Guest MikeG Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Susi, I'd be really surprised if this were the case. I reckon that Saskeptic is an open-minded skeptic, simply awaiting the evidence. He has kept his position open to change, as far as I can see, which some other mind-made-up skeptics just haven't. They'll go very quiet for a while after absolute proof is obtained, methinks. Some good video and a great DNA paper and Saskeptic is with us, you watch! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Nothing except a personal up close with a see it, smell it, and touch it experience *might* change Saskeptic's mind. Why do you think that? I believe in the existence of all sorts of creatures I've neither seen, smelled, nor touched: Chinstrap Penguins, Gelada Babboons, and James River Spinymussels come to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) What it tells me is that she has the sophistication to do the work or find those that can do the work.......to get the job done if the samples are what they are claimed to be. Agreed. I'm pretty sure she'd know not every human DNA sequence is in Genbank. Edited January 18, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) I found several entries on Google Scholar. Someone has already mentioned a previously published paper but there seems to be several other entries including patent activity as recent as 2009. Hopefully someone more qualified than myself would care to elaborate. Without speaking to the quality of the journals mentioned it does seem that she has had a reasonable amount of success bringing projects through to publication. Fortunately I have only been waiting for the paper to be published for 1 week so if I am rehashing an old mem then let me know. Thanks, Martin Martin, Speaking from the perspective of someone who knows the meaning of "position" on the list of authors: The pattern of authorship does not suggest that she had a leading role in formulating, executing or writing up any of these papers. These are not major projects, and fourth author would likely be a "thank you for contributing some specimens or a few thoughts" gesture. It would be more or less like including Tom Biscardi on her bigfoot paper. LOL. The patent application is interesting. She doesn't seem to have to the technical background/support staff to develop such a device. Where did this come from? Speculation: She had a business relationship with a guy on the faculty at Texas A and M, reflected in the suit brought against the two of them for infringement. Faculty members have the time, background and support staff to develop patentable devices, but sometimes have issues with their school over who gets the rights to patents for devices developed in the course of employment. Ketchum, of course, is not employed by A and M, so if the patent were in her name the school wouldn't have a case. I have no way of knowing for sure but this sounds like one of those cases, where he and Ketchum might have made some sort of deal for her to obtain the patent in her name, to prevent A and M from claiming the rights to it. Might be perfectly legal. That's the way it smells to me, at least. And the patent application was written by a patent lawyer. Edited January 18, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) Why do you think that? I believe in the existence of all sorts of creatures I've neither seen, smelled, nor touched: Chinstrap Penguins, Gelada Babboons, and James River Spinymussels come to mind. Sas, Those creatures/animals though rare, are considered real, and they are not considered to be junk science, nor fantasy inspired creations, and we have good pictures taken by responsible scientists, correct. Plus they are a little different type of sighting than those reported by people claiming to see 9 foot tall 800+ pound creatures called BF running around in the woods. Many people feel that BF believers are believing in a fantasy misidentified creature that does not exist. Even after my sighting my hubby denies their existence. You, kind Sir, are a lot better than my hubby is when it comes to believing and thinking "outside" the box. Thanks for calling that statement I made about you to my attention because I would never wish to say something unkind, or harsh in any way. However, Not believing in BF is a different type of disbelief from the specimens you mentioned. BF, sadly, is still considered by many to be a joke and junk science, and that includes my hubby. Edited January 18, 2012 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Martin, Speaking from the perspective of someone who knows the meaning of "position" on the list of authors: The pattern of authorship does not suggest that she had a leading role in formulating, executing or writing up any of these papers. These are not major projects, and fourth author would likely be a "thank you for contributing some specimens or a few thoughts" gesture. It would be more or less like including Tom Biscardi on her bigfoot paper. LOL. ....... Thanks for that Parnassus. I did notice that she was listed on one of the earlier papers like this: Melba Ketchum (Shelterwood Animal Hospital, Texas) for providing horse serum samples. ... Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 18, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 18, 2012 Martin, Speaking from the perspective of someone who knows the meaning of "position" on the list of authors: The pattern of authorship does not suggest that she had a leading role in formulating, executing or writing up any of these papers. These are not major projects, and fourth author would likely be a "thank you for contributing some specimens or a few thoughts" gesture. It would be more or less like including Tom Biscardi on her bigfoot paper. LOL. The patent application is interesting. She doesn't seem to have to the technical background/support staff to develop such a device. Where did this come from? Speculation: She had a business relationship with a guy on the faculty at Texas A and M, reflected in the suit brought against the two of them for infringement. Faculty members have the time, background and support staff to develop patentable devices, but sometimes have issues with their school over who gets the rights to patents for devices developed in the course of employment. Ketchum, of course, is not employed by A and M, so if the patent were in her name the school wouldn't have a case. I have no way of knowing for sure but this sounds like one of those cases, where he and Ketchum might have made some sort of deal for her to obtain the patent in her name, to prevent A and M from claiming the rights to it. Might be perfectly legal. That's the way it smells to me, at least. And the patent application was written by a patent lawyer. Even if this is the case, she could have retained some long term 'buy-in" to the technical resources of the device or technology or the resources of "A&M" as a part of such a process. It could have put her in a position having graduated from the institution and having partnered with academics and researchers there to have the network necessary (particularly access to many of the target dna samples as Shelterwood Labs). This could certainly place her in a better position to complete this dna paper she is currently writing or revising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Sas, Those creatures/animals though rare, are considered real, and they are not considered to be junk science, . . . Well, that's the point Susi. If we had evidence for bigfoot of similar quality to that for James Spinymussel, then it wouldn't be junk science or fantasy, and your husband would be fully on board, as would I. I am not skeptical of bigfoot because bigfoot is supposed to be big or nocturnal or rare or able to stun its enemies with infrasonic blasts or whatever. I'm skeptical of bigfoot because one hasn't been collected or clearly photographed. I'm no more open-minded on the subject than anyone who'd like to see proof that bigfoots exist, but that bar of proof is no different than expected for any other organism that's been scientifically described. If the rarest and most isolated species in the world can be collected and photographed, then so can bigfoot. When and if that ever happens, I'd be thrilled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 RL had a blog entry yesterday about the study. Yes, I know, consider the source, but anyway he claims that the paper may be embargoed and that is generally a week before publishing. Elaborates on Ed Smith comments and the "dna about yo hit the fan" stuff from last week Personally, I don't believe a word of it but thought I would pass on the BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Can you provide any evidence that anyone besides Adrian Erickson stands to profit from the footage he has obtained? I have seen at least a half dozen of your posts speculating that the delay or build up is some type of effort to boost DVD sales. Melba Ketchum and all of the other researchers involved have no rights to Erickson's footage, and have no reason to participate in a hype campaign to boost sales of his movie. On top of that, if reports are correct, the amount of money Erickson has sunk into his research has left little chance that he will even recoup the money he has spent on his efforts. If all of these people were involved if some hype build up, I would think they would have handled this much differently. They would have let anticipation build to a fever pitch, then delivered the payoff to maximize interest and profits. Letting their target audience become frustrated and almost apathetic isn't the most effective way to cash in. Not everything is some sinister plot to get into your wallet. If I was planning to cash in on DVD sales, I'd advertise the results with some small tidbit. I would also advertise to the rest of the world not just the bigfoot fans. If I was going to publish my paper I'd try to get Nat'l Geo to do it personally. They're the only mag I get in paper anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Ketchum's bio on her Twitter account reads: Scientist, Forensics and Hominid Research Wikipedia is down today in protest of SOPA so I'm completely lost. Maybe someone can help me out. What's a hominid, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) In that context I would assume they mean the traditional meaning of upright primate assumed to be between human and chimp. The new meaning includes great apes but I doubt she is involved with them. <edit to add>Sorry if the wink was that it wasn't human. I am kind of slow sometimes. Edited January 18, 2012 by BobZenor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Okay so what's the consensus on a release date? Will it be in a week or in March? Or perhaps the ever-increasingly-more-likely never? Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) <edit to add>Sorry if the wink was that it wasn't human. I am kind of slow sometimes. Actually, the wink meaning not a great ape (traditional usage). You know, something you might find listed here. Yeah, Homo sapiens sapiens is there but I don't get the feeling that's what she means either. I could be wrong of course. Edited January 18, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wadaguy Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Okay so what's the consensus on a release date? Will it be in a week or in March? Or perhaps the ever-increasingly-more-likely never? Tim B. Last October, we've missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts