It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The cost of an animatronic head alone would be ridiculous for the average person.
Why would it need to be animatronics???
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The Bigfoot DNA stuff, now.....that's something weirder, and creepier.
Do you have any links to papers or where an unbiased scientist (ie. not an associate of Ketchum for instance), preferably one associated with a University, has submitted and is willing to stake their reputation on such?
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
As to Ketchum's claims, she withdrew her paper rather than go through review (it wasn't rejected) and bought a journal to publish it in (it is the ony paper to appear in this publication). As to the paper itself...
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Dr. Haskal Hart (Ph.D Chemistry) was initially supportive, but after months of reviewing her paper closely with none other than Ketchum herself.....conclusion - its nonsense, she found no genome and is severely deluded. He even submitted a paper about it to Ketchums "De Novo" journal...without response.
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
bigfootevidence.blogspot.com.au...
Although my education and professional experience are in the fields of physical, inorganic, and analytically chemistry,
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Dr. John Timmer (Biochemist with a Ph.D in Molecular and Cell Biology) also sought clarification where necessary (from Ketchum herself) in his review, which is rather a sympathetic and kind review really. His conclusion - it's nonsense, there is no genome of anything, it's a botched study and a good example of extreme confirmation bias.
arstechnica.com...
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Here's a group of young scientists speaking with Dr. David Winter (Ph.D Evolutionary Genetics/Biology, who does have experience in genome sequencing) about Ketchum's paper. Amongst the laughter at times, he explains quite well why it is nonsense. It prompted one of them to wonder if there is a giant Panda type creature made up of dirt, dog and cat droppings with the hair of opossum and racoon holding it all together somehow wandering the forests of NA, uncatalogued of course lol.
www.youtube.com...
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
There is something seriously wrong in the academic community in a certain part of the world. This is very reminiscent of creation science.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
It moves. Not a lot, but there is movement. Hence, animatronic, or some really fancy puppet. Neither would be cheap.
Sorry, not playing that game.
It's known that the mainstream scientific community is very close minded on ANY issue that isn't "accepted", and that the research faced serious publication problems.
That doesn't mean you can assume any and all that agree with her are somehow not credible, and ONLY the ones that didn't are. Censoring the information to make it appear invalid is a tried-and-true technique, and you should know that.
Some refused to even review the work, others leaked reviews. There was mockery. The controversial nature of the entire topic insured that from the start. REAL science isn't a popularity contest, however, but a journey for truth.
So some mainstream guy claims it's BS, and you assume he's right, and she's wrong?
He's not even in the field, but he knows better than one that is, and claims what she labels primate is bear and dog? And that's credible in your eyes?
He assumed contamination, even after being told they were careful about that. He ASSUMES, with no evidence other than that the results are unusual. She stated clearly that the samples were carefully gathered, and there was no contamination.
A bunch of students gathering on YT is not a credible source of validation or invalidation.
No; it's a perfect description of the academia of science that you believe is so credible. Anything that isn't wanted, or "accepted" is derided and mocked. Derision isn't part of the scientific method.
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Ketchum studied for 2yrs to gain her Doctorate
originally posted by: FlySolo
Just for fun, let's assume Bigfoot is real. A neanderthal primate undiscovered (technically) living in our national parks. Spying on campers as they sleep. Let's put all the hoaxing on the shelf for a moment and give the benefit of the doubt.
How full do you think your pants would get if this happened to you in the middle of nowhere?
The back story to this was he was apparently surround by about 5 BF as they strategically darted around him in the darkness. Breaking branches and generally just freaking him the F out.