The Ketchum Report

[southernyahoo]

I tend to agree if published in Nature. The other side of it is that this would be so profound, Novel and ground breaking, the Journal would want it bad if it could pass review, so I could see them being very encouraging to reviewers and the authors throughout the process. They wouldn't waist alot of time afterward going to print.

[Guest]

But then it just turned out that the mutation was likely to be just "unusual' DNA, of an ethnic group of humans who lived nearby (not unusual for them).

There is nothing unusual about being wrong. It happens to all of us, We'll see....

p

Turned out "likely to be," but not proven. Might as well run with that Parn, eh?

I suppose we will see, eventually.

I was hoping to see an embargo post here today, oh well!

[southernyahoo]

Don't blame me for other people accepting a lower standard of proof.

I don't blame you Ray, we already have scientists who are proponents. Their standards were met by collecting their own data along with comparisons to other's data. That's how it happens. Other scientists still doubt it's validity so it is hard to publish when the rest are not satisfied that the data wasn't hoaxed to start with. It's a conundrum that is only fixed with unhoaxable data, and I agree that it starts with biological evidence, DNA etc. You could have a complete bigfoot body on the table, but if the DNA was 100% human you still wouldn't have a new species. I see DNA from numerous specimens to be a higher standard than a body in that regard. established breeding population vs. single specimen.

[bipedalist]

....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.

Yes, it is just these prospects if that suggest if they didn't hit on a well-written, profound paper after several reviews, maybe the best bet is to go monograph, or pre-paid journal, that still would be preferable to some kind of commercialization unveil with an entertainment company with a multimedia package as first citation I think..... not that multimedia wouldn't help back a monograph or throw away/paid up front journal type effort. Hopefully, it'll all come out in the wash anyway.

Edited May 3, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest MikeG]

SY......

A new species will have new DNA. It is absolutely impossible for 2 different species to have identical DNA. That is the fundamental of the stuff: it is an instruction manual to build a body through the medium of proteins. If the 2 instruction manuals are the same, you'll get 2 creatures that are the same. If the creatures are different, then inevitably it means that the manuals used to build them were different too.

Mike

[Guest]

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.

Yep, I provided some data on this topic back on December 29th:

"I just did a bit of checking on acceptance rates for Nature. Of all the manuscripts submitted, about 2/3 are rejected out of hand. This is "handed back" - these are not sent out for review at all. They are winnowed out by the editorial staff. Note that people generally submit their highest quality research to this journal, so that's thousands of manuscripts each year, written by really smart people who think the work is really important, that never even make it to being considered for review.

Of the 1/3 or so that do get reviewed, only about 1/4 will ultimately get published. According to, you know, Nature, the journal received 10,287 submissions in 2010 and published 809 of those papers, for a roughly 8% acceptance rate. So basically to get published in this journal, your submission must be better than 92% of the best work of the best scientists in the world."

[Cisco]

I'm not sure about Nature but I did read the guidelines from Science and they have a variety of different "levels" for papers that are submitted. These levels are based on length or amount of words. Some can be as brief as 800 words and others can be in the thousands. The length is what dictates the time needed for peer review. According to Science, their review process, for longer submissions, can take 8 weeks or longer. The shorter ones are processed more rapidly.

I assume that Ketchum's paper would be rather long so 8-12 weeks, for peer review, would not be unusual.

Anyhow; isn't today supposed to be the day? I feel like I have seen this mentioned someplace but can't recall where...

Edited May 3, 2012 by Cisco

[Guest BFSleuth]

You could have a complete bigfoot body on the table, but if the DNA was 100% human you still wouldn't have a new species. I see DNA from numerous specimens to be a higher standard than a body in that regard. established breeding population vs. single specimen.

That is a very cogent statement that speaks to the idea that with DNA research we should not have to rely on "collecting" a type specimen anymore.

[southernyahoo]

SY......

A new species will have new DNA. It is absolutely impossible for 2 different species to have identical DNA. That is the fundamental of the stuff: it is an instruction manual to build a body through the medium of proteins. If the 2 instruction manuals are the same, you'll get 2 creatures that are the same. If the creatures are different, then inevitably it means that the manuals used to build them were different too.

Mike

Yes, I understand that, I probably wasn't clear in my last post, I was just pointing out the fact that whether we had a body or not, the "DNA" has to reflect a new species, otherwise, no matter how ugly, smelly and different you think it is,..it's still not a new species. If you had a body, but it was genus homo, the DNA road gets tougher and longer, so what do you do with the body in the interim? Is it ok to just whisk it away to your private lab? You gonna call the authorities so they can take it away? It would probably get buried..or ..repatriated, another John Doe in the ground, and we don't want to hear he was a new species, there is no proof of that..................Just a hypothetical here, not a claim.

[Guest]

I understand it is tough to get published in Nature,but today's issue would have been a good issue to have her report in. There is talk of archaic DNA, migration into the Americas, and other related studies/articles. Very good issue for what we discuss here all the time.

[southernyahoo]

Kinda sounds like we are being primed for the reveal doesn't it? It's probably good to have some of those papers published related to archaic DNA etc. because they are then good citations for the next one. The big one...

[BeachFoot]

Well, the bright side is that, regardless of whether the Report comes out this week or not, after this weekend (when DMK speaks at the conference) we should have a little more insight. Surely enough fodder to feed the continued speculation, circular arguments, posturing and puffery of the last 167 pages, I would think.

[Guest BFSleuth]

I've still got my "office pool" money on 5/17.

[Guest]

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.

Because he uses sound basic statistical science as applied to the analysis of wildlife trace evidence data (tracks), and that analysis shows that your assumptions are not supported.

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.

In your opinion.

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

When you start ponying up some substantive evidence that counters their data and conclusions, we'll stop "pummeling with pine cones".

We put our science on the line, Ray...where's yours?

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.

In your opinion.

[Guest]

^^^

Mulder, I don't disagree that there IS evidence supporting the existence of bigfoot. But IMHO your counter-argument to "skeptics" is inadequate. The science "put on the line" is the fact that there is no known bigfoot species that has ever been proven to exist, and anything similar to it (great apes, gorillas, monkeys, neanderthals, whatever) either is not known to live anywhere in North America or a climate like North America's, or is currently extinct.

Quite simply, the counter-argument to your evidence supporting the existence of bigfoot is essentially, "Everything we know about any animal similar to 'bigfoot' implies it could not exist in the US, and if somehow it was, it would have to be much more visible than it allegedly is."

Many many people's life work centers around developing this kind of knowledge of the animal kingdom. They MIGHT be wrong about bigfoot not existing. But to claim there's no evidence counter to the evidence of bigfoot proponents is silly.

Edited May 3, 2012 by BFSleuth
Rule 2A and Rule 1A