Guest BFSleuth Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 On that score you are correct, Parn. She did say that she has something great, and in recent Facebook pronouncements she has continued to state that in so many words. In that part of the comparison to hoax scenarios it would be similar, I stand corrected. However, the issues surrounding the delay that so many perceive in terms of releasing information is different in my opinion. Regarding people that have made honest errors or overstatements of their evidence that certainly has been the case in the past. Time will tell with the Ketchum report and I'm sure that when it is published it will receive a great deal of scrutiny, and rightfully so. After the paper is published it will finally give a peer reviewed paper to the science community to read, debate, and try to replicate. Only with repeated replication of her results will it really establish the matter for science. Ketchum's paper itself, while it may become a milestone in the BF debate, won't be the last word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Ketchum's paper itself, while it may become a milestone in the BF debate, won't be the last word. Exactly. My hope is Bigfoot will start to gain the attention of more scientists and researchers. I think it will be a key in learning more about these creature's. Getting more people involved. At this current rate it'll take forever to learn about them. I doubt Finding Bigfoot will actually find any bigfoot soon. Needs to be taken more seriously by scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 There is nothing unusual about being wrong. It happens to all of us, cooks, bottle washers, scientists... If the number of co-authors is indeed in the double digits (I'm guessing ten based on a deleted Twitter post), wouldn't you expect someone to have set her straight by now? I suppose without knowing their credentials there's no way to know how likely it is they're all wrong but still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Anyone else think she's hot? Or was hot? Lucy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 1. who's that girl? she must be a lucy, she's so awesome and doesn't even know it. 2. you have a lucy? lucky *******, don't ever let her go. 3. **** i ****** up. don't worry man, lucy will forgive you, she's amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) slim, More is better, if they are qualified, but "authors" are sometimes helpers, and not involved in interpreting the data or writing the paper. She could conceivably have ten Ph.D's as "authors," but they aren't involved at all in writing the conclusions. No offense, but Derekfoot could be listed as an author. But hopefully these experts she seems to be describing will actually shape the paper, not just run lab tests. If I am correct, Ketchum has modern human DNA (along with some from known quadripeds), that she wants to attribute to the popularly described bigfoot, without proof (no, stories aren't proof). Well, that just won't fly as a conclusion in a decent journal. It might fly as what is entitled "speculation" in a lesser journal. Modern human DNA comes from modern human boy scouts, drunks, hikers and hunters, not from an 8 foot biped/quadriped 400 lb monster with glowing eyes, strange hands and hinged feet, no neck, conical head, no use of fire, no confirmed language or tools or shelters or fire. Hopefully these new "authors" will help her see what can and can't be claimed, based on the data she has. p. Edited May 2, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I think you've lumped quite a hodge podge of examples in your list. I hope you aren't trying to equate a DNA research paper authored by several Phd's that have probably spent hundreds if not thousands of hours on the research and writing and submission for peer review to the work of a couple hoaxers with a gorilla suit in a freezer. You also include the Munns Report. Are you really classifying the work of Bill Munns as a hoax? I lumped together anything that I consider a historical failure in proving bigfoot exists, including the work of Bill Munns. While there may be some hoaxes included in the group, it was not meant to be a list of bigfoot hoaxes, nor did I indicate anywhere that it was. It's only a partial list of historical failures. I purposely left out the Ketchum DNA results because nothing has been published, so I have no idea if it will be the Aha! proof that will end my 40+ year pursuit for the truth, or just another historical failure, and I said as much. He has his data set out there for review by anyone, and has noted it is a work in progress with additional work to be done. I'm baffled how you include this in your list of "disappointments". On May 15th, 2009, Loren Coleman posted at Cryptomundo that Bill Munns presented his report at the Yakima Bigfoot Round-Up. Loren's article was titled, "Breaking News From Yakima: The Munns Report". Fast forward three years, and bigfoot has still not been proven based on Bill's examination of the PGF. That is why I included his report in my partial list of historical failures. How many times have we seen the words 'Breaking News' when it comes to bigfoot? How many times has this breaking news produced an actual bigfoot? <crickets> I'm just not sure exactly what point you are trying to make, unless this was simply venting in advance ("pre-venting") in case you might be disappointed again. I'm just pointing out a partial list of historical failures that have plagued bigfootdom since the Pacific Northwest Expedition of 1959. It's by no means a complete list, but none of the listed events, videos, reports, pronouncements, or 'Breaking News', has led to or confirmed an actual bigfoot. THAT is my point. In your opinion. Your list may be more detailed than Drew's, but it's the same old argument by assertion fallacy, tied up with circular argumentation. Let's not forget the rejection of commonly accepted statistical norms, as in Fahrenbach's bell-curve analysis. Let's not forget Fahrenbach used second/third-hand information, based upon evidence that may or may not have been measured accurately, and then presented his results to bigfooters, not mainstream science. I'll gladly stand corrected if you can point out how any of the above has led to the confirmation of an actual bigfoot. Those things may not be proof to you Ray, that doesn't mean they don't cause acceptance for others. With proof being defined as a cogency of evidence that compells acceptance of the mind of a truth or fact Don't blame me for other people accepting a lower standard of proof. The proof I'm talking about doesn't require belief or faith, I'm talking sufficient 'proof' for mainstream science to declare bigfoot an actual cataloged species. All the things I mentioned have failed to do that. Huh? There's a "Bigfoot Elite?" Where?!! They reside in Bigfootdom. Meldrum, Noll, Ketchum, Fahrenbach, Green, Byrne, Munns, Gimlin, and Moneymaker are just a few that immediately come to mind. We've already seen defenders of at least three of them in this very thread. Question something by any of them and be prepared to be pummeled by pine cones. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 slim, More is better, if they are qualified, but "authors" are sometimes helpers, and not involved in interpreting the data or writing the paper. She could conceivably have ten Ph.D's as "authors," but they aren't involved at all in writing the conclusions. No offense, but Derekfoot could be listed as an author. But hopefully these experts she seems to be describing will actually shape the paper, not just run lab tests. If I am correct, Ketchum has modern human DNA (along with some from known quadripeds), that she wants to attribute to the popularly described bigfoot, without proof (no, stories aren't proof). Well, that just won't fly as a conclusion in a decent journal. It might fly as what is entitled "speculation" in a lesser journal. Modern human DNA comes from modern human boy scouts, drunks, hikers and hunters, not from an 8 foot biped/quadriped 400 lb monster with glowing eyes, strange hands and hinged feet, no neck, conical head, no use of fire, no confirmed language or tools or shelters or fire. Hopefully these new "authors" will help her see what can and can't be claimed, based on the data she has. p. Or maybe its just real. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted May 3, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted May 3, 2012 ....and undescribed heretofore, unknown soon to be known, primate ....imagine that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) Ray, How many of the list you lumped together were presented as proof that Bigfoot exists? How does one fail at something they did not attempt? Most of the skeptics would need a body to be convinced, so why label anything that falls short of that a failure? Edited May 3, 2012 by indiefoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 indie, every one of those things was in one way or another presented as a claim that bigfoot exists. Can you find one that wasn't/isn't? Need I break them down individually to explain the significance of each one? Have you heard of each of the events, videos, reports, pronouncements, or 'Breaking News' items that I listed? Here, I'll list them again... PGF, Skookum Cast, LMS, Pine Ridge, Norway House, Cave Junction, Teslen, Memorial Day footage, Kentucky pancake video, New York bigfoot baby video, Snelgrove Lake, Bindernagel's sighting, Sierra Sounds, Bigfoot in a freezer, The 'Russian Expedition' of 2011, bigfoot handprint on a truck, Ivan Marx footage, Johor Bigfoot, Mary Green/Janice Coy farce, Japanese Yeti expedition, Myakka Skunk Ape pictures, Mike Green's Thermal Zagnut Bigfoot, Jacob's photo, Minnesota Iceman, Bobby Clarke's Manitoba bigfoot video, Bigfoot toenail, Prince Edward Island footage, bigfoot shot and killed, track size distribution paper/NASI report, Bigfoot hand in a jar, analysis by Bill Munns/Sweaty Yeti, Hairy Man Pictographs, and crypto-linguist presentations... You can add the Freeman trackway, Tom Slick's Pacific Northwest Expedition, Bossburg, Six Rivers Expedition, Monsterquest, Finding Bigfoot, or anything else you've heard of, and NONE of it has led to the procurement or presentation of an actual bigfoot. That's Bigfoot History 101, and it has made me wary of expecting 'Breaking News' when such pronouncements are made. And yes, this skeptic would require a body, a piece of a body, or DNA results to be convinced. Anything short of that fails to deliver the goods. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Found this a little earlier this evening. I apologize if this has already been mentioned...... Comments to press reporters attending your scheduled session at a professional meeting should be limited to clarifying the specifics of your presentation. In such situations, we ask that you do not expand beyond the content of your talk or give copies of the paper, data, overheads, or slides to reporters. No news coverage of your paper can appear anywhere before 2:00 p.m. Eastern U.S. Time on the Thursday before your paper's publication. Thus:Scientists with papers pending at Science should not give interviews on the work until the week before publication, and then only if the journalist agrees to abide by the Science embargo. Please do not participate in news conferences until after 1:00 p.m. Eastern U.S. Time the day before publication Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Which journal is that from Cisco? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I was listening to an NPR interview with an editor of Nature today, and he noted that they have about 10,000 papers submitted each year for consideration. This was a side part of the main story (but I didn't catch the main content). Of the 10,000 then they would select some of those for peer review, and of those that go into peer review it would be winnowed down to the 800 or so they print each year. Food for thought regarding the chances of a paper getting through the process of a major journal. Each paper represents many hours and in some cases years of research and writing. If Dr. Ketchum's work is published it will be a major achievement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts