The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

The problem with using this as an analogy for sasquatch is that there is a well-known history of hoaxing, which has to be taken into account with any evidence presented for examination. If it can be hoaxed, I guess that you have to assume that it has been hoaxed unless there is evidence to the contrary, sad as that is.

No you do not. That is not "scientific". That is making an assumption w/o evidence. It is fallacious logic, poor argumentation, and no real scientist would do such a thing.

Oh, and in my list of publication possibilities to which you had responded, if Ketchum's analysis is "right-on" as I put it, then the tissue from which she obtained the DNA is the specimen. We can't lose sight of this basic fact, because I think it's the only one isolated to-date on which both Mulder and I agree.

*faints*

After a few minutes stirs and looks around for the airborn pigs...

[Guest]

Very good, then I can expect the formal admission by institutional science that: 1) they were wrong and 2) there is good scientific evidence for BF to be published in the immediate future!

Progress at last!

Why wouldn't you accept. "Until now, we did not have enough evidence that Bigfoot existed. Now, an incredible new paper has demonstrated, and been repeated by others to demonstrate, that there is indeed a new hominid."

I'm suspecting this for you wouldn't suffice.

[TimB]

Here's a tangential question- what, if any exists, is the current methodology for studying indigenous "tribes" who have "no" contact with western culture? Could not some or all of these methodologies be applied to the "study" of these beings since a pure biological research model could prove impossible or detrimental to these populations? Perhaps a blend of biological and anthropological methodologies would have a great success in convincing the scientific community of the results.

Tim B.

[Guest]

With the right evidence, it would be very easy to prove the existence of bigfoot. Throw a body up on a table and the discussion ends. That is assuming the body is clearly distinguishable from a human being. Proving that bigfoot does not exists is much more difficult if not impossible. What evidence proves that bigfoot does not exists. What piece of evidence would affirmatively prove the non-existence of bigfoot. Some of you it seems to me are taking the position that Kethcum's conclusion that bf is a modern human is true until proven otherwise. That is asking someone to prove a negative and I think that is partly what Parn is trying to explain.

Suppose for the sake of argument that I went into town and spotted a 6 foot 5 inch 290 pound muscled bound man with a whole lot of body hair. Although the body hair is extreme, it is in the range found in human beings. Let's suppose 1 out of million. Well, one day while hunting for bears, I spot this unfortunate gentleman I saw in town earlier. I shot him dead and then claim I shot a bigfoot. I hire Dr. Mustard to conduct DNA analysis and lo and behold bigfoot is a modern human. Dr.Mustard and I become famous for proving the existence of bigfoot. She publishes a few papers and make a bunch a money on a documentary.

With out a body or sample that is clearly outside the norm for a human being or the norm of any known animal; or DNA clearly outside the norm for a human being or any known animal, you cannot prove the existence of bigfoot. You would not need both dna or sample, just one would do. But it has to be outside the norm for a human being. A sample or body that is within the norm for a human being and dna of the sample within the norm for a human being proves nothing but that you have a human being. It is no different from the hairy man in my example above.

Edited February 7, 2012 by bigfootnis

[Guest parnassus]

indie,

why did you post the Stubstad statement? I didn't claim that Stubstad knows anything about nuclear DNA.

p

(Relating to above post #2044) Well put, bfn

let me just add this: not being identical to any modern human DNA sequence in GenBank does NOT make a sample outside the norm for a modern human. I think that is where Stubstad and Ketchum got off track.

p.

Edited February 7, 2012 by parnassus
to remove previous quoted post

[Guest gershake]

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.

Naah, not really.

Not a lot of people gave theirs, but I'm still within my time frame.

[indiefoot]

indie,

why did you post the Stubstad statement? I didn't claim that Stubstad knows anything about nuclear DNA.

p

Parnassus,

You and a number of others jumped on the copyright apps and immediatly started citing them as the conclusions of her study when both she and Stubstat have said clearly that they were very early and incomplete. Richard S. states that they were based on the very first mtDNA results.

The way that you and other are using them amounts to a "strawman argument". I see a number of problems with using those copyright apps as citations to support your arguments that she has concluded that her purported BF samples are all homo sapiens. The final published study will tell us what she has concluded.JMO

[southernyahoo]

It's also misleading to paraphrase someone out of context.

Clearly, my quip about editors and authors having opposite motivations referred to process of peer review. Once a manuscript is found to be appropriate for publication, editors can be quite helpful in getting it ready, and I never indicated otherwise.

Well you can just "say" anything, but the question is if you're uttering something of substance.

What is this "human nature" you think that I've conveniently omitted from my comments about publishing bigfoot papers? I still don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps if you articulated it clearly instead of writing in coded inuendo, I might.

It's like this: imagine there's a bigfoot on a slab, and someone has written up a manuscript about it. There is absolutely no doubt that this was (lately) a real, live bigfoot that is now dead. I'm the editor of the journal to which the manuscript has been submitted. Myself, my staff, and the peer reviewers are 100% on board - bigfoot is real! The analysis is irrefutable and the paper is very well written. Other than elation at my good fortune to have been editor when this discovery took place, what human nature do you think would keep me from giving the paper the green light in my journal?

If your answer is "none," congratulations.

Now imagine what we think we know about Dr. Ketchum's analysis. Is the case it presents as open and shut as what I described in my "body on a slab" scenario? If so, it should be published. If not, then it's not "human nature" that might keep the work from being published, it's the inability to be 100% confident in the work.

If you have a bigfoot on a slab, who needs a paper?

It's a pretty simple point Sas, Science isn't a machine where if X and Y occurs then Z happens. It's comprised of people with differing points of view, predispositions, bias, paradigms and actually seems to thrive on disagreement.

It would seem to me that authors and editors "should" have the same end goal "motivation" of quality and advancement in knowledge. I don't understand your assertions that they have opposite motivations. Does an editor get a bonus for rejecting papers or something?

[Guest]

If you have a bigfoot on a slab, who needs a paper?

The rest of the world who don't have a chance to personally examine said slab.

It's a pretty simple point Sas, Science isn't a machine where if X and Y occurs then Z happens. It's comprised of people with differing points of view, predispositions, bias, paradigms and actually seems to thrive on disagreement.

Right, but you've not been specific about what sort of view, bias, paradigm, etc. would keep an editor from publishing a paper demonstrating the existence of bigfoot if that Editor was fully convinced of the analysis in the paper. This is why I asked what there is to be "scared" of in publishing a bigfoot paper. If science demonstrates that there's bigfoots, then there's bigfoots.

It would seem to me that authors and editors "should" have the same end goal "motivation" of quality and advancement in knowledge. I don't understand your assertions that they have opposite motivations. Does an editor get a bonus for rejecting papers or something?

Again, you're introducing points from a subtle argument from some time ago. Was this discussion earlier in this thread? You seem to indicate that you could track it down.

Here it is context-free: As an author, my motivation is to publish as many papers as I can. Papers are my bread and butter. They are how my boss evaluates my performance over the previous year. As an editor, my motivation is to increase the stock - literally the Journal Impact Factor - of the papers I decide to publish in my journal. That means I strive to publish only the best and most original papers I can, and reject the rest. Many of those "rest" might be really great papers, and in the scrutiny to figure out which ones make the cut, we actually look for things to be wrong with papers. An editor actively tries to come up with reasons not to publish each paper he reviews; those for which no such reason can be found are likely to be published. In this way, journal space is increasingly devoted to the best papers.

Let's say you receive 100 papers in a year and you have space in your journal to publish 25 of them. So you need to weed out 75 of those 100 papers. Ten of them are truly great and you'll publish them for sure; ten others are obviously flawed and will be rejected outright. So now you have space for 15 papers and you've got 80 to consider. They're all good papers, prepared by professionals with interesting data and analysis and they are all well-written. How do you decide which 15 make the cut and which 65 don't?

[Guest parnassus]

Parnassus,

You and a number of others jumped on the copyright apps and immediatly started citing them as the conclusions of her study when both she and Stubstat have said clearly that they were very early and incomplete. Richard S. states that they were based on the very first mtDNA results.

The way that you and other are using them amounts to a "strawman argument". I see a number of problems with using those copyright apps as citations to support your arguments that she has concluded that her purported BF samples are all homo sapiens. The final published study will tell us what she has concluded.JMO

Ah, careful on that charge, Indie. I have never that I know of cited them as the conclusions of a forthcoming paper. I may have cited them as being exactly what I predicted. I may have said that I and others have looked at them and found them less than convincing. But I have not, that I recall, cited them as her forthcoming paper. If I did, that was certainly premature. I can't speak to your idea of "a number of others" other than to say that I don't think that "number" is much more than one.

I do think, having said that, that the gist of that document still more or less reflects her thinking, and hence, what she is trying to get published. I mean, she may have more data, but she can't just throw away that other data. Did she change her interpetation of what it meant? well, I think it is unlikely that in view of all of her statements and those of Paulides (some quite recent), that she has suddenly changed her verdict from black to white. Could she still come up with something that falls outside the human range? it's possible....was it the Sierra steak? doesn't look like it.....not from what Meldrum seems to have found, not to mention the absurd nature of the whole tale.

I have never said that Stubstad knows the nuclear DNA results or any results after the first three. However, some of these nuDNA results are mentioned in Ketchum's copyright document. I think I have made that clear; but I have stated my opinion that Stubstad had an influence on her thinking as far as the faulty probability ideas and the "if it isn't in GenBank, it isn't modern human" error, which I think she is making.

p.

Edited February 7, 2012 by parnassus

[Guest RayG]

If the DNA says Homo sapiens, then it seems like a non-starter to me.

But according to Mulder, it could be Homo sapiens and NOT be human!!

RayG

[Guest]

Ah, careful on that charge, Indie. I have never that I know of cited them as the conclusions of a forthcoming paper.

Try not to crash while your peddling that bicycle backwards.

TA DA!!

I believe I win the office pool on this one, thank you very much. Human mtDNA, human nuDNA....aka, modern human.

[southernyahoo]

Thats a sad state of affairs there Sas, because they all could be advancing knowledge, if they were only published. Thats if they are all great papers and not subject to other motives and limitations of the Journal.

Right, but you've not been specific about what sort of view, bias, paradigm, etc. would keep an editor from publishing a paper demonstrating the existence of bigfoot if that Editor was fully convinced of the analysis in the paper. This is why I asked what there is to be "scared" of in publishing a bigfoot paper. If science demonstrates that there's bigfoots, then there's bigfoots.

I think you will understand someday, even though you may not admit it.

[Guest parnassus]

Try not to crash while your peddling that bicycle backwards.

nope, that doesn't say it was in her forthcoming paper. my point all along was the error she was making, and that illustrated it. you can straw man all you want, but you are the one who has to turn the cranks backwards on your bicycle. Well, you don't have to, no one will make you. But you should.

[Guest Wookie73]

Why would that be a sad state of affairs? He only has room for 25 papers! He can't conjur up more space! It's not like the rejected quality papers will never be seen. They will move on to other journals and eventually they will be published. Plus, regardless of publishing they will be discussed at symposiums and other scientific meetings.

Good data isn't ever left behind. That has been Bigfootery's problem, the lack of good data.