Guest OntarioSquatch Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 It hit me just now that not everyone realizes the number of authentic bigfoot samples that have been tested to date. Time and effort has gone into this outside of the Ketchum study. Not a single sample has ever shown unknown primate. If Bigfoot does exist, then Dr. Ketchum's conclusion is probably right. The only way now for the Ketchum study to be a big lie is if Bigfoot simply does not exist. I know people will disagree with this, but it's the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Hey Ontario - just wondering what you meant by: It hit me just now that not everyone realizes the number of authentic bigfoot samples that have been tested to date. Time and effort has gone into this outside of the Ketchum study. Not a single sample has ever shown unknown primate. Do you mean researchers & organisations organising testing of their own samples, part of ongoing projects - independent (and in all likelihood unknown) to Melba et al? Also, what did the samples come back as - simply unknown, or human assumed to be sampler contamination etc? Ta, FG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 It hit me just now that not everyone realizes the number of authentic bigfoot samples that have been tested to date. Time and effort has gone into this outside of the Ketchum study. Not a single sample has ever shown unknown primate. If Bigfoot does exist, then Dr. Ketchum's conclusion is probably right. The only way now for the Ketchum study to be a big lie is if Bigfoot simply does not exist. I know people will disagree with this, but it's the truth. I never saw this show, and this clip posted on a blog...so no idea when it was produced..but interesting comments by Sykes on DNA..and seem on the surface to parallel some comments from Ketchum? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uAUZDgv_33g#! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Nature has also published its fair share of hoaxes. Nature was one of the favorite publishing outlets of Jan Hendrik Schön, who hoaxed several discoveries on carbon nanotubes. The journal also publishes an annual global warming special issue, in which many of the contributors were implicated in the Climate Research Unit E-mail scandal (where it was discovered, through a release of E-mails, that global warming scientists activists were altering their methods and models to obtain the results they wanted). So Nature will loosen its peer review standards to suit its own political objectives or meet its own need to publish cutting-edge research. On the topic of bigfoot, I think a Russian journal would be more likely to publish because a Russian journal is more likely to take the topic seriously. The Russian school of thought is more accepting of the unknown, while western science tends to be arrogant and closed-minded. BTW, Nature is a British journal, and as I think about the British, they would probably dismiss the article, from the first sentence, as a joke. I doubt that Ketchum will need to go to a foreign journal. She may find it difficult to publish in a multidisciplinary, general interest, cutting edge journal, but I think something like the American Journal of Human Genetics or Human Biology might be extremely interested in publishing the article. Most likely, the editors and reviewers at those journals would instantly accept the methods and results, and welcome such an upheaval article. Back, even before Ketchum announced that she was trying to publish, there were debates on the BFF about what would happen if someone tried to publish a scientific article. It pretty much went like this: Knowers: The reviewers would treat it as a joke. There is no such thing as bigfoot, therefore there can be no evidence of bigfoot. We have no idea as to how, but you must have screwed something up. Skeptics: If the work was sound, scientists would accept it. Your work seems solid, and we are unable to identify any errors in it. There must be a bigfoot, or some other explanation which eludes us, but since we don't know what that is, congratulations, you discovered bigfoot. As a scientist, the knowers hit it smack on the head. Even if half the reviewers brush it off and half review it seriously, that still kills a paper. Skeptics like to place scientists on a pedestal (except Meldrum), but while science might have its place on that pedestal, many scientists do not deserve to be there with it. What was weird about that entire argument, is that many of the skeptics advocating for the 'reasonable scientist' actually behave the way the knowers describe. I have seen a great deal of bigfoot evidence which, as individual exhibits, have only had two explanations: bigfoot or an elaborate contrivance. The skeptics choose the contrivance. I think you grossly misunderstand our national psyche then... a twitter account for Ketchum (I am so old school, when did we decide 143 or whatever characters was the way to communicate?) Twitter was conceived to use the SMS (small messaging service) protocol so messages were limited to 140 characters in order to leave a few over for commands/responses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) Nature has also published its fair share of hoaxes. Nature was one of the favorite publishing outlets of Jan Hendrik Schön, who hoaxed several discoveries on carbon nanotubes. The journal also publishes an annual global warming special issue, in which many of the contributors were implicated in the Climate Research Unit E-mail scandal (where it was discovered, through a release of E-mails, that global warming scientists activists were altering their methods and models to obtain the results they wanted). So Nature will loosen its peer review standards to suit its own political objectives or meet its own need to publish cutting-edge research. On the topic of bigfoot, I think a Russian journal would be more likely to publish because a Russian journal is more likely to take the topic seriously. The Russian school of thought is more accepting of the unknown, while western science tends to be arrogant and closed-minded. BTW, Nature is a British journal, and as I think about the British, they would probably dismiss the article, from the first sentence, as a joke. I doubt that Ketchum will need to go to a foreign journal. She may find it difficult to publish in a multidisciplinary, general interest, cutting edge journal, but I think something like the American Journal of Human Genetics or Human Biology might be extremely interested in publishing the article. Most likely, the editors and reviewers at those journals would instantly accept the methods and results, and welcome such an upheaval article. Back, even before Ketchum announced that she was trying to publish, there were debates on the BFF about what would happen if someone tried to publish a scientific article. It pretty much went like this: Knowers: The reviewers would treat it as a joke. There is no such thing as bigfoot, therefore there can be no evidence of bigfoot. We have no idea as to how, but you must have screwed something up. Skeptics: If the work was sound, scientists would accept it. Your work seems solid, and we are unable to identify any errors in it. There must be a bigfoot, or some other explanation which eludes us, but since we don't know what that is, congratulations, you discovered bigfoot. As a scientist, the knowers hit it smack on the head. Even if half the reviewers brush it off and half review it seriously, that still kills a paper. Skeptics like to place scientists on a pedestal (except Meldrum), but while science might have its place on that pedestal, many scientists do not deserve to be there with it. What was weird about that entire argument, is that many of the skeptics advocating for the 'reasonable scientist' actually behave the way the knowers describe. I have seen a great deal of bigfoot evidence which, as individual exhibits, have only had two explanations: bigfoot or an elaborate contrivance. The skeptics choose the contrivance. Nice take, in toto but particularly as it highlights the dichotomy that I mention so much as to its impact on this topic: Science: a virtually perfect tool that belongs on that pedestal; Scientists: the people (yellow flag, that word!) using - or not! - the tool. Many presume that the scientific mainstream has gotten where it is on sasquatch by using the tool. I'd say - using what scientists say as my guide - that that tool is either being misused by the mainstream or not being used at all; and that's why they are where they are. In other words: Meldrum uses his science; those who disagree with him demonstrably do not, at least not properly; and I get that from just reading what they say. As I don't hear your take very much from professed scientists, care to share how you got where you are on this matter? Edited February 6, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 That's some appreciated humor. All I can say, amigo, is that the sideshows in this field are the laugh-or-cry variety; and my choice is clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 hmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 HMMMM indeed. That fits the criteria. Hope springs eternal...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 That does show some promise... hey where do you guys find that list anyway? I see it posted here every so often... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newswise.com%2Farticles%2Flist%3Fcategory%3Dembargoed&ei=FJsSUb2XB-iN4gS2lIDABw&usg=AFQjCNExe8SzV1xha41X1FyUj4kUZJzBjw&sig2=zhkNZRmSlHH-0Mq3-Pj6NQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 ^yepm it has some good key words anyway, and Science would be great given the odds these days of any journal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Oh, that's definitely it! No doubt about it! Dripping with sarcasm btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 ^yepm it has some good key words anyway, and Science would be great given the odds these days of any journal! "Science" appears to be the category, not the name of the journal. I doubt this is it (and someone earlier said the Ketchum article is unlikely to be embargoed, which I think is true), but who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) Thanks, i am squinting, new glasses already broke at hinge (well screw fell out)....article "likely not to be embargoed" is not good, as it implies no peer-review? It's Feburary 6th.... I think it is time to give up? I feel much older than when this started... of course, the only thing that would change is how many times i visit this thread! Edited February 6, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) ^ maybe I need a new RX,LOL, I am looking at the screen shot and I do not see where it says that AH... Edited February 6, 2013 by VioletX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts