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

[southernyahoo]

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.

Perhaps you are perpetuating a stigma in your perception that a journal can't publish on bigfoot without a specimen because they would be percieved as pro-bigfoot. The very stigma that you claim doesn't exist.

What if you had this interesting DNA from samples submitted from bigfoot searchers. What if your headline on the paper read,

" A forensic and genetic investigation of the purported extant and legendary apeman, implications based on submitted biological samples." ( I made that up)

Couldn't you build a nice paper from there, without claiming absolute proof, even if it really was?

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.

The same results from multiple samples, testers, and submitters demonstrates repeatability and a wicked gauntlet for some unique result to be in all the results unless it was from the same thing. I think this would be the requisite that a journal would want to see to even publish the "first" paper.

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

Yes they were issues you brought up, do you want to call them something else?

[Guest]

Saskeptic said:

There's no bar-raising and no goal-post shifting.

Every extant, multicellular organism that is currently recognized by "mainstream science" has a published description somewhere in the scientific literature and a physical specimen curated somewhere.

Sweetsusi says:

My dad said for **years** that many major museums have evidence of stuff (example BF) in storage marked as unknown that they are not even aware of having.

Have you guys/gals been into the Basement of London's museum of Natural History, or The Smithsonian?

London has numerous *huge* underground stories of storage totally full of unknown and what they think is known, but could be mislabeled because we have no Known animal at this time to match it to..I hope the BF DNA can solve some of the mysteries and mismatched bones now.

[Guest slimwitless]

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/

That article has problems. The author seems to be operating on the assumption there's only one sample. We're told this is not the case. She also states, "Comparing the new sample to existing DNA samples on file will show, at best, that the new sample does not correspond with any known species. All you will have proven is that scientists can’t identify what type of creature the DNA came from." That's simply not true.

[southernyahoo]

Really Agent Mulder?

Agent Scully wants to have a word with you: http://jacobsvillebo...of-bigfoot-dna/

Ms. Shiel needs to heed her own advise and keep digging , though she'll have to wait a bit longer.

Edited August 17, 2011 by southernyahoo

[BobbyO]

Sweetsusi says:

Have you guys/gals been into the Basement of London's museum of Natural History, or The Smithsonian?

London has numerous *huge* underground stories of storage totally full of unknown and what they think is known, but could be mislabeled because we have no Known animal at this time to match it to..

I haven't been in the Basement no, but i've been in teh Museum enough & it is BIG !!

Don't have a clue about what's in teh Basement though..

Edited August 17, 2011 by BobbyO

[Guest HairyGreek]

Have you guys/gals been into the Basement of London's museum of Natural History, or The Smithsonian?

I hope that's not like the basement in the Alamo...

[Guest HairyGreek]

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.

Huh. I could have sworn you said it would put the paper in some sort of jeopardy...

[Guest]

Could it be possible that the tissue turned over for analysis yielded DNA from multiple organ systems? Perhaps some viable muscular, cardiac and spinal tissue? Would multiple tissue sources strengthen the impact of these results? At what point does it go from long range jump shot to slam dunk?

Just throwing some spaghetti at the wall.

If the results hold, it's already a slam-dunk.

All this talk about which DNA came from what tissue is spurious Skeptic obstructionism. Ignore it.

I'll lay out the case with a simple Socratic Exchange:

Q: Where does DNA come from?

A: From biological cells.

Q: Where do biological cells come from?

A: From biological samples (hair, blood, tissue, etc).

Q: Where do biological samples come from?

A: From biological sources (that is, an actual plant or animal).

So, if we have BF DNA, we therefore have BF cells which came from a BF biological sample which came from a BF.

I haven't been in the Basement no, but i've been in teh Museum enough & it is BIG !!

Don't have a clue about what's in teh Basement though..

Most major museums have HUGE collections of stuff from all over the place just sitting in storage...some of it not examined since it was collected originally.

[Doc Holliday]

Ms. Shiel needs to heed her own advise and keep digging , though she'll have to wait a bit longer.

I agree.

even though im not willing to jump in head first on the DNA bandwagon, Ms.Shiel does seem, imo, to have a little bias/pre-determination of her own .

if the DNA episodes do pay off, even though it may not be earth shattering proof, it might just be the compass to point the way .

[Guest]

Huh. I could have sworn you said it would put the paper in some sort of jeopardy...

I indicated that it could jeopardize publication depending on the circumstances; I did not write that it would.

[Guest]

Perhaps you are perpetuating a stigma in your perception that a journal can't publish on bigfoot without a specimen because they would be percieved as pro-bigfoot.

If you don't understand my position then perhaps you're having a problem with the word "unprecedented." It's not that a journal couldn't accept such a paper, it's that the decision to do so would be unprecedented. That would be evidence of a lower evidentiary standard for publication, not a higher one.

What if you had this interesting DNA from samples submitted from bigfoot searchers. What if your headline on the paper read,

" A forensic and genetic investigation of the purported extant and legendary apeman, implications based on submitted biological samples." ( I made that up)

Couldn't you build a nice paper from there, without claiming absolute proof, even if it really was?

Of course, but that doesn't mean it'll get published. I'd imagine some journals would jump at the chance to publish such a paper and others would not.

The same results from multiple samples, testers, and submitters demonstrates repeatability and a wicked gauntlet for some unique result to be in all the results unless it was from the same thing. I think this would be the requisite that a journal would want to see to even publish the "first" paper.

That's certainly what I would want to see in that first paper if I was the editor considering it. But what you described is NOT independent replication of that first paper.

[slabdog]

Yes, totally illogical.

respectfully disagree...

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.

No...we don't need a deer carcass because we already have deer carcasses, and deer in zoos, and deers shot by hunters and hauled into the state game office for tagging, and deers hit by cars laying on the shoulder in which to get a confirmed DNA sample from. We have had this for years.

Even if we get a fantastic DNA sequence from the Ketchum study...we still have no flesh and blood creature to actually compare it to. I wish we did!

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.

To be crystal clear, if it turns out to be true, I'm not dismissing the potentially huge scientific impact the Ketchum DNA project will have. I hope it is true!

My only point is that it will not serve as definitive proof.

If that makes you mad....I'm sorry....it is not my intention.

I believe, if true, the Ketchum study will instead serve as strong enough evidence to warrant the investment of time, money and man power it will take to achieve the definitive proof.....the creature itself.

[Guest parnassus]

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

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

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?

Yahoo, re your No. 2:

Science is pretty much of a collaborative effort. There are very few "slam dunks." Almost all published papers incorporate suggestions and requirements that come from other scientists/reviewers/editors. Many are presented orally at scientific meetings before publication, to get feedback, eliminate mistakes, and improve the eventual publication. That is the process. This goes a long way toward preventing mistakes from being published, in the scientific literature and then in the lay press, and that is an important function.

The more important the issue, and the less experienced the authors, the more important this process is.

If I believed bigfoot exists, I would not want another public fiasco. If the scientific value is there, it will come out in a few months, and with proper documentation. But Dr. Melba Ketchum making unreviewed claims to a lay audience (if that is what she intends to do) about a monster inhabiting woodlots across the country is a recipe for a trainwreck. The inevitable problems (yes, there are issues in virtually every paper) in her work will then become the central issue. Better that she get all the wrinkles out with the scientific community, so that when it does go public she will have the heavy hitters on her side, rather than firing broadsides at her.

Delayed gratification is one of the distinguishing characteristics of higher life forms.

[JDL]

Why not Saskeptic? Francis Crick made his announcement in a pub.

The Eagle Pub

"When the university's Cavendish Laboratory was still at its old site at nearby Free School Lane the pub was a popular lunch destination for staff working there. Thus it became the place where Francis Crick interrupted patrons' lunchtime on 28 February 1953 to announce that he and James Watson had "discovered the secret of life" after they had come up with their proposal for the structure of DNA.[2] The anecdote is related in Watson's book The Double Helix [3] and commemorated on a blue plaque next to the entrance."

I had the pleasure of dining with and escorting James Watson and his wife in '96 when he came to speak at the Academy. One of my Forrest Gump moments.

[Guest]

My only point is that it will not serve as definitive proof.

I wouldn't go quite that far slabdog. I'd say it could be "definitive proof", but that we won't know for sure until at least a couple of independent replications of the published work have been pursued.

Mulder's right in that having the DNA is, in and of itself, a specimen from a living creature and, therefore, "proof" of that creature. Before such a finding could really be mainstreamed (as in "ICZN" mainstreamed), however, we'd want to see the work independently replicated to rule out: (1) possibility of some kind of hoaxed DNA (very long longshot, but scientific results have been hoaxed in the past and the peer-review system is poorly-adapted to detect it); (2) data tampering to achieve the stunning result (similar to #1, but involves manipulating the data which is a heck of a lot easier than manipulating the DNA samples); and (3) systematic error in the analysis that innocently led to the result.

If subsequent studies showed no evidence that 1–3 were involved in the initial work, then that should provide sufficient evidence for that first paper to have established proof of this new species. If we still lack a specimen (i.e., something to which one could tie a museum tag) at that point, maybe we could politely ask the people at the habituation site in VT (source of the DNA, right?) to submit a nice photo of one of the danged things so we can see what they look like.