Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Obviously I missed something here........ Did a little searching and there are a couple of "eye openers" that she has posted.... Dr. Melba Ketchum It will come out. There is too much data to refuse it. 28 February at 21:50 Dr. Melba Ketchum 22 February Q: Will the paper be published? A: I truly believe it will. We have overwhelming evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I think it was more like the paper has multiple authors, then I think she commented that her BF protection group was into double digit membership. That is the way I interpreted it anyway. She made several posts responding to the "rumor mill" but all those posts were deleted. At one point she joked about an apparent reference to "30,000 genes". A cursory Google suggests that was an old Lindsay write up from November. Anyway, here's what she posted about the authors. Finally, there are a number of authors on the paper, we are in the double digits. Sweet! The protection group had well over 200 members by Saturday so I don't think that's what she's referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I wonder if Todd standing will be heading up the protection group Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 It could easily be a figure of speech. As in, I know a thing or two about [insert expertise here]. A picture of a Bigfoot would be a tangible thing, not a figurative thing. I've had hope for Ketchum's success ever since she started her research, but every time she makes a statement on her FB page, that hope dies a little more. Her words remind me more of a BF blogger than a scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tsiatko Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Whatever will happen, will happen. Wow, scanning through all the posts on this, it's amazing how much can be said when nothing actually happens. However, I have some experience to share that might be of some value, consider it the voice of experience, trying to help those that come after. I worked on a bf paper to submit to scientific journals throughout 1995-1998. It of course wasn't as cool as today's DNA science report, it was less cool, but it was still really cool. Jeff Glickman wrote it, and we tried very hard to get it into a real journal, we thought big, submitted to Nature, etc. No one was very interested in 1998, besides Dahinden had a contract with us that specifically said we could not publish in a science journal. He said he was going to sue us and enforce his rights. WE were mulling over taking him on. Be that as it may, when we did put it out not in a science journal, the footer internet fun forum crowd at the time had no use for it, and threads criticized it for things like "it assumed that BFs were only found in the Pac NW", and "there's no way the images could be examined at that resolution, that resolution is impossible". I forget the other things that people didn't like about it, I put it all down at the time to "people didn't understand it". And the science community, since biology is so completely dominated by reductionists and mechanists, did not like the "null hypothesis" argument that the paper presented, which is a tricky way to go in a science paper, but I thought Glickman pulled it off. So, it was quickly forgotten; didn't make much of an impact either in the science realm or the internet forum realm. It was the big funded effort at the time, and kind of sucked other peoples own personal quests for knowledge, like mine, into a "big science" type well funded and organized effort. I see something like that with all the people sucked into the current science effort about to be here real soon now. It even sounds like imaginary lawyers are involved... maybe actual real lawyers have been paid? but it doesn't sound like it. So, what I'm trying to communicate is that it might be a bit more realistic to expect that coming paper is going to be anti-climatic... and not make much of an impact whatsoever... when something actually happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) Thanks, Tsaiko. I think this is an excellent report. http://www.henryfran...com/nasirpt.pdf Edited March 19, 2012 by BFSleuth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 . I've had hope for Ketchum's success ever since she started her research, but every time she makes a statement on her FB page, that hope dies a little more. Her words remind me more of a BF blogger than a scientist. x2! Her touchy-feely crusader shtick is getting a little weird to me. She throws things out there that probably hurt her credibility a lot. For such a fact-based profession, she sure seems like faith-based thinker. She's starting to seem like 2/3 Pied Piper and 1/3 Geppeto to me. I still believe she'll get this done, and appreciate what she's doing, but I think she needs to hire a PR firm, or get better advice on her social media posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) BFS, why would you say that? he tried to calculate the height of the subject without knowing the distance from the camera (almost the same mistake that was made in two recent cable television programs in which "bigfoot" was "determined" to be over 7 feet tall), then he based a lot of other calculations on that mistake. So of course all the numerical results are wrong. Not to mention the rest of the paper. Tsiatko: the null hypothesis is used very frequently in biological papers. It's not tricky. But Glickman didn't "pull it off;" in fact, it wasn't even recognizable. p. Edited March 19, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Whatever will happen, will happen. Wow, scanning through all the posts on this, it's amazing how much can be said when nothing actually happens. However, I have some experience to share that might be of some value, consider it the voice of experience, trying to help those that come after. I worked on a bf paper to submit to scientific journals throughout 1995-1998. It of course wasn't as cool as today's DNA science report, it was less cool, but it was still really cool. Jeff Glickman wrote it, and we tried very hard to get it into a real journal, we thought big, submitted to Nature, etc. No one was very interested in 1998, besides Dahinden had a contract with us that specifically said we could not publish in a science journal. He said he was going to sue us and enforce his rights. WE were mulling over taking him on. Be that as it may, when we did put it out not in a science journal, the footer internet fun forum crowd at the time had no use for it, and threads criticized it for things like "it assumed that BFs were only found in the Pac NW", and "there's no way the images could be examined at that resolution, that resolution is impossible". I forget the other things that people didn't like about it, I put it all down at the time to "people didn't understand it". And the science community, since biology is so completely dominated by reductionists and mechanists, did not like the "null hypothesis" argument that the paper presented, which is a tricky way to go in a science paper, but I thought Glickman pulled it off. So, it was quickly forgotten; didn't make much of an impact either in the science realm or the internet forum realm. It was the big funded effort at the time, and kind of sucked other peoples own personal quests for knowledge, like mine, into a "big science" type well funded and organized effort. I see something like that with all the people sucked into the current science effort about to be here real soon now. It even sounds like imaginary lawyers are involved... maybe actual real lawyers have been paid? but it doesn't sound like it. So, what I'm trying to communicate is that it might be a bit more realistic to expect that coming paper is going to be anti-climatic... and not make much of an impact whatsoever... when something actually happens. Thanks, Tsaiko. I think this is an excellent report. http://www.henryfran...com/nasirpt.pdf Thanks! That will make great reading tonight. I think it is good to be aware that breaking a current scientific paradigm takes quite an effort and sometimes one paper does not do the trick. It might have to be broken by an avalanche accumulating over time. The first few snowfalls will be ignored, and not necessarily because they were poor efforts. Sometimes it takes not only quality but quantity to change the accepted point of view. Especially when it comes to a walking, breathing, "monster" out there. Never mind that this might be the original model for the monster idea in the first place. LOL http://looney.wikia.com/index.php?title=Gossamer_the_Monsterℑ=Gossamer-jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 The comment about additional co-authors might not be as significant as people are thinking, in that it is reported/ stated/ rumoured elsewhere that there will be multiple papers. It would make sense if the additional co-authors were for one of the newer, as-yet-unfinished papers. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I think it is a logical progression for more scientists to come onboard in the evaluation of the DNA when there is true substance to the evidence. This study seems to keep growing in a myriad of ways, from the number of viable samples, to the number of coauthors, to the amount of data being added to the paper. I think it is likely there will be more DNA sequenced on bigfoot than any other hominid /animal prior to it's actual accepted existence in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted March 19, 2012 Admin Share Posted March 19, 2012 ....to the amount of hype... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 "I think it is likely there will be more DNA sequenced on bigfoot than any other hominid /animal prior to it's actual accepted existence in history." Has there ever been any DNA sequenced for any animal prior to its discovery? Just wondering whether there's a precedent for what's unfolding in the present case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Not that I'm aware of.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Well, there are subtle variations on this theme happening regularly these days. Plenty of species are being divided into two or more new species, because DNA analysis has revealed differences between populations which were previously thought to be uniform. So, you could say that technically DNA has been used to identify species prior to their discovery.......but that would be playing with the semantics a bit. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts