Guest Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Actually, Darwin was virtually forced into print by his science peers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 (edited) Meldrum hasn't produced a peer-review article on BF tracks....although he has published at a conference and as noted above... seems to me something could be submitted for review of these many, many tracks..thinking of the London tracks even now with computer aided analysis and modeling.......if the topic remains narrow and doesn't wander off too much...or not? Has he even tried to publish in any Journal of note? Why leap to BFs...why not leave that unresolved...what conclusion can be made...from some hypothesis..any...to justify an analysis? When I picked up his book..2008 I was certain he was the "man to know about Bfs" and feel so much less so today....and with some disappointment watch the many conferences/tv/paid expedition stuff..... so unscholarly..so commercial... and yet perhaps the Relict Inquiry is an expression of frustration b/c he has submitted for review and rejected...too many times? anyone know? and in retrospect, he seems wrong...on so many fronts...not that BFs are here...but, all the other stuff...noted above..and imagining a bi-pedal as an extinct Gigantico..that seems a stretch to me..even back in 2008.. when the data and taxonomy suggest genus homo...bipedal stands out...but so much more..and he seems to really limit who he associates with..all seem like minded... so, peer review is an asset really, although with problems...b/c a PhD writes a "scientific" book on BFs..and it's accepted over another without credentials..and yet...he has no check or balance of his ideas...that arise from review.... and it may be that will be the norm for BF research forever... I have my doubts anymore...seriously...twenty years claimed research and we seem to know very little, but are so certain of what is not possible....simplified here, but you get the jist I hope. Edited July 1, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 (edited) Relating to peer review, Ketchum offered up her "reserve" samples (unsequenced but taken from the same sources as her sequenced samples) for independent sequencing and the lab she offered to refused to even look at it. If they are so almighty righteous about "peer review", then it is incumbent upon them to actually review. That was on top of only giving a superficial look at the sequenced material. If Ketchum is bunk, then it ought to be a simple matter to prove it, but they won't. In response to the latest round of criticism. 1. We did give these folks access to the genomes. 2. They only pulled random sequences and did not look at the whole genomes. The person from UT that did our analysis told me that he never got all of the raw data uploaded to the second lab due to computer problems on the receiving lab's end. 2. I offered raw DNA to this lab so they could extract and sequence themselves. They would not even give the courtesy of a reply. 3. They refused to even speak with me on the phone. The entire thing was completely and totally unprofessional. 4. They never tried to check the analysis done at the University of Texas even though the bioinformatics person put himself at their disposal. [/size] Do the science, Skeptics. Show your work. Or shut up about the importance of "peer review". Edited July 7, 2013 by BigGinger To Remove Offensive Content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 (edited) Or shut up about the importance of "peer review". Seriously, Mulder? This is what you have to contribute? Edited July 7, 2013 by BigGinger To Remove Offensive Quoted Content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Actually, Darwin was virtually forced into print by his science peers. Without peer review. And he wasn't so much forced into print by his science peers, as he was rushed to print by his friends in order to secure precedence over other theorists (partic. Wallace). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 (edited) Or shut up about the importance of "peer review". Seriously, Mulder? This is what you have to contribute? Well, if you insist on looking at one sentence and ignoring the rest of the argument. But it's not the first time for that I guess. Edited July 7, 2013 by DWA To Remove Offensive Quoted Content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Well, if you insist on looking at one sentence and ignoring the rest of the argument. But it's not the first time for that I guess. By "argument" are you referring to an anecdote from Melba Ketchum as spun by our very own Mulder? I know you're fully convinced of the accuracy of the events Mulder presented, because they align with your worldview of "science = bad, except for the good scientists who believe in bigfoot", but the rest of us are going to need a bit more than that before abandoning our primary model of scientific expression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Well, that's disingenuous as all get-out. Come on, I'm calling you on it. You can contribute a lot more here than you're doing. The biggest and most obvious screaming elephant in the room is the Wall Of Mainstream Denial. Even the use of "the rest of us" pretty much establishes the case, which by the way comes nowhere near close and you know it to the "primary model of scientific expression" which is: Follow evidence (it's that mountain over there) to that piece of a bigfoot that, contrary to what you appear to think, isn't the start of the process but the culmination of a lot of science. Which isn't being practiced on this topic by those who snort at it, and the practitioners slammed for daring it. You're comfortable calling NAWAC - doing science and seeing animals even as you deny - liars or kooks. I want to know what they are seeing. As in proof. And that is what distinguishes the true scientists - the Meldrums, Krantzes, Bindernagels and Einsteins - from the run of reasonably competent technicians in narrow corners of scientific endeavor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 (edited) Go get a chunk of a Bigfoot. Science will take it from there. This is another attempt to rationalize your belief in this phenomenon. How about you focus on the Bigfoot scientists, and tell them to spend their significant Bigfoot funding on looking for the beast, instead of rehashing arguments about a 50 year old film? Wanna know why Dr. Meldrum used Bluff Creek as his type locality? Because that's all he's got. A film of a guy in an Apesuit is the pinnacle of Bigfoot evidence. Dear Scientist X, We would really like you to halt your work on the endangered Pine Marten, and shift your focus to discovering A GIANT HAIRY APEMAN WITH HUGE FLOPPY FEET, that we believe inhabits some of the same localities as your Pine Marten. Sincerely, Bigfootry Wanna see how science works? Look at the Komodo dragon. Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry discovered venom glands in the Varanus lizards. Traditional belief said Komodo Dragons had 'Super-bacteria' in their saliva that took down the water buffalo. National Geographic's species profile http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/reptiles/komodo-dragon/ , even cites the bacteria's powers Animals that escape the jaws of a Komodo will only feel lucky briefly. Dragon saliva teems with over 50 strains of bacteria, and within 24 hours, the stricken creature usually dies of blood poisoning. Dragons calmly follow an escapee for miles as the bacteria takes effect, using their keen sense of smell to hone in on the corpse. Zoo signs list the bacteria as the significant factor in their hunting habits, here is the one at the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle. http://www.zoo.org/page.aspx?pid=1944#.UdRDnPm1GSo Bacteria in a Komodo's saliva are highly dangerous, and quickly cause infections. Komodos are not affected by the infectious saliva of nonlethal bites from other members of their species. You can read the story here: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/06/27/the-myth-of-the-komodo-dragons-dirty-mouth/ Despite people not wanting him to rock the boat about the bacteria myth, he finished his paper. http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2013_Fry_Komodo_bacteria.pdf Science has failed in the past, but science not looking for Sasquatch is not one of it's failings. Edited July 3, 2013 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Come on, I'm calling you on it. You're calling me on what, my statements that we'll need a piece of a bigfoot before we can expect to publish a peer-reviewed paper on it? Okay. And that is what distinguishes the true scientists - the Meldrums, Krantzes, Bindernagels and Einsteins . . . Oooh, that's gold! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 ^^^Yawners. Some people are just here to stir up trouble. Well, keep searching streambeds and stonewalling science. As you were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Actually, Darwin was virtually forced into print by his science peers. Without peer review. And he wasn't so much forced into print by his science peers, as he was rushed to print by his friends in order to secure precedence over other theorists (partic. Wallace). Kind of misleading to cite Darwin to begin with, given that peer review wasn't around during his time, at least not in the same sense as it is today. As for why serious Bigfoot papers aren't appearing in peer reviewed journals? It's because there's not enough data to do a meaningful scholarly article on it. DWA argues that that's because scientists aren't doing their jobs, but the fact is that a lot of scientists have looked at Bigfoot. They've simply chosen to go the far more profitable - and far less intellectually rigorous - route of mass market publishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 ^I'd argue that bigfoot publishing is quite profitable, judging by the number of books that have been written about it without proof that the danged things exist at all. Remember the spate of journal publications and books spawned by the hint that Ivorybills might still be with us? Proof of bigfoot would dwarf that woodpecker saga. The first thing that needs to be published about bigfoot is proof that there's such a thing as bigfoot, and that can't happen without a piece of a bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Grifter9931 Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 And that is what distinguishes the true scientists - the Meldrums, Krantzes, Bindernagels and Einsteins - from the run of reasonably competent technicians in narrow corners of scientific endeavor. Are you seriously comparing these folks to Einstein?... Wow .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 (edited) ^^^ Sure looks like it....and that should tell one eveything they need to know about his position. Edited July 4, 2013 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts