will take as much time as they need to verify **Before** they publish, especially with a creature that most people believe does not exist, and many people think that BF is just a joke or misidentified known creatures. Sadly,I think that he is correct. It could be a while yet. Also hubby asked "why do we think that that the claims of BF being human are correct"? He said with DNA they could fall in between apes and humans, but not be human. He is smart,and since he apparently has been published I guess that he knows what he is talking about. I did not remember that he *HAD* been published! Hubby did this , and said remember a few years back, and I said that I did not think that what he had published was such a big deal (trying to hide that I *had* forgotten that he had had something published), and he said anything published is a big deal to the author/scientist/whoever wrote the article and had it published. He said they will take as much time as they need to verify something this monumental.. At least he is actually discussing the BF research with me! Perhaps he is beginning to believe Does anyone here know how long the journal has had the evidence and films and stuff? Has it been weeks, months, or a year yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Which skeptic posted that Nature rejected the paper? Quotes with links please. Look back earlier in the thread. The posts from the thread were merged into this one. I did look before I asked you to post links. Is slimwitless a skeptic? Bigfoot evidence blog is reporting the paper has been rejected. Is the blog he referenced a skeptical blog? Come on Mulder if you are going to state something as fact at least make sure that it is a fact before doing so. So how about those links? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 .... Look back earlier in the thread. The posts from the thread were merged into this one. .... Mulder, I did; couldn't find it. Maybe you could put a little effort into it. You parse and parse and parse, and make a lot of accusations, but without any research or evidence. The caravan moves on. There are basically two possibilities for what Ketchum has: either it is modern human DNA or it isn't. If it is,( and from what Stubstad has given us, it is) then there is nothing publishable except if it were written as a negative study.( ie we received two hundred samples and no new species were found.) In this case (a negative study), Nature would not be interested because it is a very unimportant result. If Ketchum ever wrote it that way, it might get published in a minor journal. I doubt she ever will, because some non-expert like Stubstad or Paulides has convinced her that there is something about that modern human DNA that is unusual, or that drawings of bigfoot look somewhat human. [Now, the refuge of believers is that all the secrets of DNA have not been revealed, and that somewhere in that modern human DNA there may be hidden interactions or codes that result in a massive, eye glowing, flat footed, hair covered, no neck, conical head, 30 mph, 4x4, etc etc monster which can evade fossilization, being killed, captured or even photographed but doesn't use tools, fire, clothing or shelter, and leaves no poop. But for scientists or other thinking people that is simply not a credible explanation, and it will not buy you publication in Nature or any other journal above Sunday Parade.] The other possibility: If it isn't modern human DNA, but some unknown primate or prehistoric human, then Henry Gee would publish it. To say otherwise defies common sense, logic, reality, and every other mode of rational thought. This is the kind of paper they live for, and would die for. If you don't believe that, you are beyond the reach of logic. Take your pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 The other possibility: If it isn't modern human DNA, but some unknown primate or prehistoric human, then Henry Gee would publish it. To say otherwise defies common sense, logic, reality, and every other mode of rational thought. Take your pick. To paraphrase.. "If you don't agree with one of the two options outlined herein then you defy common sense, logic, reality, and rational thought" I'm sure real scientists talk like this all the time. Good grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) Aren't there really only two choices regardless of how it's packaged? Oh yeah I forgot it could be ET! Edited December 31, 2011 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Aren't there really only two choices regardless of how it's packaged? Oh yeah I forgot it could be ET! Not so fast...... http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2681&start=30 QUOTE Re: Support for Sea-Borne Populating of the Americas by Cognito » Fri Aug 06, 2010 4:54 pm Cognito, I apologize if that's not your quote. I only have a few minutes right now. The problem is the distribution of the X mt DNA haplogroup. That and the spread of polished stone tools and serated edge tools. As for distribution, these folks were maritime, and the distribution of cardiod pottery seems to be related, though the current sites are late. Apparently they make it to North America ca 8,350 BCE, bringing European diseases with them. EP, that is my quote you were referring to above. Ryan and Pitman placed their Black Sea Flood at 5,600bce in their book, reference: Ryan, William B.; Pitman, Walter C. (2000), Noah's Flood: The new scientific discoveries about the event that changed history, Simon & Schuster. That is 7,600bp. Haplogroup X2a is found in North America with a coalescence time similar to that of the newly discovered D4h3a, or about 10,300 years ago. D4h3a skeletal remains were recently discovered in Alaska and dated to 10,300bp, reference: Distinctive Paleo-Indian Migration Routes from Beringia Marked by Two Rare mtDNA Haplogroups, Current Biology 19, 1–8, January 13, 2009. See: http://download.cell.com/images/edimage ... Perego.pdf. RS is referring to post-7600bp whereas mtDNA X2a was already in North America circa 10,300bp or, as you state 10,350bp, about 2,700 years earlier. In other words, the maternal line was already long gone by the time of the Black Sea "Flood" (ie trickle). Although the above-referenced article discusses a Beringea crossing, it is obvious to all geneticists that mtDNA X2 originated in the Near East, not Siberia. Further, there are no traces of the haplogroup in Siberia with the exception of a small amount in the Altai which apparently also originated in the Near East. In spite of this, it is political and pecuniary suicide for any scientist to state that migrants entered the Americas originating from the Near East at 8,350bce, even though the trail and traces are there, such as the simultaneous onset of the pandemic disease outbreak in North America that you documented in your book. END QUOTE I'm posting the argument as it speaks to the leaked info the DNA maternal-line came back from archaic basque origins. The older DNA discussed here is relevant in case the leaked info indeed is even vaguely correct. If it isn't It still points to we haven't been working with currently accepted dates of DNA types found in North America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Greyjay, This is a joke but I think will include the reaction of about 99.9 of the population on this planet to DNA/mumbo jumbo In regards to Bigfoot. I included myself in that group as I'm sure you know! Oh and don't you have GPS cords. for me? Happy New Year to All! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts