Guest Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Well, if our search engine here did "three letter words" like nda and you did a lookup on all those instances, you'd start getting a feel for the "secrecy" involved. But, then again, there have been a few leaks or threads like this wouldn't exist too. Anywho, the paper allegedly was shopped about some in the time period described (according to rumor), may have been rejected or handed back at least once......but who really knows. Sit tight it sounds like the April 2nd date is sounding pretty good?! Right and thanks . Also I do stand corrected on stating that I had not heard of dissemination of the data ever jeopardizing the publication of that data . I took a look at the policies of both nature and science as well as several other high impact journals and they all have policies against experimental results being released to media sources prior to publication , as well as policies pertaining to a press embargo. Additionally, they do specifically state that a violation of these policies may jeopardize the publication of that data . I have submitted work for publication in several biomedical science journals for the past 10 years or so and had never heard that . However, our data, although interesting from a biomedical standpoint , is certainly not headline news . Therefore , I was not aware as it never applied to our circumstances . In any event , i apologize for the error and am relieved as it does make me feel better in that the statements that Dr. K has made regarding the need for secrecy are valid . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 So are you suggesting that scientific bias existing before the final report comes out is a bad thing? Or only a bad thing if your bias is toward the existence of a new hominid, not a bad thing if your bias is against the existence of a new hominid. Because I have to be honest here, I'm seeing a whole lot of bias expressed about a report that is not final. I am suggesting bias only because it has been argued previously that Dr. Ketchum was unbiased initially and that she was converted by hard evidence (and hence this "fact" giving credence to the unseen report.) Of course, if the DNA report does provide serious evidence of the existence of Bigfoot, she is rightfully biased towards the truth. On the other hand, if she believed that 100% human DNA was indicative of Bigfoot, and initially planned out her report and a video under that assumption, then she would have been biased or easily swayed. If so, then her report may include the flaws of someone easily swayed or holding pre-research biases. At least I'm not going this route: http://www.themadskeptic.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I am suggesting bias only because it has been argued previously that Dr. Ketchum was unbiased initially and that she was converted by hard evidence (and hence this "fact" giving credence to the unseen report.) Of course, if the DNA report does provide serious evidence of the existence of Bigfoot, she is rightfully biased towards the truth. On the other hand, if she believed that 100% human DNA was indicative of Bigfoot, and initially planned out her report and a video under that assumption, then she would have been biased or easily swayed. If so, then her report may include the flaws of someone easily swayed or holding pre-research biases. At least I'm not going this route: http://www.themadskeptic.com/ I dunno, sounds kind of iffy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I dunno, sounds kind of iffy. Necessarily so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Copied here for information only: Wikipedia (Human Taxonomy): Genus - Homo [or humans; specific and specialized development of memory/learning/teaching/learning application (learning driven ethology)] Species - Homo habilis [refined stone technology; earliest fire control] Species - Homo ergaster [extensive language, complex articulate language] Species - Homo erectus [fire control, cooking; aesthetic/artistic refinement of tools] Species - Homo heidelbergensis [possible earliest sanitary burial of deads, accompanied with symbolic/formal supplement] Species - Homo sapiens [further development and specialization of learning application; active environment transformation, acclimatization and control; infrastructures and advanced technology] Subspecies - Homo sapiens idaltu Subspecies - Homo sapiens sapiens In other words, Modern Humans are a subspecies of Homo sapiens, and it is perfectly possible in theory that other humans (Homo sapiens) could exist but not be H. sapiens sapiens. Mike Ding Ding Ding we have a winner! Not the issue. The issue is why would they decide they had Bigfoot evidence before the "further information" that was evidence of Bigfoot?(Accepting recent statements as accurate for sake of argument). Jerry, if you are really following this, then it should be clear that two forces were driving the study. One was that certain financiers were paying for the testing who had their own reasons to think the sampls were bigfoot, to include what a morphology examiner was telling them. Second was the preliminary test results showing abnormalities. I think it is reasonable to asume that the genome eminating from the samples isn't completely sequenced, thus the ultimate conclusion made about them, is being refined. What if they were right Jerry? Would it have been bias or intuition that made the discovery? Does it really matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Are you guys familiar with the expression "dancing on the head of a pin"? I couldn't give two hoots what any scientist thinks (and we don't even have any evidence of what Ketchum thought) at the outset of a research programme. I don't give a fig for what they think in the middle of it. I'm more interested in what they think when they are at the end of it. Ultimately, though, it isn't their opinion that counts at all, it is their results. Until they're out, splitting hairs like we're doing is dancing on the head of a pin. That's two metaphors in one sentence, without even a comma! - Ding Ding Ding we have a winner! Yep!!!!!!! ........but it's not me. Saskeptic posted virtually the same thing a couple of pages ago, but had the good grace to use his own words rather than just copying-and-pasting from Wiki. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Are we splitting guard hairs or undercoat hairs? Wait... wrong (yet related) thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 SY Homo sapiens is a species. There can be no new species within a species. There can be a new species within Homo eg H. hairyus, or a new subspecies within Homo sapiens ie Homo sapiens needsdeodorant, but there can't be a new species within Homo sapiens. p. Therefore we can say that it is possible to have a subspecies of genus homo sapiens. I think we got it now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies Subspecies (commonly abbreviated subsp. or ssp.) in biological classification, is either a taxonomic rank subordinate to species, or a taxonomic unit in that rank (plural: subspecies). A subspecies cannot be recognized in isolation: a species will either be recognized as having no subspecies at all or two or more, never just one. (However, all but one subspecies may be extinct, as in Homo sapiens sapiens.) Organisms that belong to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they often do not interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation or other factors. The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species, but more distinct than the differences between breeds or races (races can be assigned to different subspecies if taxonomically different). The characteristics attributed to subspecies generally have evolved as a result of geographical distribution or isolation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I am suggesting bias only because it has been argued previously that Dr. Ketchum was unbiased initially and that she was converted by hard evidence (and hence this "fact" giving credence to the unseen report.) Of course, if the DNA report does provide serious evidence of the existence of Bigfoot, she is rightfully biased towards the truth. On the other hand, if she believed that 100% human DNA was indicative of Bigfoot, and initially planned out her report and a video under that assumption, then she would have been biased or easily swayed. If so, then her report may include the flaws of someone easily swayed or holding pre-research biases. At least I'm not going this route: http://www.themadskeptic.com/ I'll grant you that much. The thing is you're still taking a backhanded shot at Dr Ketchum by implying that she might be "biased" or "easily swayed". Why is it that only proponent scientists get slapped with the "bias" perjorative? Are not those scientists who come at the question from a "no bigfoot" angle at least as "biased" as the proponents? They sure don't get treated that way by Skeptics. Drs Meldrum, Fahrenbach, etc have made numerous observations and studies, and even written papers about the scientific evidence for BF. But because they are "believers" (I HATE that word. It's deliberately used to imply that they are unreasoning proponents whose position is based on faith, not facts.) their work is dismissed and ignored. But if some other scientist says "there is no evidence for BF", they are lauded as being "properly skeptical". The report when it comes out should be (as ALL reports and papers should be) evaluated solely on the basis of the data contained. What Dr Ketchum (or Meldrum, or Fahrenbach, etc) "believes" has absolutely ZERO bearing on the validity of the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I think Jane Goodall argued in maybe like 1998 that chimps should be reclassified under Homo. I think Prof. Hawks has a great discussion on this on his website. Isn't the current system subject to (as he puts it) aesthetic classifications rather than merely scientific or DNA? I take, Prof. Hawk's "aesthetic classifications" (I didn't get around to looking at the site) is referring to morphological characters; structure, and behavior? DNA and RNA sequencing is commonly used now for creating phylogenetic trees ...and Yes, some anthropologists agree that genetic relatedness shouldn't be the one and only way with classification. DNA and RNA makes for some happy phylogenies. :] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) I am suggesting bias only because it has been argued previously that Dr. Ketchum was unbiased initially and that she was converted by hard evidence (and hence this "fact" giving credence to the unseen report.) Of course, if the DNA report does provide serious evidence of the existence of Bigfoot, she is rightfully biased towards the truth. On the other hand, if she believed that 100% human DNA was indicative of Bigfoot, and initially planned out her report and a video under that assumption, then she would have been biased or easily swayed. If so, then her report may include the flaws of someone easily swayed or holding pre-research biases. At least I'm not going this route: http://www.themadskeptic.com/ you are speculating on speculations, you might as well use a ouija board. Edited January 30, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I found about this place from Bigfoot Evidence blog. Robrt Lindsay is reporting a release of Ketchums paper in late Feb. Is also reporting that there will be multiple papers...... So who knows what is going on. I just hope it's not a fringe journal like the Journal for Scientific Exploration or similar... here's the ink to the RL statement http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/bigfoot-news-january-30-2012/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 So somebody needs to have a quick look around and see which likely journals have a late Feb publication date. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TexasTracker Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Every single Journal that releases a monthly publication will have one... IE, the March "Nature" will release late in Feb.. could be anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 ........well, any of the monthlies, at least. Lots of journals are quarterly. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts