Guest Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Show me evidence to suggest there is NOT such a paper. Dr Ketchum has everything to lose and nothing to gain by pulling a hoax. She's "all in" (to use gambling parlance) at this point. She must be convinced that she has something signigicant to risk her personal, professional, and business credentials in such a manner. I am not saying this is a hoax. I am saying that the paper will not be published in a recognized reputable scientific journal. I am saying that the paper won't prove the that bigfoot exists. Obviously, I can not prove the non-existence of such a paper. I can infer that the paper will note be noteworthy outside the bf world by the fact the paper has not been published to date. My question is where is the evidence that such a paper will be published. As I recall, the general consensus was that this was not going to happen if the paper was not published sometime in 2011. We are now 2.5 months into 2012 and no date has be set for publication. There has been no confirmation from any source that the paper has been accepted for publication by a journal. If I am wrong, please show me where this is confirmed. I am also curious why this paper is continually being hyped with unsubstantiated statements about what the paper will say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Consensus by whom? Robert Lindsey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Please stop trying to insult our intelligence with this. M. Is that supposed to be a counterargument or just a derail? table pounding? handwaving? shiny object? demagoguery? When you say "our," you are referring to yours and who elses? the mouse in your pocket? and when you say "this," which part of my post are you referring to? p. Indie, continuum fallacy involves a response to a vague claim. "All" was the descriptor you used. "All" is not a vague claim. It is exactly NOT what the continuum fallacy addresses. try again. I think you accidentally included your thoughts in my quotation. (he said, advisedly...) p. Edited March 8, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I am not saying this is a hoax. I am saying that the paper will not be published in a recognized reputable scientific journal. I am saying that the paper won't prove the that bigfoot exists. Obviously, I can not prove the non-existence of such a paper. I can infer that the paper will note be noteworthy outside the bf world by the fact the paper has not been published to date. My question is where is the evidence that such a paper will be published. As I recall, the general consensus was that this was not going to happen if the paper was not published sometime in 2011. We are now 2.5 months into 2012 and no date has be set for publication. There has been no confirmation from any source that the paper has been accepted for publication by a journal. If I am wrong, please show me where this is confirmed. I am also curious why this paper is continually being hyped with unsubstantiated statements about what the paper will say. I heard that the Journal containing her paper will be published soon. There is a rumor that it will be in Science. I sincerely believe that the DNA results that is contained in Melba's paper will be ground breaking and will go a long way towards verifying this species. Apparently the various journals' results are published on-line by news sources around 10:30 in the morning up to noon, especially early though by NBC news on-line. Keep an eye out on Thursday and Friday mornings for info about any new releases regarding DNA and the BF species.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise. WIKI. "Many" would be more precise, but the thought would be the same. Edited March 8, 2012 by indiefoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I do know for a fact that Melba's paper will be published by upstanding journal such as Science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 how would you describe this Homo sapiens sapiens to your local reporter? p. not as 7' tall, hairy, unclothed or neckless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I'm tempted to use this as my avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I wish you would JDL....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 We already have it. It is just tied up in tendons. The tendons act as a sort of spring. When the tendons get stretched, you get flat feet and it causes problems because our foot isn't built for that. I would think something like a flexible foot could evolve pretty quickly given all that. That's interesting, BobZ. If foot morphology is so plastic, maybe it shouldn't be used in helping make phylogenetic trees for hominins. Is that your take? And by the way, Bob, I've had this nagging in the back of my brain for a while now: Giganto as Sasquatch precursor has alot going for it (location, timing, size, temperate ecosystem etc.) except that it is thought to be in the Orang clade. Is there any chance in your view that it has been misclassified and could be on the hominin branch after all, like was thought in the early 60s? I'm not very familiar with sorting the crowns of molars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 This is why I know something about the upcoming paper being released soon: All Melba has said to us is that it will be soon. She has also told us that it will be in a very reputable high class scientific journal because it deals with molecular biology and such high standards that only the best scientifically grounded events are published there. Melba also said that the only "hold-up" has been that the journal scientists wished to re-verify their results *again* before the publication to be sure that everything is correct. Melba expected it to be released over 6 weeks ago, so everyone is in wait mode at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) I do know for a fact that Melba's paper will be published by upstanding journal such as Science. Thanks for that statement of confidence. I can't take this netherland of bad science and behavior anymore. If we must prove the faster the better I suppose. I began recently working on a "response" thinking piece...and why I hadn't before I can't say, exept that the issues/problems are significant in terms of what/how we respond and the DNA would help that inquiry considerably, as early on I made mistake of sharing with legal friends, to their scorn. Also thinking, not my job! . However, even with various DNA scenarios the conclusions are similar, what a legal mess (whether admin or common law, working out our patch work of inappropriate laws sounds fruitless on some levels) and quickly coming to realization that a significant conversation should be ocurring about what people actually think/worry/feel and who better than BFers? And yet, this community seems the least motivated to respond on the "protection" issue for various reasons? From, "they don't need it we do," to those that feel they fall, or should fall, within animal standards of law. So, the study is critical in that if as you claim, it is the only peer-reviewed article and therefore rises to legal evidentiary standards. That's enough to get the serious attention of groups already involved in appropriate fields/groups, or is it? Anyway, if anyone is serious about the thinking, thread, that takes up issues of probable appropriate responses, or wrong dierections, and have ideas about what they would like to see or not see after proof as our Citizen response please write me your details. One of our BFF members (well not sure member here, but BF motivated anyway) is working on an info/blog website on these issues only. I have not tried to start a thread on this and maybe should except I feel I am not qualified to say much yet, am just beginning a serious look into that topic ...hoping someone more qualified will pick it up and run with it as thread and many here provide thier knowledge of existing laws, problems personal to them with various responses...or to BFs? If not, it's all good b/c honestly? The projection of how we actually translate science to policy is daunting and one i don't feel any single source group should/will have undue influence..unless we all sit on our thumbs b/c it's boring to think about relative to Bfing!. p.s. your last post leaves wide open the possibility it won't be published, or did she also state that second round of "checking" resulted in thumbs up? Edited March 8, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 @SweetSusiq , how do you know this information . I am not doubting it , but curious as to where it came from . If it was a post on Melbas page that I missed, I apologize. She has just been so closed lipped about everything . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 and when you say "this," which part of my post are you referring to? Pretty much the post in toto. Melba also said that the only "hold-up" has been that the journal scientists wished to re-verify their results *again* before the publication to be sure that everything is correct. Melba expected it to be released over 6 weeks ago, so everyone is in wait mode at this time. This is what indicates to me that there is something really mind-blowing in the paper. if they're going back again to make sure all the I's are dotted ant T's crossed then they've got something on their hands that will turn heads and they aren't taking any chances that it might be rejected on a technical error. That is, assuming this report is accurate. The projection of how we actually translate science to policy is daunting and one i don't feel any single source group should/will have undue influence..unless we all sit on our thumbs b/c it's boring to think about relative to Bfing! I am on record in saying that it probably won't change much in terms of policy. The subject is still so tarnished thanks to decades of Skeptical scorn that any attempt at formulating an official policy will draw a ton of fire, esp given the current political and economic climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 SweetSusiq, your words are music to my ears. Which makes me nervous. Where did you hear this? That is a far more direct statement than I've seen or heard, having followed all of this pretty closely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts