southernyahoo Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) Why? For me is the uncertainty, secrecy, jokeying that makes it look messy. If it were all out on the table (perhaps witholding exact locations and images) about where she is in the process and who the submitters are and if the Sierra Kills actually happened, it wouldn't? I mean really, what to lose there? Apehuman, it would be a huge mess to turn laymen loose to discuss very technical scientific findings without those findings being scientificly verified and published. It would be a great dis-service to the people who funded the work and the scientists who did the work.People want the provenance , the chain of custody, circumstances, pics of assocotiated evidence, the science with conclusions all at once, with no concievable question unanswered. Without that it would be messy and meaningless hype with nothing but anecdote to support any claims. People would be waving red flags everywhere, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria............... Edited February 2, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC repair quote tag 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 My hearsay is better than your hearsay, well I got this directly from so and so, I don't know what this means but I was told.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) "a huge mess to turn laymen losse to discuss very techincal findings" Read my post again, not what I suggest. But the tone says a lot. Maybe you are right, many feel that way. We'll see hopefully and the speculation on these giant threads will end. We can replace them with all that questioning by everyone. Edited February 2, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Simply restating your claim doesn't make it true, even if you state it emphatically. I'm completely ignorant of any source that actually supports the claim you're presenting, do you, or do you not have one? RayG One should not have to pander to you like this over a simple, well understood technical term, but fine: https://www.msu.edu/~robin400/sapiensmodern.html http://www.halexandria.org/dward189.htm http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_sap.htm Are you happy now? Humans are H Sapiens Sapiens. Anything NOT H Sapiens Sapiens may be hominid (H Sapiens), but is emphatically NOT human. Again, I should not have to go to these lengths to explain such a basic fact to you. It's like defining water. The answer is easily understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 One should not have to pander to you like this over a simple, well understood technical term, but fine: https://www.msu.edu/...iensmodern.html In this first link, the author incorrectly provides "Homo sapien" as the scientific name for modern humans - at least three times! http://www.halexandr...rg/dward189.htm I don't know what the heck is going on here. http://www.ecotao.co...lism/hu_sap.htm Mulder: "Are you happy now? Humans are H Sapiens Sapiens. Anything NOT H Sapiens Sapiens may be hominid (H Sapiens), but is emphatically NOT human." Your own link is contradicting you: "Within Africa the oldest modern humans are just less than 160,000 years old and represented by Homo sapiens idaltu." D'oh! It is very simple Mulder. "Human" is not a strict taxonomic designation. It's a label applied to several organisms in the genus Homo. All Homo sapiens are human, but the following non-sapiens Homo are also considered human by various anthropologists: H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis, etc. Some consider "human" to refer to all members of the genus Homo, so that includes H. habilis, H. floresiensis, etc. (Hint: You might check out post 1853 in which I provided a link to the Smithsonian's human evolution website as well as three actual scientific papers on the subject. Then you might try toning down the snark when Ray asks you to simply provide a source for the thing you're claiming that is 180 degrees opposite of what the science indicates - it's not . . . becoming.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Can you imagine what a mess this would all be in by now if those NDA's weren't in force? Nope! How could it be any worse, than it is already? If there´s ever a scientific paper comming out of this, that will be the gospel of this particular research, everything else is hearsay and speculation. Guyinindiana said something like this, but I don´t seem to be able to find it for quotation right now - sorry Indi! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Who's and how much cash are you convinced got grabbed? If you take out three copyright applications for "movies" directly connected to the present study (the last one end of 2011), as far as I can see, it´s thought that money can be made, IMHO. How much is anybodies guess. According to JDL approx a month ago, the Ketchum Lab. still took in samples (please correct me if I´m wrong) for the project. As far as I remember both the OP-project and NABS-project claim to have send in a 100(+?) samples for testing, and then there´s the Erickson-project (6 samples) and a multiplum of other samples. I would give a conservative estimation of 300 samples in total. At a price of 11,000 dollars a piece (I think that was stated by JDL and others). All these samples were sponsored by "a wealthy beneficiary"), a nice revenue for a not so big contract lab. In this context I think the OP book deal will only be peanuts, of course depending on what information they really got, which could be of interest for magazines, tv etc. I think it´s totally OK to make money of an invention or a discovery, but not if it´s jeopardizing the science! and so far the only thing I´ve seen in writing concerning the project is copyright applications. I´m sure there will be a paper, and I sincerely hope it will something useful like demonstrating the possibility of a new species or subspecies and not just a paper of different (new) technics in DNA sequencing or sampling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 The mtDNA was 200 dollars I believe. The 11,000 dollar figure was for the nuDNA testing which was performed on relatively few of the samples and most, if not all, of that was done in other labs, not in DNA Diagnostics. Several extensive analysis were done again at labs other than DNA Diagnostics. These ad hom accusations are baseless IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 As I recall several months back a question was asked about the date that you would conclude this was not going to happen. I believe we are now well past the date of the most optimistic members of the forum. Several months back the publication in a major journal was imminent. Now we are talking about a documentary that likely won't be anymore entertaining that finding bigfoot. I think they took thier shoot at publishing in a reputable journal. However, I think there was a major flaw in the logic used to come to the papers conclusion. We all no what that flaw is because it has been talked about quite a bit in this forum. I don't think anyone at this point could seriously believe that we are going to see a publication in a major scientific journal. I would not be surprised to see something in the national inquiry type journal. My best guess is that we will see self publication for sale. Hopefully it will be entertaining and raise some interesting ideas. As many of you have pointed out, I have consistently followed this topic even though I have had serious doubts. Yet I have leaned some thing about DNA and human evolution so it has not been a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 The mtDNA was 200 dollars I believe. The 11,000 dollar figure was for the nuDNA testing which was performed on relatively few of the samples and most, if not all, of that was done in other labs, not in DNA Diagnostics. Several extensive analysis were done again at labs other than DNA Diagnostics. These ad hom accusations are baseless IMO. What I wrote are not accusations. You asked for a possible economic benefit in your former post. I answered exactly that question. But now I´m getting curious since you state:...the nuDNA testing which was performed on relatively few of the samples.... Do you know approx. how many nuDNA-tests were done? and if any were whole genome tests? As far as we know up till now (from this forum), the mtDNA-tests done without supporting nuDNA-tests are without significans, since they came out human (as in H. sapiens sapiens) - or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 darwinist, You were not the author of the posts I was referring to. You pulled a quote from several pages back that was in regards to posts by three other members. They chose not to answer the questions. You made reference to DNA Diagnostics making a significant amount of money off of BF testing. That, I suggest, is not the case and gave the reasons. The answer to the second part is yes, I do know. The details you ask for will be in the upcoming scientific paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Never have I seen secrecy about a scientific paper like this before. I smell a big sham, published in one of those fringe journals. Not to sound so negative..... I'm just jaded... it seems like everytime there's the "proof of bigfoot" meme going around, it turns out to be much ado about nothing or a flat out hoax...sorry everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I had posted on here a few days ago also asking about all the secrecy . I was a researcher for many years..trained as a molecular biologist and have had several publications in high impact journals ( although not nature or science unfortunately). At that time I was skeptical about the statements by Ketchum that dissemination of any information would jeopardize the publication of her results, as that was not something I was familiar with . However, after looking at the specific requirements for Nature and other prestigious journals it does appear that they do state that results must not be released to media sources prior to publication . My guess is that our research was not news worthy and therefore this issue never arose, thus accounting for my unfamiliarity with these policies. on the other hand , it is common practice for researchers to present preliminary findings at scientific conferences . It could be imagined however that given the nature of these studies that presentation of any aspect of the work, even in somewhat closed sessions would bring vast amounts of media coverage thus jeopardizing the results and violating the journal's requirements . I began following this story some time ago . I am very intrigued about the possibility of definitive proof of a yet undiscovered primate in North America and all the implications that would have. In fact, I really want this to be true . However, like @Wookie73 above , I find the longer this goes on in the absence of a publication, the less likely we are to ever see that publication . The timeline of events from the best I can piece together seems to be very far off from what it should be . For example , reviewers are usually only given a few weeks in which to review a paper and make their recommendations to the editor . I have both had papers reviewed and served as a reviewer to scientific journals and this timeline is fairly standard across publishers . It is also the case that they must decide within this time frame to accept , reject , or require revisions and although revisions take time , there is often a time frame in which these revisions must be made . which is usually within a couple of months to perhaps a little longer depending on the revisions and the journal. It is of course possible that she received rejections and has had to look to alternate journals , but the time that has elapsed still seems very lengthy even taking this into consideration . Lastly, on the positive , after reading the copyright information that had been posted previously, the genes listed that were examined made a lot of sense based on the known actions of the protein products of these genes ..which at least in my mind gives validity to the studies and the science behind it . Anyway , just my two cents which may be worth less than that even Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 "we have been focusing our time and energy on our ongoing scientific testing and data which will be accurately summarized in the final version of our scientific paper. The final paper presenting our data, analysis and updated conclusions will be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal but we do not have a publication date at this time." - Melba Ketchum It's not even clear if the final version is finished, so all of these timelines and guesses about revisions are pretty much meaningless. You can smell a sham or whatever you want, but as far as I know, people are allowed as much time as they want when they are conducting their ongoing research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted February 4, 2012 Admin Share Posted February 4, 2012 ...The final paper presenting our data, analysis and updated conclusions will be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal but we do not have a publication date at this time." - Melba Ketchum It sounds like she submitted and got feedback from the reviewers. She is now addressing the peer comments and will resubmit. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts