Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 How likely would a journal give extra consideration or have additional patience because of either the other labs named in the paper or the co-authors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 You'll learn more than 2hrs of Dr. K that's for sure! Hence my dilema on wasting another 2 hours... Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Igor B. is the holder of the zana and kwit skulls...disotell has already run DNA samples of both skulls.and said they are nothing but human ..if Dr K has re-run DNA tests and found something....then how is disotell going to look? how is he going to be the "go-to expert" then? I have a feeling that Dr K.'s work is going to upset a lot of university studies and experts...good for her !!! time to break the scientific dogma of the universitys to me it sounds like she is doing the study for the right reason....to vindicate what people have been seeing for years.... Dr K knows some high powered people for sure, some very highly respected people in the DNA world...im sure this will come out in the study.... I have a feeling that when this comes out it is going to be looked at in the light it should be and not a joke...Im sure it will be published.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 disotell has already run DNA samples of both skulls.and said they are nothing but human ..if Dr K has re-run DNA tests and found something....then how is disotell going to look? how is he going to be the "go-to expert" then? I have a feeling that Dr K.'s work is going to upset a lot of university studies and experts...good for her !!! time to break the scientific dogma of the universitys to me it sounds like she is doing the study for the right reason....to vindicate what people have been seeing for years.... That explains why he seems to have a problem with Ketchum. Disotell comes off as arrogant, as in I am the teacher here. He just is not as smart as he thinks he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 All those folks that only tested Mito side on things like Zana and others will be served.. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Ketchum says that the pro-ape Bigfoot community has been her worst critic. Late in the program, a caller mentions that L. Coleman on c2c previously criticised her. She revealed that she backed out of a talk (and a video of her was presented in her stead) because her appearance would have put attendees in danger, because of a received/perceived? threat. Sounds like the Honobia Bigfoot conference, where she backed out and a video interview of her was presented instead. It was stated at the time that she was called away to deal with a journal's concerns with her paper. If she is referencing Honobia, then the audience was misled. Can any conference members or organizers confirm or deny that the conference attendees were in fact in danger because of Ketchum's listed attendance? She seems contradictory in her criticism of some of her science colleagues. She says that some of her fellow scientists probably would not accept the existence of Bigfoot, even if they had a body in front of them. She then goes on to say that they don't believe Bigfoot exist because the creatures are not easily seen (Bigfoot are too stealthy for that, she says.) Odd. Scientists think Bigfoot don't exist because they would be seen more often if they did, and these same scientists would not believe Bigfoot exist if they had one in front of them, dead. Of course, she is exaggerating. Yet, still, by such a comment, she shows she does not understand skeptical science, even as she claimed she once didn't believe in the existence of Bigfoot too. She says Bigfoot "out think" us, or they would be easily found. Seeing Bigfoot is a "fluke" event. Of course, habituators see them daily. She makes exceptions for habituators. She was present when one sample was taken in the wild. Video of Bigfoot will supplement the technical paper. The paper is inter-disciplinary, practicing forensics and academic input. She seems to reference pop archaeology, where European presence in America predates Asian migration over the land bridge. She endorses Smeja (although he is not named) and says she believes he is telling the truth. But, she doesn't say she confirmed his sample. The Ericson video is the best video of all Bigfoot video. She says her evidence is conclusive. Her first caller asked if her samples were "cultured" --- created in the lab by suspicious forces. She replied that her samples are consistent and submitted from various people from all over. Like people, there are some good Bigfoot and some bad Bigfoot. A large population exists in North America, larger than 15,000. She and her co-authors have no doubt about what they have, relating to Bigfoot existence. She claims that witness accounts imply that Bigfoot are a type of people. Yet, she does not offer her DNA research as demonstrating this. She says she doesn't know if humans can mate with Bigfoot. That seems odd since she is claiming Bigfoot is a human hybrid. Although they discuss eyewitness accounts, Ketchum never volunteers that she has seen one or more Bigfoot. The host never asks her about her sightings (I'm thinking he was asked not to ask or mention her sightings.) Overall impression, I do not think she is lying. And I do not think she has conclusive evidence. I may be wrong, but conclusive is conclusive. She just doesn't present herself, overall, as an impressive agent for a scientific appraisal of the Bigfoot phenomenon. Much, much less a Darwin, methinks, and more, much more, a Gish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 how is she supposed to "act" to me she was just running samples as usual prolly getting results as usual....but then she got it....how and why are these non-human hairs keep coming up as human? even after proper decontamination and stripping ...this is what other testers have been missing....thats the step they were missing....she found it,and looked more into it and found other things and ran with it... Im am sure she has been learning a lot in the last 5 years because now she seems quite in depth of the bigfoot realm...good and bad..... I cant wait till this paper comes out !!! there is more video...but a lot of the people with it will not release it.....look at the fiasco with the michigan sounds and jacobs creature....people do not want to be outed these days and their homes over run....cant say I blame them.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) Norse, That was good stuff thanks for posting it. So is it correct that not only is Dr.K claiming Bigfoot, but also another unknown that breed with modern humans to produce Bigfoot? Correct. Disotell says her time frame of 15000 years is impossible. Edited December 26, 2012 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 I just finished listening to it as well, and I have to say I was very impressed with her sincerity. I do think that she likely does have the the data that she says she has. It's her interpretation of those data that may still be open to interpretation. The processing of the samples is well within her area of expertise, but paleogenetic anthropology is not. And to her credit she did make that clear I think. She stated that the "hybrid" hypothesis was just that--a possible explanation for the results (though she used the word theory). There may be other better explanations. She did throw out the Solutrean Hypothesis as a possibility which suggests that we're talking about Haplogroup X. I wouldn't call it "pop archaeology"---that's a little harsh---but it's definitely a minority opinion. But she made it clear that wasn't her area of expertise and she was just speculating. I actually don't think you need to resort to the Solutrean Hypothesis for her purposes anyway. In her scenario Haplogroup X made it to N. America and BF did too. How they got here doesn't really matter. Bering Strait would make more sense. Likewise she seemed to indicate that her belief that BF was human like and as intelligent as us was also speculation based on what she was told by habituators. I could see where her tendency to speculate beyond her areas of expertise may have caused problems in early drafts of her paper, but that's the kind of thing that review process should address. I actually felt her description of her experiences with academia was exactly what I would expect from someone in her position. I'm in a similar position as a professional currently outside of academia in field that is shared with academics so I know where she's coming from. I felt like her description of the peer review process and the reactions of some of the university labs, etc. made a lot of sense given the unusual nature of this study. I can honestly see both sides of that. I would agree with jerrywayne that her demeanor and language comes across as a bit colloquial and "folksy" and that probably isn't helping her with the academics unfortunately. Not fair, but it is what is. You've got to be able to speak their language. But all in all I was impressed with her. I certainly don't think she came across as the crazy fraud that some people have tried to make her out to be. And I am more intrigued than ever to see her results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 And Disotell's authority to make such a pronouncement is? Some of his points: 1) She has never had a paper published........ever. 2) She has a dog in the fight. 3) She didn't follow scientific protocol.......she went to the press first. 4) Her time frame is impossible. I guess if you want all of the answers you can click "play" above. Best case scenario: Ketchum paper is published in a reputable journal after passing peer review. Lesser case: She publishes it herself. Millions will read it and spread the word, eventho very few of us can actually verify the science of it. Either way, it will be ridiculed; that's the kneejerk way. If only 10% of the scientists who are qualified to understand her findings have open minds, there will be an undercurrent of approval for the discovery. Since I think Bf exists, I assume Dr. Sykes will find the same thing that Ketchum did. As a best-selling author with a great reputation in academia, he will have no problem getting published. The Russians will say, "We found Sasquatch first, and we told you so!" The undercurrent of accepting Bigfoot will swell dramatically. Younger scientists will want to join in the ongoing discovery. I believe all this will happen in 2013. There is absolutely No Good Reason to shoot Bigfoot!! Pie in the sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) Correct. Disotell says her time frame of 15000 years is impossible. I'd say Disotell and his time frame of 12M years of monkey/human ancestry is impossible. Ketchum has DNA, while Disotell can't even complete his monkey/human ancestry tree. It's even a bigger story for us to believe, and I would point out, still unproven. How can anyone take the words of someone who can't even figure out his own puzzle? His theory wouldn't even get a phone call from the peer reviewers, let alone a reading. Bottom line........Ketchum has DNA proof, Disotell has a 12M year old theory. Edited December 26, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 And what is the answer? If the press release is accurate, (and she wrote it so I would assume it reflects what she has found), sas is a HSS/unknown non-HSS hominid hybrid. That would logically imply that there was an as-yet undocumented non-HSS hominid that was the other half of they hybridization. Again, so what? The DNA would stand as evidence for both. How likely would a journal give extra consideration or have additional patience because of either the other labs named in the paper or the co-authors? That is known as "independent confirmation of results", and is very important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 here we go again disotell,lol..... 1. while she isnt published in her own name yet, she has co-authored....look it up...you will be surprised at the caliber people she is associated with.... 2. disotell has a horse in this race too..as a so proclaimed expert..how is it going to look that a sample he previously tested actually had stuff he missed? how is his funding going to happen then....it PAYS for him to try to discredit her.... 3. her study was leaked first, sho only went to the press to clarify things.... 4.. its a theory....just the first phase of what she is working on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 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. I meant it in the situation that BF is finally shown to be real and the Journal passed on the chance to prove it. Until BF is accepted as real rejection will be ignored. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Some of his points: 1) She has never had a paper published........ever. Which proves nothing, if true. She has many years experience in sequencing and evaluating DNA. 2) She has a dog in the fight. Which proves nothing about the quality of her science. Skeptics "have a dog in the fight" too. By your standards they should also not be taken seriously on that account. So we are left (as always) with the data obtained. 3) She didn't follow scientific protocol.......she went to the press first. No, Igor did. 4) Her time frame is impossible. And the evidence that it is impossible is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts