Bigfoot Dna

[Guest]

Blah, blah, blah conspiracy, closed-minded scientists, biased reviewers, etc.

Blah blah blah, intellectual dishonesty, logical fallacies, and yes, biased reviewers, etc.

I've written many times on the subject that the "pro" side has no right to claim that editors refuse to publish bigfoot papers without providing any evidence of that editorial refusal. Show us some rejected bigfoot papers - and the rejection letters please - if you can't actually get this stuff published.

Examples of pro-orthodoxy bias in "science" abound. As I said, ask people advocating for ID about how "easy" it is to get published in a "mainstream" journal.

On the topic of BF, consider what happened to the hair examiner from Wyoming Fish and Game in the 70s when HE wanted to present a paper at a symposium. The organizers found out the topic and withdrew the invite.

If a paper is so damned easy to refute, the "skeptics" should have no problem allowing it to be published to be duly refuted. But the papers aren't published...

[Guest]

Examples of pro-orthodoxy bias in "science" abound. As I said, ask people advocating for ID about how "easy" it is to get published in a "mainstream" journal.

Intelligent Design is not science, therefore it does not belong in scientific journals. Proof of bigfoot from analysis of hair, DNA, footprints, etc., would be science, and would be welcomed in scientific journals.

On the topic of BF, consider what happened to the hair examiner from Wyoming Fish and Game in the 70s when HE wanted to present a paper at a symposium. The organizers found out the topic and withdrew the invite.

How do we know that this version of a 30(?) year old story went down as described? Can you provide the abstract that was submitted and the response from the conference organizers?

But the papers aren't published...

Because they aren't even being submitted, because the potential authors of such papers are nowhere near as confident in their analysis as you like to trumpet.

Henry Gee's statement in 2004 rolled out the red carpet for people to submit bigfoot-related papers to Nature. You can't get any more mainstream science than that. So, where are all these papers that were so rudely rejected despite the Editor's invitation to submit?

[Guest parnassus]

well, no offense, but I can frankly say that the amount of factual information on bigfoot DNA on this thread is very close to zero. I hope Todd Disotell gets invited to some bigfoot conventions, to give some factual information, because he is qualified, competent, and not trying to grab yer money. Until that happens, bigfoot believers are just being led around by their collective noses and pocketbooks, being fed a continual stream of misinformation by those who want to capitalize on the phenomenon. It seems, and I have seen this stated, that people would rather send their specimens to places who "give the results they want," ie this "unknown primate" baloney, rather than send it to Disotell. It's a ripoff, people, and it's being led by the newest incarnation of Biscardi (you figure out who that is).

Edited September 29, 2010 by parnassus

[indiefoot]

Parnassus,

I have seen this stated, that people would rather send their specimens to places who "give the results they want,"

Could you provide a link please.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Ya Parnassus that statement seems to be shot from the hip a bit too quick, what result would that be cause the many members here on the BFF that have sent off samples over the years have not gotten a result they were looking for at all and they accepted it.

[Guest]

Intelligent Design is not science, therefore it does not belong in scientific journals.

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.

6. Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science. (in this case the labeling of the topic itself as "not science")

14. They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.

15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.

How do we know that this version of a 30(?) year old story went down as described? Can you provide the abstract that was submitted and the response from the conference organizers?

The only person who would have that would be Moore. Got an addy for him?

Because they aren't even being submitted, because the potential authors of such papers are nowhere near as confident in their analysis as you like to trumpet.

Henry Gee's statement in 2004 rolled out the red carpet for people to submit bigfoot-related papers to Nature. You can't get any more mainstream science than that. So, where are all these papers that were so rudely rejected despite the Editor's invitation to submit?

There are only a handful of people working on such papers, and they've already been burned too many times by "mainstream" science.

I hope this new paper's authors have fire retardant underwear...they're going to need it.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Mulder

[Guest]

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.

6. Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science. (in this case the labeling of the topic itself as "not science")

14. They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.

15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.

What's pejorative about writing that Intelligent Design is not science? It's not like "science = good" and "not science = bad." Spanish isn't science, and I don't think it should be taught in science classes, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. It's simply outside the realm of science.

The only person who would have that would be Moore. Got an addy for him?

Never heard of him, that was your fairy tale. Does this mean you're ready to admit that you accepted this claim uncritically?

There are only a handful of people working on such papers, and they've already been burned too many times by "mainstream" science.

Prove that they've been "burned" - should be easy enough. All you'd need would be a copy of the original manuscripts and the rejection letters from the multiple editors who turned down those manuscripts without review. Of course, "rejection without review" can happen with papers on all manner of topics, so the wording in the rejection letters will be key toward establishing this so-called burning.

[southernyahoo]

well, no offense, but I can frankly say that the amount of factual information on bigfoot DNA on this thread is very close to zero. I hope Todd Disotell gets invited to some bigfoot conventions, to give some factual information, because he is qualified, competent, and not trying to grab yer money. Until that happens, bigfoot believers are just being led around by their collective noses and pocketbooks, being fed a continual stream of misinformation by those who want to capitalize on the phenomenon. It seems, and I have seen this stated, that people would rather send their specimens to places who "give the results they want," ie this "unknown primate" baloney, rather than send it to Disotell. It's a ripoff, people, and it's being led by the newest incarnation of Biscardi (you figure out who that is).

I'm sure Todd Disotell would be glad to review and or attempt to validate DNA findings, but I don't think discovery of this species is in the cards for him. Plus, I don't think he knows the difference between primate hair and iguanna hair. LOL

[Guest]

Prove that they've been "burned" - should be easy enough. All you'd need would be a copy of the original manuscripts and the rejection letters from the multiple editors who turned down those manuscripts without review. Of course, "rejection without review" can happen with papers on all manner of topics, so the wording in the rejection letters will be key toward establishing this so-called burning.

how about collusion , data suppression and manipulation of evidence? are you saying that never happens in scientific circles?

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/11/20/global-warming-fraud-by-hadley-cru-exposed/

[Guest]

well, no offense, but I can frankly say that the amount of factual information on bigfoot DNA on this thread is very close to zero. I hope Todd Disotell gets invited to some bigfoot conventions, to give some factual information, because he is qualified, competent, and not trying to grab yer money. Until that happens, bigfoot believers are just being led around by their collective noses and pocketbooks, being fed a continual stream of misinformation by those who want to capitalize on the phenomenon. It seems, and I have seen this stated, that people would rather send their specimens to places who "give the results they want," ie this "unknown primate" baloney, rather than send it to Disotell. It's a ripoff, people, and it's being led by the newest incarnation of Biscardi (you figure out who that is).

this thread was started to show the articles I had found, not to show proof of dna parn.......

[Guest]

how about collusion , data suppression and manipulation of evidence? are you saying that never happens in scientific circles?

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/11/20/global-warming-fraud-by-hadley-cru-exposed/

No, I'm saying exactly what I wrote. Was it not clear?

[Guest nycBig]

Parnassus do you really think there is a conspiracy amoung dna labs and Tom Biscardi to rip off bigfoot enthusiasts?.. How many samples do they get in a year that would make this a profitable venture?

[Guest]

What's pejorative about writing that Intelligent Design is not science? It's not like "science = good" and "not science = bad." Spanish isn't science, and I don't think it should be taught in science classes, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. It's simply outside the realm of science.

The perjorative is in saying that the astrophysicists, molecular biologists, chemists, statistical sciences experts and others who have applied their expertise in their fields to the question and reached a pro-ID conclusion are somehow "not practicing science". If it were any other topic related to their field, you would accept their credentials and expertise, but not on that one.

That's a double standard at the very least.

Never heard of him, that was your fairy tale.

The man exists, his name is Tom Moore, he used to be a Supervisor with the Wyoming Fish and Game department and his area of expertise was the forensic comparative analysis of animal hairs to determine source animals. He retired some years ago, and to the best I know, has dropped out of public life.

Does this mean you're ready to admit that you accepted this claim uncritically?

I did no such thing. I verified the individual exists, verified where he worked and what he did. As a state-employed expert in his field, I give his professional opinion within that field the respect that it deserves.

Prove that they've been "burned" - should be easy enough. All you'd need would be a copy of the original manuscripts and the rejection letters from the multiple editors who turned down those manuscripts without review. Of course, "rejection without review" can happen with papers on all manner of topics, so the wording in the rejection letters will be key toward establishing this so-called burning.

And there is a searchable archive of such papers where? how inclusive is it? How many papers were quietly "round filed" after rejection? How many were not even submitted due to the hostile environment. Note I said HOSTILE, not "critical".

It is no secret that scientists who openly engage in the examination of BF evidence that find anything other than "no such animal" are attacked viciously and repeatedly by their professional colleages. Meldrum has had his tenure and credentials threatened repeatedly by outside parties simply for taking the time to analyze the data. That is a fact that is NOT in dispute.

[Branco]

well, no offense, but I can frankly say that the amount of factual information on bigfoot DNA on this thread is very close to zero. I hope Todd Disotell gets invited to some bigfoot conventions, to give some factual information, because he is qualified, competent, and not trying to grab yer money. Until that happens, bigfoot believers are just being led around by their collective noses and pocketbooks, being fed a continual stream of misinformation by those who want to capitalize on the phenomenon. It seems, and I have seen this stated, that people would rather send their specimens to places who "give the results they want," ie this "unknown primate" baloney, rather than send it to Disotell. It's a ripoff, people, and it's being led by the newest incarnation of Biscardi (you figure out who that is).

So, if Mr. Disotell actually analyses a biological sample from a Sasquatch, he would be able to identify the source animal as something other than an "unknown (unclassified) primate"? If so, perhaps his "free" analyses are overpriced.

[Guest]

The perjorative is in saying that the astrophysicists, molecular biologists, chemists, statistical sciences experts and others who have applied their expertise in their fields to the question and reached a pro-ID conclusion are somehow "not practicing science". If it were any other topic related to their field, you would accept their credentials and expertise, but not on that one.

When such individuals propose a legitimate test of "intelligent design theory" they'll be doing science. But let's not further derail the thread when there's plenty of bigfoot-related silliness in your post.

The man exists, his name is Tom Moore, . . .

That's nice, but you haven't demonstrated anything about the specific claim that he wanted to give a talk about bigfoot hairs and was rejected from the program because he wanted to give a talk about bigfoot hairs. I can only conclude that you have accepted this story uncritically.

As a state-employed expert in his field, I give his professional opinion within that field the respect that it deserves.

I'm a state-employed expert in my field of conducting inventories for rare animals. Does my professional opinion not deserve respect because it disagrees with yours?

And there is a searchable archive of such papers where?

You're the one making the claim that a hostile environment among editors keeps legitimate bigfoot science out of the mainstream journals. If I was making such a claim, I'd invest the effort to collect some data about it, rather than continually spout off about it.

It is no secret that scientists who openly engage in the examination of BF evidence that find anything other than "no such animal" are attacked viciously and repeatedly by their professional colleages. Meldrum has had his tenure and credentials threatened repeatedly by outside parties simply for taking the time to analyze the data. That is a fact that is NOT in dispute.

I dispute it. Where has Meldrum demonstrated that he even attempted to publish his ichnotaxon paper in, for example, Nature? I recall the national news a few years back in which Meldrum was apparently denied promotion from Associate to Full Professor. If that is really what happened (I forget the specifics) and if the reason was that the committee didn't like the fact that he did research on bigfoot, then Meldrum absolutely would have a good case to get the decision overturned through legal channels. This is a huge deal in academic departments - if the committee recommends against tenure or promotion based on shoddy reasoning, the applicant has recourse to sue. If academic freedom is the sole issue, then the applicant would be very likely to prevail. As you might imagine, we work very ******* such decisions to make them as objective as possible - specifically to avoid legal entanglements. So was this the case? Was Meldrum denied promotion this time around because he works on bigfoot? If so, has he sued? If not, why not? If I was making the argument that Meldrum had been "attacked viciously and repeatedly" by his colleagues, I'd want my facts straight about such matters first. Otherwise, I'd be making unsubstantiated claims.

Actually, it's easy to understand that the official statements about Meldrum's problems with promotion were accurate. If you check out his publication list, you'll see that he doesn't really have that many. He's probably published enough to make tenure (assistant to associate professor, which is his current rank) at a lot of universities, but he doesn't appear to be anywhere near published enough to qualify for full professor at a research institution. It's not a perfect system, but those of us with research appointments at academic institutions know full well that we're expected to publish something like 2-3 high profile papers every year and support through grants from competitive sources (e.g., NSF, NIH, USDA, NASA) a research program with multiple graduate students. I'm sure his website is a bit out of date, but Meldrum doesn't list any journal articles more recent than 2006. That's simply not going to cut it for full professor. Meldrum's no dummy; he knows this.

Are there scientists who think Jeff Meldrum is a kook? Sure. Does that mean it's impossible for him to publish his awesome, bigfoot-confirming papers in mainstream journals? No way.

ETA I have no idea why the ghost in the machine put a line of asterisks in my post. I think the intent was preserved, though. Edited again - gasp! - I had used the wrong "there."

Edited October 1, 2010 by Saskeptic