Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Ok its Thursday so what does the paper say guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 More to the point though, "unidentified" hair does not mean "bigfoot hair" any more than "unidentified flying object" means that the Klingons are about to launch their invasion. When hairs are described as "unknown mammal" or "unknown primate", who would you list as theoretical donors? How many "unkown" mammals or primates are rumored to be running around out there with 2-5 inch hair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Thanks for a great answer Saskeptic, I appreciate you taking the time to explain it, I admit, I am still hope full Ketchum and the crew can come up with something amazing here,her specific mention of FoxP2,RUNX2, and MC1R ,is interesting, more interesting if she talking Homo sapiens (unknown) verses Homo sapiens sapiens, although they both are within the realm of possibility, I certainly have been told an unknown Homo sapien would be a more realistic expectation, if we can call any expectation realistic. and please,don't assume I have any real level of understanding here lololol Edited February 16, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 How many "unkown" mammals or primates are rumored to be running around out there with 2-5 inch hair? You may interpret "unknown" as confirmation of something never described; to me it means "can't tell for sure." My interpretation is the one that explains why none of these experts with the alleged awesome analysis have published this stuff. I attached three papers on analysis of alleged bigfoot/yeti hairs - these prove that journals WILL publish this stuff. So, where are the papers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 My prediction. This thread will reach 100 pages. I said it a long time ago and it is turning out to be true. There will be no peer review published paper by Dr. Ketchum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 im calling 200 pages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 saskeptic, The three papers you attached had conclusions to report. The hairs were from known animals. If the ID remains unkown there is no basis for a conlusion to report in a paper, but there are some interesting questions that arise, IMO. Where is the paper? It's the one that some are attempting to run throught the shredder before they get their hands on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iacozizzle Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 My prediction. This thread will reach 100 pages. I said it a long time ago and it is turning out to be true. There will be no peer review published paper by Dr. Ketchum. Dr Evil and myself think it will reach one THOUSAND pages at which point the alternate thread title will be "The Millenium Ketchum" It's Thursday who is prepared to make the jump to light speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 LOL that's awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sandman Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 To mulder There is no hard evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 To sandman Your attempt to illicit an argument is in no way transparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) This was posted on bfevedience, About The Peer-Review Process And When To Expect The Press Embargo To Be Lifted [Ketchum Study] With all the recent rumors swirling around about the peer-review process and press embargo, we decided to reach out to a person close to the matter. Sally Ramey is the Public Relations person behind Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA study. She was kind enough to direct us to her notes where she describes the processes that must take place before a press embargo gets lifted. According to Sally, most journals publish on Fridays and most embargos lift on Thursday afternoons. She also suggests that when the press embargo gets lifted, most media outlets generally break the news around Thursdays at 1:30PM EST. Another wave of news will follow about half an hour to an hour after the initial news release. "All I can tell you is to watch NBC's Web site at 2 p.m. on every Thursday until it happens. They seem to be quicker on the update button," Sally tells us. "ABC is next." Here's what Sally wrote in her notes about the peer-review process: Lots of people have recently been wondering about the process of publishing scientific papers. Here is the basic process, based on my experience doing PR in higher ed: The researcher prepares a paper about their findings and submits it to a scientific journal for peer-review, which can take MONTHS. The paper is reviewed by a team of scientists with expertise in the discipline(s) involved in the researcher's work. They decide if the research was conducted according to standards and practices accepted by the scientific community, and review the findings to see if they pass muster. It's like a professor checking your work in college. If the review team has questions, they can ask the researcher to provide more info, run more tests, get someone else to run tests that replicate the work, etc. This can delay publication but it is sometimes necessary. ONLY after the review team is satisfied is the paper accepted for publication. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is the scientific community's "stamp of approval" that the work is valid. The journal must then figure out when to publish the paper. Some journals work weeks/months in advance, adding further delay. Some work faster, meaning that the paper might run within a few weeks. At some point, the researcher is notified that they have a "pub date." In my experience, you often only know about three weeks out when your paper will publish. Once there is a pub date, the researcher (typically university-based) works with their campus PR folks and the journal editorial and PR staff to be sure that images are prepared for publication, news releases are written and reviewed, and everyone is prepared for the announcement. If the news is HUGE, the researcher will be interviewed by the science media, under a strict embargo, the week before the pub date. Most journals publish on Fridays and most embargos lift on Thursday afternoons. The science media, journal PR folks and university PR folks all post their stories and news releases upon the lifting of the embargo. This is why big science news seems to be posted everywhere at once. - it actually is. If the story is HUGE HUGE HUGE, any news conference would be held when the embargo lifts, unless the journal allows it to happen early due to scheduling conflicts - the journal drives the schedule - no one else. And NO ONE can publicly discuss the paper, its pub date, what journal is involved, the findings or other contents in advance of the embargo or the journal will not publish the paper. This preserves the credibility and sanctity of the peer-review process. Hope this info is helpful. SOURCE: http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/02/about-peer-review-process-and-when-to.html#moretop Edited February 17, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 In my humble opinion, for what it's worth, I do not think many scientists would bother to attempt publication on the topic of unidentified hairs. The main reason, I would think, is because the origin cannot be identified. There is even the chance that the hairs are identifiable, but a qualitative analysis was flawed. Basically, there isn't anything "definitive" to publish. Due to the fact that scientists have careers to think about, I just do not see why many would try to publish results that have come up inconclusive...And since bigfoot hasn't been proven to exist, that is exactly what the results are, besides the mistakes made in identification. That is what I think, whether my point is valid or not. I would love to be corrected though. Another thing that piques my interest is that supposedly some of these hairs have resembled primate hairs, yet are not identifiable. And since I already stated I do not believe any scientist would publish these results, I do not see a problem that there is no scientific material to address. But, as I mentioned, these results can be false positives for unknown species, therefore it is imperative that more than a simple visual analysis is conducted, whenever possible, which it seems is not that often. I personally do not think we need to bother with hair samples at this junction, where it seems we are ready to traverse from believing bigfoot is a myth, as a majority opinion, to accepting it as a living creature. That is just a "feeling" I have had for the past month or two...Nothing definitive though, lol. We are just wasting energy collecting hair samples, because there is not much that can be done with them, and that time could be better spent doing some other type of research or analysis. After the species has been proven to exist to the masses, then and only then will we need hair samples. Again, just my personal opinion. As far as the HSS debate, from what I understand there is still a rift between different factions in the scientific community. Some believe in Homo sapiens neandertalensis, while some do not believe they are a sub-species...I don't know myself, so I cannot say one way or the other with any certainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 southern yahoo, I've been looking at your Texla research website, specifically here: http://www.texlaresearch.com/hairanalysis.htm . Are you confident that the hair samples are from sasquatch? And could you make clear something that is puzzling to me. "Unknown" hair is compared to chimp and bear. This unknown hair does not match either chimp or bear, nor does it resemble the image above it of "alleged Sasquatch hair." Am I right to think that the "unknown" hair is alleged sasquatch hair under higher magnification and this accounts for the difference? As presented, the unknown hair seems at least a facsimile of the bovine and equine hair that are also on display. Also, you make an argument why the hair is probably not just run of the mill human based on the fact that the hair appears not to have been cut previously. But you don't share with us a microscopic image of human hair on that page (unless I missed it) for comparison purposes. Your consulting scientists make things cloudy, with one proclaiming bear, another saying not bear, one suggesting bovine, as well as not matching any known creature. The hair was submitted to Dr. Ketchum. So, repeating myself, are you confident the samples are sasquatch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) ^Given our differing opinions on the word "safe", if we ever find ourselves on a small plane with engine trouble, please let me be the one to check the parachutes. I think there's probably overstated uniqueness and unsubstantiated rumor at work there JohnC. I don't know of a single paper that resulted from any of those examples, though I do know of others that did make it into print. The Wu et al. paper concludes that Chinese "wildmen" exist, based on analysis of isotopic ratios in a hair sample. The Milinkovitch et al. paper concludes that the DNA obtained from a putative yeti sample actually came from a horse. The hair analysis stuff can be frustrating. For example, what's up with Sykes? His statements are almost cavalier regarding his analysis of putative yeti hairs, but I can't finding anything he's published on them. Surely he's a guy he gets how groundbreaking his result would be, . . . if it really was. I suspect the reason he hasn't published on it is because he doesn't think he's really got enough to pass peer review, i.e., there are other explanations for the result he got. We need to be mindful that "unknown higher primate" or somesuch designations don't necessarily rule out humans. It might just mean that the furthest they could go in the analysis was primate - hominid. To identify "bigfoot" based on a unique DNA signature, it's got to be a UNIQUE signature, and it has to placeable on a hominid phylogenetic tree. That's the only way it could be truly distinguishable as not human or chimp or gorilla, but close, and definitely something new. This is why what we're hearing about the Ketchum analysis is so puzzling. If what they're getting is Homo sapiens, then it's awfully hard to confirm that it's not Homo sapiens sapiens, and awfully hard to justify such a DNA result with hairy forest giants that lack technology essential to the description of our species. Wuetal1993.pdfMilinkovitchetal2004.pdf ColtmanandDavis2006.pdf eta, zigoapex, I know I was just being cheeky in my initial response, but let me make sure I'm clear on why I think it isn't "safe" to make the assumption you intimated: Both the Milinkovitch et al. and Coltman and Davis papers analyzed hairs recovered from locations with extensive corroborating data that might suggest the hairs came from yeti and bigfoot, respectively. Surely the people who submitted them for analysis were fully convinced that they had the real deal. I already mentioned the yeti result; the Coltman and Davis paper found the "bigfoot" hair to be bison hair. Well, if you see the word " SAFE " being used in the same manor you are using it, I'd also hate to be on a plane with you , A guy coming on the plane and greets his friend by saying "Hi Jack" you would be in full cardiac arrest, and if it came down to me giving you mouth to mouth to revive you, well guess it would be " SAFE " to say that your funeral plans would be made in the not so distant future. Edited February 17, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts