Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Indeed! This ones for the alphas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 ^^^Ahem..... ......me! For Ketchum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 @Mulder - Particle Noun addressed that in #9752 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Speaking as a brit i'm pretty certain the big institutions here (scientific, media etc) will go with what Oxford say. Majority of our government and high level civil servants past and present are Oxford graduates. Its just the way things are here, what they say goes. Well, if we're going to play the "who is the better 'truth teller' game", Sykes has the advantage of position, professional reputation and credibility behind him. Depending on exactly who her collaborators are, Ketchum is at a loss in terms of academic "heft" on her team. Legitimate or not, that is how many would perceive the situation if it comes down to "dueling experts". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Bass - Thanks for the link! She sounds pretty confident...it's good to finally hear it from her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 He casually mentions at 13.40 that the Sykes study findings contradict the Ketchum results. This is worrisome to the credibility of the overall Ketchum report... If he really knows Sykes findings I would think that implies communication between the two camps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 The question remains, if they had whole bodies, why waste time (at that point) with the DNA testing. Put the bodies out there for the world to see! Why dance around the mess of interpreting DNA when you could just dump the monkey on the slab and say "Here's your bigfoot!" ? Does raise brows. When you have a body, now you let somebody else do the testing and lessen, at least, the potential-contimaination fallout. I am purposely staying away from the DNA topic except to comment on, well, general science-paper procedure, which sure seems different from this let us say, and to note how much more convincing a type specimen is. But now I hear Disotell talking about how, no, we can go with just DNA and no specimen. Would it or would it not be possible to rule out contamination (I'm presumiing so?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Well, if we're going to play the "who is the better 'truth teller' game", Sykes has the advantage of position, professional reputation and credibility behind him. Depending on exactly who her collaborators are, Ketchum is at a loss in terms of academic "heft" on her team. Legitimate or not, that is how many would perceive the situation if it comes down to "dueling experts". That is my point exactly...i think you put it rather more succinctly than i managed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 ^^^Ahem..... ......me! For Ketchum She did a good job troubleshooting some of the misconceptions and inaccuracies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I can't remember why you have doubts about the soundness of the paper? Is it the conclusion of the results or something you heard through a source? The conclusion given in the press release matches closely with what I was told over a year ago by a source close to a certain researcher with an ear "in the loop". Her conclusions are not really secret within the higher ranks of BF research. Again, based on what I was told, she has the DNA to document a new critter, but is way over-reaching and/or off-base on her statements about what the critter IS. The end product is a paper that (as has been said by several people) is akin to trying to pound a square peg into a round hole, which is why it was in "review hell" for so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 If he really knows Sykes findings I would think that implies communication between the two camps. Yes it certainly seems to imply that. Maybe that explains the rush to release the findings...although whether they release beforenornafter Sykes they will have a lot of naysayers to contend with. (within and outwith of the scientific mainstream) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 @Mulder - Particle Noun addressed that in #9752 Right, I get that she's denying that she had bodies. I was addressing a logical fault in the claim that she did have them, or that anyone else has them for that matter. If he really knows Sykes findings I would think that implies communication between the two camps. Or that he has sources in both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 The conclusion given in the press release matches closely with what I was told over a year ago by a source close to a certain researcher with an ear "in the loop". Her conclusions are not really secret within the higher ranks of BF research. Again, based on what I was told, she has the DNA to document a new critter, but is way over-reaching and/or off-base on her statements about what the critter IS. The end product is a paper that (as has been said by several people) is akin to trying to pound a square peg into a round hole, which is why it was in "review hell" for so long. If we use the same data, what conclusion would the people in the loop say a BF is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Yes it certainly seems to imply that. Maybe that explains the rush to release the findings...although whether they release beforenornafter Sykes they will have a lot of naysayers to contend with. (within and outwith of the scientific mainstream) The mainstream probably favors Sykes but Ketchum has stated on more than one occasion that she's assembled a prominent team. If we use the same data, what conclusion would the people in the loop say a BF is? That's my question. If it really has human mtDNA, it has to be hybrid (assuming the DNA came from an actual BF and not a person). I'm not sure how you can draw any other conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 @Mulder - missed that in translation. Gotcha now, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts