Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Socio

Sasquatch DNA Study Announcement

275 posts in this topic

Faked Bigfoot claims are only "lies" if you take them seriously in the first place.

Very true, it's a little like being insulted by someone who's opinion you never valued highly to begin with, who cares?.....no, not naming names today.

Ok, when I hear about dermal ridges, I find myself not really understanding the whole concept. Yes, I have seen the stuff about it and I'm a little wondering WFT?. Footprints are found in soil that you have walked over, the soil varies in density, moisture and degrades very quickly into a "dent" in the ground very quickly. It's dirt and dirt isn't conducive to giving you the alleged great detail required to have them in good enough shape that you can then make another casting of the dent to show the ridges.

Oh, so you think it's possible anyway? Ok, then take my challenge to you to create your own......the only condition is you have to do it outside, in dirt.......natural dirt, no faked up special crap to get a god print and then do it in a like manner to a walking animal. Then wait one hour before making a cast that makes them oh so easy to see.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I certainly am not speaking from the experience of being a part of the scientific community, and I know that.

But for me, I can't just ignore the skepticism in the scientific community either and blame it on politics or any number of other possibilities, other than scientific reasoning itself.

I had worked in the pharmaceutical research industry for several years, being involved with the animal care and test article administration, the quality assurance inspections to the study report preparations, as well as communicating with the study directors and various sponsors. My knowledge is that when submitting a pharmacological report to the FDA for approval, the length of time for it to be reviewed, and hopefully approved, can depend more on the person assigned to the reviewing then the contents of the report itself. There is an 'old boys network' present, and a fair amount of back scratching. The same identical report may be submitted more then once, be rejected for several reasons by one reviewer, and be accepted with no concerns by another. Actually this should raise concerns about the entire pharmaceutical development industry.

One example of how the peer review process is not as unbiased as it should be, is with the publications of João Magueijo's theories of a variable speed of light. I am not going to discuss his theories, but do want to describe the process he and his associate went through in order to get the theory published.

Before I do, João Magueijo and Andreas Albrecht are both by every definition fully credentialed scholars. Magueijo performed graduate work and earned his Ph.D. at Cambridge, awarded a research fellowship at St. John's College, Cambridge, and then a Royal Society research fellowship and currently teaches at Imperial College London. Andreas Albrecht did his Ph.D. at University of Texas and the Los Alamos National Laboratory, worked at Fermilab and also taught at Imperial College London. He is also a Fellow of the American Physical Society and Fellow of the Institute of Physics.

Most of what I have here is from his book, Faster than a Speed of Light (2003), and I will cite the pages where I draw quotes or information.

João Magueijo says in his book, that "...the scientific process for what it really is - rigorous, competitive, emotional, and argumentative."[pg 9]

Before a paper is accepted for publication, it must undergo a peer review process. The editor of any respectable journal will choose an anonymous and hopefully independent referee, who is asked to study the paper and write a report on it. Based on the report, the editor must then decide if the paper should be published or rejected, or if changes are required. There has been much debate over whether or not this quality control system works, but for the moment it is here to stay, and certainly leaves room for abuse.[pg 183]

Magueijo and Albrecht decided to submit a paper of their theory to Physical Review D in November 1997, and prior to this paper, Magueijo notes that all of his submissions to this journal had been accepted in a few weeks. The referee's report stated that their approach was unprofessional, but contained no scientific content to refute their arguments in the paper. Albrecht seen innuendos in the report, and guessed the identity of the referee as an arch-rival from his earlier days of developing a theory of his on inflation. Eventually after replies and counter-replies, everyone was accusing everyone else of behaving irrationally, and other referees were consulted, but no one wanted to side with anyone, less get caught in the crossfire. Finally the editor had to step in and act as referee himself. Magueijo also states that "In case you think that *****ing is all there is to these refereeing battles, let me disabuse you by noting that there can frequently be up to 1 percent scientific substance in these reports."[pg 185-186]

During this referee battle, Magueijo decided to distribute copies of their paper to a limited number of people, one of which was John Barrow, who also had worked with varying constant theories. Barrow also submitted a paper on the theory, crediting Maguijo and Albrecht, and then assisted them in what he referred to as "the reeducation of the PRD editor" which took months.[pg 197] At one point the editor visited Imperial College London, where both Maguijo and Albrecht were teaching, and what began as a polite scientific argument rapidly deteriorated into mayhem.[pg 202] By winter of 1998, their original paper was still going through a peer review process, while the paper written with Barrow, submitted a year later, had already been accepted within weeks with a very positive review.[pg 206] Their paper was eventually published in early 1999, over a year after its initial submission.

Again, no intention of discussing the theory, but having read the book, it stands out as an example of what sometimes goes on behind a peer review process. Magueijo even described it as a lottery on one occasion.[pg 206]

A. Albrecht, J. Magueijo. (1999) "A time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles." Physical Review D

J.D. Barrow. (1998) "Cosmologies with Varying Light-Speed." Physical Review D

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Insanity, I have not doubt wherever humans are there are politics involved.

But for me, there is plenty more troubles behind the bigfoot premise than just a possible prejudice against Dr. Meldrum.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And travels all over the US and Canada?

Lol you gotta point :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the tracks are only any good if they allow someone to track down the bigfoot that created them and pop him with a bullet, or a hypo-dart. Casts, while stirring to the imagination, are very poor physical evidence. They would make fantastic Supporting evidence, if a actual bigfoot was ever found, then the tracks would be used to support where they have been and done, but they can not be used to establish the creatures existance.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true DieChecker, I can make up a pair of fake feet in a leisurely afternoon and be stomping around leaving prints behind for the unsuspecting to find and fly off the proverbial handle about. It can be difficult tracking hooved creatures, depending on the terrain, but a creature with a soft foot (non-hooved) could be tougher than you might think.

I agree they might make great supporting evidence if Bigfoot were proven to actually exist, but foot prints with no evidence the creature is real is just too open to hoaxers and mistaken identity. I consider my own wood skills to be rather good and I have been fooled by different prints before, in fact I recall being chastized over at the BFRO sight back when I posted over there because one of their "Trained Investigators" claimed to have found real Biggy prints in a families back yard, however when he zoomed in on one of the tracks I could clearly see that what he'd actually found is a bear's print where it had stepped slightly over top of another of it's own prints making the print look biggy-like.......well except for the claws that were very easy to see. Then when I pointed it out they all told me "The Investigator" said it was this and that's the final word on it. Then I asked if Bigfoots are supposed to have claws and they all said no so I asked if they might be able to explain the claws clearly visible in the print. I got an email from an admin telling me I was disrupting the thread.

Prints on their own can be subjective, depending on who's doing the interpretation, but in and of themselves they aren't proof positive of the existence of a creature, and a lot of people don't get that basic tidbit of logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What about Meldrum's Collection that science ignores?"

Footers can blame here...

Make up excuses there..

Claim what could be if..

Wave evidence around..

What keeps bigfoot in cryptozoology? I'm guessing there are reasons other than just a lack of a carcass, or skeleton or bones.

Dr. Meldrum's collection could be the least of mainstream science's problems with the existence of this creature.

Have any scientists (outside the Usual Suspects) even examined his casts? Any publicly disagreed with him?

For me, picking him out as some kind of wrongfully ignored expert with hard evidence on this creature, is the least of footer's troubles.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But for me, I can't just ignore the skepticism in the scientific community either and blame it on politics or any number of other possibilities, other than scientific reasoning itself.

@Insanity, I have not doubt wherever humans are there are politics involved.

You seemed skilled in making statements that suggest you are saying one thing, then later saying that you did not mean what you said.

Have you considered a career in politics?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had further explained myself here:

Yes, I certainly am not speaking from the experience of being a part of the scientific community, and I know that.

But for me, I can't just ignore the skepticism in the scientific community either and blame it on politics or any number of other possibilities, other than scientific reasoning itself.

You left out half of my quote:

@Insanity, I have not doubt wherever humans are there are politics involved.

But for me, there is plenty more troubles behind the bigfoot premise than just a possible prejudice against Dr. Meldrum.

My reasoning makes sense to me: Yes, humans and politics do mix, but why does that automatically mean Dr. Meldrum's casts are simply just a victim of politics? Who would even conclude that, except a footer, which I am not.

Bigfootery is full of problems relating to the existence of this creature without blaming politics.

Besides, not all politics in the scientific community take place in the lab, I would guess.

And if I appear to contradict myself in discussing a subject full of contradictions and inconsistencies and politics and fakery and pseudo science and lies, I can't help it.

But I do apologize. Others on here explain things far better.

I do not waiver on my belief when i write a post. Bigfoot does not exist. No matter how it sounds when discussing why the footers can't catch a break.

Edited by QuiteContrary
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These announcements always fall by the wayside they seem to for ever have some sort of mysterious story behind them that always get lost in amongst all the other tales that usuallay arise to discredit the evidence as fake etc etc this is why I never get my hopes up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 foot strides.......Damn

TY

And Peacock. Don't forget the peacock ;)

We all know about the Peacock (taps nose knowingly)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Claims can be faked, otherwise know as lies. I suppose there is financial gains to those claims. It was pretty straight forward what was in the DNA samples, what left it is not clear. The tracks that have been documented with plaster casts vary in quality but the most intriguing tracks show ridges in the skin, different arches than human feet, old injuries meaning injuries that have healed over time and left the foot slightly deformed, and physiologic shifts where the movement of the bones of the feet are moving while the print is being left. Depth of the print, length of stride, width of the prints, direction, location are things to look at. Tracks in a line indicate traveling to a known location like food or water sources. You're right in saying if someone wants to find a track they will see tracks everywhere. But, the best plaster casts of BF tracks are compelling. If someone is faking such tracks, they are wasting their time as a hoaxer and should be in special effects.

All of which have been replicated though artificially.

I think a big mystery is why are many "trails" only one footed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay damn enough already lets see a body! not a blured photoshop pic of sum fat hairy guy in a grilli suit...

(walking out in the national forest and yells...HEY BIG FOOT COMER DUDE I GOT SUM JACK LINKS FOR YEA......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking: Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA Paper Has Been REJECTED

Being reported at least two places so far, not that either one are of the most scientific places for such a report.

http://bigfooteviden...a.html?spref=fb

http://beforeitsnews...ot-2445826.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This week's episode of Monstertalk is all about the Ketchum study. The hosts interview Dr. Todd Disotell from NYU (the formerly Mohawked DNA scientist made famous on Monsterquest). It's a great listen and Dr. Disotell completely blows Ketchum's BS out of the water. Frankly, it wasn't even a good fabrication.

http://www.skeptic.c...rtalk/12/12/05/

Edited by Rafterman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This week's episode of Monstertalk is all about the Ketchum study. The hosts interview Dr. Todd Disotell from NYU (the formerly Mohawked DNA scientist made famous on Monsterquest). It's a great listen and Dr. Disotell completely blows Ketchum's BS out of the water. Frankly, it wasn't even a good fabrication.

http://www.skeptic.c...rtalk/12/12/05/

I thought it was him, hadn't seen him without the mohawk before. Haven't had a chance to listen to this completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking: Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA Paper Has Been REJECTED

Being reported at least two places so far, not that either one are of the most scientific places for such a report.

http://bigfooteviden...a.html?spref=fb

http://beforeitsnews...ot-2445826.html

Thank you for this......

Is anyone surprised?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally the report should come from those who peer-reviewed it, vesus on a few blogs.

Then again, the announcement should have come after any peer-review instead of being leaked on Facebook.

What would be do without social media?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally the report should come from those who peer-reviewed it, vesus on a few blogs.

Then again, the announcement should have come after any peer-review instead of being leaked on Facebook.

What would be do without social media?

That's covered a bit in the Monstertalk podcast - science by press release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mainstream scientists are often not willing to consider the possibility, simply due the lack of approval they may receive from colleagues, the potential negative impact on their careers or loss of reputation. There are politics in science.

Regardless of whatever politics exist in the scientific community -because lets face it, politics and influence peddling are everywhere - the simple fact remains that there is precious little that you can do with anything regarding bigfoot and science due purely to the fact that there is no real evidence or data to work with. Pursuing Bigfoot as a scientific endeavor is just bad science, because doing so means you have to ignore the scientific process to circumvent the fact that there is nothing tangible to study.

You can't do science on thousands of eyewitness reports. There isn't much science that can be done on an impression in mud, snow or otherwise that somebody thinks is a BF footprint. You can't do much science on blurry, indistinct, shaky, crappy videos and stills. Look at all the technology that's been brought to bear on the PG film - what has it yielded? Nothing. Just more ambiguity.

Most scientists won't pursue Bigfoot scientifically because there is quite simply no science to be done. Not until somebody actually finds the damn thing and brings one in to study.

Signing up to do science on Bigfoot is like signing up for a "singing in the rain" convention being held in the Sahara desert - there just isn't a whole helluva lot that can actually happen.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mental illness is a sad thing. :no: I hope she will seek out the help/meds she needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

releasing the paper for peer review was a smart move.... now, instead of people claiming that there is no data and that's why she released it, she and other bigfoot afficionados can claim that it is because her data was so earth shattering that the scientific community could not allow it to pass peer review, and this is a big scientific conspiracy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't believe until I see a corpse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

releasing the paper for peer review was a smart move.... now, instead of people claiming that there is no data and that's why she released it, she and other bigfoot afficionados can claim that it is because her data was so earth shattering that the scientific community could not allow it to pass peer review, and this is a big scientific conspiracy.

I believe there is doubt as to if she ever submitted a paper for peer review.

Who did she submit it to and who rejected it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.