Guest watch1 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) A few weeks ago, there was a guest on one of the Blogtalk shows that claimed they were working on DNA study results and would make their findings public within a few weeks. I can not remember which show this was on and what group this work was being done by. Hopefully someone will remember and point me in the right direction. I only got to listen to part of the show and missed a lot of the info. I had a few things going on at the time and did not have time to follow up on that story. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Mike (watch1) Edited February 6, 2011 by watch1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChrisBFRPKY Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Mike, you may be thinking of the DNA study by Dr Melba Ketchum. From what I understand the paper is in peer review for the moment. How long will it remain in peer review is the question. I think this delay has much to do with the delay of the Erickson Project being released as well. Chris B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest watch1 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Mike, you may be thinking of the DNA study by Dr Melba Ketchum. From what I understand the paper is in peer review for the moment. How long will it remain in peer review is the question. I think this delay has much to do with the delay of the Erickson Project being released as well. Chris B. Thanks Chris Dr. Melba Ketchum is the one I was looking for. Has anyone got any news on this? Mike (watch1) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Thanks Chris Dr. Melba Ketchum is the one I was looking for. Has anyone got any news on this? Mike (watch1) Is this the woman that the TV program Destination Truth(?) took their possible Bigfoot hairs to be analyzed? The hairs were unknown and a possible new species, correct? Were they not blond colored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I hadn't heard that it was down to the last couple weeks, but that could be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest watch1 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I don't know if this is the latest news on this or not. Link Sounds promising. I wonder if we will ever get to hear the truth about this? Mike (watch1) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Yes, Melba Ketchum was the one that Josh Gates took the yeti hairs to. Apparently, people have been asking her to do DNA analysis on possible bigfoot samples for over a decade, and just like everyone else that ever did any testing on possible bigfoot samples, the results she always got were for mundane animals. People would find hair and scat, and send it off without any pre-filtering. Just as an aside, there is a paper title, "Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the 'yeti' and primates", which resulted when geneticists analyzed a hair which was definitively identified as coming from a yeti, but found that it belonged to a horse. The paper even included a drawing of the yeti family tree, showing the ape-like yeti coming from a line of ungulates. It appeared in Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, a peer-reviewed journal. Anyway, she finally got some good positive hits with stuff Gates and Paulides gave her, so she got interested. More pre-filtered samples were delivered to her, and the results became consistent. If the paper is in peer review, then that means Ketchum submitted it to a journal for publication. How long the paper will remain under review will depend on the ability of the reviewers to accept her claims. 1. They could smash it to bits simply on the implications, without addressing any of the science. In that case, Ketchum could easily ask for new reviewers, but if a second review does the same thing, it would be up to the editor to fight their irrational response. The editor might proclaim the results to be good and worthy of publication, but too much for people to swallow. The paper might need to be submitted to several different journals before finding one that would print it, easily spending years in limbo. 2. The first review could reject it because they cannot accept the implications, but the second review might like it. That adds an extra month or two to publication. 3. The first reviews could love it. It would be out within a few months of submission. BTW, Ketchum doesn't publish all that often, but co-author an interesting paper a couple years ago (Jul 2009) titled, "A low-cost, high-throughput, automated single nucleotide polymorphism assay for forensic human DNA applications." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I don't know if this is the latest news on this or not.Link Sounds promising. I wonder if we will ever get to hear the truth about this? Mike (watch1) If you don't hear it from anyone else you'll hear it from me. I can't give actual results but I have heard the last call for specimens to be turned in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 A few weeks ago, there was a guest on one of the Blogtalk shows that claimed they were working on DNA study results and would make their findings public within a few weeks. I can not remember which show this was on and what group this work was being done by. Hopefully someone will remember and point me in the right direction. I only got to listen to part of the show and missed a lot of the info. I had a few things going on at the time and did not have time to follow up on that story. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Mike (watch1) Dang, she was quick about that! I figured it would be at least another 2 or 3 more years before they finished the results AND paper, but I do think it will be at least that long before the Erickson Project is made available/public. I agree that the papers are going to get tied up into the Erickson Project to, that is where the money is right now. Surprising indeed, looks like this mystery will be wrapped up with a bow tie on it before the end of this decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 If the paper is in peer review, then that means Ketchum submitted it to a journal for publication. How long the paper will remain under review will depend on the ability of the reviewers to accept her claims. . . . 1. They could smash it to bits simply on the implications, without addressing any of the science. . . . 2. The first review could reject it because they cannot accept the implications, Why assume that any difficulties in publication would stem from referees having a problem with the "implications" of the paper? Why wouldn't the more parsimonious explanation (i.e., that the data aren't compelling enough to warrant the hype afforded the work in the bigfoot community) be the more likely? The key to peer-reviewed publication is not the reviewers rubber-stamping everything that comes across their desks. The onus is on the authors to substantiate their claims with data and analysis that point to one unequivocal explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 7, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted February 7, 2011 Actually I prefer to think positively and think that there might be discussions/minor suggestions (or even minor revisions requested of parts of the paper) that will need to go back and forth before the reviewers which would then be contingent on final approval and that it will be a publication with compelling data and DNA findings. The process need not be lengthy. Neither a problem with reviewers, nor a problem with the methodology, data or conclusions either one could be a more likely option. In fact, that would be the most parsimonious explanation to this interested third party. My two centavos and all that. ...but I have heard the last call for specimens to be turned in. However, with this specimen shout-out cut-off info.(I thought that's where we were three months ago?), insert scratches head smiley here. Nevermind, I guess it all is premature punditing and wishful thinking by all at this stage anyway, . Looking forward to announcements nevertheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 They've let leak that the preliminary studies show an animal somewhere between a Neanderthal and a Human--and Dr. Meldrum said that this is just a lot more human-like than he would have expected, seeing as Neanderthals had material culture (tools and stuff that they made, used, owned) and were fully human.. found this somewhere , cant remember where...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Huh, I thought stuff like that stemmed from things other than DNA, things that indicated "culture" "society" and such. Anthropology is not just physical. I am surprised Meldrum would make such a comment. Of course, I've been surprised before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Why assume that any difficulties in publication would stem from referees having a problem with the "implications" of the paper?. Wouldn't pure skepticism play a part? A reputable journal might want a token sample of the evidence before publishing something so huge as conclusive DNA evidence of a North American Great Ape/ Non-human Hominid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 1. They could smash it to bits simply on the implications, without addressing any of the science. In that case, Ketchum could easily ask for new reviewers, but if a second review does the same thing, it would be up to the editor to fight their irrational response. The editor might proclaim the results to be good and worthy of publication, but too much for people to swallow. The paper might need to be submitted to several different journals before finding one that would print it, easily spending years in limbo. A phenominon well familiar to bf researchers: "It must be false because it cannot be true!" What is it about bf that scares supposedly objective scientists to the point where they almost go feral attacking the topic when it comes up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts