Dr. Melba Ketchum Schedule To Speak About Sasquatch Dna On October 1, 2011

[southernyahoo]

"Let's say Ketchum manages to publish a paper on DNA analysis of samples that occupy a unique position on the phylogenetic tree of the hominins. In other words, the DNA definitely indicates a new species, closely related to humans and other apes, but also undeniably not one of the species with which we are familiar. To me (personally), this would constitute extremely compelling evidence that there is some otherwise undescribed humanlike creature out there. I suspect that many of my scientific colleagues would also be very impressed with such a discovery. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the one paper is a slam-dunk for the whole of mainstream science. Before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature accepts the description and recognizes the new species, they would very likely want to see similar results independently replicated. When that happens, we can finally consider the work to have gone "mainstream" in science."

Ok, you and your colleagues might be very impressed with DNA evidence, even though "you" wouldn't publish it without a specimen? Yet you would (if memory serves) write up a manuscript based on a clear photo and submit it for publishing?

Maybe this will help. Think of "mainstream acceptance" as a gradient of acceptance that occupies at least 4 levels. With respect to bigfoot:

1. Are non-crazy adults convinced there is a population of otherwise undescribed large, bipedal primates wandering around the United States right now? YES.

2. Are any scientists convinced there is a population of otherwise undescribed large, bipedal primates wandering around the United States right now? YES.

3. Have any peer-reviewed journals published papers with analysis that confirms that there are undescribed large, bipedal primates wandering around the United States right now? NO, but according to Dr. Ketchum, this is about to change.

4. Have the relevant taxonomic authorities (e.g., ICZN, American Society of Mammalogists) endorsed the type description of a heretofore undescribed large, bipedal primate wandering around the United States right now? NO.

Level 4 is what you want, folks. You can't skip Level 3, though. Level 3 is NOT Level 4, and my stating so doesn't make that the case. It just is. It's not some rhetorical dodgeball I learned on the debate team. Don't believe me? Well, I've already mentioned one notable case in which publication (in arguably the top journal in existence) did not lead to mainstream acceptance. There are many others (climate change, hello?).

I'm trying to understand how "you" would get to level 4 if you've been intellectually honest with me on this forum

I wouldn't publish it on my watch without a specimen, but that's just me.

[Guest]

Ok, you and your colleagues might be very impressed with DNA evidence, even though "you" wouldn't publish it without a specimen? Yet you would (if memory serves) write up a manuscript based on a clear photo and submit it for publishing?

I'm trying to understand how "you" would get to level 4 if you've been intellectually honest with me on this forum

It seems to me that at level 3, without any specimen, the best we have is "unknown primate DNA". We don't know how large it is, we don't know if it is bipedal, we don't know anything about it physically. Obviously to everyone here including myself this "unknown primate DNA" would HAVE to be sasquatch, but in reality there is no proof that they are in any way related. We (believers) know that there is some large, bipedal ape-like animal out there, so if someone finds some unknown primate DNA we have a pretty good idea of who the donor is.

There's really no reason to CONCLUDE that Bigfoot is the donor, though. It seems like a lot of unnecessary hoops to jump through, but I do get it. Once we know there is something out there (DNA can confirm this), we must then go FIND it, so that we can compare the unknown primate DNA to it and CONFIRM that this DNA belongs to this animal. At that point, we can scientifically describe this animal and its place in the animal kingdom. DNA would probably be enough for your friends to stop telling you your crazy for believing BF might exist, but it's not enough for it to be a recognized species. Science is very methodical in that way, and even though it drives us crazy in this particular circumstance, I think we would all prefer that it is.

[Guest mitchw]

If we stipulate that the tale of a BF having been shot and some large piece of flesh was recovered, could the 4th stage of credulity be quickly arrived at? If Ketchum has DNA evidence plus a steak which can be examined, would there still be a significant hitch? I'm pretty certain all resistance will not end; as they say, 'Science advances one funeral at a time.'

[Guest]

Ok, you and your colleagues might be very impressed with DNA evidence, even though "you" wouldn't publish it without a specimen? Yet you would (if memory serves) write up a manuscript based on a clear photo and submit it for publishing?

"Me" the author and "me" the editor are not always on the same page. The author in me wants to publish anything I can. The editor in me looks for reasons to reject every paper I review. When I wrote today that I wouldn't publish a paper on the DNA without a specimen description for the source of that DNA, I wrote that from the perspective of an editor. If I was the author, I would totally try to publish it if I was could otherwise demonstrate its legitimacy. Capice?

I'm trying to understand how "you" would get to level 4 if you've been intellectually honest with me on this forum

I've already explained this. If we're trying to make Level 4 from what we think Ketchum says she's planning to publish, I think it'll take at least a couple of independent replications of her work and/or similar research that points to her same result.

[BeachFoot]

It seems to me that at level 3, without any specimen, the best we have is "unknown primate DNA". We don't know how large it is, we don't know if it is bipedal, we don't know anything about it physically. Obviously to everyone here including myself this "unknown primate DNA" would HAVE to be sasquatch, but in reality there is no proof that they are in any way related. We (believers) know that there is some large, bipedal ape-like animal out there, so if someone finds some unknown primate DNA we have a pretty good idea of who the donor is.

There's really no reason to CONCLUDE that Bigfoot is the donor, though. It seems like a lot of unnecessary hoops to jump through, but I do get it. Once we know there is something out there (DNA can confirm this), we must then go FIND it, so that we can compare the unknown primate DNA to it and CONFIRM that this DNA belongs to this animal. At that point, we can scientifically describe this animal and its place in the animal kingdom. DNA would probably be enough for your friends to stop telling you your crazy for believing BF might exist, but it's not enough for it to be a recognized species. Science is very methodical in that way, and even though it drives us crazy in this particular circumstance, I think we would all prefer that it is.

Well said, NiceGuy. That argument is possibly a primary reason for the planned release of the EP's documentary in tandem with the publishing of Dr. K's paper. With nothing but DNA indicating an "unknown primate" there would still be doubt in a lot of folks' minds as to whether or not this "unknown primate" was, indeed, the Sasquatch of lore. DNA coupled with (from all indications) clear video evidence of this "unknown primate" will probably be enough, at least initially, to support Dr. K's conclusion and reach Level 3. That is, IF her conclusion is that the DNA is from a Sasquatch. We all expect that to be the case, but until the paper is released, we won't know for sure.

Thanks, Saskeptic, for breaking it down so simply. You interject more than reason to most discussions. Regardless if I agree with what you say all the time, I rarely fail to learn something from your posts. You're definitely a skeptic but, for the most part, it seems you remain objective. That's all any reasonable person on either side of this fence should ask.

I don't know Dr. Ketchum other than what I've read about her on this forum and others. I have to wonder what HER intent is with this paper or, perhaps, what she expects to accomplish through it's release. We have already had (at least to my satisfaction) the discussion as to her right to wear the hat of a "scientist". I can buy that. With all due respect, though, she is not a biologist, not an anthropologist and most certainly not an "authority" on anything other than, perhaps, the tasks that her lab performs.

I think the release of the paper and the documentary might be the straw that breaks the proverbial back of "doubt" within the mainstream scientific community, but from what Saskeptic has pointed out, it seems that there will be a lot more work to be done to put the issue to bed and put Sasquatch in the big book. We're going to need a specimen, I'm sure. Something tells me that may not be too far out of the realm of reality. I know that DR has stated numerous times that they do not have a "body". He has admitted, though, to having (or seeing) a piece of flesh. I, for one, am inclined to believe that "someone" is also in possession of something in between the two.

[BobbyO]

A specimen of an extant organism would preferably be an entire body, but a body part would suffice. How small a body part? That's tough to say. I suppose the only rule of thumb would be that it would have to be enough to be diagnostic. In other words, it would have to be enough tissue that it could not in any way be confused with some other organism.

That sounds encouraging then as it appears we already have a Specimen that Dr MK is working on..

[southernyahoo]

"Me" the author and "me" the editor are not always on the same page. The author in me wants to publish anything I can. The editor in me looks for reasons to reject every paper I review. When I wrote today that I wouldn't publish a paper on the DNA without a specimen description for the source of that DNA, I wrote that from the perspective of an editor. If I was the author, I would totally try to publish it if I was could otherwise demonstrate its legitimacy. Capice?

Yes I see that you want to argue from several points of view. Lets review here again though

I read tragic irony on the BFF rather frequently when people post statements to the effect that journals and scientific societies are biased against bigfoot papers. The reality is that if a journal publishes a bigfoot paper in the absence of a specimen, it demonstrates a decidedly PRO-bigfoot bias in that journal.

Do you acknowledge a bias, or is your statements only true if they come from you and otherwise tragic irony?

I've already explained this. If we're trying to make Level 4 from what we think Ketchum says she's planning to publish, I think it'll take at least a couple of independent replications of her work and/or similar research that points to her same result.

Which you've been told is already done.

So we have....

1. The timing of her talk. This would be to interested folks, (not academia per se) perhaps to prepare these folks who are searching for answers in understanding her work.

2. The venue of it, which really has no bearing on the science. Pending publication, there will certainly be other venues begging for a presentation.

3. Repeatability, which is promised, and demonstrated.

4. You haven't seen it published yet.

Any more issues?

[Guest parnassus]

Dup

Edited August 17, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest parnassus]

just speculating here: these (apparently) multiple non-disclosure agreements suggest that Dr. Ketchum is in the process of protecting some proprietary entity. I would suggest that would be a Bigfoot DNA test, similar to the other tests she runs on horses, dogs, etc. Dr. Ketchum is involved in some issue over the "ownership" of such tests, and if would make sense that establishing this would be a part of her thought process if she believes she has identified the unique features of Bigfoot DNA.

From a scientific perspective, I think it would be putting the test before the horse, so to speak, and further, it may make scientific evaluation of her findings more difficult, but from a business perspective, it might seem advisable to protect the value this way, until she can apply for a patent.

Once she has protected her investment she would then move on to the kind of full disclosure that science would demand, and would be in a position to license her test to other labs once the paper has been published.

Just speculating.

Edited August 17, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest]

Do you acknowledge a bias, or is your statements only true if they come from you and otherwise tragic irony?

I see no evidence of bias against publishing bigfoot papers in peer-reviewed journals. A couple of papers have been published. I'd say that's pretty good considering that no one's been able to prove they have even a piece of a bigfoot yet. Were a journal to publish on Ketchum's DNA analysis alone - without description of a specimen in her paper, I'm talking about just the DNA - then that would be (to my knowledge) an unprecedented decision by that journal. Ergo, I would perceive that as a pro-publication bias on the part of that journal.

Quote from me: "I think it'll take at least a couple of independent replications of her work and/or similar research that points to her same result."

Which you've been told is already done.

How could independent replications of her work have already been done if her paper hasn't even come out yet? "Independent" doesn't mean separate tests run by co-authors with her on the same paper.

So we have....

1. The timing of her talk. This would be to interested folks, (not academia per se) perhaps to prepare these folks who are searching for answers in understanding her work.

2. The venue of it, which really has no bearing on the science. Pending publication, there will certainly be other venues begging for a presentation.

3. Repeatability, which is promised, and demonstrated.

4. You haven't seen it published yet.

Any more issues?

Oh, are these "issues" of mine or something? I'm sorry that I don't understand your question.

[Guest HairyGreek]

But, won't they pull publication if certain criteria aren't met which would include pre-publication presentations of the same subject matter as the paper?

I believe it was Saskeptic who pointed out that very thing in another thread. In my mind, putting the muzzle on someone is policing.

[Guest]

I believe it was Saskeptic who pointed out that very thing in another thread. In my mind, putting the muzzle on someone is policing.

An important feature of publishing in a journal is that the journal has exclusive rights to publish the contents of that manuscript. In other words, "double-dipping" by submitting the same material to another journal is a no-no. I have never seen language in a publication agreement with a journal that forbids the authors from making public presentations to discuss the work included in the paper. Journal editors don't hire private investigators to tail authors to make sure the authors don't publicly discuss their papers.

[Guest HairyGreek]

An important feature of publishing in a journal is that the journal has exclusive rights to publish the contents of that manuscript. In other words, "double-dipping" by submitting the same material to another journal is a no-no. I have never seen language in a publication agreement with a journal that forbids the authors from making public presentations to discuss the work included in the paper. Journal editors don't hire private investigators to tail authors to make sure the authors don't publicly discuss their papers.

I thought you were very clear discussion could not happen until AFTER the paper's realease. Did I misread?

[Guest]

I thought you were very clear discussion could not happen until AFTER the paper's realease. Did I misread?

Unless there's some specific non-disclosure agreement between author and journal then there's no legal reason an author can't make a presentation on the work. The point I was trying to make was that, especially when the work is controversial, it's a bad idea to make public presentations before the peer-review process is completed. In this case, the author will apparently make a presentation at a tourist-oriented festival (i.e., not a scientific conference) and likely before the paper is published. In all likelihood there's no legal reason not to do this, I just think it's a bad idea for an author trying to mainstream a really controversial topic to do anything that could be perceived as subjective bias.

[Guest]

Yes, totally illogical.

You don't need the physical deer carcass if you have the deer DNA. Likewise you don't need the physical BF carcass if you have the BF DNA. DNA does not occur absent a physical creature to produce said DNA. The DNA therefore speaks for itself.

Any legitimate scientific community will have to recognize BF based on the DNA finding (if it indeed holds up). Otherwise it forfeits all claim to objectivity.

Really Agent Mulder?

Agent Scully wants to have a word with you: http://jacobsvillebooks.com/lisashiel/blog/2011/08/10/the-myth-of-bigfoot-dna/