Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Maybe next Thursday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 What do you read into them ? To be blunt, I see more bigfoot hype. That's probably just me being my usual skeptical self, but I don't have a lot of hope that this time things will be different. If Ketchum submitted her paper to Nature for example, she should have been able to release an earlier version of that paper on a personal blog if she wished, instead of complaining about skeptical scientists. Nature's page on confidentiality and pre-publicity states: "You are welcome to post pre-submission versions or the original submitted version of the manuscript on a personal blog, a collaborative wiki or a preprint server at any time (but not subsequent pre-accept versions that evolve due to the editorial process)." Instead we get cryptic comments, speculation, and hype. It just seems a little 'off' to me. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 17, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 17, 2012 Well you know RayG that pesky BF video project can be the tie that binds if the relationship is as described..... so maybe they decided to skip the foreplay so to speak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Yet while Dr. Ketchum says she's anxious to get the info out to the public, Dr. Ketchum is the one preventing that, not Nature. (If I'm reading their statement on pre-publicity correctly). Of course I'm only speculating that it was submitted, reviewed, and being published by Nature, instead of a lesser-known journal. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Here's something I find promising. In a comment about Sally Ramey and the peer review process, Ketchum wrote: I also especially appreciate my peers that trusted me enough to help with this journey of discovery and believe in it enough to risk their outstanding reputations by putting their names on this paper. Their support is priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 17, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Yeah, here's the larger comment: You can also trust what Sally Ramey says about peer review and other paper related things, she is part of our team, helping with general information and press. There are are a lot of other unsung heroes that will receive their credit at the appropriate times. The effort is not just mine, there are many people involved and I appreciate every single one of them more than anyone knows. I also especially appreciate my peers that trusted me enough to help with this journey of discovery and believe in it enough to risk their outstanding reputations by putting their names on this paper. Their support is priceless So I guess the speculation will begin about how many "peers" and which heavy hitters are co-authors?! And, don't forget the "unsung heroes"? Edited February 17, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted February 17, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted February 17, 2012 BA....I think it would probably be far easier to get real sasquatch DNA than to fake a study on this scale. We're talking 200 samples, apparently, 28 different individual sasquatches, and multiple independant labs testing samples "blindly".......how are you going to fake that? We've moved on a bit since the Piltdown Man saga. And have you considered the career-ending impact of such a long drawn out fraud for professional people? No, I bet your house that there is no fraud involved. That isn't to say that I bet the science stacks up, because it would be stupid to pre-judge the report and all its associated stuff..........but it won't be fraudulent. Mike Don't let the truth get in the way of negativity towards this subject from a new member who has a red flag as his/her avatar though Mike.. To be blunt, I see more bigfoot hype. That's probably just me being my usual skeptical self, but I don't have a lot of hope that this time things will be different. If Ketchum submitted her paper to Nature for example, she should have been able to release an earlier version of that paper on a personal blog if she wished, instead of complaining about skeptical scientists. Nature's page on confidentiality and pre-publicity states: "You are welcome to post pre-submission versions or the original submitted version of the manuscript on a personal blog, a collaborative wiki or a preprint server at any time (but not subsequent pre-accept versions that evolve due to the editorial process)." Instead we get cryptic comments, speculation, and hype. It just seems a little 'off' to me. RayG I completely understand where you're coming from. But like you also said Ray, it's just speculation regarding " Nature " in the first place so......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Does the term human have an agreed upon definition. From what I've read it's debated along with "intellegence". http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CGAQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msu.edu%2F~robin400%2Fsapiensmodern.html&ei=oWI-T63BBsOg2gXrs_mPCA&usg=AFQjCNGoiGm6pLzzU-guApmw7WxRoh_bEQ&sig2=MrccX4KijyFZ29o8wxyBoQ The Homo sapiens (modern), also known as Homo sapiens sapiens, http://www.roperld.com/homosapienevents.htm Homo sapiens sapiens (Hss) Events http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CGcQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.halexandria.org%2Fdward189.htm&ei=oWI-T63BBsOg2gXrs_mPCA&usg=AFQjCNEc1ULH1Qiny_0qPYeu9hpMwQg2Cg&sig2=niw9N0DHGtYVA-xyhhyMYQ Their primary significance is in pointing to the time when anatomically modern human beings, Homo sapiens sapiens, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CG8QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecotao.com%2Fholism%2Fhu_sap.htm&ei=oWI-T63BBsOg2gXrs_mPCA&usg=AFQjCNH2YzXThT4O8CuWPsKaDj1kokddoQ&sig2=BYO2l2rAz_szyTewLu2QbQ . No hominid (see hominid books) fossils but those of Homo sapiens sapiens Game. Set. Match. I expect to hear no more of this. HSS is human and humans are HSS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 When I read her posts on Facebook, I thought the report had been released. It's a great way to keep the interest level up... Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) 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? Please note the emphasized portions below: Hairs retrieved from a bush in 1968 near Riggins, Idaho were given to Roy Pinker, a police science instructor at California State University, Los Angeles. Pinker concluded that the hair samples did not match any samples from known animal species. Pinker also stated that he could not attribute them as being Bigfoot hairs without a bonafide Bigfoot hair sample to compare to. Hair samples were also taken from a house located on the Lummi Indian reservation in Washington. Three more samples were retrieved from Maryland, Oregon and California. Forensic Anthropologist Dr. Ellis R. Kerley and Physical Anthropologist Dr. Stephen Rosen of the University of Maryland, as well as Tom Moore, the Supervisor of the Wyoming Game and Fish Laboratory, examined the hair samples and stated that all the hair samples matched in terms of belonging to a "non species specific mammal". They concurred in finding that the four sets matched each other, were similar to gorilla and human but were neither, and they did not match 84 other species of North American mammals.5 In 2005 Geneticists at the University of Alberta had DNA tested hair samples that allegedly came from a Sasquatch. The results were much anticipated and in the event they turned out to be Bison hairs. However, four years earlier in 2001, hair samples which were found during an expedition to find the Yeti were DNA tested by professor Malcolm Sykes of Oxford University. The surprising conclusion was that Sykes was not able to match the DNA to any known animal. "We have never encountered any DNA that we couldn't recognize before," said Sykes, a pioneer of DNA identification as the first genetist to extract DNA from archaeological bone specimens. http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/other_forms_of_bigfoot_evidenc.html Edited February 17, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted February 17, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted February 17, 2012 A certain Ohio Night shot from a Cam has just popped again today on FB. I thought it wasn't allowed to until this was all done & the NDA stopped it after MK pulled the Video from being public ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Ohio night shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Please note the emphasized portions below: Wasn't a new primate found later in the general area where the hair Dr.Sykes examined was collected? I'm thinking there just wasn't enough information for publication. What part of what body did the hairs come from? "We don't know what these are" makes for a short paper. Still, it's intriguing and people were looking into it. One thing that got my attention was the parasites also mentioned on the site. I read about that in one of John Green's books years and years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 My guess is that the frozen crow is going to remain safely packed away in the freezer. We've seen the hype over bigfoot pronouncements a number of times in the past, and still no bigfoot. I predict this will be no different. I hope I'm wrong. I'd love to be wrong, but my inner skeptic is whispering 'I doubt it'. RayG And just what would her alleged motivation be for attempting to go this far to push a "nothing" finding? I just had a thought. What if this is just another hoax but brought into the 21st century on a bigger scale than any previous hoax with the DNA results in fact being faked in some way. They sure will make a lot of money if they found "Bigfoot". I find that highly unlikely. Such a "hoax" would destroy a business she has no doubt worked tirelessly to get off the ground and keep going. Her professional reputation would be so ruined she'd likely have to find another career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I can understand the skepticism over the delays. I can also understand the delays over the skepticism. I have to agree with the people on here who have stated there are to many careers at stake to perpetuate a hoax. Any money made from a hoax would certainly pale in comparison to money lost with the crash of a good career. If this pans out, considering what has been leaked about the DNA, it is not going to be ground breaking just because its a Sasquatch, it would be a new frontier in genetics as well. I think we could potentially see a whole new debate, about that word Human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts