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

[Guest]

If it's bias, then the blame lies with the hucksters who've been in bed with bigfootery since the beginning. It's not the scientists who've been hoaxing bigfoot all these years.

No, it's the "scientists" who have been refusing to endorse the evidence that HAS been proffered time and again "because it just CAN'T be true!"

Dr Meldrum has repeatedly documented such sentiments on the part of "scientists".

[southernyahoo]

No, it's the "scientists" who have been refusing to endorse the evidence that HAS been proffered time and again "because it just CAN'T be true!"

Mulder you're simply dealing with the perception that all the evidence on profer can be hoaxed, regardless of circumstance. With genuine evidence from the top 2 on my list below, you can turn the corner, then you'll see the papers get published right and left on the other evidence.

1. complete specimen

2. physical parts of a specimen

3. scat

4. tracks

5. photo/ videos

6. vocalizations/ audio

7. structures/ nests/ tree damage.

[Drew]

Mulder you're simply dealing with the perception that all the evidence on profer can be hoaxed, regardless of circumstance. With genuine evidence from the top 2 on my list below, you can turn the corner, then you'll see the papers get published right and left on the other evidence.

1. complete specimen

2. physical parts of a specimen

3. scat

4. tracks

5. photo/ videos

6. vocalizations/ audio

7. structures/ nests/ tree damage.

Excellent list SouthernYahoo

I would break out #5, and put amateur photos/videos in one category at #5, and put Photos taken during a scientific study (see the Cascade photos) as #2.5

[Huntster]

If ya’ll really want to rely on poachers or truck drivers to deliver the goods, why don’t you up the ante a little? Just open a hunting season on sasquatches: open all year, limit of one. Indeed, a reward of $5,000 will be paid, but the carcass has to be surrendered to the state. If wildlife managers are so convinced that sasquatches don’t exist, then none will be shot, right? And if police won’t police up the frauds, just a couple of them getting drilled might end the hoaxing, right?

Win/win.

Sure sounds like a good idea, as long as every hunter is as responsible as you or I.

However, since every hunter isn't that responsible, declaring a year-round open season on a human-like bipedal target is probably not such a good idea.

If "every hunter isn't that responsible", why are they issued hunting licenses to hunt anything?

"Honest judge, I thought he was a bigfoot!

We already hear it, "Honest judge, I thought he was a deer/bear/moose/etc."

When was the last time you heard somebody say, "Honest judge, I thought he was an extraterrestrial alien"? No closed season on them, is there?

That's a good point. Sure would be fun to see the BFRO on trial for fraud . . .

Who cares who it is? If they're knowingly selling a hoax of any kind, they're committing fraud. Prosecute them.

DNR CHIEF: Officer, why didn't you respond to that poaching incident near Campsite 9?

DNR OFFICER: I was responding to a report of Sasquatch near the park entrance.

DNR CHIEF: Oh, OK, as long as you were doing something important.

Oh, how I wish. But they don't respond to Sasquatch reports, do they?

Seriously, they are not going to admit to responding to Sasquatch, until there is evidence of it's existence.

There is plenty of evidence, and they still don't admit to responding. For example, got any evidence whatsoever of California Dept. of Fish and Game responding to the PG film event?

I started an evidence thread here at BFF, and none was proferred.

If I had some evidence/proof, do you really think I'd offer it to you, Drew?

Really?

[Guest]

If I had some evidence/proof, do you really think I'd offer it to you, Drew?

Really?

I actually think you would, 'cause I know you wouldn't consider it evidence unless it was proof.

[Guest]

Mulder you're simply dealing with the perception that all the evidence on profer can be hoaxed, regardless of circumstance. With genuine evidence from the top 2 on my list below, you can turn the corner, then you'll see the papers get published right and left on the other evidence.

1. complete specimen

2. physical parts of a specimen

We've had that for some time (hairs, blood work [pre-dna], and forthcoming formal dna studies [at least it looks that way at present]).

Hasn't gotten us anywhere.

3. scat

4. tracks

5. photo/ videos

6. vocalizations/ audio

7. structures/ nests/ tree damage.

All these are ALREADY evidence. It's the blind, unreasoning and unreasonABLE demand for the "slab monkey" that is holding us back.

It goes back to my coffee analogy. We have the whole d*mn kitchen's worth of evidence, but the Skeptics still demand to see the coffee in the cup before they'll agree it existed.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Mulder

[Guest]

I actually think you would, 'cause I know you wouldn't consider it evidence unless it was proof.

Another fine example of the absurdly absolutist mindset of the Skeptic: "if it ain't Absolute Proof, then it's worthless..."

Unless of course, it's proffered AGAINST the case for BF, then it's ALL Absolute Proof.

[Drew]

Mulder said:

We've had that for some time (hairs, blood work [pre-dna], and forthcoming formal dna studies [at least it looks that way at present]). Hasn't gotten us anywhere.

You have no hairs from a Bigfoot, if you did, you would put the study here, and we could all see that evidence of Bigfoot hair, blood, etc... existed.

If you did have any evidence of the above, it would have gotten 'us' somewhere.

Of course the non-evidence that you claim IS evidence, hasn't gotten 'us' anywhere. Because simply, it is not evidence of Bigfoot, If it WAS evidence of bigfoot, it would have gotten 'us' somewhere.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Drew

[southernyahoo]

No No No No, evidence can be evidence of BF without our knowing it is evidence of BF, it takes science to know what it is. I could claim I have evidence of bigfoot, but in order to prove it, I would have to have the scientific analysis and then you wopuld have to be able to understand it. Just showing you hairs won't do, will it?

[Drew]

EXACTLY Southernyahoo, I lived in Michigan's Upper Peninsula for 4 years, If you could get one of those Yooper girls to shave their legs, you would have some pretty convincing Sasquatch hairs, but those hairs, though they look like what might be Sasquatch hairs, believe it or not, would not come back as Sasquatch hairs.

[Guest]

<Tom Waits voice> "I'm in love with a Yooper girl . . . "

[Guest parnassus]

I don't disagree with you on that one and pointed out the same issue I had with Ketchum's research earlier in the thread, along with other issues regarding random hair samples sent in by just any unknown person. In your specific scenario, the hoaxer has defeated his purpose, the hair would show up 100% human and that is not proof of sasquatch. I hope the hoaxer would think that far ahead and save him or herself their time and effort as I imagine those samples would be discarded from the study as identified.

Ah but there's the rub (or the beauty of it, depending on whose perspective you take). Dr. Ketchum may very well have not known what a Hupa hair looks like (yes there are differences between NA hair and those textbook pictures) or what Hupa DNA looks like (that was basically the issue with the Snelgrove Lake fiasco). I think she may have been quite excited when she saw hair and DNA that didn't fit her limited ideas of "human."

Now let me just gaze into my crystal ball and suggest that since it is definitely spring and we have heard nothing from Ketchum and a "problems" statement from the other party, that some little birdie has alerted Dr. Ketchum to the issues. Now if she is a good researcher, the next phase of her study should be to personally (emphasis) go to Hoopa and collect blood and hair from about thirty tribal members (as unrelated as possible) to compile a database. Then she should do the same at every location where Tribal Bigfoot was compiled.

Then she can compare the "Bigfoot" samples with those of tribal persons. If they generally match (and they may even find a perfect match) then she will have decide whether she really wants to stake her reputation on some variation of the "Hupas are Bigfoots" idea. My guess is she'll do an Emily LaTella on the whole project. "never mind....."

Though I do think the databases would be potentially valuable to an actual human genetics researcher.

Edited May 5, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest]

Ah but there's the rub (or the beauty of it, depending on whose perspective you take). Dr. Ketchum may very well have not known what a Hupa hair looks like (yes there are differences between NA hair and those textbook pictures) or what Hupa DNA looks like (that was basically the issue with the Snelgrove Lake fiasco). I think she may have been quite excited when she saw hair and DNA that didn't fit her limited ideas of "human."

Now let me just gaze into my crystal ball and suggest that since it is definitely spring and we have heard nothing from Ketchum and a "problems" statement from the other party, that some little birdie has alerted Dr. Ketchum to the issues. Now if she is a good researcher, the next phase of her study should be to personally (emphasis) go to Hoopa and collect blood and hair from about thirty tribal members (as unrelated as possible) to compile a database. Then she should do the same at every location where Tribal Bigfoot was compiled.

Then she can compare the "Bigfoot" samples with those of tribal persons. If they generally match (and they may even find a perfect match) then she will have decide whether she really wants to stake her reputation on some variation of the "Hupas are Bigfoots" idea. My guess is she'll do an Emily LaTella on the whole project. "never mind....."

Though I do think the databases would be potentially valuable to an actual human genetics researcher.

But my understanding of it is that these samples came from all over the world. Now why I thought that, I can't say, because I don't specifically remember reading that anywhere. Did she say she was restricting her analysis to hairs from one area? I would assume if she did that taking samples from the native human population would be one of the first steps she took......I think she knows what she is basically doing.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Jodie

[Guest RayG]

If "every hunter isn't that responsible", why are they issued hunting licenses to hunt anything?

Because you don't have to be intelligent to get a hunting license. If every hunter was 'that responsible' we wouldn't see the number of human deaths by hunters that we do. Not sure what you were taught growing up, but I was taught (dad, uncle, older brother) to make sure I had a positive ID on my target before firing. I haven't hunted in years, but I never shot anyone when I was. I'm guessing part of that was because I wasn't a trigger-happy idiot. And hunting deer/bear/moose/etc., is a far cry from hunting a human-like bipedal target.

It goes back to my coffee analogy. We have the whole d*mn kitchen's worth of evidence, but the Skeptics still demand to see the coffee in the cup before they'll agree it existed.

Mulder, your analogy is...

What skeptic would demand to see coffee in a cup before they'd agree it existed? Where does anyone say coffee doesn't exist? I drink coffee every day. I know what coffee smells like. What it tastes like. What it looks like. I know where to find coffee.

No, for a proper analogy, you'd have to compare bigfoot to something like the Holy Grail, Atlantis, or the fountain of youth. You know, something that has never been clearly proven to exist.

RayG

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 04 May 2011 - 07:13 PM, said:

If I had some evidence/proof, do you really think I'd offer it to you, Drew?

I actually think you would, 'cause I know you wouldn't consider it evidence unless it was proof.

You are half correct:

1)I’ve offered what I considered to be an interesting photo of a footprint from a very interesting Alaskan location as well as the testimony of an Alaskan from his first hand experience (both acquired on an Alaskan hunting forum) for consideration on this forum before and learned that no good deed goes unpunished. No more from me.

2)Do you really think that if I got proof (or even good evidence) I’d submit it to Drew? Now, why would I do that?