Guest BartloJays Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 You know what I fear? One day I'm going to look back and think we should've even done more as it was so obvious. If there was even a chance she was legit I would've backed her. In my heart I knew from day one and went downhill fast from there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Wow, and I thought her getting bad info from Wikipedia was bad! Game over guys. Edited February 25, 2013 by Theagenes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Are you sure the second part of your quote is from Jeff Meldrum, not Mathew Knapp? Yes, you're right. Stupid Apple software. And now I can't find the quote from Mr. Knapp. It sounded good whoever said it. She's a veterinarian/horse fancier who cites an April Fools paper that clearly indicates a purported yeti sample was actually from an odd-toed ungulate... rhinoceros, tapir, HORSE. More here. And also here. I don't know. It's hard to fault her. It's an easy mistake to make as she was rushed to publish the study over a period of 5 years. She also had friends look at it too. It's their fault! Edited February 25, 2013 by Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silent Sam Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) She also cites http://www.qc.cuny.edu/Academics/Degrees/DMNS/Faculty%20Documents/Hickerson2.pdf "Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modelling" is not "lending credence to the existence of Sasquatch". The paper uses the sasquatch (which it interprets as not existing) to help illustrate the dangers of relying too heavily on ecological niche modeling. For the purposes of their paper they could have just as easily inserted unicorns or dragons. Edited February 25, 2013 by Silent Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 A third one is also a joke reference. Good lord! This whole thing is a complete farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 25, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted February 25, 2013 I'm hearing alot of Alkaseltzer's being popped......... Google wallet must have a pretty tight refund parameter I'd imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Well. I was wrong. I predicted last week this story would be dead and gone by this weekend. Then an April fools joke in the paper comes in and totally redeems herself!! We will rehash this for another week now! It just won't go away. How did it take this long for somebody to catch that bit? Also noted- she pulled a Sally again on facebook. She is too busy to do her own posts and comments so a guy (Hudson) is posting now? Absolute train-wreck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 She also cites http://www.qc.cuny.edu/Academics/Degrees/DMNS/Faculty%20Documents/Hickerson2.pdf For the purposes of their paper they could have just as easily inserted unicorns or dragons. That's actually not a fair assessment. What the paper asserts, cynically I might add, is that the majority if not all of the reports are misidentified black bear sightings. You're OTLS on that one. Such a proclamation wouldn't fit within their reasoning. just sayin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 I found by accident another incident involving what appears to be shady dealings from MK. The only thing that is going to save her....is other people that have the means, education, reputation and academic accredited associations, to verify her findings. My meter just went down a notch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silent Sam Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) That's actually not a fair assessment. What the paper asserts, cynically I might add, is that the majority if not all of the reports are misidentified black bear sightings. You're OTLS on that one. Such a proclamation wouldn't fit within their reasoning. just sayin... Yes they do make that case. They even explain that in the abstract by stating "We compare the distribution of Bigfoot with an ENM for the black bear, Ursus americanus, and suggest that many sightings of this cryptozoid may be cases of mistaken identity." Which if you think about it makes it even worse. By using the unicorns and dragons comment I was just trying to further reinforce the point that at no time do the writers take the sasquatch as being anything more than a mythical animal. Sorry for not being clearer in my post. ETA- I still stand by my assertion that the paper is meant to be a cautionary tale against relying too heavily on ENM and in no way shape or form an endorsement of sasquatch as a legitimate species. On that I think we can agree. Edited February 25, 2013 by Silent Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Doesn't she also cite "Molecular cryptozoology meets the Sasquatch" Another tongue-in-cheek paper? Galileo must be rolling in his grave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silent Sam Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Yes she does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Doesn't she also cite "Molecular cryptozoology meets the Sasquatch" Another tongue-in-cheek paper? Galileo must be rolling in his grave. Oh. That's a red flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Cornelius, is this what your talking about? Did Melba seriously reference this in her paper (that I quoted below)? AND - she says it passed peer review? http://doubtfulnews....r-as-reference/ Milinkovitch, M C, Caccone, A and Amato, G. Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31:1–3. (2004) Well, this paper is a well known April Fools Joke. The study reported in this article represents scientifically rigorous assessment of conflict between the published morphological characters and newly obtained molecular characters for species of questionable validity. More significantly, however, this study indicates that evolutionary biologists need to retain sense of humor in their efforts to reconstruct phylogenetic relationships. Happy April Fool’s Day ! Edited February 25, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts