Guest WesT Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 If you can't debunk the data discredit the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted September 17, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) If Ketchum really did make claims of being privy to a Sasquatch infestation where on one occasion she was blessed of seeing a ten footer, I seriously question her state of mind. I wasn't questioning the 10 footer, Edited September 17, 2012 by BobbyO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 What excuse did she use to explain why she didn't get a pic ? To be fair, she did get a (blurry) picture of a stick structure on that trip! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I wasn't questioning the 10 footer, I was suggesting that she should not have revealed her alleged BF experiences because this only diminishes her credibility as an impartial, objective and sane DNA specialist in the eyes of her peers. But what's worse, she claims not just one encounter but several. For those reviewing her work who are animate that Sasquatch is nothing but a farce, they'll start wondering how many cats Ketchum owns. Now her state of mind will be also be in question, in addition to her findings. She just made it that much more difficult for the scientific community to take her seriously. Personally, I think she's pulling a "Curt Nelson", but we shall see. I can understand that perspective, but like Mike G. stated, Once a scientist is convinced by the evidence they examine, they would be expected to do some field work to see if they can collect similar evidence on their own. Thats repeatability, and that wouldn't necessarily be done just to satisfy the scientific community but for personal affirmation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 At the rate of speed to which Ketchum's report may ever come to light, I'm betting the TBRC will come up with proof of Sasquatch much sooner.. Very interesting situation going on with the TBRC.. That IS a possibility. I wasn't questioning the 10 footer, I was suggesting that she should not have revealed her alleged BF experiences because this only diminishes her credibility as an impartial, objective and sane DNA specialist in the eyes of her peers. But what's worse, she claims not just one encounter but several. For those reviewing her work who are animate that Sasquatch is nothing but a farce, they'll start wondering how many cats Ketchum owns. Now her state of mind will be also be in question, in addition to her findings. She just made it that much more difficult for the scientific community to take her seriously. Classic psuedo-skepticism. Whether she saw one or not, or even simply advocated that they might exist is irrelevant to the quality of her science. They use the same dirty trick on people like Dr Meldrum, to wit: "He's a 'believer', so you can't trust what he says about track morphology..." It's a direct violation of every rule of true critical thought, and one of the primary reasons why I trust what Skeptics say about as much as I would if someone told me the sky was colored pink with purple polka-dots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GreatBIGFoot Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 GREAT post BFS - re: the paper / length of time to create / study / etc Well said.... And I agree 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbhunter Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Beyond just the time elapsed, I've been reading through the original report of the monkey study, just finished the main report and started on all the links to the charts, studies, graphs, etc. This is an exhaustive report. Easily a small novel in scope of writing, and likely thousands or tens of thousands of man hours for research. I get the impression from many of Dr. Ketchum's detractors that they think writing a report should be an easy undertaking on the same level as a college or high school term paper. I encourage everyone to go back to the link to the original monkey report I noted yesterday and read through every single link provided in the Supporting Information section and References and think about what it took to research, debate among themselves, and craft each section of this paper. Then think about what it took for a peer reviewer to read through the material they produced, comment on it, and give it back to an editor (who compiles multiple peer reviews) and gets back to the authors with recommended changes and go through X number of rounds of revisions. This isn't a high school term paper folks. It's a professionally researched science paper with multiple contributors to establish a new species of primate. It took three years to get this one done. If it takes Dr. Ketchum et al to publish their paper in four years that would be on par with this effort IMO. THANK you BFS! This pretty much nails the process, but even more a paper of this potential HUGE discovery would absolutely take more time....probably more than even DR Ketchum realized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Bear in mind that the monkey paper took three years even though they had seven (7) type specimens in hand for morphology analysis. Think about the challenges of writing a paper to describe a new species that does not have benefit of a single type specimen. The morphology section of the paper will then either need to be a "work in progress" or hypothetical based on eyewitness accounts or perhaps present photograph or videographic evidence that can be linked to collected DNA samples. In either case it would be a challenge for the authors, editors, and peer reviewers in the process of finalizing the study. Additional care for this section of the paper would be necessary without a complete type specimen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Your earlier post on the monkey paper is perhaps one of the most important in this thread, and I think sheds a huge light on how the Ketchum paper is likely being undertaken, and the challenges it faces. With something so much more controversial and potentially ground breaking, the care involved must be astronomical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Absolutely agree. Amazing people expect this to be done in no time at all. The Sykes paper is running quickly, but I suspect it won't have the final result of a new species, more one of an 'unknown' species, which they will use for the next stage of identification. Where Dr K will (hopefully) go the whole way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I had a thought about what you are talking about over my morning cup of Joe, PN. Imagine for a moment that you are the editor handling this project, and you know that the implications of the discovery are so clearly ground breaking and controversial. What must that be like for the editor, who's been "in the loop" for such a long period of time? It must be both exciting and stressful at the same time, and I'm sure there must be quite the discussions going on with all parties involved. Oh, to be a fly on the wall during some of those conversations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Bear in mind that the monkey paper took three years even though they had seven (7) type specimens in hand for morphology analysis. Think about the challenges of writing a paper to describe a new species that does not have benefit of a single type specimen. The morphology section of the paper will then either need to be a "work in progress" or hypothetical based on eyewitness accounts or perhaps present photograph or videographic evidence that can be linked to collected DNA samples. In either case it would be a challenge for the authors, editors, and peer reviewers in the process of finalizing the study. Additional care for this section of the paper would be necessary without a complete type specimen. Which is why they should simply shelve the issue of morphology and not muddy the waters. The DNA is what establishes the species, not the description. Absolutely agree. Amazing people expect this to be done in no time at all. The Sykes paper is running quickly, but I suspect it won't have the final result of a new species, more one of an 'unknown' species, which they will use for the next stage of identification. Where Dr K will (hopefully) go the whole way. By definition, if it isn't known, then it's new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I'm wondering whether Morphology would be a required or expected section of a scientific paper describing a new species? If so then they would either need to address it as best as they can, or state a reason for why it isn't included (perhaps with possible inferences based on available evidence). It may be why the reported possible issues with rights to images or video may be part of the process that has delayed peer review and embargo release. If they are trying to handle the Morphology section of the paper with copyrighted images then they would need to cross the "i's" and dot the "t's", and try to expand upon those images with any other evidence such as footprint casts taken together with DNA samples in the study that can further shed light on possible Morphology. Just my best uneducated guess/observation of what may be going on (or has gone on). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) Giganto was accepted from a fragment of a jaw and several teeth... I am still not accepting the timeline. Not to mention that there are known "pro kill" groups out there that seem pretty close. What is the point of all the delay and drama if it is trumped by a dead body? Heck a fragment of a jawbone with a few teeth gave us giganto blackii, and 2 others? That animal IS a bigfoot IMHO. We are just running around finding an extant modern relative of that known species. Again why is it so hard to think an animal extinct 300k years is not extinct? The 300k years come from carbon dating of the few pieces of bone and teeth. Was that the very last giganto to die that left the fossils? Very very likely not. We already know that most large mammals in N. America including man came from asia on the bering ice bridge. These animals would surely could have come over here the same way. Yerren and Yeti are known creatures to the peoples of china and tibet. They were the ones who had the giganto fossils! There are more names for the animal in N. America than I can possibly remember. Almost all come from the native population. So you have the ancestors of native americans in asia that believe "wildmen" are extant creatures and you have the N. american native population who believes it extant almost unanimously across the continent. So we have an extinct animal that is for intents and purposes a Bigfoot (giganto) that is known to be around at least as late as 300k years ago. The number of people who have reported encounters these animals grows every year. The amount of evidence is greater than ever before. I know where the animals likely are in my neck of the woods RIGHT NOW. With physical evidence and several sites with plenty more to collect I cant get any real attention. That wouldnt have been the case 3 to 5 years ago. Now if your evidence doesnt trump PGF and have DNA to go along with it, it is "worthless". Not to mention that if the animals are real and we have that evidence now in the "right" hands, where are the protection efforts? Clearly this is the find of the century. The animal has stayed hidden because lets be honest no real concerted effort has ever been done in a known good location. We have groups go out to these area's for a few days, call blast and wood knock. Cover very little actual terrain and pack it in and move on. Even if they find evidence! Now juxtapose researchers for hunters. What do you think asian medicine would pay for a wood ape organ? What do you think the new super rich in china would pay for such things? More than enough to have REAL effort put into obtaining these animal parts. I can see Sasquatch penis selling for 250k a gram and the teeth 10k + each. How about a skull? A brain? These issues become real when science says the animal does. Edited September 17, 2012 by Woodswalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Not to mention that there are known "pro kill" groups out there that seem pretty close. What is the point of all the delay and drama if it is trumped by a dead body? What is it they say about pretty close? Only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades? ;-) In terms of biological bigfoot evidence, close is as good as nothing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts