::)
well i guess we are still left with Believe it or Don't
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/bigfoot-dna-results-final_n_2681135.html
Lee Speigel Become a fan .lee.speigel@huffingtonpost.com
.Bigfoot DNA Tests: Science Journal's Credibility Called Into Question
Posted: 02/14/2013 2:20 pm EST | Updated: 02/14/2013 3:53 pm EST
Bigfoot is real ... maybe.
After months of waiting for a peer-reviewed scientific journal to publish findings on the validity of alleged Bigfoot DNA evidence, the time has come for answers. But is there enough empirical evidence to finally confirm that the elusive, tall, hairy man-beast of North America really exists? Maybe, but questions have now been raised about the scientific journal publishing the findings.
In November, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/bigfoot-dna-proves-creature-exists-genetic_n_2199984.html?utm_hp_ref=weird-news
after a five-year study of purported Bigfoot (aka Sasquatch) DNA samples, Texas geneticist Melba Ketchum and a team of experts in genetics, forensics, imaging and pathology, were anxious for their findings to be published in a scientific journal. On Wednesday, their research appeared in the DeNovo Journal of Science, http://www.denovojournal.com/
which seemed to confirm Ketchum's research about the reality of Bigfoot.
But according to GoDaddy.com, https://who.godaddy.com/whois.aspx?domain=denovojournal.com&prog_id=GoDaddy DeNovo was first registered as a domain on Feb. 4, 2013 --- anonymously and for only one year.
The current edition of DeNovo is listed as Volume 1, Issue 1, and its only content, thus far, is the Bigfoot research.
Also, on Ketchum's Sasquatch Genome Project website, embedded link is questionable she writes, "It has been a long and tedious battle to prove that Sasquatch exists. ... Trying to publish has taken almost two years. It seems mainstream science just can't seem to tolerate something controversial, especially from a group of primarily forensic scientists and not 'famous academians' aligned with large universities, even though most of our sequencing and analysis was performed at just such facilities."
Ketchum then explains how one journal agreed to publish her findings, but then was advised not to by its lawyers because such a controversial subject "would destroy the editors' reputations (as it has already done to mine). ... Rather than spend another five years just trying to find a journal to publish and hoping that decent, open minded reviewers would be chosen, we acquired the rights to this journal and renamed it so we would not lose the passing peer reviews that are expected by the public and the scientific community."
And therein lies the potential problem: Did Ketchum "buy" this journal, and begin its new existence under the name of DeNovo just over a week ago in order to get what appears to be a favorable peer review of her Bigfoot studies? That's the big question being raised by numerous people at this point.
According to a press release by Ketchum's Sasquatch Genome Project, the study, "which sequenced three whole Sasquatch nuclear genomes, shows that the legendary Sasquatch is extant in North America and is a human relative that arose approximately 13,000 years ago and is hypothesized to be a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with a novel primate species."
A total of 111 specimens of alleged Sasquatch hair, blood, skin and other tissues formed the basis of the study. These samples came from many individuals and groups at sites covering 14 states and two Canadian provinces.
Watch this related Fox News Bigfoot report at link
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/bigfoot-dna-results-final_n_2681135.html
On her Doubtful News website, http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/02/ketchum-bigfoot-dna-paper-released-problems-with-questionable-publication/
skeptic and geologist Sharon Hill raises many questions about Ketchum's claims.
"I clicked on the DeNovo site and was appalled at how amateurish the site is. It's full of stock photographs, very poorly coded, there are errors all over it and it's very difficult to navigate," Hill told The Huffington Post.
"[Ketchum] documented that she acquired the rights to this journal. We don't know what journal that was. I still can't find it and that's a little fishy," said Hill. "And then she renamed it so they would not lose the peer reviews that they had. It looks suspicious. This is not how science works."
Also, on the DeNovo site, the journal itself is identified as both DeNovo and DeVono.
It would be a huge story if all the work done by Ketchum and her team ultimately leads to scientific confirmation of the reality of Sasquatch. But at this point, the new wrinkles about the DeNovo Science Journal have only added to the credibility issues by a foot or two -- a Bigfoot.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/bigfoot-dna-results-final_n_2681135.html
:o
Last night's C2C interview where the purchase of the journal was explained.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tearST_J7Uc
Now that the paper is out, has received fair reviews by Richard Gibbs and Bryan Sykes has asked her for a meeting things are moving right along. In all honesty it matters little the way the paper was released since everyone will have access and it more geneticist's can weigh in.
This is just the first round of scientific inquirery anyway.....the tip of the iceberg. More studies will be undertaken and everything will come out in the wash. :)
Quote from: sky otter on February 15, 2013, 05:08:27 PM
Also, on Ketchum's Sasquatch Genome Project website, embedded link is questionable she writes, "It has been a long and tedious battle to prove that Sasquatch exists. ... Trying to publish has taken almost two years. It seems mainstream science just can't seem to tolerate something controversial, especially from a group of primarily forensic scientists and not 'famous academians' aligned with large universities, even though most of our sequencing and analysis was performed at just such facilities."
I couldn't care less whether the establishment circle jerk are interested in Bigfoot or not, personally. With that said, however, while Lloyd Pye's research is interesting, I still want to see a corpse, personally. Until we see one, I am going to remain skeptical (not pseudoskeptical, mind you) regarding Bigfoot's existence. Skepticism to me means that while I might consider something interesting, I am not willing to make a hard decision about it either way, due to lack of evidence.
A point in Bigfoot's favour, though, is that I wouldn't necessarily consider it all that big a deal if Bigfoot definitely did exist. The theory you hear most often regarding the Sasquatch, is that it is a surviving form of Gigantopithecus, one of the offshoots of the supposed early hominid/humanoid family tree. While that would certainly have positive implications for paleontology, and possibly our knowledge of the primates as well, there isn't really anything about this creature that stretches credibility all that much. We're essentially talking about a larger, bipedal, and probably somewhat more intelligent version of the lowland gorilla. Nothing really sensational or hard to swallow at all, when you get right down to it.
QuoteKetchum then explains how one journal agreed to publish her findings, but then was advised not to by its lawyers because such a controversial subject "would destroy the editors' reputations (as it has already done to mine). ... Rather than spend another five years just trying to find a journal to publish and hoping that decent, open minded reviewers would be chosen, we acquired the rights to this journal and renamed it so we would not lose the passing peer reviews that are expected by the public and the scientific community."
I inevitably cringe whenever I see the words, "peer review," these days, I will confess. The concept has been subverted. As far as I'm concerned, peer review serves three main purposes.
a} It satisfies the human altruistic imperative; which yes, despite psychopathic Capitalist rationalisations to the contrary, genuinely does exist. Being among open source software developers has taught me that. Among psychologically healthy human beings who are already getting most of their own needs met, there is a desire to contribute something to the world; and that can also be entirely for its' own sake, as well. It does not have to reduce back down to ego gratification, as Capitalist advocates insist.
b} Publishing assists the collective development of a particular technology, or a given line of research. This is the entire reason why copyright (and to a lesser extent, patenting) is such a bad idea. Plagiarism is not the exception; it is the rule, for the most part. Incremental advancement almost always occurs as a result of an individual taking a pre-existing work, and then adapting it either to their own needs, or as a result of their own unique perspective or experience. For that process to happen, there has to be pre-existing published material that people can use.
c} It establishes a basis for reproducibility. This is its' main purpose where the establishment circle jerk are concerned, and it is also the one of these three points which is most vulnerable to abuse. If scientists were honest with themselves, a lot of them apparently sorely lack the ability to accept whether or not a given idea or process is valid, purely on the basis of experimental results. They very often have pre-existing, (sometimes hysterically) emotional and entirely irrational biases, and peer review can be deceptively manipulated as a way of socially enforcing said biases. A good example of this was the inexcusable treatment that Pons and Fleischmann were subjected to in the late 80s, over cold fusion research.
What this means is that in practice, an idea isn't necessarily accepted or rejected on the basis of its' reproducibility at all, but whether or not it is politically correct, or an idea that the establishment either wants to have, or is permitted to have by the people who provide said establishment's funding. Scientists have almost always been lapdogs, by definition. Research costs money, and particularly strong ivory tower types generally aren't capable of the degree of ruthlessness or general unpleasantness which is required to obtain said money themselves.
If you're not capable of being a scumbag yourself in order to get rich, but you still want to do research, what this means is that you have to find a pre-existing rich scumbag who will act as your patron. One of the primary characteristics of rich scumbags is that obtaining total control of the rest of the population, purely for its' own sake, is their primary goal in life; and it therefore follows that they do not want disruptive technologies introduced which could undermine that control. So if you as a scientist want to keep the gravy train running, then even if you do know of something interesting in the area of energy generation, as one example, it is generally wise to keep it to yourself.