Guest spurfoot Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) Don't mess with Texas. I think it is possible that endless numbers of journals will reject the Ketchum paper, not because it is inadequate science, but because of active hostile censorship. When you stop to think who the paper will impact, it isn't difficult to determine the censors. The unethical nature of the censorship is that it deprives the Sasquatch people of personhood and the protections from unjust death therefrom afforded. Don't mess with Texas. Edited December 8, 2012 by spurfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 That would be both disingenuous and disambiguous SY, lol. Cuts right to the point though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) When you think about it, the reactions all around are not surprising. Most people cannot hear anything about this subject, it is alien to everything they know, it is like their brains automatically have a dissociative response to the could be reality of Sasquatch and they literally do not hear you, get angry, withdraw,etc. It is totally expected that the same reactions would happen in peer review and it will take time for people to begin to know how to process the data and go forward with it. All of the pandemonium is perhaps just part of the paradigm changing, preparing us all for something new. Edited December 8, 2012 by VioletX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) Since when is "Mexican" a race? Since the Spanish came to the new world and got it on with the Natives. Call em what you want, I'm one of em and we're fairly new. And obviously, "Mexicans" which denotes nationality, is not the term. Sorry if I wasn't technical with the whole hispanic origin. Who cares by the way. On the topic of Melba, I've gotta hand it to her, she absolutely sounds like her resolve isn't shaken in the least. Edited December 8, 2012 by arizonabigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Don't mess with Texas. I think it is possible that endless numbers of journals will reject the Ketchum paper, not because it is inadequate science, but because of active hostile censorship. When you stop to think who the paper will impact, it isn't difficult to determine the censors. The unethical nature of the censorship is that it deprives the Sasquatch people of personhood and the protections from unjust death therefrom afforded. You can't be serious ? Science isn't like Congress. There are no lobbying groups that pressure certain outcomes. Look at the huge majority of scientists that agree we are experiencing climate change. None of them are pressured by the carbon fossil fuels industry. NONE OF THEM. Ketchum's paper is no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 You can't be serious ? Science isn't like Congress. There are no lobbying groups that pressure certain outcomes. Look at the huge majority of scientists that agree we are experiencing climate change. None of them are pressured by the carbon fossil fuels industry. NONE OF THEM. Ketchum's paper is no different. AMEN to that. You hit the nail on the head. Any research requires the scrutiny of peer review...this *study* is no different. The conspiracy *theory* (to diss the study) is way off base here. If there is anything solid and conclusive with data, it will be confirmed. Stay tuned....but don't hold your breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) You can't be serious ? Science isn't like Congress. There are no lobbying groups that pressure certain outcomes. Look at the huge majority of scientists that agree we are experiencing climate change. None of them are pressured by the carbon fossil fuels industry. NONE OF THEM. Ketchum's paper is no different. I totally disagree with the comparison. They are pressured by the carbon fossil fuels industry all the time. That's why China is the only country worse than us about the acceptance of climate change. If scientists now are jumping on the climate change band wagon after a +50 year delay, it's because popular opinion was way ahead of 'em. I suppose it is fair in a thread about the Ketchum report to consider all the reasons why her work may not be accepted. If I were to go there, I'd chalk it up to our American culture. I have read that the Nepalese have no problem accepting Yeti. So why are we so dumb? We've had more practice dumbing down is why. We've lost our edge ... threw it out, actually. Edited December 8, 2012 by Oonjerah 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 You can't be serious ? Science isn't like Congress. There are no lobbying groups that pressure certain outcomes. Look at the huge majority of scientists that agree we are experiencing climate change. None of them are pressured by the carbon fossil fuels industry. NONE OF THEM. Ketchum's paper is no different. Science has become political as anything else today, all you have to do is take a look at Global Warming and how much politics has creeped into it, science should be apolitical but sadly its not anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Since the Spanish came to the new world and got it on with the Natives. Call em what you want, I'm one of em and we're fairly new. And obviously, "Mexicans" which denotes nationality, is not the term. Sorry if I wasn't technical with the whole hispanic origin. Who cares by the way. On the topic of Melba, I've gotta hand it to her, she absolutely sounds like her resolve isn't shaken in the least. I don't see how Caucasian and Native American mix is a new race. Not sure what race it would be considered though. I'm Caucasian, Native American and some African American in there too, so it's an interesting conundrum to me, always has been, just what am I. I suppose we could do like Tiger Woods did when in school and he had to put down his race, he came up with Caublasin, to reflect his Caucasian/Black/Asian heritage. I've always been content just being a member of the "human" race though. And agreed, Ketchum is not easily cowed. She needs that steely resolve in this arena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 You can't be serious ? Science isn't like Congress. There are no lobbying groups that pressure certain outcomes. Look at the huge majority of scientists that agree we are experiencing climate change. None of them are pressured by the carbon fossil fuels industry. NONE OF THEM. Ketchum's paper is no different. I disagree with your assessment here, there is overwhelming evidence proving that science was skewed for an agenda. That in fact it has been pushed along a desired curve. Heres a link to over 500 other links relating to global climate change refuting the claims you say are so hugely in the majority. So In relation to this discussion I believe we are seeing the same thing. Opinions reached before the science has played out and character assassinations ad nausium rather than discussions of facts and truth. Other wise thought of as reputable researchers acting like children...please The reason this whole DNA study is so hugely contested is that it doesn't play nice with the convenient box this species has been placed in.. A... It either doesn't exist or B.... If it does exist it must be an ape. Wrong wrong and wrong... to be intellectually honest we go where the science leads us, no more no less. We don't destroy the individuals credibility to refute the science. No no no, if that was the criteria then nothing could pass muster..everyone has some skeleton in their closets or even out on display. http://www.schnittshow.com/pages/globalwarming.html 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I disagree with your assessment here, there is overwhelming evidence proving that science was skewed for an agenda. That in fact it has been pushed along a desired curve. Heres a link to over 500 other links relating to global climate change refuting the claims you say are so hugely in the majority. So In relation to this discussion I believe we are seeing the same thing. Opinions reached before the science has played out and character assassinations ad nausium rather than discussions of facts and truth. Other wise thought of as reputable researchers acting like children...please The reason this whole DNA study is so hugely contested is that it doesn't play nice with the convenient box this species has been placed in.. A... It either doesn't exist or B.... If it does exist it must be an ape. Wrong wrong and wrong... to be intellectually honest we go where the science leads us, no more no less. We don't destroy the individuals credibility to refute the science. No no no, if that was the criteria then nothing could pass muster..everyone has some skeleton in their closets or even out on display. http://www.schnittshow.com/pages/globalwarming.html Right, right and right.. Plus 1 on this ... Well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 In relation to this discussion I believe we are seeing the same thing. Opinions reached before the science has played out and character assassinations ad nausium rather than discussions of facts and truth. I think this process is commonly referred to as "critical thinking"..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 She speaks with confidence. I feel, the only way she could, would be if she had the results as claimed. She's putting her reputation and career on the line, via the internet. She obviously has something, in order to challenge the world of skeptics, who by the way, put NOTHING but unproven assumptions and pessimism to the forefront. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) She speaks with confidence. I feel, the only way she could, would be if she had the results as claimed. She's putting her reputation and career on the line, via the internet. She obviously has something, in order to challenge the world of skeptics, who by the way, put NOTHING but unproven assumptions and pessimism to the forefront. I tend to agree, however unorthodox this all is, she does in fact appear to be unfettered and confident. After all is said and done I am reminded of an axiom I try to live by and that is " A closed mouth gathers no foot" or a Bigfoot in any case (no pun) (ok pun)... point is many folks have made many comments that might have served to take them to the far end of the limb in relation to this study. At the end of the day they all cant be right. Careers and livelihoods are at stake here literally. Edited December 8, 2012 by ThePhaige Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) On the 15,000 year figure, I assumed that this must have been established from the number of nucleotides in the purported BF mtDNA that differ from present-day human mtDNA. If this is a DNA study, I don't see that it would be based on anything else. Is this a fair assessment? BobZ? That sounds about right to me. It would probably be a bit more ambiguous since they would be comparing it to only a narrow subset of modern humans with the same haplogroup. I don't know how easy that would be or how precise it could be since all people haven't had their mitochondria sequenced. That probably wouldn't be conclusive or very precise by itself. My asssumption is that it is novel and shows nobody closer than about 15,000 years. They may well have enough mitochondria sequences that the more precise date may be from comparing differences from each other rather than bothering trying to compare it to modern humans which might be problematic considering the ambiguity involved. You are proving a negative when you compare it to modern humans. That is that no modern human is closer to them. Comparing the variations in all her samples might be a more accurate and reliable number. It would still be possible for a subset of bigfoot to be isolated so even that number is a bit ambiguous. That should really be a consideration if they assume a migration from Asia. I asume there are no Asian samples. They probably should have a lot of qualifiers like "the data suggests", "most likely" or something like that. Geneticists don't seem to do that enough though. I could see why. They would be qualifying everything they say. Edited December 8, 2012 by BobZenor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts