southernyahoo Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 How do I know it hasn't been accepted? As soon as the paper is accepted and the word transmitted to Ketchum, it will be announced. Good grief, why do you think they have all this PR apparatus set up? So they can hide the fact that they have achieved their goal??????? I think Dr. Ketchum and Sally are getting prepaired for the aftermath post press release and publication. If this publishes , the interest could become overwhelming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Saskeptic, is it a thrush that sounds almost exactly like a cow elk? what species is it? Yep - Varied Thrush. Great photos Bill! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 At the same time, I think some should also not be so over-confident that the paper is going to show anything convincing. That can be equally embarassing. Let's not start sucking eachothers popsicles just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 not to derail, just supplimenting the above remark about Varied Thrush: saw this one outside my home last month. Bill You could have added some blur and noise. :] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Agree with arizona. Not getting my hopes up that there will be anything convincing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Well we only have speculation on that, 125-150 samples with only 3 that were chosen for complete sequencing. It remains to be seen, but to me three genomes of something unknown does not mean it is bigfoot, assuming any of it is true. Assuming the technical details of the study are done correctly (no lab error), all you need is ONE. DNA comes from a cirtter, and unknown dna comes from an unknown critter. It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) I've been under the distinct impression that the paper has been accepted and is now on the verge of publication--an impression bolstered by Sally Ramey's fine-grained discussion of weekly publication schedules and even specific embargo-lifting times (1:30 EST on an upcoming Thursday afternoon)--and yet now, just a few minutes ago, Melba writes on her FB page, "It will come out. There is too much data to refuse it," which seems to suggest that we have still only reached the journal's very early refusal/acceptance stage. May I just vent here, among friends? I am deeply, personally, emotionally invested in this drama, as are many dedicated and long-time Sasquatch researchers, and I feel jerked around. Can Sally or Melba at least guide us in the most general way, and let us know whether we are in the final endgame or still stuck in the preliminary weeds? Edited February 28, 2012 by Christopher Noel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EABiker Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 You could have added some blur and noise. :] \ And red circles! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 No apology necessary Mulder, you are looking at this as if we were looking at a piece of fruit and a visual difference could be observed between an apple and an orange, I understand that. It is so much more complicated than that and even though I've lost my patience in waiting on the results of the study, I fully understand why it is taking so long. To help you understand, you have a chromatogram that looks a lot like an EKG strip of v-fib, the sequencer detects the peaks for T,A,C, and G which are the four nucleotides. These can be confused if the sample is weak or if you have a noisy baseline on the sequencer. A run is a small segment of the billions of base pairs in the genome. Most transcription errors occur at the beginning and end of the run, the longer the run is, the greater chance for an error. You use a computer program to determine which peaks on the chromatogram correlate with one of the four nucleotides. The computer program is not infallible so you also have to visually look at it for errors. And that is a really, really basic description of what goes on in just reading the results. To put it even simpler terms, it's like a museum trying to decide whether an oil painting is actually an original Van Gogh or a knock off, it looks like the real thing but it might be a cheap imitation if something is a little off here and a little off there. How far off do the paint strokes have to be before you decide that this might actually be a different creature from anything else we have discovered/ That is how I see it. That is how DNA can be misinterpreted. DNA is DNA, but it can look different or the same depending on the perspective from which you observe it. Jodie, I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. I'm not looking at it as a "looks different" thing. DNA is the "construction code" for a critter. All critters of the same species have the same DNA (allowing for very minor differences for individuation) and each species has a unique set of dna that is distinct from all other species.. That is to say, for example, that all chimpanzees will have dna results that come back as chimpanzee, and could only have come from a chimpanzee. You could not get chimpanzee dna from an orangutan, or a gorilla, let alone from a non-primate. So, if we have a dna sample (properly processed with no lab error) that: a ) comes from a primate and b ) does not match any recorded primate, then it must logically follow that said dna comes from a non-recorded primate. There simply is no other explanation. I get that for most of us this would effectively prove Bigfoot for all intents and purposes. However, Jodie is right- proving there is an unknown primate out there does not necessarily mean it is Bigfoot. Maybe it's a previously-unknown North American tamarin. Is that likely? No. And if this study proves there is an unknown primate, then to me this is proof of the existence of Bigfoot. However, science requires more than that, as it should. Not if it's being intellectually honest. Where does it end? How many studies do we need? How many eyewitnesses, tracks, hairs, etc? The Skeptics asked for "hard science". I submit we gave it to them with the forensic hair analyses starting back in the 70s, Fahrenbach's track distribution paper, Meldrum's taxionomy paper, etc, but ok. So now (if it pans out) we have DNA. DNA is enough to get a man killed in a court of law. It's settled science. And now the Skeptics want (and have managed somehow to even get some proponents on board wanting) MORE. And they'll say the same frakking thing next time: "Well, it isn't 'conclusive'...give us more". And the 100 yard football field becomes 150 yards, then 200 yards, then 1000 yards. Nothing will ever be enough for them. Even if we DID slap a slab monkey down in front of them there'd be at least one of them who would say "Now show me another"... Enough is enough, in my opinion. It's time for proponents to stop giving ground to the Skeptics. If this DNA study holds, then we've met their demands, and we should be prepared to demand that they acknowledge it. I appears to me that no one has confirmed that this paper has been accepted for publication. My question is why are we acting like this paper has been accepted for publication when in fact it never has been confirmed that the paper has been accepted for publication. For what it is worth, Matt Moneymaker confirmed that the paper had been rejected by Nature. Due to the length of time that has passed, it is safe that it has been rejected by other journals as well. That's what Matt claimed. And, no, it's NOT safe to assume it has been rejected by other journals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Mulder, I don't really understand your motivation. What are you trying to accomplish? Do you want to convince the general public that Bigfoot exists, or do you want to convince hardcore deniers that Bigfoot exists? You obviously seem to have no doubt yourself... likely you have had an encounter? If that's the case, then the closer we get the happier you should be. People who are "intellectually honest" as you say, will be able to put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4 when and if this study comes to the conclusion we are all expecting. Many fence-sitters will hop on over, and many once-skeptics will be much more willing to believe in the possibility. That's as good as you are going to get. However, if you are looking for world-wide consensus, then it is going to take much more than what is obvious to you and I. It is going to take their "slab-monkey". How does that change things for you though? Proponents are not "giving ground" to the skeptics. This is not something to be won or lost. There are many things that people chose to not believe. There will never be 100% consensus on ANYTHING. Some people question evolution. Some people question that the dinosaurs existed. At least skeptics are not like the previous two examples; at least they are science-minded. Beyond that, it will happen when it will happen. If Sas is really out there, then it is inevitable that we will have our slab monkey one day. If anyone still denies it, then it is laughable. That's THEIR problem, not ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Well Mulder, I didn't realize I was on a side. I thought I had an opinion about bigfoot that is based on some experiences skeptical people just haven't had. My opinion about the DNA study has nothing to do with that stance. My take on the DNA study is based on what training I've had ( not much) in genetic counseling and the research being done with X linked disorders and other birth defects that I keep up with for my job.....based on that, I can't see how this is going to work out, it just isn't that simplistic. However, if it does pan out, I certainly won't be disappointed. As I've said before, I'll reserve a final opinion based on what she says she did and what the geneticists specializing in sequencing human and primate DNA have to say about the study results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I've been under the distinct impression that the paper has been accepted and is now on the verge of publication--an impression bolstered by Sally Ramey's fine-grained discussion of weekly publication schedules and even specific embargo-lifting times (1:30 EST on an upcoming Thursday afternoon)--and yet now, just a few minutes ago, Melba writes on her FB page, "It will come out. There is too much data to refuse it," which seems to suggest that we have still only reached the journal's very early refusal/acceptance stage. May I just vent here, among friends? I am deeply, personally, emotionally invested in this drama, as are many dedicated and long-time Sasquatch researchers, and I feel jerked around. Can Sally or Melba at least guide us in the most general way, and let us know whether we are in the final endgame or still stuck in the preliminary weeds? My personal expectation is that if we ever get to see the complete history of the paper that we'll find a number of prestigious journals who passed on it citing BS reasons like "no testable hypothesis". BF is too big of a scientific "hot potato" and is viewed by most "mainstream" scientists as a reputation/career-killer. Likewise with the journals. Well Mulder, I didn't realize I was on a side. I thought I had an opinion about bigfoot that is based on some experiences skeptical people just haven't had. My opinion about the DNA study has nothing to do with that stance. My take on the DNA study is based on what training I've had ( not much) in genetic counseling and the research being done with X linked disorders and other birth defects that I keep up with for my job.....based on that, I can't see how this is going to work out, it just isn't that simplistic. However, if it does pan out, I certainly won't be disappointed. As I've said before, I'll reserve a final opinion based on what she says she did and what the geneticists specializing in sequencing human and primate DNA have to say about the study results. Ugh...you're probably right, Jodie...I'm just sick of having to fight Skeptics tooth and nail on every single evidentiary point regarding BF. I swear some of them would ask for 5 peer-reviewed papers to support the statement "the sky is blue"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Would be nice to have an phd anthropologist working on this. especially if it is human dna. am i right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Mulder, If this works out and I hate this phrase ...... But it's a win - win Dont worry we will have plenty of other stuff to discuss! I know it's hard to believe but most of us here are on the same side! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) I've been under the distinct impression that the paper has been accepted and is now on the verge of publication--an impression bolstered by Sally Ramey's fine-grained discussion of weekly publication schedules and even specific embargo-lifting times (1:30 EST on an upcoming Thursday afternoon)--and yet now, just a few minutes ago, Melba writes on her FB page, "It will come out. There is too much data to refuse it," which seems to suggest that we have still only reached the journal's very early refusal/acceptance stage. May I just vent here, among friends? I am deeply, personally, emotionally invested in this drama, as are many dedicated and long-time Sasquatch researchers, and I feel jerked around. Can Sally or Melba at least guide us in the most general way, and let us know whether we are in the final endgame or still stuck in the preliminary weeds? I don't think you are being jerked around here Christopher, this forum was informed back in the summer 2011 that the paper was submitted and in review through statements from Melba to Steve Kulls.. I don't think Melba would seem so confident if things were not in good order and closer to the endgame. Mulder, I think we have an emoticon made just for you, and you should get to use it. Edited February 29, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts