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

[Guest]

I'm wondering ....

How many BFFers plan to attend the Oct. 1st talk in Oklahoma?

Perhaps we should wear name tags that identify BFF and our aliases.

That way, we will know who to slug.

[Guest]

Oh the irony.

Speaking of shuck and jive, just let a skeptic ask why no specimen has ever been produced, or why no road-kill. Almost any excuse will do, even paranormal ones. Still no bigfoot though.

RayG

Amen!

[Guest]

How about a Hupa version of Maureen OHara? I think perhaps what Ketchum saw was a human haplotype (Native American) that wasn't in her initial screening panel, and that set off all the excitement.

Would you please elaborate on your provisional explanation behind the DNA report. If the report is indeed published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal, would your possible explanation be viable?

[Guest mitchw]

A question for Saskeptic. Can you describe the process by which a soon to be published paper is first disseminated to the press via press release? At what point do journals permit journalists and authors to freely communicate in the interest of the accurate coverage of a new paper?

[Guest]

A question for Saskeptic. Can you describe the process by which a soon to be published paper is first disseminated to the press via press release? At what point do journals permit journalists and authors to freely communicate in the interest of the accurate coverage of a new paper?

Preface: I've never published anything significant enough to warrant a pre-publication press release.

Many journals these days publish both online and in print, with the members-only online content being ready and available before the print copies mail out. So I'd assume that a general rule of thumb for any press releases would be that they coincide with the online publication date.

[Guest]

Seven pages on this topic.... Really ??

I'ts official....I'm breaking out "the horse" GIF.....

[Guest parnassus]

Would you please elaborate on your provisional explanation behind the DNA report. If the report is indeed published in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal, would your possible explanation be viable?

Well, you are inviting me to speculate.

Actually I think I have already suggested the general outlines of what is coming from the DNA and how it could, perhaps unintentionally, be made to look like something it isn't.

As Saskeptic has pointed out and has been demonstrated repeatedly, there are several loop holes in peer review. There are others that he didn't mention that could also become factors.

I will not lay out a detailed blueprint of how I would game the system but I am pretty confident that (if i were a different person than I am), a year ago, I could have accomplished the publication of an article in a matter of 6-12 months. It would take an investment of moderate size, depending on whether or not I had my own lab(I don't).

This paper would raise the serious possibility that Bigfoot is "an unknown subspecies of modern human." It would be well written and the data would be bombproof. Temporarily.

Knowing what I know of academic scandals, I would estimate it would have taken two to three years to partially discredit the paper, though I don't think it could ever be totally and completely debunked, short of a confession by me or a legal proceeding. In the meantime, I would certainly make back my investment many times over, take aa "romantic" vacation to Thailand, and become a cast member of "finding Bigfoot".

Having said all that, I think the window of opportunity is closing fast. What could have been done a year ago is pretty unlikely now. All the Internet chatter has not been lost on the primatologists. I think that it is unlikely that a major journal would publish my paper now.

Still, I think a minor, regional or veterinary journal could be found that would print some of it.

I know that doesn't answer your questions but then again neither will anyone else lol

p

Edited August 22, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest vilnoori]

You know what, I can't argue with that. What is she doing? Maybe this means the paper will be out sooner than we thought...

Well I hope so!

[Guest]

Parnassus, if you ever star on Finding Bigfoot, I might actually watch the show.

[Guest]

Parnassus,

Thanks for the reply. However, I'm a bit confused as to the intentionality of the report. You suggest the report may be "perhaps unintentionally" erroneous. But you move on to suggest it may be an intentional "gam[ing of] the system" done for profit. So the competing motives are, 1., Errors compounded presumably by enthusiasm, or 2., fraud for profit.

You seem to be implying that the DNA report will have a very, very interesting finding, but the finding will be masked by hard to detect error, or intentional fraud.

Do you think there are any other explanations besides these two? For instance, a finding that is not really dramatic, but nevertheless can be made to service a "feral human" explanation for Bigfoot.

I know I'm asking you to speculate, but you seem to have some developed ideas about this.

And I hope everyone here understand we all are speculating and musing about these issues, and should be free to ponder as we may.

[Guest]

We do realize this, anyone is free to speculate if they stay within the rules and remain civil.

[Guest parnassus]

Parnassus, if you ever star on Finding Bigfoot, I might actually watch the show.

You should hear my Tarzan call.

[southernyahoo]

Well, you are inviting me to speculate.

Actually I think I have already suggested the general outlines of what is coming from the DNA and how it could, perhaps unintentionally, be made to look like something it isn't.

I'm guessing you are saying that someone will prove that with human samples?

[Guest BFseeker]

I'm wondering ....

How many BFFers plan to attend the Oct. 1st talk in Oklahoma?

Perhaps we should wear name tags that identify BFF and our aliases.

That way, we will know who to slug.

I will be there. I checked the schedule and I believe they moved her to 10:00 a.m. from 3:00 p.m.. Wasn't she supposed to speak at 3:00, opposite of the "wedding" ?

[Guest Strick]

I will be there. I checked the schedule and I believe they moved her to 10:00 a.m. from 3:00 p.m.. Wasn't she supposed to speak at 3:00, opposite of the "wedding" ?

Really, that's interesting....

This is obviously because things will never be the same again in Bigfooting after Melba comes out with her findings. It would obviously be a complete waste of everyone's time to stick her on at 3.00.

Best we all get the category shift over and done with all bright and early - then we can all move on up to brighter and better things.