Guest Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 long time lurker here... noticed this article today... interesting I thought.... http://www.washingto...zZBX_story.html Perfect example of scientists not even practicing science. It doesn't matter that there "have been no fossils found". It wouldn't matter if they NEVER found a fossil to support the genetic finding. The genetic finding is itself absolute, dispositive proof of the claim vis a vis an African Neanderthal. It's the same sort of "turf guarding" BS that has Egyptologists refusing to accept the findings of West and Schoch that the Sphinx is older than their archaeological findings would indicate (10,000+ years old ) based on the presence and amount of water erosion on the monument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Mulder, DNA is absolute but the statistical analysis for interpreting where it fits within the phylum isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Caveman Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) No timetables, but a good positive note. I don't know, isn't this the same kind of thing we've always gotten. If this paper had been accepted for publication in a reputable journal, I think we would be receiving a different kind of note. The fact that it's the same meaningless generality does not bode well, IMO. Other than rumors, nothing has changed with this study since I joined the board. Instead of "learning so much" shouldn't she and her crew have been busy ironing out flaws to get the paper to final acceptance?? Edited July 28, 2012 by Captain Caveman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 long time lurker here... noticed this article today... interesting I thought.... http://www.washingto...zZBX_story.html I have started a new thread on this subject since it is off topic for the Ketchum paper. See "Hadza, Sandawe and Cameroon Pygmies" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest craichead Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 I don't know, isn't this the same kind of thing we've always gotten. If this paper had been accepted for publication in a reputable journal, I think we would be receiving a different kind of note. The fact that it's the same meaningless generality does not bode well, IMO. Other than rumors, nothing has changed with this study since I joined the board. Instead of "learning so much" shouldn't she and her crew have been busy ironing out flaws to get the paper to final acceptance?? Having worked in scientific and technological fields my whole adult life, my gut instinct tells me that one of the reasons it took so long was not due to simple revisions, but that the journal requested that they actually expand the study. I think they initially had strong evidence and the reviewers wanted to know more. That's why there are 10 additional PhD's on the study. I also think that Sykes has some inside info. Maybe not from Melba, but possibly with some of the other scientists involved -- or possibly Sykes IS on of the PhD's added to the study. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Having worked in scientific and technological fields my whole adult life, my gut instinct tells me that one of the reasons it took so long was not due to simple revisions, but that the journal requested that they actually expand the study. I think they initially had strong evidence and the reviewers wanted to know more. That's why there are 10 additional PhD's on the study. I also think that Sykes has some inside info. Maybe not from Melba, but possibly with some of the other scientists involved -- or possibly Sykes IS on of the PhD's added to the study. Did she say there were 10 more PhDs? Was that a while ago or more recently? I don't recall that. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 There is no "statistics" involved. You have a gene sequence. You compare it to other sequences and determine which pairs match and which don't. Count it up and report it. Simple, clean, and definitive. X number of pairs in common with animal A, Y number in common with B, and so forth. I also think that Sykes has some inside info. Maybe not from Melba, but possibly with some of the other scientists involved -- or possibly Sykes IS on of the PhD's added to the study. I personally suspect Sykes has info of his own outside the study. His turn around time is too short otherwise. I think he's been working on it for some time quietly behind the scenes and is only now coming forward since it's coming down the "home stretch". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Caveman Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) Having worked in scientific and technological fields my whole adult life, my gut instinct tells me that one of the reasons it took so long was not due to simple revisions, but that the journal requested that they actually expand the study. I think they initially had strong evidence and the reviewers wanted to know more. That's why there are 10 additional PhD's on the study. I also think that Sykes has some inside info. Maybe not from Melba, but possibly with some of the other scientists involved -- or possibly Sykes IS on of the PhD's added to the study. Thanks, good insights (in a veritable desert no less ) I would ask, though, that if they wanted to know more, how much more could they ask, if that additional data or what not was to fall within the purview of the initial hypothesis of the paper? (Since I assume that BF would result in an entire field, not just one testable hypothesis). If that makes sense ... I guess what I mean, is that there would be limits to how much expansion they could or would request, no? +1 craichead Did she say there were 10 more PhDs? Was that a while ago or more recently? I don't recall that. GK GK, this has been mentioned, though I'm not sure how long ago. What is it, July now? LOL I'd say at least since Spring. But some of this comes out from Melba Ketchum's FB page, or the public page she was maintaining before it went off line. Frankly, if you want the history, I'm not sure what your best bet is... It is a long and tangled thread we weave! Edited July 28, 2012 by Captain Caveman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Drew Stearns: "Will there be a press conference unveiling the findings?" https://www.facebook...tal_comments=44 Melba Ketchum: "As with most published scientific papers, there will be a press release first before anything else happens." https://www.facebook...tal_comments=44 Bruce MacDonald: "Let there be light...." https://www.facebook...tal_comments=44 Melba Ketchum: "More like an atomic bomb! LOL However, a little more patience is still required." https://www.facebook...tal_comments=44 Mitchell Waite: "This is just an open question for any or all. After the release of data, is there any group or being formed to study the social sturctures, habits, feeding and birthing of the Bigfoot? Kind of like a Jane Goodall effort?" https://www.facebook...tal_comments=44 Melba Ketchum: "@ Mitchell, there will be such an effort, you can contact Sally Ramey about this." https://www.facebook...tal_comments=44 Paul Graves: "Thank you Melba , and to address Mitchell"s question ,"The Olympic Project " is in the process of completing our mission statement and part of our effort is exactly what your question was ,and we are in part approaching it with a Jane Goodall kind of approach , species identification and continued education and learning are two of our main core values , as well as some kind of protection law from humans harming or killing one , we have some great positive people on our team , and are all excited to continue to learn about our close relatives and in return maybe learn something more about ourselves for the better of all mankind ..." https://www.facebook...tal_comments=44 Melba Ketchum: "@ Paul As I told Derek, we already have a well established Protection Group just waiting for the publication in order to go to their lawmakers to seek protection for the Sasquatch. We also have established a research initiative. I would like to invite the Olympic Project to work with us on this very important work. Sally Ramey is handling questions from folks about how to join and what they can do to help. We have had overwhelming success with this and I am very proud of all of the hard work that the group has done and how well they are working together. It will be a roaring success at the rate it is going. You guys that are on here that have been working tirelessly to get ready to launch, I am so proud of you and your commitment to this cause." https://www.facebook...tal_comments=44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 I am just a newbie, so forgive me if I am out of place, but doesn't sharing MK's private FB page just fuel RL. Maybe Ketchum will completely clam up if every comment is shared here and then made into something for the trolls on Big Foot Evidence and for Lindsey to skew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 There is no "statistics" involved. You have a gene sequence. You compare it to other sequences and determine which pairs match and which don't. Count it up and report it. Simple, clean, and definitive. X number of pairs in common with animal A, Y number in common with B, and so forth. It takes a statistical algorithm to get the gene sequence, then depending on what segment is looked at, the statistical significance of how close it is to X, Y, or Z. http://lmgtfy.com/?q...ic+research%3F+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 I am just a newbie, so forgive me if I am out of place, but doesn't sharing MK's private FB page just fuel RL. Maybe Ketchum will completely clam up if every comment is shared here and then made into something for the trolls on Big Foot Evidence and for Lindsey to skew. gershake did not post anything that melba didnt post in the past, and trolls are going to make up stuff or dam her for not posting, so their is no reason to worry about them. Even when the paper is out they will still say it's fake or just pretend they were believers all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Mulder, DNA is absolute but the statistical analysis for interpreting where it fits within the phylum isn't. Thats what's going to be interesting about this study when and if it comes out. It will be nothing but a study in statistical probabilities. Unknown human DNA found in numerous locations that is similar but so unique equals Bigfoot! Good luck with that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Exactly Cervelo, it is not as simple as laying out a string of beads and picking which ones are a match or don't match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 According to my finely tuned calculations the paper will be published in almost exactly 8 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts