bipedalist Posted December 25, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 25, 2012 (edited) Not that I buy all of what she said, but she did come across as matter of fact and sincere. One more thing she mentioned is that if her study gets rejected, she will release all of the data so that people can study it. She also said that there are two kinds of labs that did the blind testing: university and forensic labs. She indicated that the U labs are more political, which makes sense. The forensic people are more practical. This I agree with, U people are basically government like run institutions. The private sector consistently outperforms them in quality, initiative an innovation. She stated there were government or state people involved with the project at some level too whether labs, co=authors or just which I can't remember. She also stated some hostile labs were involved that refused to take her money after sequencing said samples and that those samples or held back identical ones were sent to other labs and their confirmation was completed as novel. Apparently, some didn't want their names associated with "novel". Edited December 25, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 To what end? No one but footers would bat an eye at a journal for rejecting a Bigfoot study. Course, no one but footers would know anyways since without the journal, the subject is still on the fringe anyways. If the data is good but the journal rejects anyways (which is possible), then it deserves to be named and shamed. The data and it's validity should be the ONLY consideration. Perhaps being deceived that their findings were used in a study without their permission? The findings are the property of the person paying for the analysis. It's none of the lab's business what those findings are used for. Are you suggesting that they would have analyzed the sample any differently if they'd known about the study? Are they so uncertain about the quality of their work that they would refuse to put their name to it? Rigging the game! See above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 25, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 25, 2012 (edited) Perhaps being deceived that their findings were used in a study without their permission? How's that? If Ketchum project paid for the work they own it. As long as the participating lab didn't have to be cited as a study-participating lab or co-author who cares? There is more to that than meets the eye, believe you me. Well if the study is all above board and the journal doesn't accept it with revisions/resubmission whatever, then I'd say the name of the journal will come out and in such a case of a stellar study, will miss the submission and publication of the century. No minor snafu to be sure. Guess we'll see what shakes out. Edited December 25, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 She stated there were government or state people involved with the project at some level too whether labs, co=authors or just which I can't remember. She also stated some hostile labs were involved that refused to take her money after sequencing said samples and that those samples or held back identical ones were sent to other labs and their confirmation was completed as novel. Apparently, some didn't want their names associated with "novel". But....but....science is impartial! Science has no bias! Science is only interested in fact! [/skeptic sputtering] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 I wonder though, if giving results to a client for personal use, in contrast to providing results destined for publication (Bigfoot no less), represents a more compelling reason to be upset? This would imply that the lab is either not willing to stand by their results, obtained with their protocols and procedures in eliminating false results, or they would rather have the opportunity to inject bias considering the subject matter. Surely they don't treat evidence differently depending on the client. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 But....but....science is impartial! Science has no bias! Science is only interested in fact! [/skeptic sputtering] But....but...bigfoot has to be real! Science is scared of bigfoot! Have you seen the doctors casts! [/believer sputtering] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 (edited) This would imply that the lab is either not willing to stand by their results, obtained with their protocols and procedures in eliminating false results, or they would rather have the opportunity to inject bias considering the subject matter. Surely they don't treat evidence differently depending on the client. or they want to choose, fully informed, of whether or not to be included in a published work on this topic by this individual. I can think of valid reasons to want such informed consent on mundane analysis, even more for something so cutting edge or fringe (remember our acceptance of the species is abnormal!). Didn't she say in this interview she did not think some of the labs would have performed the analysis had they known her goals? At that point, one must find a way to somehow inform the lab of the ultimate goal, or a minor goal, that rises to "informed" and "consent" IMO to meet, for lack of better words here, ethical and/or professional standards, perhaps even in contract. Perhaps it is just a professional courtesy But, even so...on publication, or seeking final consent, wouldn't you be concerned you had crossed some boundary, and your now sought supporting "blind lab" might not be so eager? It sounds as though it was resolved and is in the past, but perhaps this type of secret activity (whether you feel justified or not..good arguments to justify as well) may be one of the reasons word leaks out? Only dissatisfied people leak inside info...typically, and again nothing is typical in Bigfootery! I do find it encouraging the mention of State and Government involvement, given the Sierra KIlls rumors, but disappointed these were not addressed . Yet, I understand that will be a PR climb..and can wait at this stage. Edited December 25, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 But....but...bigfoot has to be real! Science is scared of bigfoot! Have you seen the doctors casts! [/believer sputtering] Not even close to being the same. Proponents have scientifically analyzable evidence that conforms to known biological norms for distirbution pattern (in the case of tracks), has been analyzed to have come from a to-date unknown primate (forensically typed hairs), and so forth. Skeptics keeps sputtering on about "infallible", "objective", etc Science, when Science is none of that, a fact that has been demonstrated. Not only is it argument ad authority, it is entirely unearned and invalid authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 Obviously none of know for sure why certain labs didn't want their results used, but I would guess it's because the just didn't want to be associated with any kind of "fringe" study like this. When they found out she was trying to prove the existence of BF they might have just assumed that she was trying to pull off some kind of hoax and didn't want their lab's reputation damaged by association. Obviously that would be an unfair and prejudicial attitude, but it would not be surprising at all. That's just the reality of how most people view the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 The labs were testing biological samples, and weren't lied to about the samples, they just weren't told everything. If their results confirmed on novel sequences then that truth is nothing to get upset about. After all, it was to rule out contamination and bias. Proving the samples were from bigfoot wouldn't be any of their concern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment A blind or blinded experiment is a scientific experiment where some of the people involved are prevented from knowing certain information that might lead to conscious or subconscious bias on their part, thus invalidating the results. For example, when asking consumers to compare the tastes of different brands of a product, the identities of the product should be concealed – otherwise consumers will generally tend to prefer the brand they are familiar with. Similarly, when evaluating the effectiveness of a medical drug, both the patients and the doctors who administer the drug may be kept in the dark about the dosage being applied in each case – to forestall any chance of a placebo effect, observer bias, or conscious deception. Blinding can be imposed on researchers, technicians, subjects, funders, or any combination of them. The opposite of a blind trial is an open trial. Blind experiments are an important tool of the scientific method, in many fields of research—medicine, psychology and the social sciences, natural sciences such as physics and biology, applied sciences such as market research, and many others. In some disciplines, such as drug testing, blind experiments are considered essential. In other disciplines, blind experiments would be very useful, but they are totally impractical or unethical. An oft-cited example is in the field of developmental psychology. Although it would be scientifically expedient to raise children under arbitrary experimental conditions, such as on a remote island with a fabricated enculturation, it is obviously a violation of ethics and human rights. The terms blind (adjective) or to blind (transitive verb) when used in this sense are figurative extensions of the literal idea of blindfolding someone. The terms masked or to mask may be used for the same concept. (This is commonly the case in ophthalmology, where the word 'blind' is often used in the literal sense.) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 Well if the study is all above board and the journal doesn't accept it with revisions/resubmission whatever, then I'd say the name of the journal will come out and in such a case of a stellar study, will miss the submission and publication of the century. No minor snafu to be sure. Guess we'll see what shakes out. The journal that has her study must be acutely aware of how they'll be viewed. There's no way around a judgement once the manuscript has plopped down on their proverbial desk. If they accept a flawed study they're fools in quite a public manner. If they PASS on the study of the Century then their name will enter the popular vocabulary as sort of a modern 'wrong way corrigan' or the like. Imagine the late night comics when they get a hold of them! To some degree they are paralyzed and probably wish they had never seen the thing. Eventually they'll have to throw down, though the lure of just dragging the process out and forcing Ketchum to withdraw the study and so (in their minds) absolve them of any culpability might now be in play. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 I just found this while researching a reply in another thread. From the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on the acceptiblitity of DNA as a "type specimen": All animals originally contain DNA so except for preparations where the DNA has been destroyed or for fossils which don’t usually contain DNA, then DNA is often part of type specimens. Directly extracted DNA from an animal (i.e. not amplified) might theoretically be a type since as it is part of an animal (Article 72.5.1), however it is usually present in such small quantities that to study it further requires amplification, using a copying process such as the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) before sequencing. The copied DNA cannot be a type since it is not part of an animal nor does it fit any of the other categories of things that can be types. If the copied DNA is sequenced, a sequence can be regarded as a description of the DNA originally in the animal, so the type can be the specimen or part of the specimen, e.g. a tissue sample, or pre-amplification DNA sample, on which the sequence is based (Article 72.5.6). Consequently new species can be described on the basis of DNA sequences, So, the hair, or skin sample or whatever IS a valid "type specimen" with DNA sequencing. So much for that issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 The journal that has her study must be acutely aware of how they'll be viewed. There's no way around a judgement once the manuscript has plopped down on their proverbial desk. If they accept a flawed study they're fools in quite a public manner. If they PASS on the study of the Century then their name will enter the popular vocabulary as sort of a modern 'wrong way corrigan' or the like. Imagine the late night comics when they get a hold of them! To some degree they are paralyzed and probably wish they had never seen the thing. Eventually they'll have to throw down, though the lure of just dragging the process out and forcing Ketchum to withdraw the study and so (in their minds) absolve them of any culpability might now be in play. GK I don't see that happening. I imagine the name of any journal(s) that pass on this will only be bandied about by a few disgruntled types that can't let go of anything and the late night comics will be getting more mileage out of jokes about Bigfoot being related to Honey Boo Boo or the Kardashians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 Melba holds all the cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 Lacking ? she has over 100 samples for the study ( has even more now) and one sample was taken while being filmed and witnessed by her, that doesn't describe lacking, sounds more like compelling evidence. I could see where the skeptical camp is going to start tearing at every corner they possibly can before this comes out, with there one dimensional thinking, believing that modern man knows everything there is to know about the world we live in. I'd bet the Engineer that designed the Titanic was a skeptic Oh really, so where can I see these 100 samples and the film of that one being taken? Oh wait, that's right it's not available, just a bunch of talk, no evidence brought forth what so ever. Lacking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts