Article Link: What Is 'peer Review', And How Does It Work?

[Guest]

I'ld like to see how you could get a bigfoot loaded across the hood of your truck or in the bed without a fork lift.....let them take it. There is no judge in this world that would slap a manslaughter/murder/illegal hunting charge on a human once they got a good look at a bigfoot.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 06 May 2011 - 09:20 AM, said:

Do you think "peers" (as part of their "review"), wildlife agencies, the environmental community, state governments, and/or other entities would demand the name and story of the individual who "obtained" the carcass, even to the point of threatening the scientist to whom the carcass was given?

No. Who cares who collected it if you have the carcass and the location, date, etc.? I wouldn't.

Given how skeptics and denialists on this (and other) forum want every last detail to pick through, test, banter, etc, I simply cannot imagine a shot sasquatch (especially the first to be handed over to science) to not be the fodder of intense back-and-forth struggle, to include the "who dunnit".

The media, on the hand, might start asking questions.

Not to mention the environmental industry, who would suddenly be given the equivalent of the Holy Grail with which to wrest yet more control over lands. Imagine how the Bambiists would condemn the poacher who killed such a rare and impressive creature.

I suspect if there were any demands to reveal the identity of the person who collected it they'd ultimately come from "no-kill" bigfooters.

There will be a whole bunch of "no-kill" folks who aren't even near the bigfoot community today. The bigfoot lovers will be coming out of the woodwork everywhere, and most would be unhappy with the killer.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Ilikebluepez
Edit to remove religious content

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 07 May 2011 - 09:30 AM, said:

Exactly, and those are the guys with powers of criminal prosecution. If you actually shoot a sasquatch in other than self defense, you might be taking a huge chance turning it in.

Even if it WAS self-defense, F&W still wouldn't let you keep it, since it was still illegal to "take, possess or transfer". They'd seize it and destroy it, even if it were sent to a lab.

Exactly, however, they might still put the "poacher" between a crack and a hard spot just to keep him under their thumb.

I find it overwhelmingly disgusting to even imagine a state fish and game department or USFWS seizing a sasquatch carcass from somebody like, say, Dr. Meldrum, who an anonymous "poacher" might turn it over to. These bureaucrats have been sitting on their a$$e$ for decades while amateurs have been beating the woods (and putting up with loads of BS from the peanut gallery) just to seize the prize in the end?

I'd burn the carcass first............

[Huntster]

I'ld like to see how you could get a bigfoot loaded across the hood of your truck or in the bed without a fork lift.....let them take it.

I've packed more than one 1,200 lb plus moose out of some very remote places with nothing more than a canoe and packframe. I've also packed same out whole with a pickup truck and come-along hand winch.

There is no judge in this world that would slap a manslaughter/murder/illegal hunting charge on a human once they got a good look at a bigfoot.

Unless "science" catagorized it as a "homo" whatever. If these creatures are like Native Americans say (they can breed with humans), they are human to some extent. Ditto Zana.

Besides, you can be convicted of crimes much less than "homicide" that would still be the equivalent of "no good deed goes unpunished" with regard to the shooting of a sasquatch to prove they exist.

[Guest parnassus]

Ok, that makes sense. I guess we will have to wait and and see what comes of it.

Yes I am prepared to eat crow!

[Guest parnassus]

One problem with Parnassus's theory is that Native American gentetic types are known and available to genetic researchers. They wouldn't go undetected.

ETA: Another problem would be that MtDNA is passed on from the mother. So if there are no Native American variants in the MtDNA, whatever off spring from interbreeding wouldn't likely have rejoined the Sas tribe.

http://www.unl.edu/r...s/greenberg.htm

I can't argue with your phrasing, but she said she used panels initially.

There is a big difference between "available" and "used" as was demonstrated in the Snelgrove Lake sample.

I'm not saying she is dumb or dishonest( tho I suspect she may be too trusting.) But she is not accustomed to swimming in that end of the pool. Could Todd Disotell walk into her lab and do forensic and animal genetics? No. Then why should we think that she can do the reverse ? That she perform his specialty? Genetics is a big field and the amount of material being published each year is amazing and just keeping up is a big job, let alone trying to master a whole other area.

[Guest]

I'm not saying she is dumb or dishonest( tho I suspect she may be too trusting.) But she is not accustomed to swimming in that end of the pool. Could Todd Disotell walk into her lab and do forensic and animal genetics? No. Then why should we think that she can do the reverse ? That she perform his specialty? Genetics is a big field and the amount of material being published each year is amazing and just keeping up is a big job, let alone trying to master a whole other area.

Well honestly, when I am in over my head I refer out to a specialist. I can't imagine this being any different but that maybe an assumption on my part. We don't have a lot of details of exactly what she is doing and I imagine that will change depending on the peer reviewer's evaluation.

[southernyahoo]

I can't argue with your phrasing, but she said she used panels initially.

There is a big difference between "available" and "used" as was demonstrated in the Snelgrove Lake sample.

I'm not saying she is dumb or dishonest( tho I suspect she may be too trusting.) But she is not accustomed to swimming in that end of the pool. Could Todd Disotell walk into her lab and do forensic and animal genetics? No. Then why should we think that she can do the reverse ? That she perform his specialty? Genetics is a big field and the amount of material being published each year is amazing and just keeping up is a big job, let alone trying to master a whole other area.

Dr. Ketchum has stated that, IIRC, she has assembled a team of genetic experts to assist in the amplification and sequencing work, and I'll assume in the interpretation of the results as well. The latest tech, and expertise. From my perspective she is not without the aid of critical experienced peers also involved in the work.

Disotell , In working with chimps, fresh clean samples are easily obtained as he works for a cure for aids. He has had some samples sent to him which he uncovered human DNA, some samples he couldn't amplify, then he stopped. He likely sequenced a short segment of mitochondria without going further. You find what you look for don't you? Chimps are 97% human, and unless you are going to break that last 3% down into thousandths of a percent you won't find BF, and your just posing on a TV program for money.

[Guest parnassus]

Dr. Ketchum has stated that, IIRC, she has assembled a team of genetic experts to assist in the amplification and sequencing work, and I'll assume in the interpretation of the results as well. The latest tech, and expertise. From my perspective she is not without the aid of critical experienced peers also involved in the work.

Disotell , In working with chimps, fresh clean samples are easily obtained as he works for a cure for aids. He has had some samples sent to him which he uncovered human DNA, some samples he couldn't amplify, then he stopped. He likely sequenced a short segment of mitochondria without going further. You find what you look for don't you? Chimps are 97% human, and unless you are going to break that last 3% down into thousandths of a percent you won't find BF, and your just posing on a TV program for money.

If she has brought in more qualified people that would be good. Sort of confirms what I'm saying.

I am beginning to wonder when she is going to disclose her findings or even her progress, in some manner. Does anyone have any updates from her (as opposed to Paulides)? Many times scientists will give oral presentations of their work to scientific meetings in advance of publication.

[southernyahoo]

I'm not sure how all the results will be disclosed. I'd like to see it published even if the conclusions were tempered, and I'm sure she would do a press conference once that could be announced. I'm not sure that just the DNA analysis would satisfy everyone though, people would want to see provenance, Morphology analysis, chain of custody for the samples, some of which I know can be provided. Hopefully this will pass review so it won't just end up being some very interesting material for a documentary. There is alot of time and money invested and the results should be heard and presented in the best way possible.

[Guest]

Depends on how you define work,if you define work as any type of job using your brawn that you get compensated for you might have a point. However, without mental work done by those who don't do physical labor you wouldn't have that computer you are using to type your smartass response on

ROF, LOL You are too cute!

Hugs to you Jodie, my friend.

[Guest]

Just wanted to pop back in and say, I am really gratifies that this thread took off. Makes me think, in part because of the Erickson Project buzz, we needed to have this discussion.

Thanks for playing, BFF members...I have really enjoyed the range of opinions.

Smitty

[bipedalist]

Will this be the last week that peer review will be a topic at hand here, or will it be one more month plus? What about potential for followup papers in the MSK et al study that will lead to acts: II, III, IV, V plus?

[Guest DWA]

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2011 at 3:36 PM, Guest said:

I think the article politely by-passes the issue of bias in the peers doing the reviewing. The author even reveals a particular bias of his own when he mentions "climate change deniers" in particular. This undercuts his "if they have anything solid, they'll eventually get accepted" claim.

There are more than a few topics in science like that one where there is most definitely an "orthodoxy" (usually termed "mainstream" or similar) which is the default position of Science en mass, and any challenge to that orthodoxy, as the author admits, will be initially and doggedly rejected often as not.

That is not "science". True science goes where the facts lead, whether the scientists like that destination or not.

 

Precisely. Bang on.

 

Peer review ranting on sites like this is a form of science worship, by people who revere it as a god and don't understand it as a process.  Peers tend to be narrowly trained and exposed, and the history of science says they are extremely uncomfortable with new facts and phenomena, and will reject things laid out in front of them chapter and verse, generally by simple avoidance.

 

Sasquatch research cannot depend upon or wait for peer review.  It needs to be conducted as citizen science, because the scientific mainstream has invoked that old loincloth/spear standby, TABOO, when it comes to this topic.  (Bindernagel can't even get review of *footprint casts.*)  Peer review only works when the peers will sit still for something that makes them uncomfortable because this young (or old, JB ) whippersnapper might be right. And there goes my status as an old lion [pout].  AAAWWWWWWWW.

Edited June 17, 2017 by DWA

[dmaker]

30 minutes ago, DWA said:

(Bindernagel can't even get review of *footprint casts.*) 

When did he try? Is this documented somewhere? Or you just making stuff up again?