Guest vilnoori Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 Wow, this is very hopeful. I don't mind waiting if the results are tighter and harder to refute. Kick-em for us, Ketchum! LOL (Sounds like a football cheer)
Guest River Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 She clearly says they are gunning for the peer-reviewed article by Spring 2011 if all goes well and "science" can handle it! I really hope that happens. I'm not discounting or advocating anything that relates to this subject until there has been some public release because one day someone might bring in "the goods". I'd love to see that happen. I'm just not sure this is how it would begin, but who knows - it's defintiely "been in the works" for quite a while. From the descriptions of the video footage and "rumors" it all sounds good. I'm curious to see if the pudding is just as sweet as the hype
Guest Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 (edited) wow, I was riveted to the speaker , lol..........Dr Ketchum said it is just straight science, she has more than enough stuff for a peer review process....... this will be so great when it comes out!!!! she says they are very close to a peer review http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bigfootbusters she said she was more than skeptical when she first started testing samples in 1995 but after the josh gates and some samples from Pauldies, including some bone, she now believes that there is a bigfoot!! Edited November 1, 2010 by driftinmark
Guest Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 Well, good luck finding a journal that will publish the paper...as Meldrum points out in "Legend Meets Science", a lot of journals won't even LOOK at a BF paper.
Guest Spectre Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 First off Spectre, welcome to the BFF. Nice first post friend!!! Thank you HRPuffnstuff! With the time I find myself putting into this subject, I figured it was time to join the fray.
Guest Spectre Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 (edited) The Sykes fiasco continues to be quoted, but a simple google would be enough to dispel the rumors: One well publicized expedition to Bhutan reported that a hair sample had been obtained that, after DNA analysis by Professor Bryan Sykes, could not be matched to any known animal.Analysis completed after the media release, however, clearly showed that the samples were from the Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) and the Asiatic Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus).(ref: Chandler, H.C. (2003). Using Ancient DNA to Link Culture and Biology in Human Populations. Unpublished D.Phil. thesis. University of Oxford, Oxford.) Parnassus, that is a noteworthy bit there. But given that the reports from 2001 reference a single sample and that Chandler references two samples, this might be a completely different incident. Or, it could be confusion on Chandler's part, as there have been a number of different hair samples taken in the Himalayas. Do you have any sources that specifically report that the sample obtained in 2001 was misidentified by Sykes? Edited November 1, 2010 by Spectre
indiefoot Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 I'm with Vil, as long as it takes to get it right. Go Chiefs, I mean..... Go Ketchum Does anyone know any details concerning the purported sample of bone? It's context?
Guest parnassus Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 Parnassus, that is a noteworthy bit there. But given that the reports from 2001 reference a single sample and that Chandler references two samples, this might be a completely different incident. Or, it could be confusion on Chandler's part, as there have been a number of different hair samples taken in the Himalayas. Do you have any sources that specifically report that the sample obtained in 2001 was misidentified by Sykes? I'd suggest communicating with the author or Sykes.
bipedalist Posted November 1, 2010 BFF Patron Posted November 1, 2010 I'm with Vil, as long as it takes to get it right. Go Chiefs, I mean..... Go Ketchum Does anyone know any details concerning the purported sample of bone? It's context? They were reluctant (Paulides/Ketchum) to discuss any specific element of the evidence in detail, they are following a chain of evidence in a forensic fashion until their conclusions are fully documented in a paper (in Ketchum's case) and in some form of "to be determined" media (in Erickson's case) according to their statements on the Bigfoot Buster blogtalk radio show last night.
Guest Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 Well, good luck finding a journal that will publish the paper...as Meldrum points out in "Legend Meets Science", a lot of journals won't even LOOK at a BF paper. Meldrum's never heard of the journal Nature?
Guest Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 (edited) Nature has publicly refused to even LOOK at BF papers, as has Science, lumping it in with UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster as topics it flatly refuses to even consider for publication. Meldrum names those two journals by name in LMS. Meldrum is a lot smarter than "skeptics" give him credit for. LMS has refutations of a LOT of the canards the "skeptics" pull here every day. Edited November 1, 2010 by Mulder
Guest Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 Nature has publicly refused to even LOOK at BF papers, as has Science, lumping it in with UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster as topics it flatly refuses to even consider for publication. Meldrum names those two journals by name in LMS. So you're saying that Meldrum is an ignorant hack? Henry Gee sounds like he's chomping at the bit to consider some bigfoot papers, and he first made public statements to that effect back in 2004.
Guest parnassus Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 Nature has publicly refused to even LOOK at BF papers, as has Science, lumping it in with UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster as topics it flatly refuses to even consider for publication. Meldrum names those two journals by name in LMS. I can't find what you are referring to in the book. Can you direct me, plz?
Guest Spazmo Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 I'd suggest communicating with the author or Sykes. I'd suggest establishing a fact before stating it as such.
Guest parnassus Posted November 6, 2010 Posted November 6, 2010 (edited) I'd suggest establishing a fact before stating it as such. Spazmo, I think if you read my post again, you will see that you are going all straw man on me again. You will see that I did not "state it as such." Do you think I should go all name-calling on you? obviously not. You paraphrased me, fine, you were incorrect, and I'm just correcting you, that I didn't say that. If you choose to accept a seven year old(?) inconclusive news release and not to accept that story and citation I provided as evidence, and to not even look into it, that is up to you. Edited November 6, 2010 by parnassus
Recommended Posts