Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Judgement based on the evidence that is currently available is a pretty good start. For now we have to assume there is no evidence until it comes forward, IF it actually does come forward then we can add that additional evidence and re-evaluate, simples. Saying you have the dna of an un-documented species that exists in a heavily populated and technologically advanced country is a wild claim, there are no 2 ways about it. It is simply a wild claim. It is then the up to the person who makes such a claim to produce the evidence. It is not up to the rational scientists to wait around for this evidence that may or may not come before making a decision. Scientists must go with the evidence that exists in the real world. Thus far in bigfooting there have been a lot of build ups that have amounted to nothing. This is the first "build up" that I have been around for, and I can only imagine for others that have been through it all before how demoralising this whole thing must be. PLEASEEEEEE prove me wrong PLEASE!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 You want to be proven wrong on the judgement you offer on the content of an unreleased paper?...Um... not sure how to accomodate you- if your thought process allows judgement on the unknown, then you are definitely on the right track. I wouldn't personally go there but don't care too much if you do. Have fun with it! I prefer to wait to react to facts... But that's just me. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 i mean on bigfoot in general... not on my judgement of the ketchum report. ketchum prove me wrong please, prove that big hairy guy is out there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I think we are at the point where science, in analysis of DNA, makes fewer mistakes than with other material evidence from which we are limited in observation. The strength of DNA is in the statistics, and the only question is where the threshold lies to distinguish BF from other organisms. With enough data generated from the samples it should show itself. Remember that Dr. Ketchum feels she has overkilled this, plus the reviewers wouldn't be doing their job if they allowed any assumption unsupported by the data. I hestitate to speculate, being a lowly, unscientific skeptic, but..... You know what they say about statistics.... Your important point is "the only question is where the threshold lies to distinguish BF from other organisms." (Although I ponder why you chose "organisms" instead of "humans" or "primates"). That is the Big Question. You are optimistic that the number of samples will render conclusive traits, and given Dr. Ketchum's "overkill" and diligent reviewers disallowing unsupported conclusions, we will have a paper that will indeed delineate "where the threshold lies." First, I'm not sure peer reviewers necessarily question every assumption, since some assumptions may be inferred from the data but not proven by such. In other words, some assumptions from the data may (and no doubt will) have counter or alternative assumptions not enumerated. The peer reviewers may point out such concerns, but I doubt if they would dismiss the paper because it did not address every hypothetical counters or alternatives. That will be the job of published reviewers. I'm seeing the possibility of a more ambiguous report in which the DNA data will not be able to exclude human variation as as explanation (even if this is not so stated), and will bolster the DNA data by cataloging it's consistency and by bonding it to sighting reports, photos, and the like. This is the point I was making above: sighting reports, locations of finds, supporting photos and etc. linked to the report's DNA will be scrutinized for plausibility along with the DNA news by published reviewers and critics. (Also, Dr. Ketchum's "overkill" may just as well be a reference to the attending evidence and number of sources rather than the depth of the DNA info). This is all admitted speculation from a blue meanie skeptic and may be discarded by anyone offended by its existence. Mulder, Cool avatar. Is that the image of a neanderthal created by a novelist you once linked to? Also, didn't you previously post that some folks told you that the thing they saw looked like this image? Anyway, neanderthals are represented as humans now-days, such as here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/17/neanderthals-cannibalism-anthropological-sciences-journal and your avatar, while cool, seems seriously regressive. (Or beyond regressive, since neanders were never portrayed so ape-like. The avatar reminds me more of Edgar Rice Burrough's unspecified apes from the Tarzan stories). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Here,yet again, is an alternative view on Neanderthals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) @Tim and others: I could be mistaken but it is my impression that the comments here have not been about Ketchum's (as yet non-existent) paper, but rather about the things she has said and written about her research, beginning when she went public a year and a half or more ago, and what Stubstad said about the results he saw. Those are all on the record and fair game. She said these things, wrote these things, and allowed Stubstad to publish them. Why shouldn't we talk about them? Is it because things are going wrong? I mean, the title of the OP is pure speculation. "Ketchum Report." As Saskeptic points out: What "Report?" But people seemed oh so excited to speculate, discuss, wonder, dream, and post til the cows came home, back in the day when they thought Ketchum was going to save the bigfoot world and rub the skeptics nose in it. Did someone just now notice that the title was wrong? Or is that things aren't turning out as one might have liked? I am familiar with the phenomenon that occurs when some people start getting uncomfortable about something not turning out the way they would like: they start trying to derail or shut down discussions. I would rather they put their virtual fingers in their ears if they don't want to hear reaction to what Ketchum is saying, or that they suggest to Ketchum that she stop saying things. That would be preferable to trying to shut down discussion here. Or if one really wants to shut down a speculative thread (I don't), I would humbly suggest one could go over to the one called something like "how are you going to party when the Ketchum Report comes out?" that's my opinion. p. Edited March 21, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Love that video JohnC, David's theory about Neanderthal appearance is very interesting. As for the Ketchum report, unless and until it is published, the bulk of commentary about it is essentially the blind arguing with the blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 It is a good thread. Some great posts on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tsiatko Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 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. Ahhh, what am I here for, but to discuss opinion... my opinion is that Glickman did good work, and is a good guy. I mightly disagree with almost everything he thinks, but we respect each other and are friends. It is ironic that I would be asked in a forum to defend hijm, it's been a long time, over a decade really, but I feel like expressing more opinions. So, did you do the RFP work? I mean did you actually read the paper? The height estimate the Gman produced of 7' 3.5" came from a dead tree that patty walked next to, which in the early 1970s was still there, and an 8 ft ruler was placed on it. This was superimposed on the p film, which gave the Gman an 8 foot ruler that patty walked right next to. The measurement was confirmed by a stick that patty stepped on , which Dahinden had in a trunk, and which Chris Murphy measured at 22". Using this stick as a ruler, the height was also measured at 7' 3.5", which confirmed the other method. So, why would the distance of the camera matter at all in using these two methods to estimate the height? It wouldn't. So, as I said at the time, it seems to me people didn't understand the paper, and were predisposed to reject it all if they thought they found one mistake. I imagine that P has determined the distance to the camera, or knows someone who has. We all make contributions, we all have a piece of the puzzle. I say getting a null hypothesis paper into Nature is hard and rare, you say its easy and common. That's why we call it opinion. Ever try to get a null hypothesis paper into Nature? all the best T 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 ^No, in this discussion "science" is shorthand for "recognized by a legitimate nomenclatural authority, such as the ICZN." "Legitimate" according to who, exactly? Who appointed them to be Keepers of the Book of Scientific Truth? Who oversees them and sets impartial standards? They appoint themselves, oversee themselves and set their own standards as they see fit (and change them as they wish). It's an incestuous relationship whereby the Canon of Knowledge is kept pure from "heretical" thoughts that challenge the status quo. If Ketchum's or anyone else's analysis led to the recognition of Homo bigfooteus by the ICZN, then the scientific consensus would be that bigfoot exists. This would be analogous to the IPCC's recognition of anthropogenic climate change: it is, by definition, scientific consensus. Yes, there are some people who don't accept it. Those people are not in step with the scientific consensus on the issue. Which is the very essence of "argument from consensus", which is a logical fallacy and you know it Sas. Saying you have the dna of an un-documented species that exists in a heavily populated and technologically advanced country is a wild claim, there are no 2 ways about it. It is simply a wild claim. Yes, it IS a wild claim to claim that there is "no room" for BF to remain generally unmolested and mostly unencountered in the North American continent, as I demonstrated in another post, which I shall quote here for ease of reference ( originally posted here: ) And there are still 100s and 100s of 1000s of square miles of undeveloped and in many cases virtually unvisited wilderness.The simple fact is (as is shown by Census data) that the overwhelming majority of the US is NOT developed by man. More than two out of three Americans live in urbanized areas. These areas collectively cover 2 percent of the nation’s land area. Counting urbanized areas and urban clusters together, nearly four out of five Americans live in an urban setting. Urbanized areas and urban clusters cover 2.6 percent of the nation’s land.Remaining “places†account for just 4.4 percent of the U.S. population, but they cover 2.8 percent of the land. Their density is far lower than the density of urbanized areas and urban clusters. The average urbanized area has nearly 2,700 people per square mile, and the average urban cluster has close to 1,500 people per square mile. But the average place (outside of urban areas) has just 133 people per square mile. In many cases, this is because small towns have large corporate boundaries, only portions of which are occupied. This is most noticeable in Alaska, where many cities have legal boundaries that include thousands of square miles of unoccupied land. As a result, the density of Alaska’s non-urban places averages just 7 people per square mile. Non-urban place densities in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, and Wyoming average between 30 and 100 people per square mile. In all other states except Nebraska, non-urban place densities range from 100 to 500 people per square mile. Nebraska is the only state whose non-urban places approach urban densities: 805 people per square mile. So are places “developed� The Census Bureau counts them as “rural.†Only people living in urbanized areas or urban clusters are counted as “urban.†At the same time, a town of 1,000 people is obviously not “rural open space.†Conservatively, only those areas outside of any “place†can be considered rural open space. But it is clear that large portions of the rural places are also rural open space. Together, urbanized areas, urban clusters, and rural places occupy 5.4 percent of the nation’s land, while urban areas alone cover just 2.6 percent. Rural open space thus covers between 94.6 and 97.4 percent of the land in the United States. http://news.heartlan...ural-open-space US average population density is ~84 people/square mile ( http://www.infopleas...a/A0934666.html ), clustered in just 5.4% [or less - Mulder] of the landmass as noted above. Canada occupies 41% of the N American continent's landmass ( http://en.wikipedia....raphy_of_Canada ).It's average population density is just 9 people/square mile (same source as US average), most of which live within 100 miles of the US border ( http://www.nationsen...cas/Canada.html ). So much for that argument. It is then the up to the person who makes such a claim to produce the evidence. It is not up to the rational scientists to wait around for this evidence that may or may not come before making a decision. Scientists must go with the evidence that exists in the real world. Then you accept the case for BF, since plentiful evidence exists in the real world (tracks, hand/body impressions, hairs, consistent eyewitness testimony from aboriginal times through today, etc). PLEASEEEEEE prove me wrong PLEASE!! You're wrong. See above. Want ketchup or bar-b-Q sauce for that crow? Mulder, Cool avatar. Is that the image of a neanderthal created by a novelist you once linked to? He's more than "a novelist", but yes, that is an "un-anthropomorphized" reconstruction of Neanderthal as proposed by that researcher. Also, didn't you previously post that some folks told you that the thing they saw looked like this image? Yes, several people from OK (Timberghost chief among them) who have experience with "the locals" in the Kiamichis have commented that at least some of the BF they have encountered do indeed look like that. Anyway, neanderthals are represented as humans now-days, such as here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/17/neanderthals-cannibalism-anthropological-sciences-journal and your avatar, while cool, seems seriously regressive. (Or beyond regressive, since neanders were never portrayed so ape-like. The avatar reminds me more of Edgar Rice Burrough's unspecified apes from the Tarzan stories). The researcher who came up with the NP theory makes a very good case as to how and why those anthropomorphized Neanderthal reconstructions are not supported by the actual remains studied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) 246 days and counting! ..and that's only the length of this thread, Nothing like having your mind made up prior to any of the evidence being produced, hey? If I was ever put on trial for anything in the USA, I'd want my lawyer to make sure a fair few of you guys didn't end up on the jury!! Mike Of all the thoughtful, intelligent, insightful, wise, amusing, witty and indeed ironic posts that I have made over the last 4 months, this little throwaway line is the one that has attracted the most "plusses"........leaving me one away from a century. If anyone else is feeling generous, my reputation will soar into new realms at one more click of a stranger's mouse, and my mum will be so proud of me! Mike Edited March 21, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Saying you have the dna of an un-documented species that exists in a heavily populated and technologically advanced country is a wild claim............. But if you were to re-state this as "........that exists in some of the least populated, least visited, remotest, wildest places left on the planet......." it wouldn't seem quite so unlikely, would it? Don't go thinking that all of the States and Canada are like LA or New York. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Just curious, how long should it take to analyze DNA and get a report ready? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Aaron, have you read all the background? It isn't just one sample. Apart from having to develop their own primers ( I don't even know what that means, but it isn't supposed to be easy), they have analysed around 200 samples according to the leaks, coming from at least 28 different individual sasquatch. Some have suggested that at least one and possibly more full DNA sequences has been run......Can you remember how long the Human Genome Project took? A decade, or more, from memory. Then independant labs were sent samples to test, and their results had to be incorporated. Remember too, that not all the samples came in on day one. They would have come in in dribs and drabs, and each would have had to go through a screening process (is it worth testing this?) then have samples extracted and analysis done, results recorded, preservation work done on the sample, and on and on.........Then, imagine having a nearly complete project, a nearly finished report....when suddenly a 13lb (some say) lump of fresh hairy flesh and bone arrives in the office courtesy of Justin Smeja. All timelines disappear straight out of the window at that point. Then, having written and re-written the whole thing, and offered it up to a journal, the peers reviewing it start to get nervous. They know how this is going to look if they let it go through and it turns out to be flawed. So, they ask for extra work to be done, and maybe extra authors be added to the paper. More work. More time. In the middle of this, someone starts leaking. Maybe two people. This builds up excitement that they shouldn't really be having to deal with, and someone starts a thread on a Bigfoot Forum....... So, how long should it take? Long. No, even longer. OK, longer still........just exactly as long as it needs to, to make **** sure they get it right. Even a few days or weeks more than they need, if necessary. I don't care. So long as it does come out in the end, in a reputable journal, and is full of robust, even indisputable, science. So, 5 minutes wasn't the answer.......... Mike I am well aware that I am simply passing on rumour, and have no way of knowing how much of the above is accurate. But I had a spare 5 minutes....... Edited March 21, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 "Nothing like having your mind made up prior to any of the evidence being produced, hey? If I was ever put on trial for anything in the USA, I'd want my lawyer to make sure a fair few of you guys didn't end up on the jury!!" Of all the thoughtful, intelligent, insightful, wise, amusing, witty and indeed ironic posts that I have made over the last 4 months, . . . Funny, I read that post from you and was struck by how blind it was to the many people posting in this thread (including yourself, apparently) who've made up their minds that there is some kind of proof of bigfoot to be revealed in Ketchum's paper. The fact that it was heavily "plussed" merely adds to the irony. I am well aware that I am simply passing on rumour, and have no way of knowing how much of the above is accurate. But I had a spare 5 minutes....... See? This caveat that you added to your last post is no different that skeptics writing "If what we're being led to believe about Ketchum's work is accurate, then . . . " Yet you call out skeptics as having made up their minds before seeing the paper. This skeptic hasn't decided anything about the Ketchum analysis, other than the fact that at this point in the process it looks very much like several previous hopes in bigfootery that ended in whimpers. This could be it. This could be the one breakthrough that's been needed to prove to the world the reality of bigfoot. Or it could be - as a JREF colleague alluded in a post yesterday - yet another case of Lucy snatching the ball from Charlie Brown just as he's about to kick it. I prefer to assume the latter and be pleasantly surprised when proven wrong than assume the former and be bitterly disappointed in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts