Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 As far as media coverage, it should be noted that Coast to Coast AM has not picked this up or linked to it yet. You'd think they would drop whoever and get some bigfooters involved on the air. CNN ain't gonna jump on board if C2C hasn't run with it yet. I'd love to see a hour long interview or more with Mr.Hersom also! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 "Have we been much ado about nothing?" Only since day 1. This says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Spare a thought, Theagenes, for people like me that don't feel they could read the paper critically, and therefore haven't paid for it. You also can't assess parts of the paper which are outside your expertise. The journalists that write science articles are the ones that are tasked with reading a paper and talking to the authors and relevant authorities, and then to inform a lay public. In this case, Ketchum has let squatchers get a heads up to at least read the paper just as the embargo crowd works on it. Let's wait a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Did you see the national geographic blog and Houston chronicle science blog? They mocked it without reading it. Established scientists don't want to risk their careers. Now that it's published, they don't have a risk. They can run all the tests and say they're going to disprove it. No risk to their careers and if it comes back agreeing with MK's paper, they're surprised. Do you understand that if this was a credible piece of science, there wouldn't be a $30.00 fee for University faculty to look at it? Do you think they are sending copies out to libraries at Universities? No. It lacks scientific credibility from 'go'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 So the Sierra steak sample was 1 of the 3 that had Nuclear sequence done. What were the other 2? I'm a tightwad and like mitchw mentioned, I'd need an interpreter anyway. I'd gladly pay $30 of there was more video evidence in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Spare a thought, Theagenes, for people like me that don't feel they could read the paper critically, and therefore haven't paid for it. You also can't assess parts of the paper which are outside your expertise. The journalists that write science articles are the ones that are tasked with reading a paper and talking to the authors and relevant authorities, and then to inform a lay public. In this case, Ketchum has let squatchers get a heads up to at least read the paper just as the embargo crowd works on it. Let's wait a bit. I understand that, Mitch. I just get annoyed at those here who keep claiming that no real expert has read this paper but they do it will change everything. But as experts do read it and come to the very obvious conclusion that all she has is human DNA, they will claim that those aren't real experts. It's pointless to argue with such people. The paleoanthropological portion of her paper are within my area of expertise and they are non-sensical---badly non-sensical. On the nuDNA, I am not an genetics expert, but I read and understood the argument she was trying to make. Much of what she claimed was novel she herself admits could be from degradation, so she then tries to make a case that that samples were not degraded. Okay maybe, but that's a pretty weak basis on which hang your argument for such a monumental claim. If all of what she is claiming as novel can possibly be explained by degradation (or both degradation and contamination in the case of the steak), then what do you think the scientific community is going to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 . I am the target audience for this paper. I am exactly the type of person this study was supposed to convince. Since you are representative of "SCIENCE" and you have shown yourself to be unskilled at interpreting the data (unable to process what data refers to what sample), perhaps you should read it, digest it thoroughly, discuss it with one of your scientific peers (feel free to stick with other pre-judging skeptics if you like), and THEN start your doomsaying campaign. Tim B. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) Well, let's wait and see if there is consensus about the merits of Ketchum's work. But assuming you've found the important faults, Theagenes, how to explain the hairs and the large flesh sample, both of which can be examined independently? Personally, I never thought a single paper could do more than begin a more serious study of Bigfoot, but maybe the withering ridicule of the field will be tempered. Edited February 14, 2013 by mitchw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Since you are representative of "SCIENCE" and you have shown yourself to be unskilled at interpreting the data (unable to process what data refers to what sample), perhaps you should read it, digest it thoroughly, discuss it with one of your scientific peers (feel free to stick with other pre-judging skeptics if you like), and THEN start your doomsaying campaign. Tim B. The formatting of one of the tables got messed up when I pasted it into Word. I'm sorry you feel the need to attack me personally but I would refer you to actual paper. Please feel free to defend her explanation of the wide variety of haplotypes she identified. The full passage is quoted above. I look forward to your explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Ive always said, Ancient Alien Theory... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Why can't bigfoot believers properly eat the crow that so many of them insisted the skeptics would be eating? Remember? All over CNN. Most likely published in 'Nature'. I'm cooking crow right now. Who's got a plate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted February 14, 2013 SSR Team Share Posted February 14, 2013 Why can't bigfoot believers properly eat the crow that so many of them insisted the skeptics would be eating? What about the people that have seen them ? What should the be eating ? You think this makes a difference, whatever the outcome of this study, to what i saw all those years ago ? Bwah More fool you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) One wonders what angle journalists and their editors will take with this story. If they go with 'bought a journal to self publish,' then the general public will snort. If the angle is 'it passed peer review at a respected journal that was too chicken to publish,' then you've got a juicy story. Whatever, I don't see how journalists have enough time to digest the paper itself, so Ketchum and her PR person will have a lot to do with shaping the story. Well it certainly wasn't "a respected journal" when she bought it, even going by her own story. It had never published anything. Ever. Maybe it was those lawyers just nixing everything they tried to publish. Or maybe there was some other reason, like it was just somebody's pipe-dream that had never got off the ground. Edited February 14, 2013 by Llawgoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Immaterial. If you never said that when the Ketchum study was released skeptics would need to eat crow, then what I wrote does not apply to you. However, if you did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Time to point out the ''clovis first'' theory is quite dead in the water, so the Solutrean may actually be quite correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts