Guest DWA Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Too bad they can't get their facts straight. Ketchum has clearly stated the paper is in review which makes the following statement false (at least where I come from): "But more important, Ketchum has not allowed scientific peer review of her findings." And once again, evidence that "science writer" and "scientist" are not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I tweeted that guy in an effort to point out the flaws in the story, since I could find no contact info for him. Also hated the notion that the only sample came from a blueberry bagel. Such ridiculous writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 27, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted November 27, 2012 "At this point I should probably remind readers that there’s not at present a shred of credible scientific evidence that a Bigfoot, or Bigfeet, exist in North America, or anywhere in the world. These are, in fact, mythical creatures. What about the paper, you say? Well, almost anything is possible. This paper, if it is ever accepted by a reputable journal, will be closely analyzed. Almost certainly it will be found to be false. At this point it is nothing more than a long line of “claims†about the existence of Bigfoot." A science blog with Eric Berger What he said! Even if the paper comes out and is false, BF is real and numerous fine members of this board have indisputably seen it, some either multiple times or multiple individuals in one sighting. Some people on staff even. Remember that! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Even if the paper comes out and is false, BF is real and numerous fine members of this board have indisputably seen it, some either multiple times or multiple individuals in one sighting. Some people on staff even. Remember that! There is so much evidence that I care not one whit what happens to this study. OK, for the sake of the principals I hope all works out. But it won't, I predict, change what I - or the skeptics - think much. I know, they have no idea and don't want one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Some of her worst quotes "Angel DNA' and 'Dogman' come to mind right away could have very pedestrian explanations. Perhaps confronted by sequences that were puzzling or hard to work with she, or someone else made a wisecrack about these sequences being 'Angel DNA' and the comment was taken seriously by someone else and passed on. Perhaps some of the 'Dogman' DNA shows some differences and once again someone was present for off-the-cuff speculation. Can you supply a link where Ketchum talked about "angel DNA"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Bingo. He may have an anti-blowback guard already in place. I'm not going to do Dueling Curriculum Vitae, but his I think will stand up. My experience arguing with Radford: he's ignorant of the evidence; goes ad hominem way too quickly; and if you have seen one, you are wrong. I wouldn't bother with him at all. I no longer argue with him; I just use his writings and postings to educate people about him. Ad hominem From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Personal attacks" redirects here. For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an irrelevance.[5] Very well said DWA. May I simply expand your statement to include the following: Sad to say this definition fits many in the academic world at this point in this forum... Please read the attacks on the pages posted after the leakage.. Most are attacks on Ketchum, not the Science.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) When I first read the angel stuff, I had a feeling things might get mixed up. Sure enough, people are now saying Dr. Ketchum was mentioning it. It's simply a rumor posted by Robert Lindsay. Maybe even created by him... Edited November 27, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 27, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Well remember a year back or so Paulides made a comment on one of his blog post about BF DNA or its function, that has never been seen before. It was eventually changed after a bit of a firestorm erupted over it. I believe it was edited out altogether..... the part about the never been seen before (read: novel).... I quoted the message and commented on it here at the time (or at least made reference to the blog post and the content being unusual). I may have been the one that spotted the change in that post to this board as well. I don't think it was changed due to firestorm, it was changed because a cat slipped out of the bag in it's description. Edited November 27, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already, but is there a female sample involved in the study at all, or are they all males? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 On ths issue of "angel DNA", I don't have any familiarity with the phrase, but just wanted to point out that science and medicine do occasionally adopt phrases hat the lay person might easily mis-understand and people seeking to sensationalize might grossly misconstrue. As a person who was a caregiver for someone who had Hodgkin's Limphoma, one of her biopsies revealed the presence of "occult cells", and this was a legitimate medical term, with no endorsement of the occult or magic or witchcraft or whatever.But a lay person could easily take the phrase and drag paranormal or frige science into the matter by simply taking the more common meaning of the word "occult", and ignoring the medical definition of the complete phrase and its context. So I'd be cautious about judging the phrase "angel DNA" and allow that it may have a different meaning than a lay erson might assume. Same for "orphan" relics iin archaeology. They are simply relics with no documenation of discovery and methodological excavation under academic control. The word doesn't imply the relics have no parents. Just wanted to note that some phrases may have meaning in a specialized scientific or academic context differing from what the lay person might assume. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 The previously mentioned article whose embargo just lifted: http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/596427/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already, but is there a female sample involved in the study at all, or are they all males? Sorry I had to edit this because I misread your comment. There are rumors that the licked plate from Kentucky was a female which the researchers named Matilda, but we will have to wait and see. In addition all male individuals will carry the mito sequences from just the mother. Edited November 27, 2012 by HODS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Well, good thing I wasn't getting all excited over it. Back to waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Well that wasn't it...LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 So, it's common knowledge that Ketchum has sequenced both males, and females in her study? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts