Guest Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 (edited) Is that just a guess or do you have some insight into the particulars? I'd say more a guess. I think the only explanation that works on most levels that are known to the public, is if Justin somehow gvae diff't samples to MK, than he did to Bart and I. But he's confident they are the same, and there are other compelling reasons to believe they are the same. That being said, I can see why anyone who sees all the pictures of this particular piece of hide could think that that more than one source animal is being represented. Some pictures and some areas are decidedly whiter hair/fur, and some seem to be much darker, as one would normally expect from a bear. were the sample taken/cut at the same time or were your samples taken/cut later on? Edited January 5, 2013 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 5, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted January 5, 2013 It is my understanding Justin did not actually send the sample to Ketchum. Justin said he was away hunting at the time of the mailing, that it was Justin's wife that actually selected the sample from the freezer and mailed it to Ketchum. Did your vetting of the samples confirm this? Geesh, surely not, and there are problems with Ketchum's chain of custody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 At this point, it wouldn't surprise me at all. Also I'm not sure that mainstream American science has the courage to truly examine and review the subject. I also suspect politics and posturing are occurring behind the scenes. Politics and posturing are always happening behind every scene. It's just the way we dang humans are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 At this point, it wouldn't surprise me at all. Also I'm not sure that mainstream American science has the courage to truly examine and review the subject. I also suspect politics and posturing are occurring behind the scenes. At no time, ever, in the entire history of science has the mainstream ever had the courage. The mainstream's job is to plow the furrow of the known. That's what way more than 90% of all scientific endeavor is: finding out something else from the training wheels of the already known. (Wow, pack in those metaphors.) This is how science always advances: a few brave souls apply it to the truly unkown, and bit by agonizing bit, others climb on board until one day we wake up and something new is confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 At no time, ever, in the entire history of science has the mainstream ever had the courage. The mainstream's job is to plow the furrow of the known. That's what way more than 90% of all scientific endeavor is: finding out something else from the training wheels of the already known. (Wow, pack in those metaphors.) This is how science always advances: a few brave souls apply it to the truly unkown, and bit by agonizing bit, others climb on board until one day we wake up and something new is confirmed. DWA very well said +1!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Actually been seeing a lot on TV these days about the difference between regular science and what they call speculative science. It's the speculative science that is responsible for the vast majority of the major breakthroughs. One can dream of the possible and then devise a way to get there, or one can play it safe and devote a life to expanding on the obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Actually been seeing a lot on TV these days about the difference between regular science and what they call speculative science. It's the speculative science that is responsible for the vast majority of the major breakthroughs. One can dream of the possible and then devise a way to get there, or one can play it safe and devote a life to expanding on the obvious. An obvious example of this is with the skeptical canard "it could all be faked." This turns off pretty much all scientists. Where's the ROI, they say? What if they are all faked? It takes the Meldrums and the Krantzes to go: no, the earmarks of fakery simply aren't on these. What if these are authentic? You've stepped out of the mainstream at that point. Knowledge has become your ROI. You're a pure scientist, as opposed to a guy working for a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Peer review = Editorial staff of said journal are discussing at length: Ed1: Gee, we have an opportunity here to publish the breakthru story of the century! ... in biology, anyways. Ed2: Fine if it carries over into further successful studies. In the meantime, we'll be The Joking Journal! Ed3: Argosy published Patti. Let them present it! (And it goes round and round.) Would not surprise me. I'm also not happy with the idea that the review is anonymous. That give plenty of cover for anyone to say anything they like and not be held accountable for it. Submitters are putting their professional reputations on the line, so reviewers should as well. There is the obvious additional issue of reviewer biases. I would want to know if a scathing rebuke of a new alt-history thesis about ancient Egypt came from a neutral academic in England or Zahi Hawass, for example. I think a reviewer or 2 are having a hard time green lighting it,and keep going over the data to make sure it's correct. JMO cool, but I was actually aiming that at knaapster... As for the process, the editor assigns the reviewers for the paper. The reviewers for academic publications are usually professors at research and other universities who are experts in the particular scientific area. They are usually not paid so as to not be subject to bias. What about other kinds of bias? (See my example above...) At no time, ever, in the entire history of science has the mainstream ever had the courage. The mainstream's job is to plow the furrow of the known. That's what way more than 90% of all scientific endeavor is: finding out something else from the training wheels of the already known. (Wow, pack in those metaphors.) This is how science always advances: a few brave souls apply it to the truly unkown, and bit by agonizing bit, others climb on board until one day we wake up and something new is confirmed. In other words (to use the cliche): Galileo was right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 (edited) An obvious example of this is with the skeptical canard "it could all be faked." This turns off pretty much all scientists. Where's the ROI, they say? What if they are all faked? It takes the Meldrums and the Krantzes to go: no, the earmarks of fakery simply aren't on these. What if these are authentic? You've stepped out of the mainstream at that point. Knowledge has become your ROI. You're a pure scientist, as opposed to a guy working for a living. I think science has been willing to look at the claimed evidence, and still is. Science follows where the evidence leads. In this case, to date the evidence has not lead to a single bigfoot. It has lead to many, many discoveries of hoax attempts, and misidentifications, and outright fabrications. A lot of proponents of bigfoot will put the PGF up as the best of the best evidence for the existence of the phenomenon. Many proponents argue "where is the suit" and I could ask those same posters "where is the bigfoot" almost 50 years later and booms in technology and population. We can read a newspaper from space with satellites, disable missiles with lasers, send unmanned projectiles thousands of miles to hit a target within a 3 foot radius. In a country with thousands of reports, and much claimed evidence not one has lead to an actual bigfoot. It has lead to proof of men pranking folks, and sometimes for profit. It has lead to some of the pro bigfooters misidentifying normal animal sign as evidence of bigfoot. (makes for fabulous headlines, and publicity/television - there is definitely a market for it) I think there are other examples of phenomenons that have similar conclusions to the evidence. Those things have been mentioned time and again in this thread so I won't rehash it. The odd thing to me is, we can prove the source of the claimed evidence in many cases. The proponents just don't like the answers to those sources, and refuse to submit that it is the source. Edited January 5, 2013 by LWD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 I wonder if Disotell is going to be a reviewer of Sykes' paper? I don't know if you know this, but he's kinda a big deal. . . people know him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 booms in technology and population. We can read a newspaper from space with satellites, disable missiles with lasers, send unmanned projectiles thousands of miles to hit a target within a 3 foot radius. My advice, stop watching so many techno-thrillers on TV, etc. Contrary to what they would have you think, we do not have the entire US under constant surveillance 24/7/365 with the capability of pinpointing individual people, critters, etc and identifying them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest knappster007 Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 (edited) Would not surprise me. I'm also not happy with the idea that the review is anonymous. That give plenty of cover for anyone to say anything they like and not be held accountable for it. Submitters are putting their professional reputations on the line, so reviewers should as well. There is the obvious additional issue of reviewer biases. I would want to know if a scathing rebuke of a new alt-history thesis about ancient Egypt came from a neutral academic in England or Zahi Hawass, for example. cool, but I was actually aiming that at knaapster... What about other kinds of bias? (See my example above...) In other words (to use the cliche): Galileo was right! There are plenty of opportunities for bias in the scientific method. There have been repeated examples of editorial bias. The reviewers are also human with bias in each of them. That said, the reviewers should be reviewing the material submitted, and place no bearing on the source of the submission (hence blind). Their main goal is to evaluate if the science is solid, based on methods that have been utilized correctly. Who submits the article should not be at issue. The editor selects reviewers who have the qualifications and knowledge to evaluate if the science is solid and the conclusions reached are based on the proper statistical rejection of the null hypothesis. Proper utilization of the scientific method never 'proves' something is true .... it establishes that it is statistically unlikely that the conclusions reached are false. They could still be false, but statistically unlikely. As for the results never being published, that is up to Dr. Ketchum. Even if a journal rejects a submission, the author has the option to submit to another journal, or self-publish and let the world review. By going through the long process of scientific review, it would add significant 'weight' to the findings and credibility to the results. I think that she was correct in pursuing this option, as slow as it is. Edited January 5, 2013 by knappster007 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 It is my understanding Justin did not actually send the sample to Ketchum. Justin said he was away hunting at the time of the mailing, that it was Justin's wife that actually selected the sample from the freezer and mailed it to Ketchum. Did your vetting of the samples confirm this? Yeah I think someone better get that swab sent to the midwest lab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) My advice, stop watching so many techno-thrillers on TV, etc. Contrary to what they would have you think, we do not have the entire US under constant surveillance 24/7/365 with the capability of pinpointing individual people, critters, etc and identifying them. I'm thinking that's EXACTLY what they want you to think! IMO, of course. Edited January 6, 2013 by AaronD to keep remarks aimed at the post, not the poster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Stinky Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 I wonder if Disotell is going to be a reviewer of Sykes' paper? I don't know if you know this, but he's kinda a big deal. . . people know him. LOL...great line from the one and only Ron Burgundy ! Good one Arizona ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts