States with Most Bigfoot Sightings in 2020

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Resume said:

Supported your point?  My post detailed the reasons her paper was rejected by actual scientists.  They are not "attacks" but the specific criticisms. This is how publication is done.  

She indeed had a chance to respond; that is the reason behind peer review.  She chose not to respond to her reviewers and make the necessary improvements to her "paper" and was thus rejected.  You really, really do not understand how this works.

I am sure she has an intelligent response to each objection which is beyond our pay grade to judge. There is no ultimate judge of who is more correct in the end. Emotions and side taking do affect reality in science.

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 hour ago, Resume said:

You really, really do not understand how this works.

That is the situation with pretty much every scenario involving science and George. 

[Myles]

I have seen many bigfoot shows where they claim to find a nest.   Never any hair though.   Check my bed and you'll find a hair and I am not a hairy guy.  

[Resume]

25 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I am sure she has an intelligent response to each objection which is beyond our pay grade to judge. There is no ultimate judge of who is more correct in the end. Emotions and side taking do affect reality in science.

No, that's not how it works.  The peer reviewers for Nature and JAMEZ  detailed the problems with her paper and what she might do to correct them.  She did not respond, and the paper was rejected.  If she had an "intelligent response," she seems to have kept it to herself.  There are ultimate arbiters of what is published in a scientific journal: editors and reviewers in relevant disciplines. They ran her numbers and found they did not support her conclusion.

[papageorge1]

24 minutes ago, Resume said:

No, that's not how it works.  The peer reviewers for Nature and JAMEZ  detailed the problems with her paper and what she might do to correct them.  She did not respond, and the paper was rejected.  If she had an "intelligent response," she seems to have kept it to herself.  There are ultimate arbiters of what is published in a scientific journal: editors and reviewers in relevant disciplines. They ran her numbers and found they did not support her conclusion.

Sure, you can make it all sound unbiased and official and cut and dry. I am sure there is a quite different take on  the same events by Ketchum. Emotions and side taking do affect reality in science.

[Resume]

11 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Sure, you can make it all sound unbiased and official and cut and dry. I am sure there is a quite different take on  the same events by Ketchum. Emotions and side taking do affect reality in science.

It is cut and dry.  Her conclusion was not supported by her data.  Multiple venues ran her genome sequences and found them to be mundane creatures or contaminated and unusable, or contaminated by humans.  That's it, no novel primate.  The math did not add up.  Ketchum was mistaken or out and out hoaxing.  This debacle is eight years old and Ketchum has made no effort to repair her hypothesis other than to cry conspiracy, which like her hypothesis, is undemonstrated and unsupported.  I can't help that you were/are gulled by this nonsense.  No matter how often you attempt it, you cannot make 2 + 2 = 5.  

Edited August 6, 2020 by Resume

[jmccr8]

I didn’t see how many sightings were in the State of Intoxication 

jmccr8

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, Resume said:

Her conclusion was not supported by her data.  

Does she and all other experts agree with that position? If not we have what is called a controversial issue. That is where I see this standing at this point in time.

Every figure in the crypto/paranormal world has their work attacked. 

What I hear from you is the old: it is settled because people I like to hear say it is settled. 

People saying something is debunked does not mean that something is debunked.I've seen every major figure in the paranormal/crypto/alien fields vilified so claims and criticisms are suspect by me. Be skeptical of the Skeptics (really just anti- types).

 

 

 

 

[Piney]

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I am considering that  Bigfoot is more human than ape and especially on the mitochondrial side

 

........WTF???..........

[Resume]

50 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Does she and all other experts agree with that position? If not we have what is called a controversial issue.

 

 

 

 

 

It is not controversial.  Her genome sequences were blasted and found to be either contaminated, mundane animals, or gibberish.  Geneticist David Winters blasted one sequence that was nothing but gibberish except for one string of Human Chromosome 13; he rather wryly suggested the image of that chromosome wandering around the woods.  It's very simple:  2+2 does not equal 5, and never will.  I'm sorry, but this particular issue is settled: her paper is crap.

And it wasn't just the faulty data, it was her submitted manuscript itself; poorly formatted, full of typos, misspellings and poor grammar, the usage was trite and unprofessional, unworthy of submission to a prestigious journal.  This exhibits extraordinary laziness as there are coaches one can employ to assist in writing a professional science paper.  Lazier still was one of her citations; it was not a link to a scientific paper, but an April Fools joke about Yeti hoofprints; she hadn't even bothered to read her own citation.  Lastly, her genome sequences were submitted on PDF files, hundreds of pages of them!

She's had eight years to correct the errors in her data and rehabilitate her hypothesis; the fact that she has not, even in her own purchased journal tells us much.

As far as paranormal footie, one does not attempt to explain one poorly evidenced phenomenon with another.  That's not how it's done.

Edited August 6, 2020 by Resume

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

You're becoming unraveled again.

The DNA she called unknown hominid was opossum. 

Are you following the discussion or is this too hard for you to understand? I think this is way over your head. 

So which is it? Was the opossum the father or the mother of bigfoot.

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, Resume said:

Supported your point?  My post detailed the reasons her paper was rejected by actual scientists.  They are not "attacks" but the specific criticisms. This is how publication is done.  

She indeed had a chance to respond; that is the reason behind peer review.  She chose not to respond to her reviewers and make the necessary improvements to her "paper" and was thus rejected.  You really, really do not understand how this works.

You are dealing with the most clueless of the clueless.

Here you are properly answering a response in which papageorge1 is whimsically pretending something exists. 

 

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I am sure she has an intelligent response to each objection which is beyond our pay grade to judge. There is no ultimate judge of who is more correct in the end. Emotions and side taking do affect reality in science.

Pure hogwash. Her responses have been poor to zero.

There is an ultimate judge - science. What part of inappropriate testing do you not understand? What part of the conclusion was not drawn from the hypothesis do you not understand?

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Sure, you can make it all sound unbiased and official and cut and dry. I am sure there is a quite different take on  the same events by Ketchum. Emotions and side taking do affect reality in science.

You are absolutely clueless about science. This post is just you spewing malarkey.

Get back to the facts of the situation.

[XenoFish]

2 hours ago, Myles said:

I have seen many bigfoot shows where they claim to find a nest.   Never any hair though.   Check my bed and you'll find a hair and I am not a hairy guy.  

Maybe bigfoot suffers from male pattern baldness?

[onlookerofmayhem]

14 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Maybe bigfoot suffers from male pattern baldness?

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I am sure she has an intelligent response to each objection which is beyond our pay grade to judge.

You of course cannot at all be sure of that, you're assuming.  Which is what you usually accuse non-believers of doing when they disagree with your position; 'assuming' all sightings are misidentifications, etc.

Quote

I am considering that  Bigfoot is more human than ape and especially on the mitochondrial side and results that come back human are being dismissed. There is no Bigfoot genome to compare against.

But as you said, 'I'm no DNA specialist', so I don't think you have any inkling of any issues on 'the mitochondrial side'.  And if there is anything behind your statement other than just mindless parroting of something you've heard, then you are admitting that what you said above isn't fully correct, apparently some of this subject is within our pay grade to understand and judge.

There is one interesting thing you've brought up, you seem to suggest that without a Bigfoot genome to compare against scientists cannot identify whether an unknown dna sample is from an unidentified species.  "I'm no DNA specialist" either and won't pretend otherwise, but do you have a non-Sasquatchian source for this idea?  It may be true, I'm not sure.

[stereologist]

16 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Maybe bigfoot suffers from male pattern baldness?

Why are photos of BF showing the body covered in hair? Is that anti-gravity blurring of the image?

[XenoFish]

8 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Why are photos of BF showing the body covered in hair? Is that anti-gravity blurring of the image?

I'm just confused. Is bigfoot human or inter-dimensional? I mean, someone make up their mind. 

[XenoFish]

15 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I never knew George Burns was so buff. I wonder how many will get that reference.

[stereologist]

What people do not understand about DNA is that the longer the strand of DNA the more scientists are able to identify the species.

Very shorts segments of a few hundred pairs can tell us if it is a reptile, or bird, or fish, or whatever. In fact pieces as short as 700 pairs can often identify a particular species. If the species cannot be identified often the genus can be determined.

The idea that a perfect DNA needs to be found or that a comparison is needed is wrong.

https://dnabarcoding101.org/files/using-dna-barcodes.pdf

Is it a horse, bovine, racoon, opossum, squirrel, bear, canine, feline, etc. can be determined with a small sample of the DNA. There is this bizarre notion that a DNA sample is either identified as a particular species or remains completely unknown. There are differences in the coding of proteins in the DNA that makes it possible to differentiate groups of animals.

There is never going to be a 100% match between two people. Can't happen. We are all unique. But DNA can be used to find people. DNA sequences is being used to find criminals by finding familial matches. That should be a clue to everyone that DNA can spot new species. It is being used to determine that animals once thought to be different species are the same, or that one specie is actually multiple species.

And what does this have to do with Ketchum. Her materials that she identified as BF are being even today identified as known animals because researchers who understand the process have matched up her mistakes with the actual animal.

[stereologist]

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I'm just confused. Is bigfoot human or inter-dimensional? I mean, someone make up their mind. 

Oh shoot. I thought it was a mini-drone UFO with anti-grav drive. Guess that was wrong. 

Cheers

[stereologist]

If people want to listen to a good description of how DNA works and why the "unknown" DNA is a myth then listen to this podcast by Darren Naish who does an excellent job of describing DNA sequences and the identification of the source for a DNA sequence.

https://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/10/08/11/

Papageorge1, please check out this podcast. Lots of fun and a good primer on how these things are actually done.

[Trelane]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Why are photos of BF showing the body covered in hair? Is that anti-gravity blurring of the image?

It's the effect of using interdimensional portals.

[psyche101]

9 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Reread: passing peer reviews obtained by this journal.

It certainly reads that there were peers and not just her passing the paper! 

I posted it. I have read it, so had everyone who read my post.

You cherry picked it. That's why I put the entire quote in. To illustrate your continual dishonesty. The alleged peers pulled out at what she claims was the last minute, although the way she lies I doubt they ever intended to publish her nonsense. 

So they bought the company and peer reviewed themselves. That's not legit

You reread it my credulous fellow poster:

 

they backed out of publishing our manuscript five minutes before it was to go live in order to keep our passing peer reviews obtained by this journal.