Guest Theagenes Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Theagenes, where is the article by David Swenson on his website??? I can't find it and was interested in at least logging the title of it. Madison, the only thing by Swenson are the comments that were posted above. I included the link above to the "Other Services" on his website to show that he does reviews for hire. In other words in order to get someone to give her a positive review, she had to pay them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Agreed. I never thought I'd say this but the combination of a flawed peer review system and a perpetually ridiculed subject means that the methodology of evidence gathering, data analysis, interpretation, documentation and submission is no longer worth pursuing officially. It would be a waste of time for an author to go through official channels to just acquire scientific recognition and acceptance - even for someone as hallowed as Sykes. The odds are heavily stacked against you because of this. Such action will have to come after the fact. The old-timers Krantz, Green, Dahinden et al were right. It's going to take a body. I think you are right - it would/will be easier once there is a body. Sykes may have the clout to get this through a high tier journal with peer review, but even that is likely not to change the mind of many scientists. The bar is set high - that is just the way it is. A body, fully made available to science, will change all of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I think you are right - it would/will be easier once there is a body. Sykes may have the clout to get this through a high tier journal with peer review, but even that is likely not to change the mind of many scientists. The bar is set high - that is just the way it is. A body, fully made available to science, will change all of that. Not only is it set high. It is in motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Panda is the closest relative to the native bears in North America that has been heavily sequences and is present in GenBank- therefor bear sequence will be found as hits to panda when blasted. Pandas are related to raccoon. They are not in the bear family... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Only red pandas, gaint pandas are related to bears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Red Pandas are related to racoons (Procyonidae). Giant pandas are bears (Ursidae). Edit: As my eight year old would say, Jinx! Edited February 27, 2013 by Theagenes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Only red pandas, gaint pandas are related to bears. That is a bad on my part- I hadn't seen that update. Sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 "The giant panda's taxonomy (subfamily Ailuropodinae) has long been debated. Its original classification by Armand David in 1869 was within the bear genus Ursus, but in 1870, it was reclassified by Alphonse Milne-Edwards to the raccoon family. In recent studies, the majority of DNA analyses suggest the giant panda has a much closer relationship to other bears and should be considered a member of the family Ursidae." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursidae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Not only is it set high. It is in motion. Why do you think it is in motion? Never mind, silly question! Edited February 27, 2013 by ridgerunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Yup and that is exactly how I look at this. I've read all about Galilleo, it's a wonder they didn't kill him. Melba has upset soooo many that some may never recover. I say, too bad, she found the evidence from the dna and so what.... they might have to rewrite the science books and now the history books. I am not ashamed to say I support Melba and her work. And I'm glad that she did the work. No one else was volunteering to do this? I'm thinking along these same lines. Althought there are some items of interest that i would like be be made aware of....several individuals have raised certain questions that could be address....and would give a clearer picture of intent. Madison, the only thing by Swenson are the comments that were posted above. I included the link above to the "Other Services" on his website to show that he does reviews for hire. In other words in order to get someone to give her a positive review, she had to pay them. Is that just speculation about giving a positve review? Why not directly ask him on MK facebook page. I think you are right - it would/will be easier once there is a body. Sykes may have the clout to get this through a high tier journal with peer review, but even that is likely not to change the mind of many scientists. The bar is set high - that is just the way it is. A body, fully made available to science, will change all of that. And once who ever went down that road, then comes the litany of reasons why someone should not or can not kill a bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I don't trust the BBB and neither should you. Do you own investigation of that organization. First, they want us to think they are a government organization and that is not true. OK "volunteer" was a poor choice of vocabulary terms to use. I have not seen or heard of anyone but Sykes actually taking samples and seriously trying to get the dna. I recently as in today, read of another couple of college educated people (not naming names) look them up yourself, that believe that the hairy people are just a myth and we have some sort of mental problem with nature? WTH? Excuse me but I know what I know and I'm sure everyone here who is a witness or knower, would say the same thing. I'm tired of the arrogance and the downright almost calling us liars and charlatans and mentally challenged. And "Brava" to Melba for having the guts to do this. I could care less how much money she was paid. Apparently there are scientists all over this country that thought it wasn't enough for them to get out of their cushy desk chairs and actually do the work? But that's a personal choice they made and not bashing them, it's just that they probably don't care about the hairy people. And just bringing up a point that has been hashed and rehashed on this very forum. The question is " would you let an accredited scientist come to your research area and do a study?" or something similar?. Well, until Melba............no, not very many. Do you plan on donating money to her Save the Squatch Society or whatever it's called? Do you think that is a wise idea for anyone at this point? Some people are charging this whole thing was a hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Yup and that is exactly how I look at this. I've read all about Galilleo, it's a wonder they didn't kill him. Melba has upset soooo many that some may never recover. I say, too bad, she found the evidence from the dna and so what.... they might have to rewrite the science books and now the history books. I am not ashamed to say I support Melba and her work. And I'm glad that she did the work. No one else was volunteering to do this? "No one else was volunteering to do this?" What do you mean? With very minimal effort, (in my view - I mean, sure, a few hours of phone calls and emails) I have many labs that are willing to do this... and at orders of magnitude lower cost than Melba billed. Edited February 27, 2013 by Tyler H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I'm about to admit I was completely wrong.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 ^^Tyler....what a cryptic post.... Wild Turkey Federation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) And once who ever went down that road, then comes the litany of reasons why someone should not or can not kill a bigfoot. Maybe we could just lure one into captivity with.... uh... cheesecake! For all of you in the RD thread who are lost... Edited February 27, 2013 by ridgerunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts