indiefoot Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 How would you like to be one of the reviewers on that paper. I bet they have a whole pocket full of Tums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Due to reports and edits this is an official notice for participants in this thread. Post's ignoring this will be sanctioned and members will recieve consequences. The topic here is the Ketchum DNA Study, not the type of argument used, not debate protocol, and most definately not a he said/she said back and forth regarding the merits of sceptics or BF proponents. For everyone who has respected the forum rules Thank You very much as it's most appreciated! Grayjay http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/12293-attacking-the-argumentnot-the-arguer/ Posted 19 February 2012 - 07:47 AM Attacking the Argument, not the Arguer BFF Admin. Regardless of whether you are a hardcore skeptic, a die-hard believer or somewhere in between, the BFF is the number one place to discuss and debate the subject of Bigfoot. When it comes to the manner in which we discuss this topic, the following BFF rules and regulations serve as the "guardrails". -All members of these Forums will respect the opinions and presence of other members of the Forums. You are welcome to engage in challenging and spirited debate with other users, but rudeness will not be tolerated. Name-calling, disrespecting other users or throwing personal insults against them will not be tolerated. Flaming another user because of their spelling or word choice will not be tolerated.Personal attacks of any kind are not allowed. Antisocial behavior will not be tolerated. -Do not make things personal. Attack the argument, not the arguer. No name calling. Terms like ‘liars’ and ‘idiots’ are beyond the pale and will not be tolerated here. -Remember at all times that this forum is here to discuss the subject of Bigfoot, not to discuss other members. If you don't have something nice to say about someone, you might want to consider not saying anything. -Respect other members and their right to their opinion. Let us be crystal clear on this: The above standards are not “suggestions†or “requestsâ€, they are the rules and they will be adhered to by all members of the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) Another day comes and goes The Ketchum report has nothing to show Whether the big fella exists or not, who knows Okay, this was my attempt at an opening verse for some communal poetry (to add a little levity and to help everyone stay grounded and be nice to each other) help me finish it off. Lets string a few verses together and maybe we can send it to Melba! Edited March 9, 2012 by Gurumuka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) 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. I think there are very few actual fossil feet and the scientists' interpretations involve confirmation bias with the bias usually being that that they want their pet fossil to be more human. They are looking for the first signs of anything "human". Many paleontologists claim completely modern feet or the arch goes back to early Australopithecus and they seem to just ignore floresiensis. I doubt that the arch would be that useful to a any creature that didn't live on flat hard open ground. There is no reason that it would evolve in a lineage where they didn't have selection pressure for it. It is probably more that morphology follows the niche. The arch isn't the only efficient solution for bipedalism, just a version that walks on hard open ground. The chimp ancestor was probably bipedal so comparing modern human feet to chimps to establish where it lies on some spectrum of human versus ape is flawed logic. It probably has a lot to do with niche and not just how close it is to us. The arch shouldn't be looked at as being a guide to what is more bipedal. It is more likely a guide to what lives on flat open ground if even that. "They" say things like floresiensis probably couldn't run because it lacked an arch. There are other ways to be more energy efficient than using the tendons on the feet as a spring and shrinking feet to the minimum size possible. That should even be true on flat hard open surfaces. It is probably unlikely that they got the identification of giganto that wrong but I do think it is possible. Apparently it is very difficult to tell erectus molars from orangutans. The whole mandible of the giganto looks more like something that convergently evolved with giant pandas to me. That makes me think they probably got it right. It has to be difficult tracing lineages like that especially when you throw in the possibility of them having distantly related hybrids even many millions of years ago. There is probably too little data to know for sure how closely related giganto actually is. The bottom line for me is that growing larger is so easy from an evolutionary perspective. There is also too much bias in how "erectus" are interpreted. I don't get the logic where they automatically default to the position that the owner of these teeth was shorter than a modern human for example. It makes me think there is way too much bias based on what they want to see not to mention expect to see. Giganto could be closer to us but I think there is so much bias in interpreting the fossil record that hominids are likely more diverse than generally believed. My post might have seemed off topic but I think it addresses the main problem that people have in accepting what is likely going to be the general premise that bigfoot is closer to a modern human than most think is possible. Edited March 9, 2012 by BobZenor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 SusieQ, you seem mighty confident that the paper will be published in Science. I hope you are right but as time as passed I grown skeptical about this paper. Do you know for a fact that the paper is being published in Science or is that your best quess based on the public statements made by Dr. Ketchum. In other words, do you know something the rest of us do not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Due to the ever-increasing length of time without a release and the fact that all observable pre-release development has stopped, I believe it's pretty clear that there is no release happening in the near future. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CT Seeker Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I certainly wonder if/when this all comes together. From what Ketchum has communicated, if she doesn't have enough data to get this paper published, she is going to look awfully bad. She has been pretty emphatic about the quality of the evidence she has acquired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Sometime earlier, bipedalist made a post simply "April 5" . I have a hunch he might be correct. I'm expecting there will be notice of the paper Thursday April 5 and the full paper April 6. He did not disclose the journal and probably for good reason if it is the one I'm thinking of also. It is a distinguished journal. Therefore, if this guess is correct, everyone should be prepared to wait until April 5 before being further disappointed. Whenever it is published, by the nature of its subject matter, it is sure to become one of the most cited papers in the history of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Rumors about the pending publication of the Dr. Ketchum's paper has been off the scale. Many seemed to be convinced that the "paper" will be major news and that the paper will somehow prove the existence of bigfoot. However, to the best of my knowledge, no one but Melbe Ketchum has actually claimed to have read the paper. If someone other than Melbe Ketchum claims to have read the subject paper, please let me know. As far as I know, no one has claimed to be a co-author on the paper. No one has confirmed that a particular individual is a co-author. No one, including Melba Ketchum, has confirmed that the paper has been accepted for publication. Here is what we know as a fact: 1. Individuals have submitted sample to Dr. Ketchum for DNA analysis. 2. Dr. Ketchum claims to have written a paper based upon her analysis of the samples provided to her. 3. Dr. Ketchum claims that the paper will be published in a reputable journal. That is the only evidence we have that the paper will be published in a scientific journal. Here is my best quess to what has occured. 1. Individuals submitted sample to Dr. Ketchum for DNA analysis. 2. Some of the samples submitted to Dr. Ketchum fell within the range of "modern human dna." 3. Dr. Ketchum assumes that the samples were not contaminated and that the samples were not from what we would consider a "modern human being" such as a hiker in the woods. 4. Dr. Ketchum assumes that the sample came from what we would consider a bigfoot. 5. She writes a paper with a hypothesis that is something like this: DNA analysis of bigfoot tissues shows that bigfoots are "feral" human beings or an undiscovered tribe of native americans. 6. She enters into a business relationship with individuals who are producing documentaries on bf and writing books on bf which are consistent with her hypothesis. 7. She submits her paper for publication to several reputable journals. 8. Here paper is rejected because her "hypothesis" cannot be verified or tested because no one can verify that the tested tissue samples came from a bf. 9. Dr. Ketchum continues to shop the journal around to reputable journals in hopes that it will be accepted for publication. (that why it is taken so long) 10. At some point in the future, the paper will be released to the public in some form but not from a reputable journal. 11. 99% of the scientific community will reject the conclusions of the paper and assume that the samples tested by Dr. Ketchum came from a modern human. (By modern human I mean someone with a birth certificate, social security number, and address) That is the opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) not as 7' tall, hairy, unclothed or neckless. G, one of the members here has an extensive collection of old newspaper stories...from before the birth of bigfoot folklore in 1958. Reading those, as well as the translated approximation of native stories, I really don't see much of the 7', neckless stuff. Can you show me where that would be? Hairy is very easily explained as an issue of hygiene amongst "derelicts," as seen in the image, and to relatively hairless natives, almost anyone might appear "hairy." As far as clothing goes, I don't recall much about that. So maybe you can inform us on that aspect. To me, those newspaper stories and native tales seem to be describing humans, some of whom are derelicts, or of other races (sometimes just other tribes). We humans tend to go all racist and fearful when we encounter other humans who look or act a little different, and we describe them in somewhat exaggerated terms as if they were subhuman. Virtually all races do it. p. Edited March 9, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) Bigfootnis, For the most part you are accurate, except maybe #3,4,5,10,and 11.....those are assumptions you have made, the repurted facts not so inclusive. The conclusion "that is the opinion" might read better, "that is my opinion." Especially wrt to 10 given level her of confidence. But then, she could be insane, or have a $$ motive where such boldness pays off. probability unknown b/c not enough data. If the reveal is the BF confernce type thing, then you should post again big time. Otherwise, I guess we just have to wait to see if such opinions will prove out. Certainly, the lack of stated co-authors is not typical, but then neither is the subject matter. I can assure you my own forays to conventional "help" were not productive and secrecy probably prudent, just to avoid the hassle of explaining prior...which is where we are at. But for the Sierra Kills, this would not have gotten so public. Well, and I guess the public fight with EP/Ketchum, and also Stubstad/Ketchum...and the MM/Nature...and Lindsay/meldrum......Gosh we are rabid, and so yeah Bigfootnis, not sure if you "believe" in BF...but obviously, many do and consider the stakes that high....too bad! I can finally understand why they are not proven, it has more to do with us than them! . Edited March 9, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 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. SweetSusiq didn't say that she was 100% aware of any of these facts as you can see by reading her quote. She's only taking the information that she has read or heard and making the assumption it's true. Which, at this point, is as valid as anything else. That being said, bigfootnis's point, regarding the financial gain, is in my opinion, the strongest motivator for this whole production. It's very obvious that Dr. Ketchum has maneuvered herself into a position which will enable her to profit tremendously from this entire show. In the last year, she has poised herself to become the biggest scientific authority on Bigfoot. She will easily displace Dr. Meldrum and anybody else that is scientifically involved with this phenomenon. I have no idea how legitimate her paper is nor when and where it may or may not be published. No matter what, she will gain financial and media recognition; most especially if she spins it well. Bigfoot is a hot topic right now so production companies and television networks are jockeying to meet the demand. Dr. Ketchum is attractive, well spoken and credible. Her opinions, appearances, books, websites, you name it, will all make money. She can gain a large share of the Bigfoot "market" very quickly and, at the moment, it's an entertainment sector that can be worth millions. In my opinion, that's a huge incentive that can't be ignored. Regardless if her paper is legitimate or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 If anyone would like to pursue the discussion of old wild man tales, please see a new thread on Mark Twain's interview with the wild man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) Just posted on the FB page showing an example of a paper that took 6 mths to publish, Something like this is going to take time, no matter how impatient or skeptical you become, it's not going to change what's in the paper or when it gets published. Edited March 9, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 @Cisco: I agree with your statements, but doesn't her success (financially) hinge on her being published in a reputable journal, showing that we (the world) does indeed have a bigfoot-type creature roaming the woods? If it comes out and it is anything less than a reputable journal publishing it, and it doesn't show anything remotely possible as to proof of BF, who would give her a nickel? I think each and every one of us would be positioning ourselves to take the lead role in the money making aspect of this. Wouldn't you? Thx! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts