kbhunter Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Thank you again BF Sleuth, you dead on with your comments. KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Thanks, KB. I just came across another article regarding the discovery of the new species of monkey, the Cercopithecus Lomamiensis, known locally as the Lesula. Note the following quote: "To a layman it looks like an open and shut case. But animals are often widely divergent within a species -- humans are an obvious example -- so Hart and his team needed science to prove their gut feeling. "I got in touch with geneticists and anthropologists to get their advice. I knew it was important to have a collaborative team of experts," says Hart. The exhaustive study took three years." Note that even with type specimens in hand they needed three years to finish and publish their paper and it took the efforts of a number of scientists. There weren't any press releases prior to the major announcement of publication either. By comparison Dr. Ketchum et al are about 3-4 years into their effort and likely approaching a year from the first submission of their paper, give or take a few months. Without a type specimen they then need to work exclusively with DNA samples from independent researchers, submitted with photos, video, and written documentation of how the samples were collected, etc. Here is the actual research paper for the new monkey. This is a good example of how a scientific paper is written for describing a new species, complete with DNA analysis, morphology, and behavior observation. Without morphology (type specimen) Ketchum's paper will need to rely more on DNA, video, photos, and witness accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Yes, 4 years with type specimens for a relatively 'mundane' discovery. Definitely puts things in perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted September 15, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) Interesting that ethically, "no animal was hunted for the purpose of research" (though they admitted to using samples from hunters including one from a crowned eagle attack). Edited September 15, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I just noticed today that the Preservation Group is not showing up in my Groups on Facebook. It was there last week.... Am I the only one having this issue??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 The same thing happened to me, chelefoot. I think you were caught up in the dragnet of suspected leakers and/or non-participants. At least that's the working theory. I never posted to the group (and there wasn't anything worth leaking). You might be able to get back in by pleading your case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Well that stinks. Just cause I didn't blabber all the time didn't mean I don't keep track! Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I think Dr. Ketchum went operational with Order 66. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) I wonder if the people on the new monkey discovery kept all their info secret, refused to confirm anything about it and made everyone involved sign NDA's? I would just about guarantee you that if you went to the university where the main guy(s) on the new monkey find are professors you'd find that darn near everyone in their department knew about it and seen the pics to prove it. Heck they probably had announcements on their voice mail about it. All that info from NATURE was about speaking to JOURNALISTS. Of course they wouldn't want to invest the time, expertise and money of their members to go through all the motions and work to verify and publish a new breakthrough if the person submitting it was going to go to the BIG newspaper and tell them all about it while the submission is in progress. As for the anticipated media explosion that many think is right around the corner with MK, I don't think it'll be nearly what you all are thinking it will be. Sure it'll get a mention on the news programs and news websites and such, but it ain't gonna be 60 Minutes type stuff. I would doubt seriously that it would get more than a minute on national news shows and won't make the front page on the BIG Papers in the country. NO BODY, NO HUGE PRESS COVERAGE. If she had one of those bodies that she claimed to see frolicking around and rolled it out with her "study," then you'd be talking HUGE coverage and 60 Minutes. Nalajr Edited September 15, 2012 by Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 You are correct that their colleagues knew and they likely shared information back and forth and discussed it in professional conferences. However, I'm willing to bet a fine bottle of scotch that you won't find any evidence of anyone in the monkey study posting on public forums prior to the release of their paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I wonder if the people on the new monkey discovery kept all their info secret, refused to confirm anything about it and made everyone involved sign NDA's? I would just about guarantee you that if you went to the university where the main guy(s) on the new monkey find are professors you'd find that darn near everyone in their department knew about it and seen the pics to prove it. Heck they probably had announcements on their voice mail about it. All that info from NATURE was about speaking to JOURNALISTS. Of course they wouldn't want to invest the time, expertise and money of their members to go through all the motions and work to verify and publish a new breakthrough if the person submitting it was going to go to the BIG newspaper and tell them all about it while the submission is in progress. As for the anticipated media explosion that many think is right around the corner with MK, I don't think it'll be nearly what you all are thinking it will be. Sure it'll get a mention on the news programs and news websites and such, but it ain't gonna be 60 Minutes type stuff. I would doubt seriously that it would get more than a minute on national news shows and won't make the front page on the BIG Papers in the country. NO BODY, NO HUGE PRESS COVERAGE. If she had one of those bodies that she claimed to see frolicking around and rolled it out with her "study," then you'd be talking HUGE coverage and 60 Minutes. Nalajr A 7 to 10 ft tall ,weighing 500 to 800 lbs, and in north america, is just a little different than a new breed of monkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 A 7 to 10 ft tall ,weighing 500 to 800 lbs, and in north america, is just a little different than a new breed of monkey. And a lot harder to believe, considering there is no specimen of BF anywhere to be found! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toejam Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Tell that to the large handful of us that have areas of ongoing activity. A lack of a specimen does NOT mean a lack of a species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 You are correct that their colleagues knew and they likely shared information back and forth and discussed it in professional conferences. However, I'm willing to bet a fine bottle of scotch that you won't find any evidence of anyone in the monkey study posting on public forums prior to the release of their paper. Woe are we - the curious but unworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 There are victims here. People who have suffered because they enountered something the rest of the population at large considers mythical. How is it no on thinks about it like this? I have risked alot and heard alot of negative conversations because of my encounters. That monkey they found never had anywhere near the stigma of bigfoot. It is the stigma that drives the true "doubters" and the true "believers to bring emotions into logical discussions. If Dr. Ketchum is feeling some of that, it seems fair. I have been called crazy, a liar, a moron and much worse because of BF. Those with the evidence can remove that stigma NOW. How much money has been spent on this? How much money is trying to be made off this? I have my own proof that is good enough for me, the rest of the world and especially those who have encountered BF are waiting for vindication! What other issue is more important that this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts