Guest Peter O. Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) Another possibility is, of course, that they have diddly-squat and are playing for time, discovering how low they have to go on the totem pole of rigour and credibility before they find a journal prepared to publish. IMHO, since we've heard, on this thread (and yes, I've laboriously read the entire thing... and I'm a slow reader...) from folks who are familiar with the process, it seems that this level of secrecy is unprecedented. (For the record, I'm not a scientist and don't play one anywhere, but I have some college education and can read papers, and do so, for other reasons.) Therefore, the only possible answer to the lack of *anything* forthcoming from the Ketchum/Erickson team is that they are attempting to find the best way to *monetize* this project, as others have suggested above. This was not possible to do with previous Hominidae because of the lack of general knowledge and interest in the family. And the best way to present all of this evidence, is in a single, unified package. Just like when a movie comes out and the product placements, action figures, posters, and other crap all become available on the same day. This may not be the most logical approach with BF, but I'm guessing they're basing their technique on previous marketing campaigns. Otherwise, I see no *real* reason to withhold pictures or video, as others in the thread have opined. After all, most of the real enthusiasts want to believe, and want to support, a project that is actually doing good science. Many of us on this board agree that video/picture evidence is not satisfactory for purposes of *proving* anything--it would just be a gift to the believers to keep on supporting the ongoing projects. So, not publishing this would actually shoot the project in the foot where believers and fans are concerned. I know it's lowered my own interest. I think anyone who's concerned that the woods will be crawling with people carrying guns once Ketchum's paper comes out have little understanding of how this continent was explored and settled. Hint: everybody had a gun, and they shot everything. That was the case from about the 16th Century to the middle of the 20th. Yes, this is precisely true. However, it will depend on the "bounty" placed on capture of a species that has been verified by DNA and photographic evidence without capture of a holotype. How much would you pay for the Homo neanderthalensis x sapiens (or whatever it is) holotype? Peace, Peter Edit: for typos Edited March 24, 2012 by Peter O. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I'm not sure where you have the impression that the level of secrecy is "unprecedented". This seems to me like normal procedure for publication in any major science journal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I was kidding, I really don't believe the evidence is going to rise to that level. Just thought since conclusions are being made without seeing the paper, might as well throw out a super optimistic one. It's worth about as much as all the other ones I'm seeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted March 24, 2012 Admin Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) I can't help myself pointing out again that this thread is: Edited March 24, 2012 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Oh I see, well I was wondering.....the paper will probably come out in June in a journal that no one has ever heard of with analysis and conclusions that won't appear to have anything to do with bigfoot on the surface. If it gains any interest, she and the other authors will ease into the bigfoot topic slowly by letting everyone reading it draw their own conclusions. That is where the debate will carry on, just as it always has in bigfoot world, with the big question thread title of, "What Does it Really Mean?" Then Parn and Saskeptic will jump in with the concise conclusion, " It was just regular people, we tried to tell you this. " Mulder will say , "The DNA is the DNA, can't you see how these letters match nothing in the database? You just don't want to see through your bias, it's a plot" Then Parn will say, " But Mulder all DNA is unique, everyone has SNP's. " etc,etc, etc........ If the main stream doesn't pick up on it, it just remains a research article in an obscure publication. That would be my prediction of how it could go either way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted March 24, 2012 Admin Share Posted March 24, 2012 Oh I see, well I was wondering.....the paper will probably come out in June in a journal that no one has ever heard of with analysis and conclusions that won't appear to have anything to do with bigfoot on the surface. I don't know about that Jodie, it may well be published in a reputable journal. I'm just saying, the speculation in this thread has gone far beyond a reasonable assessment of the available information. We should all take a deep breath... expect nothing and hope for the best. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 +1, gigantor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Just to point out that Jodie was being mildly ironic, in view of Arizonabigfoot's deliberately overly-positive posting........ Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Yes, I was, but gigantor got his post in between ours so it lost something in translation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 24, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted March 24, 2012 How in the hades do you have homo sapiens sapiens, yet it's another species? ??That's just a tad like the Mad Hatter's unbirthday isn't it? Even though he was being overly optimistic, opinionated and kidding in his assessment he said, "not only not homo sapiens sapiens".... so yah, he knows as much as the rest of us apparently. Personally, I sort of hope it's a species unto itself and NOT homo but with characteristics of protohumans (whatever all that means). If there were a few dna genes that had a Merlinesque quality it would sort of be fun too..... maybe para ape can be readmitted as a member at that time?! . j/k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 LOLOL.....I'm leaning towards something on the orangutan branch of the family ( not giganto) , with high intelligence, but lacking something that sent them in a different direction as we co-evolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) How in the hades do you have homo sapiens sapiens, yet it's another species? ?? You can't. That's why she either has the goods or this is a hoax. Trying to contort everything that's happened into misinterpreted human DNA doesn't work. Let me add that if this is a hoax, folks like Hersom might want their sizable investments back. Some of us might want our time back. Imagine the lawsuits! For the record, I don't think that's how this will go down. Edited March 24, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 That Barnes and Noble gift certificate awaits one of us yet, Slim, the stakes are getting high here, and I'm trying not to break a sweat over it. . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Slim, Why does it always have to be a hoax? Can't they just be wrong? I think it's going to go down exactly like that misinterpretation of human DNA. Now if they drop a body next to the report that's a diffrent story! But without that for 99.9% of the general public it's DNA mumbo jumbo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Cervelo, the odds on a DNA analysis just being wrong, as you suggest, is vanishingly small, particularly after surviving the peer review process. As an example, have you ever heard of DNA evidence being overturned in a court case (other than where chain-of-custody and contamination were the issues)? And I suspect you may be underestimating the general public, too. After all, they are used to seeing DNA solve every crime under the sun, particularly on CSI......... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts