Guest slimwitless Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 If you hypothesize that the results are for a bigfoot, how do you test that hypothesis without a body? I remember vaguely hearing that she used the word bigfoot at some point, whether it was sending out samples or in her paper, I wish I could recall exactly what context it was used, and it was rejected? Does anyone else recall that rumor? Yes. I heard they were asked to use verbiage like "unknown primate" in place of "bigfoot". The timing suggests this was after the Nature "rejection". By the way, Matt Moneymaker just tweeted that the best place to find DNA is in areas with lots of sightings and lots of caves. I guess it's never too late to get on the bandwagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 If you hypothesize that the results are for a bigfoot, how do you test that hypothesis without a body? Well , you could do your best to prove it's something else in an effort to falsify the hypothesis, but if you fail then you could say it is a strong hypothesis depending on what your hypothesis of what bigfoot is and what the evidence says it is from. Obviously "bigfoot is a modern human with no genetic divergence" won't work for a testable hypothesis without (not just a body) but a complete population of said hairy humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 By the way, Matt Moneymaker just tweeted that the best place to find DNA is in areas with lots of sightings and lots of caves. Wow, Mr. Moneymaker! State the obvious much? That's kind of like saying, "the best place to find teeth is in the mouth." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 I'm surprised he didn't mention trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 I'm surprised he didn't mention trees. Don't know if trees are a good place to find BF DNA, but I hear they're a great place to look if you're looking for branches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) Don't know if trees are a good place to find BF DNA, but I hear they're a great place to look if you're looking for branches. You should tweet that. Obviously "bigfoot is a modern human with no genetic divergence" won't work for a testable hypothesis without (not just a body) but a complete population of said hairy humans. Wait a minute. Did parn just hack your account? Edited December 5, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) Well, if Nature tossed it, that put's paid to the contention that the editor of Nature is open to a BF paper now doesn't it? This notion that a dna identification paper "has no testable hypothesis" is meaningless. What could be more testable than a dna result? You run the test and analyze the results. There's nothing to hypothesize about; the results are what the results are. Well, you have to put yourself in the shoes of the Nature submission guy. He is given a paper with all of this DNA evidence and it has Bigfoot written all over it. He, of course, raises an eyebrow and proceeds to read it. Being a bit compelled by DNA findings that point to an unknown hominid, he makes the decision that without a specimen at hand, the peer review could not confirm that said "unknown hominid DNA" comes from a "Bigfoot". So he says it's untestable without a body, and asks her to change all of the writing to "unknown primate"(or wtvr) and to remove all of the Bigfoot stuff. Ketchum doesn't like this because BIGFOOT is the keyword for the entire study. I also view the "need a zoologist" part of it to mean that perhaps some of the wording was not detailed enough in regards to the biological specifics. The books that the general public reads about scientific discoveries are a far cry from the hyperspecific latin riddled wording of most papers. At least in the natural sciences. Doesn't mean the DNA doesn't prove anything at all. But I reckon that without a body, the DNA "IS" unverifiable and testable. Edited December 5, 2011 by StankApe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 I keep saying it will eventually be published.........in MAD magazine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) Well, you have to put yourself in the shoes of the Nature submission guy. He is given a paper with all of this DNA evidence and it has Bigfoot written all over it. He, of course, raises an eyebrow and proceeds to read it. Being a bit compelled by DNA findings that point to an unknown hominid, he makes the decision that without a specimen at hand, the peer review could not confirm that said "unknown hominid DNA" comes from a "Bigfoot". So he says it's untestable without a body, and asks her to change all of the writing to "unknown primate"(or wtvr) and to remove all of the Bigfoot stuff. Ketchum doesn't like this because BIGFOOT is the keyword for the entire study. I also view the "need a zoologist" part of it to mean that perhaps some of the wording was not detailed enough in regards to the biological specifics. The books that the general public reads about scientific discoveries are a far cry from the hyperspecific latin riddled wording of most papers. At least in the natural sciences. Doesn't mean the DNA doesn't prove anything at all. But I reckon that without a body, the DNA "IS" unverifiable and testable. Yes, my take on what was reported by MM seemed to indicate that "among other things" the hypothesis was untestable. That together with the requirement to have some zoological background, seems to indicate that the paper would need work. It may not necessarily be the data, it may simply be the writing isn't up to the standards of the publication. If you misstate the hypothesis in the beginning the rest of the paper is crap.... .... and if you aren't a zoologist then it makes for weak arguments within a zoological submission. Hopefully she hands off the writing to at least one qualified zoologist. If not, then someone else needs to step up and start cranking on a new set of data working with a qualified zoologist. Edited December 5, 2011 by BFSleuth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) @Southern Yahoo...great question! Scientific method require repeatability, the experimental design, if anyone employs, should give similar results. My post in the Lindsay thread about a professional society of researchers brings that up - there is no classic, traditional peer-review for our work as yet... (and so many opportunities for us to set minimum standards on say even video submissions, like an affidavit, a full list of those present, and so forth!) Biologists, etc today have very specialized and defined areas of inquiry..they aren't walking around looking at everything wondering if it is Sas... It is a problem (leaving genetics aside as that is an area that lends to repeatability in results..) she had to be proving something.. and there is a bit of vacuum between the collection provenance and the PCR testing... So, I tired to change my hypothesis as time/knowledge increased. At first it was...is there something in the forest making these anomalies...and the answer was yes, then it was, what is it, and the answer was genus Homo..and then it was...are they smart? And many experiments aimed at that. All the while trying to keep a background of remote video/sound/tracking etc...just getting my feet on the ground...and getting enough to bring a true anthropologist out...I failed there...as yet anyway. And finally it was...can we meet? We came close! It may still happen, I however am broke, and depressed by lack of real venues to put research in...(and you all know the YouTube problem...and coolness too)..... So, ideally when I finish writing up..one could take any of the three of four working hypothesis and repeat results....not worrying about proving...(I think it will take more than one video, one paper, or 2 bodies)....the hurdles, the Myth, the consequences so big... as a result of that approach I feel confident saying they can detect IR light, and a few other things... but, importantly, I hope someone can go out and do similar activities and get similar data.. and then what have I proved...LOL - that that experimental method arrives at those results... not sure why it double posted..had to edit to remove.. but while here, sound analysis....how can I get any expert in birds to identify a mimicked bird call anything but that bird? Even if it's behavior is wrong, (and data on that for three years) has no spouses or fledglings, can never get an ID on, and so forth...without some clear frequency shift or something..it must become a Bird given BF's do not exist.... and so on. So, coming up with a testable hypothesis there is tough...and my sound analysis skills infant... and what about woodknocking - I can share a file with Cornell...they are all stumped...but so? I got to a point where I thought perhaps it is better they are never "proved" - it seems it won't be up to me..so if they must be proved, then we need a way to communicate more reliably with the world...a society of research (not a club like we have now..about 15 clubs!) that allows anyone to submit and get objective review and a "nod." okay..pipe dream I am sure, b/c I don't see myself doing all that unloved work! Who would, as we are all just part-time volunteers....? Edited December 5, 2011 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 ... Opinion: Moneymaker's ever present, over-the-top enthusiasm is virtually syphilitic. He thinks a declined paper submitted to Nature has forced top scientists to think about the reality of Bigfoot. whew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wayne, don't you think you were a little hard on The Beaver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) You should tweet that. Wait a minute. Did parn just hack your account? Lol, no. Not unless he is using " mind control" Ha, I just don't think the stated hypothesis is in the paper. Edited December 5, 2011 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) As for what they want and don't want, I don't have to be in your position to agree. Obviously (if the rumors are true), she didn't make the case with Nature. If all she has is modern human DNA then this story makes absolutely no sense. For starters, why would Ketchum claim extraordinary "proof"? Why would she reaffirm her connection to Erickson and his footage? Why would Randles believe the results validated General's story (you know, the one about shooting an eight foot tall monster)? Modern human DNA can't explain any of those things. If you're right, Ketchum and all involved better prepare themselves for an onslaught of ridicule and criticism. Slim, I know you have read Stubstad's stuff. That is modern human DNA. Even he kind of admits it. You can't make a silk purse out of a SNP or a coincidental similarity between specimens. And yet, to use your expression, I don't see any onslaught so far regarding that, do you? except coming from me. I assume that other similar results will be published somewhere (not in a worthwhile journal), and I bet there will be no onslaught then either. Rather, people (eg Mulder) who believe in credentials over quality, and in the existence of bigfoot as a flesh and blood animal (with the consensus characteristics*) will start citing it as proof of bigfoot! Even Meldrum, Mr. North American Ape, has started distancing himself from the consensus characteristics and the "ape" word. We already know that the leading entrepreneurs are on board...you know who those are, I assume. "Bigfoot is Human" is the new mantra. Whatever differences there are between Sasquatch and SweetSusieQ (they will claim) will be found in better understanding of DNA. In other words, (like always) it's the fault of Science that we haven't figured it out. Meanwhile Science will politely stifle a yawn (maybe indulge in an eyeroll) and go about their business. I could be wrong; my crystal ball has only 4mb of RAM. *(8 feet tall, 400 lbs, bipedal and quadripedal, runs 30 mph, midtarsal break, freaky foot dimensions, can detect and avoid cameras and guns, no fire or tools or clothing, no known shelters, twists trees, abducts and carries humans for miles, catches deer, throws rocks, hollers, is nocturnal, eats anything, has glowing/reflective eyes, no neck, non modern human body proportions, stinks to high heaven, etc etc). Edited December 5, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) Good luck with that. Parn didn't talk before when the question was raised and he probably won't talk now. :-) I have mentioned elsewhere that Ketchum could publish a particular kind of paper, in a particular kind of journal. Here I will lay out the bare bones of a prototype. All numbers are fictional and the names have been changed to protect the innocent. Intro: Microscopic identification of hair and other biologic material has been under scrutiny for many years. blah blah sources blah. DNA analysis is increasingly used in forensic investigations and wildlife research, and is the gold standard for species identification from trace specimens as well as gross samples. We correlated the results of microscopy of hair samples with DNA testing. Methods: As part of a preliminary project to screen for the presence of an uncatalogued primate, 324 samples of uncertain or unknown provenance were submitted by lay persons interested in this concept. Submitters were requested to include samples from any person who might have contaminated the specimen. Postmarks indicated the following states of origin: Washington 56, Ohio 5, blah blah. Initially a fee of 200 dollars was required from the submitter. After the first 59 samples, a funding source was secured to cover costs if the submitter agreed to certain conditions of confidentially and transfer of publication rights. The samples were as follows: 122 plucked hairs, 32 cut hairs, 3 unknown fibers, 22 food items, 3 blood, 2 tissue, 4 feces, 3 food containers, 65 cotton swabs, blah blah Analysis: all hairs were subjectively and tentatively identified by microscopy by Dr. XXXXXX as a known animal, human, or unknown. Fecal specimens were analyzed for gross, microscopic and parasite content. DNA barcode screening tests for species was then done, and human specimens by this test were then subjected to further analysis including sequencing of mtDNA and selected nuDNA genes. Results: Each category is broken down by sample type eg: of the 122 hairs, there were 33 deer, 6 skunk, 52 elk, 7 dog, blah blah and 21 human; human contamination was found in 55% of samples. microscopic analysis was correct in 79% of animals and 63% of humans. blah blah. blood: blah blah tissue: yada feces: blah The following rare or unreported human SNP's were found, two in mtDNA, two in nuDNA genes: X1234Y, blah blah. Four samples were duplicates. blah blah. Summary and conclusions: Samples submitted as part of a screening project for the existence of an uncatalogued primate showed a spectrum of results. Only a few were primate, and these were all human. Three sequences were found that were not in published data banks. Microscopy of hair samples was only 79% accurate for animals blah blah and 63% of human specimens. Our study confirms that microscopic analysis of hair samples is inconclusive. Non DNA fecal testing was 75% accurate though the numbers were too small to be significant. I expect this paper could be published in a technical-related journal, perhaps a forensic one or a wildlife or parks journal, if it were written as a short communication; obviously it would have to be tailored to suit the particular journal. I kind of doubt she would write it that way. I could conceive of it being written in such a way that another kind of journal might be interested if it were written as a negative result for bigfoot. But I don't think Ketchum will ever write it that way. if she writes it as a positive bigfoot study, I don't think it will be published in any journal that values its scientific reputation. That is not to say that it won't be published somewhere. Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. for example, I thought Andrew Luck would be a cinch for the Heisman Trophy, but I guess he isn't. Edited December 5, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Parn, do you rule out the American Journal of Physical Anthropology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts