Guest MikeG Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I think you may have missed the "if" part in my post which was addressing some members points that some reputable journals may not publish her findings because of bias. I do not disagree with your point about waiting but we do have a fall-back point "if" there is some sort of institutional bias (even though I strongly disagree that there is any sort of bias). The mass communication of powerful information is essentially one click away on the internet and it is hard to suppress anything these days whether good or bad. Fair points, well made. However, one of the effects of the internet is that there is a reduced difference between high and low status information, if I can put it that way. The internet is overloaded with a mixture of information and opinion, and it is difficult to separate them sometimes. The layman can easily think that good information is rubbish, and that rubbish info is good. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 (edited) I probably shouldn't go down this trail...... With respect and curiosity... Why would seeing an animal in the wild be "deep stuff" and "life changing." I could see heightened interest and temporary fear and elation, but the "deep stuff" I hear about seems to reflect something going on more in one's self than what is actually experienced in the wild. I agree this thread is not the place, but your hypothetical is limited. You seem to project your psyche into an encounter, and how you would react as a basis for the not "deep stuff," I think it is a mistake to decide how others should handle a "wild animal encounter" and it's aftermath (also, that is a minimizing word choice; that kind of choice reveals the lack of knowledge and/or empathy many display when they reject personal witness.-even extrinsic evidence...as misidentification or hoaxing). One should accept a witness testimony of the impact to their life. If you disregard even that , then you are just. . . ...well, probably not in a long term marriage! (j/k but that is marriage counseling 101...how to listen! ) But, you also neglect several of the most important parts of the witness experience: other humans and their reactions, as well as an official "they don't exist" world. Perhaps Jerry you just have to experience that downside , from a personal encounter with Sasquatch to being a forthcoming, sincere, reliable witness to really get it. - or start a thread to discuss in detail, and many of us may help illuminate that for you.. You also neglect the other element I mentioned, the desire to know more (which sends some of us to forums like this endure the less informed in hopes that some more answers are forth coming). It also drives many of us to lay hope in the Study and a willingness to entertain the idea it shall be solid science and a reliable source of information. If it isn't, well that's the way it will be then, and we can start a new thread on other's efforts at DNA analysis.... . Respect accepted. Edited April 22, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Translation: I can't meet Mulder's challenge, so it's "Deflector shields up!" Mulder, there's nothing to challenge. The proper place to debate scientific questions is in the scientific literature. Until we get some "pro"-bigfoot papers published, it's very difficult for anyone to respond with an "anti"-bigfoot challenge. To my knowledge, the closest thing we have to the former is Meldrum's ichnotaxon paper, but that was published in an obscure outlet of questionable peer review. In other words, it's unclear if the paper was truly peer-reviewed or not and it's crystal clear that the paper is unknown to the great majority of scientists out there with the expertise to critically evaluate it. I will tell you something problematic in that analysis, however: Meldrum relies heavily on Bluff Creek prints allegedly made by the subject of the PGF. He's also got prints in his collection - and as far as I know used in his analysis - that were Wallace and Freeman fakes. Now you may - and I'm sure you do - disagree with me when I say that Meldrum has featured at least three known hoaxes among the source material in his data: Patterson, Wallace, and Freeman. The fact that you and I have different thresholds of hoax-proof is, however, immaterial. What matters is that the integrity of the data Meldrum used is hotly contested, and that makes his conclusions in that paper highly suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Translation: I can't meet Mulder's challenge, so it's "Deflector shields up!" Mulder, your logic escapes me. You asked, and I quote: "Feel free to show me the scientific, peer-reviewed papers that show Fahrenbach is wrong with his analyses, or Meldrum is wrong about the biometrics of the cast tracks, "butt cast", Skookum impression, et al." Now I may be wrong, and feel free to correct me, but when have scientists been in the habit of publishing refutations to unpublished papers? In which scientific peer-reviewed journal did Fahrenbach publish his track size distribution paper? If there isn't one, why would there be any scientific peer-reviewed refutation? Which scientific peer-reviewed journals published papers from the scientists who examined the Skookum cast? If there aren't any, why would there be any scientific peer-reviewed papers refuting them? So, no deflection whatsoever, and I ask again, for at least the third time, do you have any scientific, peer-reviewed papers that show Fahrenbach, Meldrum, Krantz, et al were correct? A simple yes, with sources if you do, a simple no if you don't. It's not a trick question with Star Trek undertones. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 No. She. Does. NOT! The samples are real. That is a fact. The samples were tested. That is a fact. Whatever the tests show are the results. That is a fact. There is no need to "hypothesize" or "theorize" anything. The test results are the test results. Res ipsa loquitor. Oh.....are they facts already? Why do we even need a paper then? They are not facts yet. Irresponsible stacking of words in a forum post does not make them facts. Common law phrases in Latin or Greek does not make them facts and do not bolster an argument when they are used incorrectly. Green plusses from Gigantor lol who is wrong about the Denisovan's paper does not make them facts yet. She must first make an attempt at explaining the data collected in her paper. This is the hypothesis. Accelleratii Incredibus .... never mind..... I think that's means Road Runner, but Latin words look so fancy so I'm leaving it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I present for peer review my unified theory of everything. Like string theory, it is a speculative scenario that ties together known facts and rumors. It is mostly idle conjecture. Feel free to avert your eyes, flush your cache, close your browser and/or take a shower. I submit there are two different papers. One that was "handed back" and one currently in review. Further, the first paper was built on incomplete data from the days of feralhumanproject.com and the "tribe" copyright filings. Dr. Ketchum distanced herself from those domains, filings and Stubstad by claiming the revelations were built on early and incomplete data. In that light, I think it's entirely possible Bigfoot DNA Version 1.0 was submitted and "handed back" in this time frame. Is it a coincidence that Lindsay heard the paper went to Nature in February of 2011? This is the same month the feral domains were registered - only a few months after Ketchum received the notorious flesh sample from the Sierra Kills (coincidentally? the same month Stubstad left the project). At least some of their assumptions at the time seem to have been built on his statistical analysis of the mtDNA. Did Ketchum really have enough time to build a rock solid case by February? We've heard rumors that co-authors - a "renown team" no less - were added to the project relatively late in the game. Stories swirled in late 2011 that genomes were sequenced at great expense (hence the deep gratitude to Wally Hersom). I think it's possible, even likely, this talent and information infusion led to Bigfoot DNA Version 2.0, now under consideration at a "respected journal" near you...or at least "most college libraries". This paper may even reach different conclusions (as to origins, etc) from the more feral and untestable Version 1.0. Is this how it went down? Beats me. Dang, slim! Too bad I'm out of plusses for the day! I can't find any major holes in that theory! Why would seeing an animal in the wild be "deep stuff" and "life changing." I could see heightened interest and temporary fear and elation, but the "deep stuff" I hear about seems to reflect something going on more in one's self than what is actually experienced in the wild. It isn't uncommon to be profoundly affected by encountering wildlife, esp large and/or potentially dangerous wildlife "up close and personal". I've heard it reported from people who have dove among sharks. Researchers and hunters who have stalked lions and tigers, as well as "bear watchers" and "whale watchers". I myself have had a minor taste of such a feeling while observing a wolf that a friend of a friend had "adopted". As a rule, it didn't come too close to strangers in the house, but one time while I was there it actually approached me and sat looking at me for a couple of minutes. It was an amazing experience to share close quarters with this socialized, but still wild creature. On the other hand, had I encountered a wild wolf, or a bear, or a cougar, etc in the open wilds, I would probably be more "pee my pants" scared than impressed, but I have no doubt that too would be an unforgettable experience. Don't forget O.J. Perfect example of how psuedo-argumentation and jury bias can overcome evidence, reason, and logic and produce the wrong outcome. It's not a trick question with Star Trek undertones. RayG Absolutely you're employing a "trick question". My point is that we have these analyses out there that are the result of time, effort, and scientific rigor. Your so-called "peers" simply say "I don't accept it" and we are supposed to take that as some sort of scientific statement, despite the complete LACK of time, effort, and scientific rigor on the part of the Skeptics. For me to consider those papers and analyses even potentially refuted, I want the same thing you demand of proponents: evidence and analyses that are based on solid research. You don't get to just dump the ball in the proponent court then refuse to volley when it's returned to yours. Oh.....are they facts already? Why do we even need a paper then? They are not facts yet. Irresponsible stacking of words in a forum post does not make them facts. Is it your contention that there are no samples? That they have not been analyzed and results obtained? Care to show us your evidence to support that charge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 That is not my contention at all, Mulder. I'm guessing she has samples and analyzed data from those samples with obtained results. I'm guessing she will attempt to explain what we are seeing regarding those results. This is the point. A formal peer review for a scientific journal will require a hypothesis in the introduction. It will have to be testable unless they changed back over to the "Just cuz" method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Absolutely you're employing a "trick question". My point is that we have these analyses out there that are the result of time, effort, and scientific rigor. I can't help notice the links to these peer-reviewed analyses that you claim are out there, regardless of the time, effort, and scientific rigor involved, are conspicuously missing from your reply. If they're out there, you should have no tribble presenting them, yes? You specifically mentioned Fahrenbach, the Skookum cast, etc., yes? No tricks, I'm asking where one may read their conclusions in a peer-reviewed journal. Your so-called "peers" simply say "I don't accept it" and we are supposed to take that as some sort of scientific statement, despite the complete LACK of time, effort, and scientific rigor on the part of the Skeptics. Yes, I forgot, the skeptics are to blame. You DO have some peer-reviewed scientific papers that support Fahrenbach's track size distribution graph, and the Skookum cast, and hair test results, and mid-tarsal breaks and such, yes? For me to consider those papers and analyses even potentially refuted, I want the same thing you demand of proponents: evidence and analyses that are based on solid research. You don't get to just dump the ball in the proponent court then refuse to volley when it's returned to yours. So where is this collection of evidence and analyses based on solid research that you keep claiming exists? Don't just drop the ball, ante up. And isn't that exactly what it takes to get published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal? Evidence and analysis based on solid research? I suspect you shall now sidestep once again, instead of providing evidence for the claim you keep presenting. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crittergetter Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Everyone seems to be asking for evidence in this thread, even when it is absolutely clear that no one has any. I wish we could just stop that, since it appears to be absolutely pointless. You gentlemen have obviously reached the point of diminishing returns in your discussion. No further evidence or points can be made that will perusade or be acknowledged by the opposing side. The way I see it, everyone wants the paper to be something fanastic, just half of us are glass half empty folks. Now, there is a third option, which is the one that I ascribe to. I'm still on the fence. I have made no descision concerning Dr. Ketchum's report, and will continue to reserve judgement until such a time when I can read it/have the paper interpreted for me. I am looking forward to seeing what is in the paper, and what it proves. I am very hopeful that it will be that fantastic evidence in the positive for Bigfoot, and that it will usher in a new age of understanding and scientific rigor in the Bigfoot phenomenon. However, having no indiction that this is the way it will turn out, I am left hoping as opposed to expecting. Best wishes, Crittergetter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 (edited) Someone commented on Lindsay's blog that Guy Edwards (the man behind Bigfoot Lunch Club) has "divulged" that Ketchum's paper is "officially slated for release in October 2012". Does anyone know where (and if) Guy actually made that claim? I know he's been somewhat skeptical of the study so I'd like to find out the context. Edited April 22, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I spotted this feature article in the New York Times which does an overview of the BFRO and squatching. The link...http://travel.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/travel/hunting-bigfoot-in-florida.html I post this because if we assume that NYT has the Ketchum paper under an embargo, then one way they can ethically discuss the matter prior to the publication date is to run related articles. I believe it's very likely that "the journal" would give the NYT the blockbuster article by Ketchum, under embargo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 (edited) I spotted this feature article in the New York Times which does an overview of the BFRO and squatching. The link...http://travel.nytime...in-florida.html I post this because if we assume that NYT has the Ketchum paper under an embargo, then one way they can ethically discuss the matter prior to the publication date is to run related articles. I believe it's very likely that "the journal" would give the NYT the blockbuster article by Ketchum, under embargo. Intersting idea. I noticed the article when it appeared. I presumed it was just a reaction to the success of FINDING BIGFOOT et al on TV. GK Someone commented on Lindsay's blog that Guy Edwards (the man behind Bigfoot Lunch Club) has "divulged" that Ketchum's paper is "officially slated for release in October 2012". Does anyone know where (and if) Guy actually made that claim? I know he's been somewhat skeptical of the study so I'd like to find out the context. He also describes at length three artistic renditions of the Sierra Kills BFs as well as several other topics. GK Edited April 22, 2012 by gerrykleier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I wonder in general, GK, if a newspaper could honor the embargo while running other pieces related to BF. It's just febrile speculation on my part, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I probably shouldn't go down this trail...... With respect and curiosity... Why would seeing an animal in the wild be "deep stuff" and "life changing." I could see heightened interest and temporary fear and elation, but the "deep stuff" I hear about seems to reflect something going on more in one's self than what is actually experienced in the wild. From many reports I've read, seeing bigfoot is quite an experience, some being so traumatic that control of bodily functions have been momentarily lost. Not to say they are all that way, but I think it depends on what behavior you witness, which certainly isn't consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I wonder in general, GK, if a newspaper could honor the embargo while running other pieces related to BF. It's just febrile speculation on my part, though. I have no idea how these things work. I presumed it was just a general interest piece when I read it. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts