Guest Jodie Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Who knows, I do remember her saying she would release her findings with or without peer review, however, I imagine she will exhaust all avenues before resorting to that. That means as she goes through each submission, one journal at a time, we do indeed have a long wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I'm really tempted to rename this thread "Man claims that ... Art But... then wouldn't you have to do that with all the threads....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 But... then wouldn't you have to do that with all the threads....? women also make claims... does your comment reveal any bias? cheers.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) [/size] Gibberish. If a paper is submitted to a refereed journal and the journal agrees to review it, the journal is contractually obligated to provide the author with the reviewers' comments. Gibberish. The discovery and description of a new species falls into the realm of natural history, which is hardly the ultimate in experimental science. One goes out, looks around, finds something suspected of being new,and reports it so others can weigh in. The null hypothesis is "It is nothing new," while the alternative hypothesis is "It is something new." The burden is on the author to reject the null hypothesis. If a party of extraterreatrials knocked on my door today to ask me to take them to my leader. and if I documented the visit with video, photos, eye witnesses, and tissue samples, I wouldn't be allowed to write a paper because I failed to hypothesize such an encounter upon waking? Nonsense. "Nature" may well reject the paper -- it is considered a prestigious journa and receives far more papers than it can publish. Rejection cannot be equated with failure on the author's part. I suspect whoever wrote the msterial quoted above would have difficulty differentiating between Shinola and excrement. I don't see this as gibberish; the writer just clarifies that "handed back" means rejected. I for one was not familiar with "handed back," so that is a useful clarification. "Rejected" papers are reviewed and the reviews are given to the author. There is no reason to believe that did not happen in this case; in fact, we some purported quotes from the reviews. your analogy about the aliens is wrongheaded. Here in the present case, we have human DNA, but no "aliens," the author didn't see any, does not even have film, and the journal is asked to publish an article saying that it came from "aliens". I think you misunderstand the purported review comment about "no testable hypothesis." The hypothesis of Ketchum's paper is "bigfoot is human." Now, how could that be tested by her, you or me or the next Einstein? By tested I mean attempt to falsify. This is what I have said from the beginning, that the attractive feature (for believers) of the "Bigfoot is human meme" is that it cannot be tested. You can just wander about a state park and pick up a paper cup, send it in and if it has human DNA you can say it came from Bigfoot. And no one could prove you wrong in most cases. But even if the DNA was from a known felon, that wouldn't disprove the hypothesis; you could go back the next day and get another paper cup etc yada yada. So it isn't nonsense; the hypothesis is not testable. If a paper was submitted showing DNA from an undiscovered primate, Nature would publish it. (I assume that the bench DNA analysis part was done correctly.) There is absolutely no way that Nature lets that get away, even if some t's are not crossed. It would be a huge development, and that is what Nature does. It all makes sense to me and I have never put excrement on my shoes. Or at least no one has discovered it. hmm, what's that smell coming from your direction? Edited December 27, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Easy Parn your making sense again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I think you misunderstand the purported review comment about "no testable hypothesis." The hypothesis of Ketchum's paper is "bigfoot is human." Now, how could that be tested by her, you or me or the next Einstein? By tested I mean attempt to falsify. This is what I have said from the beginning, that the attractive feature (for believers) of the "Bigfoot is human meme" is that it cannot be tested. You can just wander about a state park and pick up a paper cup, send it in and if it has human DNA you can say it came from Bigfoot. And no one could prove you wrong in most cases. But even if the DNA was from a known felon, that wouldn't disprove the hypothesis; you could go back the next day and get another paper cup etc yada yada. So it isn't nonsense; the hypothesis is not testable. Very well said Mr. Parnassus. Without the body which is the source of the sample any DNA results that come back human are meaningless. "See this 8 foot tall hairy thing in my freezer. I just ran a dna test and this thing is human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Fasano pulled his post claiming the paper was rejected...and now back to your regularly scheduled programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 27, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted December 27, 2011 Hmmmmm......such a need for "shots across the bow" all of a sudden, makes you really wonder doesn't it?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Here in the present case, we have human DNA, but no "aliens," the author didn't see any, does not even have film, and the journal is asked to publish an article saying that it came from "aliens". I'm pretty shocked that nobody has considered the idea that perhaps the Erickson Project has film of how they obtained the DNA samples. If that were true how does your above "hypothesis" hold up ? And before responding consider that DNA studies of animals are done quite often with only the film showing how they got the DNA sample and not the entire animal's body. Like this video: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 That would most likley be a known species of animal. I kinda think this discovery might be held (right or wrong) to higher burden than let's say a new sub-species of bluebird! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Just a quick note, Paulides has replyed with a strongly worded response in the comment section. Where and how can I locate this information? Thanks.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Where and how can I locate this information? Thanks.. See the comments on the Bigfoot evidence site, but there are some question about if the poster was actually Dave himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 If Nature did indeed reject it, then the meme about how Henry Gee is so open to publishing a sasquatch paper is just more Skeptic misinformation. Mulder, you seem like an individual intelligent enough to be able to distinguish between Gee being open to publishing a sasquatch paper and Gee actually publishing any sasquatch paper submitted. You do realize that it's possible for someone to submit a lousy paper to him that he cannot accept, right? So we are left to conclude that you make statements like the above because . . ? Well, actually, why DO you make such statements when you know darn well that they're ill conceived? I don't get it. It is most emphatically NOT "misinformation" from the "Skeptics" (again, why are you capitalizing this word these days?). Here are direct quotes from Gee in his column published in Nature in 2004: Gee, H. 2004. Flores, God and Cryptozoology. Nature [online]: doi: 10.1038/news041025–2. "The discovery that Homo floresiensis survived until so very recently, in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as yetis are founded on grains of truth. In the light of the Flores skeleton, a recent initiative4 to scour central Sumatra for 'orang pendek' can be viewed in a more serious light. This small, hairy, manlike creature has hitherto been known only from Malay folklore, a debatable strand of hair and a footprint. Now, cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold." As recently as 2010, Gee wrote the following for The Guardian: "And if one admits H. floresiensis to the canon, what of other celebrated mythical beasts - if not necessarily Nessie, then the orang pendek of Malaysia? The yeti? The sasquatch? Bigfoot? Are all such creatures the products of delusion, conspiracy theories and hoax? Perhaps - but not necessarily. The little we know of those large mammals on the fringes of knowledge suggests that they live in remote places, are very shy, are extremely rare, and that to find them before they become extinct requires a degree of luck. So far, no hard evidence for yetis (say) has emerged. But in a world that hosts H. floresiensis and the saola, the kouprey and the red gazelle, one should keep an open mind." Henry Gee's open mind on the subject of crypto-hominins is not misinformation spread by anyone - it's honest-to-goodness, direct quotes from the man himself. There is misinformation being spread about Henry Gee on this issue, but it seems to be coming from you. I hope you will see it within yourself to 1) apologize to the BFF for spreading this misinformation and 2) cease and desist from such comments in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Well considering that we don't know what journal the paper was submitted to, much less if the paper has even been written yet, it's all moot. All I've ever heard Dr. Ketchum refer to is the project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Here in the present case, we have human DNA, but no "aliens," the author didn't see any, does not even have film, and the journal is asked to publish an article saying that it came from "aliens". I think you misunderstand the purported review comment about "no testable hypothesis." The hypothesis of Ketchum's paper is "bigfoot is human." Now, how could that be tested by her, you or me or the next Einstein? hmm, what's that smell coming from your direction? Sorry parn, but this is misinformation. You do not know what the hypothesis is, nor do you have any of the sequences to support your contention. If the editor of nature read the abstract and handed it back, then He/she could have simply made a recomendation on the hypothesis if that was the issue. Obviously if it is believed that the samples are from bigfoot then the fix is to say " these samples provided by bigfoot hunters are not modern human or any other extant great ape, but are closest related for these reasons". It would be testable and falsifiable within the field of phylogenetics. I'm sure the Denisova paper probably used this hypothesis since they had far from a complete specimen as well. The smell is your imagination. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts