Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 What do you base that on? The fact that I don't yet accept a study that hasn't been published and hasn't been confirmed by other PRs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 What do you base that on? The fact that I don't yet accept a study that hasn't been published and hasn't been confirmed by other PRs? The study has been done. As mentioned, Melba has lot more on the line than you likely ever will, other than gossip and not one shred of evidence to present that the paper was never done. So, go ahead and state your factless opinions. As Frank Burns said, "It makes me no never mind". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 The study has been done. As mentioned, Melba has lot more on the line than you likely ever will, other than gossip and not one shred of evidence to present that the paper was never done. So, go ahead and state your factless opinions. As Frank Burns said, "It makes me no never mind". And no evidence that its been PR by any reputable journal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 These same people sit on juries everyday and are asked to examine DNA evidence to convict people to long jail terms. I think you could more appropriately state that laymen are asked to consider an experts opinion on DNA results in court. They wouldn't qualify as reviewers of the determined results and judge it's accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 And no evidence that its been PR by any reputable journal. Who cares! Neither is there any evidence that any of your opinions are correct. The fact is, she has a paper out there, and that if you read it, you likely would never understand the content anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 From Bigfoot Report: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) Biscardi was as much a victim of the GA boys as the public. He was defrauded out of a lot of money. You can't be serious. That comment just knocked you down a notch in my book. Edited December 8, 2012 by squatting squatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Damage control Mulder........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 These same people sit on juries everyday and are asked to examine DNA evidence to convict people to long jail terms. Fair enough....I don't disagree. A jury is supposed to make a decision based on facts, without bias, or prejudice, too. There are smart people here, and there are also others. I wasn't throwing a blanket statement out towards everyone, and maybe I should've been a little more tactful in how it came out, but man....It's a never-ending semantical argument, at this point, about rumors, leaks, drama, some fact, some fiction, etc, etc. Trolls, devils advocates, believers, skeptics, laymen, experts, etc, all waging a semantical war with little facts, armed to the hilt with their individual biases, and opinions. All started and perpetuated because MK can't act like a professional. I still hope she comes through, but this whole debacle is a joke!(Which I will still be watching with great interest until the grand finale) She hasn't needed to say one word the whole time, but she can't help but dropping a Melbeudian slip every so often when things slow down, someone leaks something, or if ANYBODY says anything inaccurate about HER study. Then, armed with her word, we go calling out katz like Disotell, and state how biased he is, or we call out MK because she wears too much make-up, so her data's no good, or discounting science from other countries because they don't watch football. It's ridiculous sometimes, and that's all I was really saying. I'm a gaming s.a, so I'm qualified to investigate if there is a Bigfoot card-counting team, and they're hitting casinos in the Pacific NW. I, personally, wouldn't have the audacity to think that I could call out DNA experts, and say they don't know what they're talking about, and give them my reasons why, and expect it to be anything but laughable. The only thing I'd have to tell the scientists is what the BF's count-system is, how they're applying it, what the count is, and how much they've made using it. But, then again, someone who doesn't believe in card-counting systems would probably say I was wrong because I didn't use a natural count, as opposed to a running count, and that I'm not credible because I got a B in geometry. Sorry, y'all. Didn't mean to ruffle anyones feathers. As you were... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Ummm shocking a paper calling for constitutional rights for an unproven human ape something or other got rejected.....depending where that was in the paper no kidding they didn't read it all!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 8, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) ... I think in time, someone will send Disotell a sample, and say, "sequence this at X locus" then get back with me asap. That would probably disambiguate the term "unknown" at least a little. Why not do the same and send one to Sykes, double your pleasure! 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 you have been shown articles and encouraged to read up on how that is not that simple. When someone does not have the background or the in depth knowledge to really understand the nuances and complex details of a subject they often simplify it or claim that it IS simple in order to back up their opinion. We see this all through this thread. When people reduce complexities to simple generalizations it is clear they are not doing the heavy lifting of critical thinking. If and when Ketchum publishes this report these generalists of knowledge are going to be in for a huge shock when people like Disotell and other VERY knowledgeable and qualified people challenge these assumptions and conclusions in the paper. Although when this happens the default response is always along the lines of "oh they are just biased or they don't really understand". Get ready for that conversation because as you can see it has already started. Prepping the field as I like to say. The tactics of the true believers are no different than the tactics of the JREFers. This is why they hate each other so much, because deep down inside they know they are both exactly alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) When someone does not have the background or the in depth knowledge to really understand the nuances and complex details of a subject they often simplify it or claim that it IS simple in order to back up their opinion. We see this all through this thread. When people reduce complexities to simple generalizations it is clear they are not doing the heavy lifting of critical thinking. If and when Ketchum publishes this report these generalists of knowledge are going to be in for a huge shock when people like Disotell and other VERY knowledgeable and qualified people challenge these assumptions and conclusions in the paper. Although when this happens the default response is always along the lines of "oh they are just biased or they don't really understand". Get ready for that conversation because as you can see it has already started. Prepping the field as I like to say. The tactics of the true believers are no different than the tactics of the JREFers. This is why they hate each other so much, because deep down inside they know they are both exactly alike. Edited December 8, 2012 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) Ummm who better to manipulate DNA before it goes out for independent testing than a veterinarian that specializes in DNA testing? Oh and before you guys go bonkers it's not an accusation but it is a possibility It's possible that someone could hit the lotto 10 weeks in row, but like the possibility she is hoaxing this, extremely low. Then someone comes along with another sample that wasn't hoaxed,(like Skyes) and it comes out totally different, then she is caught, there goes the career again. If she is going to create a hoax or a scam, why would she pick bigfoot to do it with? It would be more advantageous to do something where she can really cash in. She is not going to make tons of money off this, The only person that is going to cash in is the person who finds a body. Edited December 8, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) http://www.skeptic.c...rtalk/12/12/05/ Latest article on Ketcham...has links too. http://www.skeptic.c...rtalk/12/12/05/ Recent Disotell interview (Pod cast): Advance this clip about HALF WAY to get to the meat of this discussion. Topics in this episode The difference between Homin, Hominid and Homini (and Hominy) The perils of dictionary updates Science by press release v. peer review What can evolution do in 15,000 years? A primer on DNA Chimps, Neanderthal and how related we are to each other How plausible is this press release? Edited December 8, 2012 by ronn1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts