Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I didn't really want my first post on BFF.2, to be a negative one, but with regards to post 11074, by Ronnie Bass, which apparently quotes Melba - Does she really think that the identification using DNA analysis, of a known primate,(Cercopithecus lomamiensis), which is used for bushmeat and had been kept in captivity, is analogous to the situation we have with bigfoot?. It is not the same, or even remotely similar. Hello to you all, and nice to see some of the folks from BFF.1 still around. Ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 If a group of scientists discovered another species of Pan (chimp) and independent testing showed that its nuDNA suggests the contribution of a hitherto unknown primate, while its mtDNA showed 'common chimp', would it generate as much negativity / vehement objection? Just putting it out there. Either Ketchum didn't cover all bases, or there is systemic prejudice involved. Maybe both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Dr. Ketchum sounds about as confident in her work as she possibly could. I get the impression she is one tough Texas Lady and means what she says. And can back it up. What happens, happens i guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 8, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) ... would it generate as much negativity / vehement objection? Simple Answer: Hell NO! Edited December 8, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 DUDE...so wadda think of the >>> ranging from 94,000 to 13,000 years ago.??????? Kinda shoots down your 15K hypothesis??? It wouldn't take very long for a race to rise out of an event like this. Mexicans are much, much younger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Just putting it out there. Either Ketchum didn't cover all bases, or there is systemic prejudice involved. Maybe both? That's what has me worried about the part of her recent statement I quoted earlier. Seems maybe she's done her work but they are hesitating about finishing the review. I wonder if they are making her jump through new hoops in these revisions she has had to do. Telling her "we need more before we will pass this". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Dr. Ketchum sounds about as confident in her work as she possibly could. I get the impression she is one tough Texas Lady and means what she says. And can back it up. What happens, happens i guess. She alo sounds a little frustrated at her critics and people of science. Didn't like her challenging the journal to publish her paper though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 It wouldn't take very long for a race to rise out of an event like this. Mexicans are much, much younger. Since when is "Mexican" a race? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) If a group of scientists discovered another species of Pan (chimp) and independent testing showed that its nuDNA suggests the contribution of a hitherto unknown primate, while its mtDNA showed 'common chimp', would it generate as much negativity / vehement objection? Just putting it out there. Either Ketchum didn't cover all bases, or there is systemic prejudice involved. Maybe both? I don't mean to be at odds with you, but this is not the same as a new Pan or Troglodytes. This is an entirely new, (if you'll forgive the buzzword), paradigm, at odds with our knowledge of the world. Some of the resilience to change may just be a collective inertia inspired by pride in our human lineage and achievements - after all much of religious thinking rejects a base derivation of humanity. 'Our' Bigfoot is rooted, even in the conciousness of the 'knowers', in a mythic way. I want the phenomenon to be real, but we won't get anywhere by referencing past discoveries, because this may not be an entirely real thing. I hope a severe disappointment isn't coming - but I fear it is. Edited December 8, 2012 by PaddysLad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Not sure I like the sound of that. The truth hurts.... I like it Kinda sounds like it is no longer PEER reviewed ..... But you can now interject FEAR reviewed .... Once again a strike against mainstream science ... The science WILL speak for itself .... It should overcome the FEAR aspect ... If they let it..... Kinda Shameful when you consider the Scientiific Skeps and Skoffs actually still have the power, to over rule scientific facts.. Maybe Igor was right, about the American Scienctific Community. H#%# ...... he Was right ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I'm sure Disotell is smart and all but obviously if we had evidence of another closely related primate living 15,000 years ago it wouldn't be described as UNKNOWN in Ketchum's press release. Sheesh. That's a long time ago, the Sumerians might go back to 4500 BC. They were really smart and looked like we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) The truth hurts.... I like it Kinda sounds like it is no longer PEER reviewed ..... But you can now interject FEAR reviewed .... Once again a strike against mainstream science ... The science WILL speak for itself .... It should overcome the FEAR aspect ... If they let it..... Kinda Shameful when you consider the Scientiific Skeps and Skoffs actually still have the power, to over rule scientific facts.. Maybe Igor was right, about the American Scienctific Community. H#%# ...... he Was right ! I still fail to understand why the American Scientific Community would fear this. Seems to me they would be falling over each other to find out more Edited December 8, 2012 by wickie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 The truth hurts.... I like it Kinda sounds like it is no longer PEER reviewed ..... But you can now interject FEAR reviewed .... Once again a strike against mainstream science ... The science WILL speak for itself .... It should overcome the FEAR aspect ... If they let it..... Kinda Shameful when you consider the Scientiific Skeps and Skoffs actually still have the power, to over rule scientific facts.. Maybe Igor was right, about the American Scienctific Community. H#%# ...... he Was right ! Could be, but we don't know on who's side the fault for such a thing lies, if it does at all. This or any journal would be sticking their neck out in publishing this. If there is anything a little too "out there" I could see them wanting that changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 She also posted this on FB. FWIW About the journal, it is in review. So far no indication of rejection as they did take it. Just waiting on the reviewers.... All will reveal itself in due time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I still fail to understand why the American Scientific Community would fear this. Seems to me they would be falling over each other to find out more I think by nature scientists are VERY cautious beings, rather make the safe call than make waves, it don't surprise me none if none of them wants to touch her paper with a ten foot pole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts