-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Bigfoot DNA
- Thread starter GT/CS
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot dna ed smith melba ketchum
- Status
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
I don't know how many people here have checking scientific journals' sites as a routine; I don't know how many have access to the online publications through universities' or companies' portals and online libraries. I guess most footers do not. I am sure most footers rely just on what bigfootery "official" channels tell them. That's why they still believe or give some credence to the "under review" line.
If you access scientific journal's websites, you will be able to find online versions of articles still under the review proccess. Stuff which will be published only in 2013. Nowadays its an assembly line. It has to be due to the "publish or perish" policy. In geology-related journals, its usually something between 6 months to 1 year between sending the paper to the journal, receiving the "accepted for review" message, receiving the first reviews round and seeing the first draft of your paper online.
Not a single word other than "under review" so far probably actually means:
- Rejected.
- There's no paper.
- Journal #1 rejected, sent to lower-rank journal #2, rejected by journal #2, sent to lower rank journal #3... The whole thing will actually end up published at some fringe subject journal like the Journal of Scientific Exploration.
Given the time its' been since the first news on "the paper" appeared and given the whole circus around it, "a wait and see attitude" nowadays is wishful thinking. Its belief, its hope bigfoot may be real. Or maybe its actually like a will to be fooled, hoaxed, scammed.
If you access scientific journal's websites, you will be able to find online versions of articles still under the review proccess. Stuff which will be published only in 2013. Nowadays its an assembly line. It has to be due to the "publish or perish" policy. In geology-related journals, its usually something between 6 months to 1 year between sending the paper to the journal, receiving the "accepted for review" message, receiving the first reviews round and seeing the first draft of your paper online.
Not a single word other than "under review" so far probably actually means:
- Rejected.
- There's no paper.
- Journal #1 rejected, sent to lower-rank journal #2, rejected by journal #2, sent to lower rank journal #3... The whole thing will actually end up published at some fringe subject journal like the Journal of Scientific Exploration.
Given the time its' been since the first news on "the paper" appeared and given the whole circus around it, "a wait and see attitude" nowadays is wishful thinking. Its belief, its hope bigfoot may be real. Or maybe its actually like a will to be fooled, hoaxed, scammed.
That may be true. Or not.
That isn't true.
Don't forget, folks, that there are supposed to be two papers. None of you made-up-your-mind-already types ever seem to heap your opprobrium on the world renowned Prof Sykes. Why not? Ketchum is an easy target with some of her gormless comments, but Sykes? Is it not worth waiting for what he has to say?
Mike
I'll address this again: Sykes is not a bigfoot enthusiast who's claimed to have seen footie families flitting about, but an actual scientist doing actual science.
As to made-up-your-minds types, given the attention-whoring aspect of a certain vet's personality, her silly claims, and her odd way of doing what she imagines to be science, what do you expect?
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Sykes is going to address Ketchum's testing and results?
Is that what you mean? We should wait for Sykes to comment on Ketchum?
Sykes hasn't released any results of his own for us to comment on, has he?
Yes, this guy(Lindsay) seems to be weird to say the least, but regarding bigfootery, his blog is not worse than others (Bigfoot Evidence etc...) IMO.The informations/rumors it spreads, including those about Ketchum, help to keep bigfootery alive. That's the goal. I think that bigfootery has the medias it deserves.
Last edited:
No, I have no idea whether Sykes will reference Ketchum's work.
All I am suggesting is that the sensible position with regards to the existence or otherwise of sasquatch is to wait until both of these DNA papers have been published. In my view, of course. People leap to condemn Ketchum for her crass comments and her religious beliefs etc and go on to say, in terms, that her study is rubbish and that there is no such thing as BF, but don't factor Sykes into the equation.
This is a proper scientist doing (presumably) proper work. What if? Just what if? Some made-up-minds haven't left themselves any wiggle room at all in the event that Sykes comes up with something. Other made-up minds on the other side of the fence assume, without good reason, that their views will be vindicated.
I surely can't be the only person here sitting on a fence twiddling my thumbs and saying let's wait until the work is published.
Mike
RedRatSnake
Slithering Through life
That's what it is all about for them. Because of that we can make fun of them knowing it's all part of the big joke called BIGFOOT
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Melba's claimed-to-exist paper is what I am writing about; there are plenty of reasons to think its just another bigfootery SNAFU.
This made-up-your-mind-already type will heap my opprobrium on the world renowned Prof Sykes as soon as he starts acting like Melba. Is it happening? Has this happened? No. Then...
This put, remember- there's absolutely not a single shred of reliable evidence that bigfoots are real. So, call me a made-up-your-mind-already type if you want, but based on this unavoidable truth, Sykes' study results will not back bigfoots as real undiscovered primates. To expect anything else, to expect it will support bigfoots as being real alive gigantopithecus or some other great ape is nothing but believer's wishful thinking. Fence-sitting regarding bigfoot is ignorance or disguised belief. Or some mixture of both.
And at last but not least, Sykes "no unknown species" results will not be accepted by footers as evidence against bigfoots being real critters. Footers will just create one more poorly constructed lame excuse or use an old one.
With this in mind, my answer to you question "Is it not worth waiting for what he has to say?" is, unfortunately, no. He's wasting his time IMHO. Again, feel free to call me a made-up-your-mind-already type, but I bet as soon as he discloses his results, you'll see that what I wrote above about his results and their impact is correct.
Sykes is just doing the lab work. I don't think you get that.
As to your fence sitting, what sort of credible, objective evidence are you aware of that made you jump up there?
RedRatSnake
Slithering Through life
Ain't it the truth.
Yes, sorry, I should have used the full name of the study. The Sykes/ Sartori report, or, if you prefer, the Oxford Lausanne Hominid Project. I am well aware that this isn't Brian Sykes by himself.
None. On-the-fence tends to be my starting position, rather than my position after I have seen evidence. I'm staying up here until the DNA reports are published, a body is produced or some incredibly powerful film footage is released. The sceptic argument is far and away the most appealing to me, and that will be the side of the fence I will fall in the event of the DNA being a damp squib........but............but...........I'm waiting for Sykes et al.
Mike
Why does it matter what result is obtained? There is NO PROVENANCE for any of these samples. Not one person has seen a bigfoot poop in the woods and immediately gone to collect the sample. These are largely samples from people pre-disposed to the exiistence of bigfoot with my favorite being the truly silly skunk in a plastic drain pipe. I really don't know what to think of Ketchum or her motivation but her involvement with Biscardi and Paulides is more than interesting. At times I think she is a dupe of the major bigfoot players who took advantage of her gullibility and finantial situation and other times I think she is in on it. In the end I think the only thing we are waiting on is not bigfoot dna but how big this trainwreck will be.
There's a big difference between the two Mike, and I find it very unfair to Sykes to state the he and Ketchum should be granted equal relevance.
One is a groundbreaking geneticist who has published several books and studies in regards to the evolution of Homonids via the DNA evidence.
One is a vet who does basic pedigree dna tests, had a terrible reliability history, was kicked out of her association with Texas A&M when here own poor behavior lead to the college being sued.
One has kept a formal timeline very open and public, updating as the study progressed from the acquisition of samples to the testing phase (and has stated he will release the results via his own college journal)
The other has kept everything hidden with NDA's and double speak, hired a publicist with Bigfoot connections, and when asked when the results will be published has only stated "soon" for a long time.
One has no vested interest in the results. If it says Yeti/Bigfoot may be a reality? Great! He will either pursue the study himself, or pass the data along to those who will. If it's all known animal. He will state as much. (and will be vilified by the ignorant footers who will claim he's part of a cover up conspiracy because many of them are frankly nuts)
The other claims to have met Bigfoot, seen them braid a horses mane, had them "mind rape" her and has started a "protection" organization prior to any publication. Combined with the company she has kept shows she has quite the vested interest indeed in the results.
She's a con artist, or insane. It's really that simple.
Mike,
everyone knows that it is impossible to "prove" that bigfoot doesn't exist. It's all a matter of probabilities, and at what level of probability each individual says, "I have decided....".
It's like watching a baseball game. If the visiting team goes ahead by 12-0 in the top of the ninth, most people will decide that team is going to win, and base their actions on that probability. ie they may decide to leave. But if the home team comes back and wins, those people who left aren't going to deny the final score. They may wish they had stayed. But the fact is, 999 times out of a hundred, they will have been correct in their decision.
Now in bigfootery, the game will never end. Of course, the analogy isn't perfect, because in baseball, there is a ball that can be hit by both teams. In bigfootery, there may be no ball for the home team to hit. The batters come to the plate, the pitcher winds up and moves his arm forward, the batters claim to see the ball, and wave their bats at it, and all strike out. As each "inning" passes without a run being scored by the home team, it becomes increasingly likely that there is no ball for the home team to hit.
At some point, Mike, everyone goes home. Not all at once. They all have different thresholds for decision making. They all know it is possible that there is a ball for the home team to hit, and that the home team will score 12 runs.
Meanwhile, the concession stands are making good bucks sellling hot dogs, programs, yearbooks, pennants, caps, jackets, tshirts, popcorn, ice cold lemonade, nachos, brats, beer, ice cream, and hamburgers.
The organist plays fight songs to pep up the crowd. The team mascot performs hilarious antics. The players venture out of the dugout to sign autographs for the kids.
Sound familiar....?
everyone knows that it is impossible to "prove" that bigfoot doesn't exist. It's all a matter of probabilities, and at what level of probability each individual says, "I have decided....".
It's like watching a baseball game. If the visiting team goes ahead by 12-0 in the top of the ninth, most people will decide that team is going to win, and base their actions on that probability. ie they may decide to leave. But if the home team comes back and wins, those people who left aren't going to deny the final score. They may wish they had stayed. But the fact is, 999 times out of a hundred, they will have been correct in their decision.
Now in bigfootery, the game will never end. Of course, the analogy isn't perfect, because in baseball, there is a ball that can be hit by both teams. In bigfootery, there may be no ball for the home team to hit. The batters come to the plate, the pitcher winds up and moves his arm forward, the batters claim to see the ball, and wave their bats at it, and all strike out. As each "inning" passes without a run being scored by the home team, it becomes increasingly likely that there is no ball for the home team to hit.
At some point, Mike, everyone goes home. Not all at once. They all have different thresholds for decision making. They all know it is possible that there is a ball for the home team to hit, and that the home team will score 12 runs.
Meanwhile, the concession stands are making good bucks sellling hot dogs, programs, yearbooks, pennants, caps, jackets, tshirts, popcorn, ice cold lemonade, nachos, brats, beer, ice cream, and hamburgers.
The organist plays fight songs to pep up the crowd. The team mascot performs hilarious antics. The players venture out of the dugout to sign autographs for the kids.
Sound familiar....?
Last edited:
calwaterbear
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 248
Mike ,
Just to be clear, scientists often have established beliefs. For instance, most of us believe that there is no BF. That is based completely on the lack of any credible evidence.
But the scientific method requires that we critically examine any new evidence
The real power of science, then, is that it tells us when to change our minds.
To do that, (change our minds) there needs to be credible evidence, sound methodology, repeateable expermentation that produces data, defensable analysis, and fact supported conclusions.
None of what Ms. Ketchum has done in any way rises to that threshhold.
we have been waiting for 1.5 years for the paper to come out in the next few weeks! every few weeks, we were told it was coming out in the next few weeks!
we are told that there are dozens of high powered scientists as co-authors, but she refuses to name any of them or their affiliations or credentials.
If you want to compare it to Dr. Sykes: You probably ought to do a little homework on him, his record and acomplishments over the past 30 years. In the scientific community, he is considered an "intellectual superstar" in population genetics world. The father of many of the techniques so widely employed in current pop gen studies. He has a long string of ground breaking studies, many of which you are probably familiar with, but have not recognized that is was he and his lab that did the work.
Additionally, He publically identifies the lab and other scientists he is working with.
Dr Sykes has said he would collect vetted samples in september. He did that!
Dr. Sykes has said he would do the analysis in Oct and November, he has done that (you might have to trust me on that for a few weeks)
Dr. Sykes has said his results will publish in December - so we need to wait and see, but he does have a 30 year record of producing rock solid science in an open and verifiable process.
I hope you understand that these contrasts and histories have alot of weight in establishing credibility! and thats the first thing a scientist evaluates when they are presented with extraordinary claims.
Just to be clear, scientists often have established beliefs. For instance, most of us believe that there is no BF. That is based completely on the lack of any credible evidence.
But the scientific method requires that we critically examine any new evidence
The real power of science, then, is that it tells us when to change our minds.
To do that, (change our minds) there needs to be credible evidence, sound methodology, repeateable expermentation that produces data, defensable analysis, and fact supported conclusions.
None of what Ms. Ketchum has done in any way rises to that threshhold.
we have been waiting for 1.5 years for the paper to come out in the next few weeks! every few weeks, we were told it was coming out in the next few weeks!
we are told that there are dozens of high powered scientists as co-authors, but she refuses to name any of them or their affiliations or credentials.
If you want to compare it to Dr. Sykes: You probably ought to do a little homework on him, his record and acomplishments over the past 30 years. In the scientific community, he is considered an "intellectual superstar" in population genetics world. The father of many of the techniques so widely employed in current pop gen studies. He has a long string of ground breaking studies, many of which you are probably familiar with, but have not recognized that is was he and his lab that did the work.
Additionally, He publically identifies the lab and other scientists he is working with.
Dr Sykes has said he would collect vetted samples in september. He did that!
Dr. Sykes has said he would do the analysis in Oct and November, he has done that (you might have to trust me on that for a few weeks)
Dr. Sykes has said his results will publish in December - so we need to wait and see, but he does have a 30 year record of producing rock solid science in an open and verifiable process.
I hope you understand that these contrasts and histories have alot of weight in establishing credibility! and thats the first thing a scientist evaluates when they are presented with extraordinary claims.
Last edited:
River
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,962
It's bigfoot. You do understand that it's just a joke right? There is no real bigfoot except for in the mind. Ketchum does no have bigfoot DNA, and neither does Sykes. There is no bigfoot to produce it. (yes it is that simple!)
Mike,
It is unfortunate for everyone that what Ketchum has done is take her "stuff" out of the realm of science, where scientists examine hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions; and into the realm of personal credibility. She has made concrete claims and backed them up only with her personal credibility. All those statements that she has made before about seeing bigfoots, and nephilim stuff and hair braiding and the rest are considered along with the statement she made about her results; without data, they are all of the same genre.
calwaterbear points out so clearly the irony when, at the same time she reports her unsupported conclusions, she says, "wait for the data." Why didn't SHE?
If and when she ever presents her hypothesis, method, results and conclusions, then those will be the issue.
It is too bad that she chose to go this way. Not only does it create more personal scrutiny, but it certainly impairs her ability to publish her study in a reputable journal. She HAD to have known this. She had to. Do you recall all the discussion at the BFF about not talking to the press before publication? Instead, she not only wrote a press release, she is actually SOLICITING interviews with the press, and not just the scientific writers....she's going on television news programs! Come on. It's like an instruction book for how not to get your paper published. She HAD to know this would put her behind the 8-ball in the area of getting a credible scientific paper published.
So, based on your experience, Mike, what are the goals of those who elect for publicity over credibility?
It is unfortunate for everyone that what Ketchum has done is take her "stuff" out of the realm of science, where scientists examine hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions; and into the realm of personal credibility. She has made concrete claims and backed them up only with her personal credibility. All those statements that she has made before about seeing bigfoots, and nephilim stuff and hair braiding and the rest are considered along with the statement she made about her results; without data, they are all of the same genre.
calwaterbear points out so clearly the irony when, at the same time she reports her unsupported conclusions, she says, "wait for the data." Why didn't SHE?
If and when she ever presents her hypothesis, method, results and conclusions, then those will be the issue.
It is too bad that she chose to go this way. Not only does it create more personal scrutiny, but it certainly impairs her ability to publish her study in a reputable journal. She HAD to have known this. She had to. Do you recall all the discussion at the BFF about not talking to the press before publication? Instead, she not only wrote a press release, she is actually SOLICITING interviews with the press, and not just the scientific writers....she's going on television news programs! Come on. It's like an instruction book for how not to get your paper published. She HAD to know this would put her behind the 8-ball in the area of getting a credible scientific paper published.
So, based on your experience, Mike, what are the goals of those who elect for publicity over credibility?
No, you misunderstand my position, I think. I don't give them equal weight at all. The only way I will give Ketchum any weight is if she has a group of expert co-authors, (proper scientists), if she publishes in a respected peer-reviewed journal, and if her published work stands scrutiny. There's a few big "ifs" there!
She is, in my view, an interesting hors d'ouevre for Sykes/ Santori, who are the make-or-break people on this one in my view. The only reason to wait for Ketchum is because we've got to wait a bit longer for Sykes.
Good points, well made Parn, and a good analogy. All I will say is that my threshold for leaving the ball-park is when Sykes has published. Until then I'll sit in the stands and watch the show, as a neutral, not shouting for either team.
And CWB, I believe my first couple of paragraphs above show that I am in complete and utter 100% agreement with everything you have said.
Mike
- Status