Guest Jodie Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) I think that's why he got mad at me and a few others, we kept pointing out things not considered. Edited March 9, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) OK. I am focusing briefly on the way others could verify Dr. Ketchum's results. She would have to hand over samples of the "steak" or others, with provenances. If they came up with a result showing human mitochondrial DNA, that would not be news UNLESS there were physical indications to the contrary, such as a super-sized, very hairy sample. The sample could also have some very strange chromosomal abberation, since great apes have 48 chromosomes and modern humans only 46. We have no idea what other species of humans in long ago times had because we have no fresh samples to test--chromosomes are only visible in very fresh samples. But if Ketchum's sample "steak" was fresh, it would be logical for her to check the chromosome count. We currently have data about many different modern human groups in regards to nuclear DNA. We also have a lot on Neanderthals and on Denisovans. I wish we had H. floresiensis and H. erectus (and all it's subgroups) but alas, no. So this new paper must study and present a very clear and startling conclusion about sasquatch nuclear DNA, or quite frankly, there is no wow factor and no reason for a big prestigious science journal to publish it. There is no reason for Ketchum to try for it (no, I don't think she is such a fool as to try to prove BF are merely feral humans--there has to be more to it than that). So she MUST have something really significant, and I am not surprised at all at the delay. She is getting all her ducks in a row, and I don't blame her at all. Be patient, it is coming. Edited March 9, 2012 by vilnoori Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 9, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted March 9, 2012 Well if we find Dr. Ketchum on the NIDS advisory board sometime soon, I guess we'll know they got "something they've never seen before". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I tend to feel that way Vilnoori. What is so frustrating and yet understandable is that on the one had, IF the paper really is significant and groundbreaking as she claims, the secrecy and extra care the journal might be enforcing makes perfect sense. This is not research a major journal would want to put forward under their banner without making sure it is exceptionally well researched and significant. And on the other hand if the paper isn't significant, then the delay makes sense as well. So really, it's impossible to get a bead one way or the other, and so we are left right where we find ourselves. I will be nice to see the discussions on the other side of the papers release. By the way, there was a comment by Dr. Ketchum today in reference to this question: Question: Can you also address the rumors/ mis-reporting going around that the reason it is taking this long to come out is that you are "hardheaded", or resistant to make certain changes the journal has requested.Response: ‎@David That is absolutely not true. We have accommodated every request. Besides, this is a TEAM effort, there are many renowned scientists that have worked diligently along side me to make this happen. My hat is off to them all. They are friends, colleagues and tops in their fields. It is a labor of love for all that have donated their time and energy to make this a success. This seems to clearly indicate the paper is with a journal at least, and that, in her view, there are other tip tier scientists involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 ^Vil, I'm with you about such an analysis taking a good, long time to make it into print. I personally have no idea what analysis has been done, what source material might have been used, or what the potential results might indicate. What I have seen, however, are multiple statements and actions from the ostensible lead scientist that are exceedingly puzzling. The whole idea of having a Facebook page on which fans/the curious can post questions that may or may not be answered is . . . well, let's just call it unique in my experience. Hyping a paper before it's been accepted? Who does that? "Our data are amazing" and what-not - these statements make no sense in the context of a scientist doing science. It's this, more than any suspected delays in publication, that's eroded my confidence in the outcome of this research. As always, I'll be delighted to be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 The whole idea of having a Facebook page on which fans/the curious can post questions that may or may not be answered is . . . well, let's just call it unique in my experience. Hyping a paper before it's been accepted? Who does that? "Our data are amazing" and what-not - these statements make no sense in the context of a scientist doing science. I think part of the problem is that "science" simply doesn't mean anything in regards to a group of people. Science can be said to do anything as long as someone with some connection to "science" does said activity. I feel a more accurate statement would be "the people employed professionally in the study of scientific academia would not start a Facebook page about an upcoming study purported to be released soon." Respectfully, Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I agree she's made some unusual moves in recent months (after a few years of mostly silence). I also agree with TimB in that she comes from a very different background than many of her peers in academia. She's also from Texas. BTW, is that Todd Disotell sporting the cool tattoo in his FB profile pic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 How many potential scientific papers are the subject of so much lay speculation, rumor and slander? Not many. I don't think trying to equate the nature of this paper with a typical scientific paper is at all fair or reasonable. Just my opinion though. And as far as I can recall, the FB page was started to address, in part, some of the crazier rumors which have been posted on this very board. So it's a matter of not answering those rumors at all, and letting the speculation stand, or trying to get ahead of the game and answer what can be answered. That's how it looks to me as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) As reported on BF Evidence, from Dr. K on her FB page - as stated previously - the paper will not be released in a cryptozoology journal including, according to her, "the Relict Hominoid Inquiry, whatever that is..." (bolding mine) ??? Previously she or Sally said it would not be in "Meldrum's journal." Because FaceBook is stupid (hate the new layout), or they have been removed, I couldn't find either statement. If she and/or Sally were already familiar with RHI (I would guess that if Sally knew about it, so would Dr. K?), what is up with that pseudo-dismissive statement? Could be that Dr. K really is an outsider to the BF world and hasn't heard of RHI...??? As of some time ago, it was stated on her page that it would not be in RHI. We knew this, so the wording of her statement interests me... Also confirms that Meldrum is not associated with the project at all, seemingly... Edited March 10, 2012 by notgiganto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Good points, notgiganto. Could be that this is reflective of the split between the two schools of thought: BF as closer to human vs. BF as closer to ape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Meldrum is not a geneticist, I would not expect he would be involved in the paper. I would think only genetic type people would be involved with, and included in the review. What spins off of that, could be a whole different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) I wonder if her post wasn't prompted by this press release from Idaho State University: link Here's a quote that could mistakenly suggest Ketchum's paper will be published in Meldrum's journal. A study by Melba Ketchum, of DNA Diagnostics, establishing the DNA sequence of the sasquatch is currently in review. Depending on the outcome of the study, “The Relict Hominoid Inquiry†could see vastly increased popularity and mainstream exposure, according to Meldrum. Edited March 10, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) ^Vil, I'm with you about such an analysis taking a good, long time to make it into print. I personally have no idea what analysis has been done, what source material might have been used, or what the potential results might indicate. What I have seen, however, are multiple statements and actions from the ostensible lead scientist that are exceedingly puzzling. The whole idea of having a Facebook page on which fans/the curious can post questions that may or may not be answered is . . . well, let's just call it unique in my experience. Hyping a paper before it's been accepted? Who does that? "Our data are amazing" and what-not - these statements make no sense in the context of a scientist doing science. It's this, more than any suspected delays in publication, that's eroded my confidence in the outcome of this research. As always, I'll be delighted to be wrong. Ya...what he said! (assuming the 'he' part) Edited March 10, 2012 by summitwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) Hmm, hadn't seen that, Ger! Interesting timing, for sure. If that prompted her post, then she would be aware of what the RHI was, I would think. JohnC - That is what has been hinted at, I guess... that the paper's focus is pretty solely genetic. No need for an anthropologist or zoologist for that reason, I suppose. All depends on what is being claimed in the initial paper, which may not even be BF, just an "unknown" something representing the genetics involved. The "BF barrier" might be crossed in follow-up work. I guess that would be the wise way of presenting something so world changing. Veee zhall zee <twiddling thumbs> Edited March 10, 2012 by notgiganto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 And as far as I can recall, the FB page was started to address, in part, some of the crazier rumors which have been posted on this very board. So it's a matter of not answering those rumors at all, and letting the speculation stand, or trying to get ahead of the game and answer what can be answered. 1) To me, some of the answers provided on that page are far "crazier" than most of the questions. 2) Who cares about rumor and speculation of your upcoming work? It's completely irrelevant to your scientific endeavor. None of what you're doing matters a hill of beans unless and until you can get it published, so I don't see any benefit in making any statements until the galley proofs are returned. Then, in accordance with whatever arrangement you might have with the journal, you can time the release of a website or something in anticipation of the publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts