Guest mitchw Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 If at 2pm today there is no announcement, then for the first time I will begin to give credence to the hoax point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I think an outright hoax is a bit of a stretch. This things gone too far for that. Besides which, she has a business that will need to keep some form of credibility. I honestly can't see what anyone would gain if this was a hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) How about instead of "manipulating DNA" we will just say bending the evidence toward a desired conclusion. I think, given Paulides' books and theory that these things are a tribe of Natives, if the DNA showed 50% ape and 50% human DNA you can guess which way they are going to make the results read. People! And that's where the sticking point is. Just show what you discovered, no need to show lineage or a family tree at this point. I have pounded that point for a while now. Step 1- here is DNA we found and tested. It is something new. It has been found in multiple locations. Locations are habituation sites in remote areas where Sasquatch sightings are reported. Oh, btw, here is video of an unknown creature at one of those sites (Erickson). Step 2- proven DNA is mos likely from creature. Step 3- scratch head and come to the reasonable conclusion "hey, I bet this unknown DNA came from that unknown creature where it was collected!". Step 4- proven to exist. Step 5- universities etc fall over each other to test DNA to identify the family tree of this new organism. They went too far in an attempt to make it fit their desired outcome. You think Paulides would go to all this work to have an outcome prove he was wrong all along? First of all, Paulides wouldn't be an author of this paper and it would be difficult to pinpoint exactly how he would define the boundry of what is human or not, so his opinion along with many others here are basicly irrelevant at the moment. Whatever state of preparedness the paper is in , it is well after the copyright stuff, the latest of which indicates a new hominin. So, I'm simply not seeing the square peg people are saying doesn't fit the round hole. Oh, on the matter of the FB page, isn't it easy enough to conclude there are no more questions to be answered? Everything that can be said, has been. When this paper publishes, I'm sure there will be even less time to deal with that outlet of info. Edited June 7, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shoot1 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 How about instead of "manipulating DNA" we will just say bending the evidence toward a desired conclusion. I think, given Paulides' books and theory that these things are a tribe of Natives, if the DNA showed 50% ape and 50% human DNA you can guess which way they are going to make the results read. People! And that's where the sticking point is. Just show what you discovered, no need to show lineage or a family tree at this point. I have pounded that point for a while now. Step 1- here is DNA we found and tested. It is something new. It has been found in multiple locations. Locations are habituation sites in remote areas where Sasquatch sightings are reported. Oh, btw, here is video of an unknown creature at one of those sites (Erickson). Step 2- proven DNA is mos likely from creature. Step 3- scratch head and come to the reasonable conclusion "hey, I bet this unknown DNA came from that unknown creature where it was collected!". Step 4- proven to exist. Step 5- universities etc fall over each other to test DNA to identify the family tree of this new organism. They went too far in an attempt to make it fit their desired outcome. You think Paulides would go to all this work to have an outcome prove he was wrong all along? If this is not a hoax or publicity stunt ... then I believe this is exactly what is going on, and to take it a step further, a conjecture already made by the people working on the Erickson project might be the "Raison d'être" for possibly biased conclusions of the DNA paper. I'm guessing that they observed (or fooled themselves into seeing) human-like behavior and now they're trying to prove their "humanity" through DNA. An obvious Confirmation Bias in the paper could destroy any chance they have of decisively demonstrating whether they are humans or animals. The next issue of Primates will be published June 15th. Tomorrow - Friday, June 8 would be within the "one week" window mentioned by Ketchum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LJSLaw Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I am just an interested observer with nothing substantive to add but I think Dr. Ketchum catches too much grief considering she hasn't been proven to have lied nor has she promised something that was not delivered. Obviously, there is a ton of frustration with the time this has taken but if the sasquatch proponents have been waiting since the beginning of the time to have their opinions and sightings and evidence validated, what is a few more weeks or months? She has promised, in her own words, a major delivery of news. She hasn't promised a time. So, I think prudence dictates waiting patiently and quietly. If it proves to be a hoax or her information is more sparkler than roman candle, then light her up. Until then, I think shots at her are unfair or premature. Just my opinion. Others obviously feel differently. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 .................. could destroy any chance they have of decisively demonstrating whether they are humans or animals. Humans are a subset of animals, and I suspect that when the report comes out that we'll find that it isn't quite so easy to define exactly what "human" means any more. The lines on that particular Venn diagram will be a little more blurry....... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) If it were a hoax, who all would have had to be involved? Edited June 7, 2012 by indiefoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 That question, and for those who think it is a likely hoax, do you think that there is no paper/journal at all, and we've been strung along? What would the purpose of that scenario be? And if the hoax is supposedly being played on the journal, then do you think it would take this long for a journal to sniff that out? I suppose there have been famous cases of Journals being punked, so it is a possibility. I'm just wondering what plausible hoax scenario's other than 'we're bored with this, our patience is thin, ergo: hoax' there are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I don't see how she can bend the DNA results and pass peer review at the same time. Are we assuming she wants Sasquatch to be considered human? That's a pretty big assumption, and one that I don't think will hold true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I need a little help explaining all of this to someone who is not following along, never heard of any of this, and doesn't believe there is a bigfoot. How would I do it on what we have so far? I was thinking of something like this; They have dna. Dna is from a critter. They are extremely busy so they hired someone to not answer questions on a facebook page, but they pulled that page down now because they are busy. The dna may be manipulated, which comes from a manipulated critter. Is that about right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Ontario, I don't think it's a holdup for publishing, I believe it has not passed peer review yet and it's still being shopped around. Nature first, then Science and the other biggies, and will end up at Mad Magazine. I think some members need to catch up on who Paulides is and what his agenda is. North American Bigfoot Search website will provide an education. This was started by Paulides and he HIRED Ketchum. He is the pulling the strings on this whole project. I hope I'm wrong and it comes out very soon, but I don't see it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Should the thread get renamed 'The Paulides Report'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Ontario, I don't think it's a holdup for publishing, I believe it has not passed peer review yet and it's still being shopped around. Nature first, then Science and the other biggies, and will end up at Mad Magazine. I think some members need to catch up on who Paulides is and what his agenda is. North American Bigfoot Search website will provide an education. This was started by Paulides and he HIRED Ketchum. He is the pulling the strings on this whole project. I hope I'm wrong and it comes out very soon, but I don't see it happening. Let's be clear about a few things here. Dr. Ketchum is the director and owner of a company that does DNA testing. As such Paulides and dozens if not hundreds of field researchers have "hired" her company since the 1990's to test "unknown samples". They are and were customers of her company. In 2009 she tested a sample that had an interesting result. This sparked her interest and in 2010 made a public request for additional samples and assembled a team of scientists and other labs to conduct further testing and draft the paper. This is not done on company time and the paper isn't hired by anyone. If you are suggesting that somehow one of Dr. Ketchum's customers has "hired" the writing of the paper that is rather far fetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) I don't necessarily think it IS a hoax, but as soon as they mentioned creating a group for Bigfoot protection... Well, there's your motivation. Considering we don't have any actual information about journal submissions, state of the paper, actual DNA results, etc, I could imagine a viable hoax scenario as follows: Ask people to submit samples + money for BF testing to DNA lab Tell certain submitters their results are positive, but make them sign NDA Publicly claim you have bigfoot DNA, and that you will be writing/submitting a scientific paper, therefore you cannot say anything more about it (that is, keep things as vague and in the dark as possible). Maybe even mention you have several high profile professors on board, but name none of them. Tell other bigfoot believers you are certain you have proof, and that you wish to start an organization that will raise money for protection of the species For good measure, mention you have seen them/taken photos After sufficient time, either gradually stop talking to the public, or claim that the journals will not publish your paper because of bias against bigfoot, but that you still want to protect them. Move forward with "protection" group (money). I'm sure there are holes in this scheme, but it seems to be nebulous enough that it would be difficult to term it explicitly "illegal"? At the very least this seems like a scenario that answers the "what is the purpose of a hoax" question. Discuss! Edited June 7, 2012 by PJam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 The preservation group was raising money? I don't think so. Do you have a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts