Guest MikeG Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Saskeptic, how do you anticipate evaluating the Ketchum paper if published? Assuming it is published in a reputable journal, would that be enough for you to automatically accept the contents, or do you then take the findings to other experts and discuss, prior to making up your mind? Could you conceive of a circumstance, therefore, in which the evidence is accepted by the journal, but not by scientists in the field (zoologists, biologists etc) possibly including you? How long between the publication and some sort of decision by you, do you think? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I think that comes down to the history of the samples,and the specific genes involved, large, hairy, strong,and even an active Mid Tarsal Break are not out of the realm of possibility, combined with intelligence, because intelligence does not mean technology, that could help explain their elusiveness, and the lack of bodies etc. I am anxious as well to see if Dr Ketchum's report can shed light on all of this. In my opinion, that is the best hope, because a more simple, less intelligent animal, would have produced a body by now. So I am a hopeful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Saskeptic, What are the odds of Bigfoot researchers scattered across the country coming up with samples of this "rare homo sapiens polymorphism"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 @Mike, one need look no further than the "rediscovery" of Ivory-billed Woodpecker - published in Science several years ago - to understand that publication and "scientific acceptance" can be different things. In the case of a published Ketchum paper on bigfoot DNA, I'd be at a disadvantage in interpretation of the DNA evidence because I am not well versed in those techniques or the relevant analysis. So for those aspects, I'd be relying on others' interpretations to give me confidence that the work was done well. My primary interest will be in the case made that "different = bigfoot." @indiefoot: the probability would range from very low to very high, depending on how said samples were obtained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I think, when this paper publishes, we still may see an argument revolving around a "they didn't prove BF existed, just that a relict hominid is present". And perhaps the semantics will grow to a larger magnitude. Additionally, Branco makes a good point. Perhaps one of the hiccups they've encountered is that there are indeed multiple species involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 "I think, when this paper publishes, we still may see an argument." You could have stopped there, Cotter!! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 ^^ Agreed, I never know when to stop talking (typing). ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted March 20, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 20, 2012 Argumentive statements does not make it in the science world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Ketchum made a statement on her FB page yesterday in reference to when the paper will be released. "It could be quite soon or a little farther out. Not too awfully long though." Edited March 20, 2012 by megatarsal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Anything new to science (in the realm of a great ape revealation),and provided by bigfoot researchers is going to have tantalizing implications, no matter whether skeptics wish to call it bigfoot or not. A body might not even be bigfoot, depending on it's DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Further info about the journal process, a good comment by Ms. Ramey: [/color]Sally here - There is a lot of chatter on various forums speculating about the peer-review process. YES, authors can CHOOSE to present their findings pre-publication at conferences. YES, they can CHOOSE to share copies of their paper pre-submission. However, Melba did NOT choose to do any of those things. And to be honest, ANY scientist working on ground-breaking material typically does NOT choose to do these things. I have supported publishing scientists since 2001 and NONE of them spilled the beans on their papers in advance. They would discuss their research in general terms, but NOT their specific findings even if they had a tiny suspicion that they might do a paper on the work. For example, one of the chemists I worked with had found a way to set the charge on individual molecules of a certain substance, creating a molecular data storage ability. He would talk about it in general terms, but would not go past a hard line because it would prohibit him from publishing. He could tell you that he could store the entire Library of Congress on a sugar-cube-sized unit, but that was as far as he could go. Also, I am sure that there are SOME journals that don't care if you discuss your paper while in review, or announce your pub date in advance. THIS journal is NOT permitting that. NONE of the journals I have ever worked with permit it. If you did, your paper was kicked out - period - even if it was to be published the next day. And even IF a journal has no policy prohibiting it all the time, they can impose a "gag order" on any paper.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Mulder I think his signature sums it up The issue was the PGF, which is not specifically addressed in my sig line. It is discussed in other threads, but a person brought it up, giving his opinion. Now if you want to pursue it, I'd suggest you go to the PGF threads. My opinion is that it is a hoax, based on those discussions and other information which I cannot divulge. p. Edited March 20, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 @Parn: Why can't you divulge the info? Can you toss a bone out as to what the info pertains to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Argumentive statements does not make it in the science world. Agreed, Julio, but people (non-scientists) will argue over anything, even when the science is absolutely overwhelming. You only have to look at climate change and evolution to realise that. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) ^Indeed, I am one of those "we need a body" people. As our dear Mulder has correctly established however, DNA comes from tissue, i.e., a part of a body. If there is "statistical proof" as you put it, then that is a "body." I've not seen any logical refutation of that point, nor would there be any reason to develop one. The rub concerns your premise of statistical proof - of what: a rare polymorphism among populations of Homo sapiens? I wouldn't be at all surprised by such a finding. The important part is how it might be established that people with such a polymorphism are "bigfoots", i.e., giant, hairy, technology-averse, wild people with long arms, mid-tarsal breaks, and the ability to catch and dispatch deer with their bare hands. That's the part I'm waiting to see when and if a Ketchum paper is ever published. I am in total agreement (although I would substitute "e.g." for his "i.e.") and always have been. I would emphasize that THIS is why the scientific community will say, "this isn't proof of anything. Bring us 1) DNA that is distinct from humans, or, 2) if all you have is human DNA, then you must bring solid, indisputable, non-hoaxable proof that this "human" DNA came from a bigfoot." [re #2; imo, the only way to convince science that a "bigfoot" could have human DNA is to bring a living or dead body or distinctive body part. No affidavits or chain of custody or blogsquatches or even PGF's will substitute for flesh and blood.] p. Edited March 20, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts