Guest Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Again, my criticisms of Ketchum's project have nothing to do with any perceived delay in publication. My criticisms have focused on her own pronouncements of impending publication when clearly the work had not survived peer review. Such statements are inconsistent with a professional scientist, and caused me to suspect that she might be in over her head with publication of such monumental work, or worse - potentially drawn in by others into something less savory. So I don't care "how long it's taking." If there's ever an awesome publication that comes from this I'd be thrilled! @Mulder - I agree that science should investigate bigfoot in an organized fashion. I recommend we send a military expedition through the heart of bigfoot country with the mission of charting and mapping these wilderness areas where bigfoots live, and collecting and describing any new species encountered. Oh wait . . . Okay, well I guess that didn't work. How 'bout we send thousands of armed people into the American frontier and encourage them to shoot anything that might steal a chicken or a cow? Oh, I guess we did that too. What if we funded a big federal agency to map, survey, and explore bigfoot habitat in the American West? Well I guess this should count and this too. All right then, what if we had an eminent scientist who could devote a significant part of his career to getting to the bottom of this bigfoot thing? Oh yeah . . . Okay, well what if we invented some kind of technology that we could deploy all over the place and it could record photographs of the most elusive creatures on earth. Surely that would work, right? Wow, this whole bigfoot thing sure is a pickle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Sas rocks!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Show me the map, document, or instrument that indicates every square inch of the United States has had a human presence for any extended length of time, or at all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 What i read from that Sas is that conventional means of study may not be effective in studying this improbable subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Sas makes some good,and valid points, but in my opinion those points are not quite as strong if you factor in more intelligence than many people are willing to credit this alleged species. Using fire, or tool development as a scale to gauge the potential intelligence of this reported creature could be completely irrelevant. Being who we are, we continually make comparisons on our own developments we consider "advancements" and feel if this creature did not do these things,then it is a "dumb" animal. This creature could be far more organized,and intelligent than we give it credit for, and that would certainly be a game changer. Limited interaction could be by design, and if it is intelligent, and more aware than we give it credit for,it could explain a lot. A lot of if's huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Show me the map, document, or instrument that indicates every square inch of the United States has had a human presence for any extended length of time, or at all. Show me that such a ridiculous proposition would be necessary to ever collect one member of a population of a large mammal. @TimB -indeed. If bigfoot is a real species, then - unlike every other one that's ever been described - the standard techniques of "going to look for it", "shooting it when it raids the chicken coop", "uncovering remains of it", "waiting for it to be hit by a car", etc. have not worked. Thus, those who claim we need to do "organized scientific searches" - inexplicably ignoring the survey work done every day and for centuries that should be fully capable of uncovering such creatures - need to be specific about what different we should be doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Again, my criticisms of Ketchum's project have nothing to do with any perceived delay in publication. My criticisms have focused on her own pronouncements of impending publication when clearly the work had not survived peer review. Such statements are inconsistent with a professional scientist, and caused me to suspect that she might be in over her head with publication of such monumental work, or worse - potentially drawn in by others into something less savory. So I don't care "how long it's taking." If there's ever an awesome publication that comes from this I'd be thrilled! Was her paper returned after examination by peers or was it not accepted for review by the editors? Were her statements of impending publication before or after it had been accepted by another journal and reviewed by her peers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 There you go again, Sas... @Mulder - I agree that science should investigate bigfoot in an organized fashion. I recommend we send a military expedition through the heart of bigfoot country with the mission of charting and mapping these wilderness areas where bigfoots live, and collecting and describing any new species encountered. Oh wait . . . Okay, well I guess that didn't work. And how many plant and animal species have been documented in those same areas AFTER they went through that they DIDN'T document? How 'bout we send thousands of armed people into the American frontier and encourage them to shoot anything that might steal a chicken or a cow? Oh, I guess we did that too. And there have been reports of encounters (including shootings) going back to well before the Old West. Next? What if we funded a big federal agency to map, survey, and explore bigfoot habitat in the American West? Well I guess this should count and this too. Been there done that with this line of reasoning. The total area actually explored and documented is tiny compared to the vastness of the overall area traversed. You know this Sas. All right then, what if we had an eminent scientist who could devote a significant part of his career to getting to the bottom of this bigfoot thing? Oh yeah . . . One scientist, who has been widely derided and dismissed by the institution at large. Okay, well what if we invented some kind of technology that we could deploy all over the place and it could record photographs of the most elusive creatures on earth. Surely that would work, right? Wow, this whole bigfoot thing sure is a pickle! Looks like I have to point out AGAIN: 1) the presence of a relative handful of cameras as opposed to the millions of square miles of wilderness (and the resulting tiny percentage of coverage) makes your so-called "arguement" a non-starter. 2) pictures HAVE been obtained through trail cams of anomalous creatures resembling the appearance of BF. Skeptics simply say "that 's not BF" and toss them aside. This is called "judge and jury syndrome", and demonstrates why Science should not be allowed to both write the rules AND interpret their application. Show me that such a ridiculous proposition would be necessary to ever collect one member of a population of a large mammal. New species, never before known, are being documented all the time, Sas. It took 20+ years to document the giant squid in the wild. It took a number of years to document the cloud leopard in the wild. All that time they were "undocumented" they were quite happily going about their business in that same wild. Science "documenting" something does not magically make it spring into existence like Athena from Zeus' brow. Aren't you "scientists" supposed to be against that sort of "magical thinking"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Wow, this whole bigfoot thing sure is a pickle! I agree, so instead of proposing some enormous country wide search for the thing, there is a perfect solution. Let those who are more convinced by the evidence and or their own encounters atleast collect hair samples where they've been recently encountered. Then provide them with a central clearing house where the samples can be vetted and tested all the way if need be. If nothing pans out from that then a flesh and blood bigfoot becomes much less probable. It is a very cost effective path to resolution if there is any reality to it, with exception of the option of simply waiting on the Logging truck to end it. Anyone heard of a project like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 I assume Ketchum is trying to have her cake and eat it, too. She wants her paper published in an esteemed journal (thus, the prolonged peer review), but she's also anxious to have her name go down in history as the biologist who discovered bigfoot (thus, the constant public relations gimmicks). The history of science contains plenty of examples of perfectionists who dawdled before publishing. For example, Newton dithered for years before laying out The Calculus in the late 1600s, while Leibniz published his independently derived version about three years earlier. The result -- consequential tensions between British and German scientists eventually blossomed, a mere two centuries later, into two devastating world wars. Darwin puttered around for 20 years before he was finally motivated to publish "On the Origin of Species" a year after receiving a paper on the topic of evolution by his fellow countryman, Wallace. The result of the in-fighting -- Britannia no longer rules the waves a century and a half later. Einstein dithered with general relativity for a decade after publishing his theory of special relativity. His fellow German, Hilbert, published the field equations about a half year before Einstein got around to it. The result -- remember Germany being partitioned East and West. Conclusion: The pace of science is accelerating, as is the pace of the consequences of delaying publication of notable advancements in the field. And, the consequences of delay are of geopolitical importance. I have no doubt that a team of scientists in China is doggedly pursuing evidence of their version of bigfoot. I shudder to think of the consequences should Ketchum's penchant for perfectionism allow the Chinese to publish first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Show me that such a ridiculous proposition would be necessary to ever collect one member of a population of a large mammal. Albeit I came in on the tail end of a conversation here, but if every square inch of the US had been trod on we may actually have a specimen already, it hasn't , that was my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 I assume Ketchum is trying to have her cake and eat it, too. She wants her paper published in an esteemed journal (thus, the prolonged peer review), but she's also anxious to have her name go down in history as the biologist who discovered bigfoot (thus, the constant public relations gimmicks). I read this as cynicism, and disengenous to on the one hand criticisze a scientist for not publishing in a ruputable journal when it is not within the Authors' power to do so, then cite the lengthy process as evidence of wanting their cake and eating it too, when this is the intent of science to be thorough in supporting whatever conclusion they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 sy, Would you mind rephrasing your criticism of my criticism? I'm having difficulty understanding what you are saying. You claim it is outside of Ketchum's power to do exactly what? Thanks, Pt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest craichead Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 I'd like to qualify my following post first by saying that I have absolutely no connection to anyone involved in the Ketchum report or any inside information. The following is pure speculation. So I've been curious to know which scientific journal may be reviewing Ketchum's paper for publishing. I have two clues to work with: 1. It's a prominent journal similar to Science. This is from a post by Dr Ketchum. 2. Someone else posted on here to expect it April 5 which has now come and gone. April 5th was a Thursday. I'm thinking the journal may be "Nature." A story of this type with both hard scientific and mainstream appeal seems to fit with much of what they like to publish and is in many ways the only journal with the broad appeal across disciplines that Science has. Also, Nature is a weekly publication that comes out every Thursday. Thin and circumstantial I know, but I think we should expect it to come out in Nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) sy, Would you mind rephrasing your criticism of my criticism? I'm having difficulty understanding what you are saying. You claim it is outside of Ketchum's power to do exactly what? Thanks, Pt We've probably discussed this a dozen times in that publishing a science paper in any journal is the ultimate decision of the Journal. All the Author can do is submit to it, then comply with what revisions the editors and reviewers request. It's a lengthy process which strives for perfection , atleast so that some significance can be established in the evidence and that conclusions are supported through proper procedure and analysis. If I'm wrong on this point, maybe you could explain how this would be wanting the cake and then eating it. I doubt Dr. Ketchum, or any other scientist would take on this endeavor if there wasn't a way to show that BF does exist. Going big or staying home seems to be the sole universal sentiment of both proponents and skeptics. Who would settle for less ? Edited April 7, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts