Guest Llawgoch Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Good post JDL. My thoughts as well on this . I am in the science field ( microbiologist) and concur that we need the opinion of several scientist versed in this field to summarize the paper. I think one very crucial point is the debate on contamination. The abstract states a high level of purity, this is paramount to the study and verified by the authors of the study (criminology verification) . Could ALL the samples be contaminated ? I thought I read that many samples showed very similiar trends/patterns, so could all the samples tested be of the same source and contaminated by the same individual ? No. Most of the samples were not contaminated. Of the ones showing human dna, only 3 showed anything apart from fully human, I believe, so all the others were not contaminated. Only 3 showed anything odd. Yes, those 3 could have been contaminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 And one of the three has been verified by two labs to be a mixture of bear and human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TwilightZone Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Long-time lurker going poster, here... I can't help but feel this so-called scientific paper was never written for actual scientists to read. I think the target audience is those who already believe in Bigfoot, who are deeply distrustful of science and will buy into the storyline that scientists are so biased they won't even accept overwhelming proof when it's presented to them. I think the paper is the cornerstone for a cottage industry in becoming a Bigfoot spokesman, like the deal Meldrum currently enjoys: getting paid to gallivant around the world searching for Squatch, making appearances at conferences, etc. There was never an intent to present sound data, only smoke and haze... the data equivalent of a photographic blobsquatch. I am truly sorry for the true-believers who thought they were getting vindication from this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TH68 Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 If the paper is nonsense, please be specific. I don't know, but that's clearly her way out of this mess. If she really has anything (which I obviously doubt) then all she has to do is submit it to genbank and all will be fixed, despite the paper itself being nonsense, there will still be something concrete to look at. But she hasn't done that, says wrongly that she can't do it, and is making no comment on the fact that everybody else is saying she can and has to. There is only one reason she would be staying quiet now which is she hasn't got anything and she knows she hasn't got anything, but as soon as she says that the $30 stop coming in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Long-time lurker going poster, here... I can't help but feel this so-called scientific paper was never written for actual scientists to read. I think the target audience is those who already believe in Bigfoot, who are deeply distrustful of science and will buy into the storyline that scientists are so biased they won't even accept overwhelming proof when it's presented to them. I think the paper is the cornerstone for a cottage industry in becoming a Bigfoot spokesman, like the deal Meldrum currently enjoys: getting paid to gallivant around the world searching for Squatch, making appearances at conferences, etc. There was never an intent to present sound data, only smoke and haze... the data equivalent of a photographic blobsquatch. I am truly sorry for the true-believers who thought they were getting vindication from this... Welcome TZ. I feel more sorrow for the folks that have witnessed one that were looking for some vindication. Tho I don't share your feelings 100%, there seems to be an air about it where one must ask if this was ever expected to be taken seriously by those in the field. I however, am still awaiting the experts to weigh in on the data, which has not been presented yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Has anyone even looked at the described morphology of the samples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Does anyone know if the press conference is being recorded? Or online streaming live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 <p> But ultimately that's all just window-dressing. It's the substance that matters. It can be as clunky as it wants if the substance is there. Unfortunately it wasn't. It would seem to me that the substance would be the comparisons of the raw data to data bases, if this has not been done yet, then you can't know if the substance is there or not. If there is access to the raw data, how is it that people can't load it into genbank themselves and compare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Two more points to note 1. Justin and the driver must have been reeeeeaaaallllly druuuunnnnnkkk. I mean blitzed if he held a bear cub as it died after shooting it's mother and they both swear it was bigfoots that looked like a little black kid/chimpanzee mixed. Wow man. 2. There may be some good for the submitters if this does in fact go down in flames. There is an association now. You are a group who has claimed to be able to get samples of bigfoot. This community fights within itself more than anything I have ever seen. Submitters, take those of you who are credible and had multiple samples and regroup with Sykes or Meldrum or someone who has made a career out of how to do things properly. Get it together and get it done for the rest of us please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Does anyone even know if there IS a press conference? From what I understand, the whole embargo-lifts-on-Thursday, paper-publishes-on-Friday business has been foregone and for all that we know, the Wednesday release is all we're going to get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 <p>It would seem to me that the substance would be the comparisons of the raw data to data bases, if this has not been done yet, then you can't know if the substance is there or not. If there is access to the raw data, how is it that people can't load it into genbank themselves and compare? In this report the substance is not there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) If the paper is nonsense, please be specific. There's no point me repeating the things that have been said or linked to by way more qualified people than myself several times in this thread. But even so, even if her conclusions are nonsense, her data could be interesting but she hasn't provided it for others to look at. That in itself alone is enough to make it nonsense as a scientific paper. Two more points to note 1. Justin and the driver must have been reeeeeaaaallllly druuuunnnnnkkk. I mean blitzed if he held a bear cub as it died after shooting it's mother and they both swear it was bigfoots that looked like a little black kid/chimpanzee mixed. Wow man. Please try and remember that Smeja always said he never knew whether his sample came from the animal he supposedly shot. He claimed he found it several weeks later in the same area. Smeja's story never stood or fell by that sample.. Edited February 15, 2013 by Llawgoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) @Theagenes: Isn't the raw data what is contained in the 1800+ pages strong "supplenetary data"-pdf-files? Edited February 15, 2013 by Obsi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 other people have had trouble with acedemics as well, this is nothing new... look up Svetlana Balabanova, she went through the same BS...and still is having trouble.....old science dosent change much through out the years...its a paradigm shift for sure, maybe thats why she put it in this journal.... until this data is replicated and reviewed all this talk is just that.... talk..........and we know what talk is...maybe she put this paper out here to cause controversy , and then comes the slam dunk with the real stuff.....when that comes out , we will see ....but untill then, just window dressing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Question - for those who know.. We know the Smeja sample came back from Trent as Bear/Justin Smeja.. Part of this sample was also sent to Ketchum. Did she note the Trent results in her paper - and even if she did or didn't - do the results of the Trent test make any difference to the Ketchum paper results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts