Where should professional scientists review bigfoot evidence?

[dmaker]

38 minutes ago, MIB said:

You don't think scientists know how to investigate things they're curious about?

 

Of course they do. I never said anything close to what you are saying. I am simply asking where those findings should be presented. Not how they should be gathered. 

 

38 minutes ago, MIB said:

Lack of peer reviewed papers by no means implies a lack of scholarly works worthy of examination

But it only presents one side of the argument. Papers written for, and presented to, bigfoot friendly audiences and publications is not going to have any level of peer critical analysis. That would happen in peer review. A paper submitted for peer review and presented in a journal such as Nature would include all the data and the methodology used to test that data and allow for peers to examine the data and provide review. 

 

What you are proposing (if anything at all) is a closed door exchange of opinion. Read papers by bigfoot proponents and then contact them to discuss their findings. That is how you think science should be done? 

 

38 minutes ago, MIB said:

It's plainly obvious that since bigfoot's existence is NOT scientifically accepted, there are no peer reviewed papers presenting proof. 

A paper does not have to present proof. A paper can present evidence that (in the presenters view) suggests further inquiry. You see this often with papers suggesting a new sub species be declared, for example. It does not have to be anything like "This paper is proof of bigfoot". No, not at all. It could be something like "Primate foot morphology found in alleged sasquatch tracks", or some such. If it was reviewed and enough peers agreed that, based on the reasons and evidence presented in the paper, there might be something to the claim, then further study would be stimulated. This has not happened. Bigfoot proponents do not participate in peer review insofar as their bigfoot leanings are concerned. They certainly participate in peer review for their main areas of study. They are obviously no stranger to peer review, nor do they boycott it. So, why then no attempts to present their bigfoot findings for peer review? 

 

And again, where, if not peer review, should these findings be contested by mainstream science? MiB seems to suggest behind closed doors, one on one. DWA seems to think it should be done on Amazon, or in book reviews. Any other suggestions? 

16 minutes ago, norseman said:

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/the_ketchum_project_what_to_believe_about_bigfoot_dna_science

 

Here is a pretty good summary of the Ketchum debacle. I see no mention of Nature magazine though?

Melba said it herself, apparently:

 

http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/ketchum-paper-submitted-rejected-nature/

 

Here you can even read some of the initial reviewer comments. Note, none of them say this is bigfoot and silly, please go away.

 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1DwVFfFOS6iX9yNQrxcSBRqRwQRn3Bkoi_3nnFDtR7-eDUkx-HOP-NjMYbG8M/edit

Edited June 19, 2017 by dmaker

[WSA]

 I think it helps to define WHAT categories of evidence are on the menu that reasonably could be subjected to publishing/peer review. These are (and some may differ on this) :

 

-Track way casts.

-Hair morphology

-DNA

-Voice/Sound Recordings

-The PGF

-Tooth impressions/profiles on animal bones 

-(possibly) tree structures/manipulations

 

All of these, by their nature, require access to the evidentiary "thing"...in other words, you're not asking peers to run an equation, sample a common element/material or just observe something lying around that all can view.  The BF  "problem" is, at its most fundamental level, a forensics issue. To reproduce results, or not, the scientist must have access to very specific items. This limitation on access to the evidence is the biggest hurdle.

 

 So, you have this limitation that is crimping all efforts as those in possession of the evidence will jealously guard their materials. The implication it creates is the keeper of the evidence has something to hide, namely that their hoax would be exposed if they freely offered it up for examination. On top of that, some of the keepers of some evidence have illusions of get-rich-quick schemes. That very idea is antithetical to the freer flow of information and forensic examination.  How indeed do you overcome those things ?  

 

This is why I've suggested the PGF film is the lowest hanging fruit on the tree.  The chief proponent for the authenticity of the film, Bill Munns, has a standing offer to any expert who wishes to examine the 2nd gen. copy/digital images and take a shot at refuting or confirming his conclusions.  Treating the images on the film as something that contains verifiable information relevant to the question is a very logical next step. It is subject to meaningful examination by a much larger number of people. Just the reading of his book has given more people more meaningful access to objectively viewable evidence than just about any other source you could name.    

 

[norseman]

Dmaker wrote:

So, why then no attempts to present their bigfoot findings for peer review? 

----------------------------

 

If your right about the Ketchum-Nature thing?

 

I would definitely chalk that up as a "attempt", right?

[dmaker]

Not really. Trying reading a peer reviewed paper suggesting a new sub species. It is mostly written observations and clear photographs. 

Edited June 19, 2017 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

17 minutes ago, WSA said:

All of these, by their nature, require access to the evidentiary "thing"...in other words, you're not asking peers to run an equation, sample a common element/material or just observe something lying around that all can view.  The BF  "problem" is, at its most fundamental level, a forensics issue. To reproduce results, or not, the scientist must have access to very specific items. This limitation on access to the evidence is the biggest hurdle.

Well, the encounter reports are public access to the limits of the term  This being the frontier, that's where the most data is (and as we know, it's data when it repeats, over and over and over, and you can practice your normal-curve drawing, over and over and over), and to anyone who doesn't want to go through the work I'd just say, cool, but here's what you say when anyone asks:  I wish the searchers luck, and done, capisch?  Don't open yer trap if yer not willing to investigate.  Leaving stuff to people you dump on and laugh at is not science.

 

Bindernagel and Meldrum have large cast inventories that they are flat *shopping around*.  Takers?  Interestingly, yes:  footprint investigators whose skills rank far above the scientific norm, who are uniformly enthusiastic; then we have professional biologsts who go...no thanks.  The denial methinks is strong in them ones. And as Bindernagel points out, the lack of understanding of primate characteristics and the willingness to school up are even stronger.

 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by DWA

[WSA]

I've also stated here often enough my opinion that the proposed gold standard of proof...a carcass or an identifiable piece of one...is not going to solve the issue as neatly or as cleanly as some might imagine. The same old problems will arise, only on a larger scale. With the ante being that much greater, we can assume even more disputes about chain of custody, access, evidence preservation, NDA's, sight and sound rights,  etc.  We should be aware that if we've failed to solve these issues on a relatively small scale, blowing up the stakes exponentially is just going to make them worse.  

[MIB]

19 minutes ago, dmaker said:

What you are proposing (if anything at all) is a closed door exchange of opinion. Read papers by bigfoot proponents and then contact them to discuss their findings. That is how you think science should be done? 

 

Yes, at this point in the process, it is EXACTLY how it has to be done because it is what is available.    This is discovery **in progress**.   Without the scientific establishment on board, the absolute only source of information is the amateurs who are doing the heavy lifting in the field.    There's a saying ... people who respect the law or sausage should not watch either being made.   It is the same thing here: if you are trying to put science on a pedestal, you should not watch the discovery process in progress.    Real science will never live up to your expectations.    The result may but the process won't.  

 

MIB

 

[dmaker]

7 minutes ago, norseman said:

Dmaker wrote:

So, why then no attempts to present their bigfoot findings for peer review? 

----------------------------

 

If your right about the Ketchum-Nature thing?

 

I would definitely chalk that up as a "attempt", right?

Yes, one failed attempt. But the point being it was accepted for review and actually read and feedback was provided. 

 

I should more accurately ask why no attempts from other scientific proponents, such as Bindernagel and Meldrum? I felt that since I had already mentioned the Ketchum attempt, that such a clarification was unnecessary.

 

 

[norseman]

Ketchum presented pictures of Matilda. And offered observations in her letter to Nature claiming the species was nocturnal and best visited during a full moon.

 

I think your splitting hairs here. It was an attempt to submit a Bigfoot paper for peer review.....period, end of story.

 

The reason why it was rejected in not germane to your claim.

 

And I definitely think there is scientific bias concerning Bigfoot. Its because of shit like Ketchum was trying to pull.

 

A botched DNA test.

A sleeping Wookiee suit

A paper written by non zoologists that was rejected as gooblygok

 

Ketchum was all hat and no cattle. And it was painfully obvious from the get go.

 

[dmaker]

3 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Yes, at this point in the process, it is EXACTLY how it has to be done because it is what is available.   

MIB

 

Ok, how do you know this hasn't happened? How do you know conversations have not happened between professional scientist proponents and professional scientist skeptics? How do you know that did not happen and perhaps the skeptic remained unimpressed and felt no compulsion to write a book about how unimpressive bigfoot evidence is? 

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by dmaker

[norseman]

They have, and yes are unimpressed.

 

Call ISU faculty and ask around.

 

 

[WSA]

DWA...I'm not ever going to believe the encounter reports are going to draw the attention they deserve, as much as we both find them compelling. They are either icing on the cake for the serious investigator, or the starting point of serious investigation. They offer no peer reviewable information that  I can see/. Chasing after a sighting might lead to something forensically reviewable, but then we come back around to the accessibility of the evidence issue again, most likely.  They have strong objective qualities to them, we both know, but...

[dmaker]

12 minutes ago, WSA said:

I've also stated here often enough my opinion that the proposed gold standard of proof...a carcass or an identifiable piece of one...is not going to solve the issue as neatly or as cleanly as some might imagine. The same old problems will arise, only on a larger scale. With the ante being that much greater, we can assume even more disputes about chain of custody, access, evidence preservation, NDA's, sight and sound rights,  etc.  We should be aware that if we've failed to solve these issues on a relatively small scale, blowing up the stakes exponentially is just going to make them worse.  

A piece of a bigfoot would certainly move the needle forward immensely. 

Edited June 19, 2017 by dmaker

[norseman]

Baloney.

 

A complete body would steam roll everything in its path.

[dmaker]

4 minutes ago, norseman said:

The reason why it was rejected in not germane to your claim.

Agreed, and I never said otherwise. I was simply using Ketchum as an example that contradicts the claim that no mainstream journal would even look at a bigfoot paper. This would seem to indicate otherwise. 

 

I only included the referee comments to show that not only was it considered, but it was read and review provided.  It was not dismissed out of hand because it dealt with bigfoot, in other words. 

4 minutes ago, norseman said:

They have, and yes are unimpressed.

 

Call ISU faculty and ask around.

 

 

Well, there you go DWA. Bigfoot evidence has been addressed and contested, just behind closed doors. 

 

You can stop wailing now.