southernyahoo Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 We are past the point in time where this is going to be published in a scientific journal that the majority in the scientific community accepts as reputable. It is not going to happen. Hopefully, we will have something that will give us something to talk about or peak some interest of some additional scientist who have not seriously considered the subject. If this was a slam dunk case like people were talking about it would not have taken so long. Remember 2011 was going to be the year of the Sasquatch. Now we are in 2012 and the paper has not even been submitted. Well, if we can't call the journal fringe, then we'll just have to put a time limit on it then, so we can claim it is not reputable. How's that for supreme skeptical reasoning. When it happens it happens, and it won't be an iota less signifanct than it would have been yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 bigfootnis that would be assuming that in 2010 more samples weren't added to the study, which it seems they were and more in early 2011. [the sierra kill, and rumors of others] If that indeed is correct the testing would have taken additional time and pushed the timeline back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 ..The difference between the two isn't that one supports a no-bigfoot or a pro-bigfoot. If Ketchum's paper is published in the former and points to a brand new unknown primate in North America, it will be very exciting!! If it's published in the latter and claims "proof of Bigfoot" well, it'll be worthless.... this is a fair statement, & an accurate observation as far as being accepted by the world . but i wonder , if it is quality evidence & presented as "unknown primate in NA" that matches up with supposed BF characteristics given in reports, what else other than BF could it be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) It could be assumed to be evidence of Bigfoot. But scientifically it wouldn't be proof (unless they have a finger bone or some other indentifying specimen to go along with the DNA). The most important thing would be an increase in science$$ being spent on the subject. Edited February 5, 2012 by Biggie Removed unnecessary quote of previous user from post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 It may also be argued that since the claims of the paper are extraordinary, whatever journal is vetting the paper is taking the greatest pains meticulously to produce the paper. After all, the journal's reputation will also be at stake here, to a greater degree than with a less sensational topic. Thanks to the skeptics we all know that true scientists never worry about their reputations or how they are perceived. Especially since we also know that no other true scientists would ever ridicule a claim that was later proven correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 It has been inferred by Dr. Ketchum that the paper has gone through a rewrite/revision and additional data was included. Does that sound like the sort of scientific rigor that would be required by The Journal of Frontier Science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Thanks to the skeptics we all know that true scientists never worry about their reputations or how they are perceived. Especially since we also know that no other true scientists would ever ridicule a claim that was later proven correct. That's neither here nor there though. I doubt you would find ANY groundbreaking claim that was met with unified applause by the science world. People have different viewpoints, different areas of study. Many people still aren't 100% on relativity for example. That's the point though. If everyone just tagged along with what was popular nothing would get advanced. yet, I doubt you would find a reputable scientists who when presented with good evidence, didn't admit they were wrong! (see Hawking and his Big Smash Theory) It has been inferred by Dr. Ketchum that the paper has gone through a rewrite/revision and additional data was included. Does that sound like the sort of scientific rigor that would be required by The Journal of Frontier Science? Honestly indiefoot, we have gotten so much mixed and dubious info in regards to the paper, who knows what's going on with it.... Edited February 4, 2012 by Wookie73 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I go by what Dr. K has said, the rest is blowing smoke, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) She hasn't really said anything either.... It's all very cryptic. ironically enough! Maybe it is just being careful not to screw up the data, maybe it is just bad info coming from Lindsay (that wouldn't surprise me) but it's really taken a long time for all of this to come together and , let's all be honest here, how many times have we been promised the Grail only to be left with a dixie cup when it comes to squatch stuff? Edited February 5, 2012 by Biggie Removed unnecessary quote of previous user from post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest can Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I read that they were still accepting samples fairly recently. At the cost involed, I would imagine it will continue until the benefactor closes shop. (Hermson?) Just looks a lot like they are milking him along. That is a probable profit motive to continue for them, and not to release any results. How long will people continue to buy it on promises instead of results will depend on? I'm convinced something is foul smelling, and its not a sasquatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 She has said, The samples are from multiple submitters and multiple locations. The testing was done by multiple labs. The results were not what was expected. The results identify a new primate and will vindicate the efforts of researchers in the field. The results have been put into a paper. The paper has been submitted to a stringent and thorough review. The amount of data that was submitted to support the paper was "scientific overkill". The paper should be published soon. Now the above is paraphrased from memory rather than gathering her statements, but I think I got the gist of what she has said herself publicly. That doesn't sound to me like. She hasn't really said anything either.... It's all very cryptic. ironically enough! Just trying to keep the facts as straight as possible in the midst of a "charlie foxtrot". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 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. Thanks for your answer, Indie - and a polite one at that I do appreciate you can only say so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 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? sy, If you really read postings carefully, you will note that in a post of mine I noted that the earlier copyright assumptions may have been based on maternal DNA (which read human, modern human, not hybrid or ancestral) and converted to Bigfoot DNA by linking eyewitness accounts to the samples and by morphologies of the samples. The problem with this approach is obvious---the DNA was human but considered Bigfoot based on anecdotal evidence and morphologies that could not rule out human. If the team was willing to go with a human Bigfoot (human DNA), then it was willing to "prove" Bigfoot any way it could. This seems the opposite of what should have occurred; no copyright until the evidence showed something genetically tangible. What if they were right? Intuition or bias? It will not matter. If the report is not definitive, it will matter how they came to their conclusions. 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. Mulder, For me, skeptical as I am, the door is still open to the existence of Bigfoot, if only slightly open. I agree that many folks, laymen and professional scientists alike, unfairly dismiss the possibility of Bigfoot's existence without further ado. I can see their reasoning, to a point --- negative evidence needs to be considered. But, there is a phenomena here that ought not be summarily dismissed. Personally, I have more respect for the late Dr. Krantz than I do for Dr. Meldrum. Krantz was converted to Bigfoot advocacy by the evidence as he perceived it. Meldrum, like many Bigfoot believers including myself at one time, became a believer in his youth, prior to his formal studies in science. In this, he is like some "scientific" creationists who held firm unorthodox (relating to science) views in their youth and sought scientific credentials in order to present their unorthodoxies as gleaming with scientific understanding. you are speculating on speculations, you might as well use a ouija board. Actually I was speculating on pieces of evidence via a copyright statement and a followup statement from Dr. Ketchum. Speculations are what we do here. At least I thought that was on the menu. me three. And when your priority is making money, other things will often suffer. I doubt that making money is the motive behind this venture. I doubt that the whole thing is a fraud. But if it turns out so, it will have been a "pious fraud", not a financial one. Call me naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) Jerry I didn't know you had more answers than a creationist. More guesses maybe. Edited February 5, 2012 by will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I guess I don't understand why folks get so fired up about the leak of information of a paper that might be published in some journal-to-be-named at some vague date in the future. Why not just wait until a paper is actually published in an actual journal and then we can discuss what's actually in that paper? If there are real bigfoots out there, the modicum of scrutiny that folks like me might express about potential evidence for it in an Internet discussion forum will NOT keep that evidence from ultimately coming to light. Sas, Also notice that some folks who think skeptics are jumping the gun and negatively analysing with a closed mind the DNA report before it is even published and seen, are the ones who are telling us what skeptics and scientists are going to say about the paper once it is published and seen, even before such comments are made. Jerry I didn't know you had more answers than a creationist. More guesses maybe. More questions too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts