Guest Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Actually , I thought she would be making her money off of the genetic work itself. The new primers she made and used and whatever copyrights she makes from them. I would think she would require a journal with a good reputation. I can't really imagine how else she'd make money from this that would allow for a less reputable publisher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 out of interest how can other scientists verify the results in the paper? do they have to have access to the specimen to extract dna to test for themselves? if they dont have a body (but a random bit of meat) how can they prove the specimen they have is from a "bigfoot" and is even from north america? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I believe Meldrum said these other testers were given samples of the DNA or tissues carrying the DNA. As for how they know the material is derived from BF, I suppose they must have some evidence that tells this. Whether it's photos or what I haven't a clue. I don't think that's ever been disclosed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Cotter, Welcome back! you wrote :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 would predict that as long as it comes out in some journal (there are a number of less than stellar ones, many of which are in East Asia) that at least advertises itself as peer-reviewed, the effect will be the same: proponents, (and there are probably millions) most of whom don't have the ability to evaluate the quality of the paper or the journal, will claim that it proves bigfoot is real, and buy the book, the DVD, the t shirt, the baseball hat, the bumper sticker, and watch the tv series. Meanwhile the rest of the world understands that the scientific community has rejected it, rolls eyes, and goes about its business. I mean, is Matt Moneymaker published in a reputable journal? He isn't doing too badly.... p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Therefore, if this guess is correct, everyone should be prepared to wait until April 5 before being further disappointed. I can't be further disappointed... Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 ant wrote: Actually , I thought she would be making her money off of the genetic work itself. The new primers she made and used and whatever copyrights she makes from them. I would think she would require a journal with a good reputation. I can't really imagine how else she'd make money from this that would allow for a less reputable publisher. I think she could still attract a lot of samples from the bigfoot community if she gets it published in something that claims to be peer reviewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 "We are NOT permitted to discuss where the paper is in the peer review process." Which papers have this rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CT Seeker Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 if they dont have a body (but a random bit of meat) how can they prove the specimen they have is from a "bigfoot" and is even from north america? Without a body, I would assume that Ketchum is showing, via DNA (and it sounds like from many different samples), that they have identified a new species of primate. If her data is proven to be authentic from a scientific standpoint then it is what it is--a newly documented creature. Regarding the creature's habitat/location, I really don't know but I'm not sure that would be a disqualifier to the DNA evidence--just some unverified questions as to where they live specifically. C'mon! Let's at least be willing to be happy if teh DNA evidence goes through! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 bipedal ape wrote out of interest how can other scientists verify the results in the paper? The only result which they would need verified would be if the DNA was outside the range of any known species. Ketchum has said that other labs have run the samples independently, so that is already done, if it were needed, one would think. If it hasn't been already verified by one or more independent reputable labs, then Ketchum would need to provide the original samples, if they haven't been consumed in the process. Human DNA is human DNA, I don't think anyone would want to replicate that result, because it is meaningless. As has been noted here, the provenance can't be established. p. CT wrote: Without a body, I would assume that Ketchum is showing, via DNA (and it sounds like from many different samples), that they have identified a new species of primate. If her data is proven to be authentic from a scientific standpoint then it is what it is--a newly documented creature. Regarding the creature's habitat/location, I really don't know but I'm not sure that would be a disqualifier to the DNA evidence--just some unverified questions as to where they live specifically. C'mon! Let's at least be willing to be happy if teh DNA evidence goes through! we would all be happy if she has discovered a new species, but the data she and Stubstad have posted are all human, and it seems as though, from their public statements at the time, they both thought that it was bigfoot. So that would make anyone wonder...wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I have said before that I am suspicious of this almost "cloak and dagger" type secrecy coming from Ketchum's public relations person. It smells fishy enough to attract a bigfoot. I could be wrong, and hope that I am, but I feel that if there is a paper at this point, it either has not been submitted anywhere, or has been rejected multiple times, from one or more publications. As far as what DNA will prove, I think it can be scientifically shown that there is an undocumented species of primate "somewhere" in the world. Everyone who has submitted a sample could sign an affidavit stating that they collected a certain specimen themselves, in a certain area, but that still will not be enough to scientifically prove bigfoot authentic. What it will do, in my opinion that is, is create enough reasonable doubt for skeptics about their beliefs, skeptics in a position of importance to advance the issue, and they could possibly get involved. From what I know only as fact, that would be the best outcome in my opinion. From what I slightly suspect, video and picture evidence, coupled with DNA evidence and sworn statements regarding the collection and testing procedures used regarding that evidence, might be enough for "something" to happen. Not definitive proof, but "something". But then again, this is IF there is a paper. And there will only be a paper IF the analysis of various specimens actually provided enough usable DNA that is actually from an unknown primate. Still many variables at this point, and we know nothing about most of these variables...And as I said, the secrecy is suspicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) Parn, that is a gross distortion of what Stubstad has posted. He has said at great length that the mitochondrial DNA is within normal human range, but right at the extreme (in other words, atypical/ rare). However, the Nuclear DNA is outside the range of any known modern human on the planet (my words....read his below). Therefore, the animal that carries this is NOT a modern human. You keep repeating that same fallacy and misrepresentation, so to try to obviate the possibility of you doing this again, here is his explanation is his words, not yours: (Apologies to the mods if I have done something wrong in clipping this in here) Richard Stubstad March 7, 2012 at 4:16 PM That’s OK, Robert, I can answer the question unequivocally. Whether SeesDifferent believes me or not is another matter. That’s his/her issue, not mine. All three mito sequences WERE within modern human ranges — but just barely at both ends of the spectrum, so to speak. When one “connects the mito dots†and doesn’t assume each sequence is unrelated to the next, one COULD be lead to believe these three were modern humans, albeit from VERY strange and rare haplotypes. It was the nuclear MC1R DNA sequences that sealed the deal. None were within human ranges. Each of the three had a particular mutation that no human on earth has been shown to have. This is exactly the same result that was found for Neanderthal within MC1R, but Neanderthal’s mutation site was different from the three purported sasquatch mutation sites. Based on this, all three MC1R sequences were not within known modern human ranges. So either sasquatch is a hoax and Neanderthals were hoaxes, or both subspecies are the real deal. Put that in your pipe and smoke it for awhile. Richard I hope you'll now adjust your position regarding Stubstat's evaluation of the data . To declare, as you often do, that Stubstad says "sasquatch = modern human" is clearly, clearly erroneous. Mike Edited March 9, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Thank you MikeG, that has been bothering me a bit also. I think this very point has been causing a lot of confusion/misinformation/conclusion(and or shark) jumping. For one, even some proponents of bigfoot won't love that sort of finding due to the undiscovered ape or hominid battle. I think this is one of the main areas referred to when Dr. Ketchum et al refer to findings that will 'really shock' the community. The idea that they aren't as far from us as we might think. Clearly, they are going to have to be far enough away from us, and similar enough to each other, for this to not be dismissed as contamination or rare human genotype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I hope we can avoid lumping Ketchum and Stubestad together. Stubestad has posted preliminary information regarding genetic testing results of three samples. Ketchum has repeatedly state she will not post any results until the paper is released. There is a danger that Stubestad's results and Ketchum's results will be lumped together as one when it is presented this way. That's not fair to either of these members of this forum. Facts are my preference... Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 No indeed, Tim. I agree, and as a matter of interest, Stubstad claims to be running his own DNA tests on some samples not from the Ketchum project, and I think, expects to publish elsewhere. I posted that merely to rebut Parn's oft-repeated misrepresentation of Stubstad's work with Ketchum. Parn can't any more claim (with any credibility at least) that Stubsad says that the tests have all come back as "modern human". Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts