Bigfoot News
Bigfoot Evidence
Bigfoot Evidence
RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 



Ketchum paper published in Russia

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  mark_boy on Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:34 am

Yes, the paper of Dr Ketchum is under reviewing. And it is worth to be published. Just the situation now remindes me the war between North and South in the beginning of USA history... There are a lot of her supporters as well as a lot of her opponents and even some enemies...

The problem is that some people absolutize the science. Unfortunately science now is too conservative. One third of the population of the USA believes in BFs existing, but academic science even does not want to recognize the problem of their existing or not, just rejecting to dicuss this question. In such a condition this subject is under discussion of the broad public. We can't wait decades when scientists start to study this problem, forest people need to be protect now, not after half a sentury, when science wakes up.

Re the paper: the reviewed journals in the US refused to publish the paper. That is why Dr Ketchum has sent it to me to arrange publishing in any Russian reviewd journal. And I showed to our genetisits and understood that it was a serious work. I gave it up to the journal, now it's under reviewing.

Anyway, I informed public about the results of the study. The public waited for this info for more than a year, a lot of rumors were spreading around. And the public has the right to know it nevertheless "science" says about it.

- Igor Burtsev

Now that we almost have confirmation that the Ketchum Study has failed, where does that leave us?
avatar
mark_boy

Posts : 13
Join date : 2012-08-01
Location : Essex, UK

View user profile https://twitter.com/mark_b_o_y

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  Ravinoff on Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:12 pm

SciaticPain wrote:Macroevolution is microevolution simply over a longer time. Creationists attempt to distort the issue by drawing a distinction between the two which modern biologists simply don't recognize.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm

And of course the founder of ID had problems with his computer simulation of evolution-its a simulation and probably loads of human error in how he made it after all.

And if we were "intelligently designed" that designer certainly wasn't very intelligent! He/she gave us extra teeth that need to be removed, an inefficient respiratory system (I would rather have the system of birds with air sacs), a rather inelegant propulsive system prone to break downs in the ankle, knee, hip and spine. The recurrent laryngeal nerve- why design it that way creationists? A brain that is prone to all sorts of psychosis, haywires, and degeneration. Simply put we are not "intelligently designed" and if we were that designer should be straight up fired- they did a crappy job!!! Twisted Evil

Give up, dude. Tzieth and CMcMillan refuse to accept any evidence for evolution. Not once has either of them presented any facts to support their deluded notions either, except for hoaxes and immense leaps of logic.
avatar
Ravinoff

Posts : 63
Join date : 2012-11-13
Age : 23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  CMcMillan on Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:16 pm

Ravinoff wrote:
SciaticPain wrote:Macroevolution is microevolution simply over a longer time. Creationists attempt to distort the issue by drawing a distinction between the two which modern biologists simply don't recognize.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm

And of course the founder of ID had problems with his computer simulation of evolution-its a simulation and probably loads of human error in how he made it after all.

And if we were "intelligently designed" that designer certainly wasn't very intelligent! He/she gave us extra teeth that need to be removed, an inefficient respiratory system (I would rather have the system of birds with air sacs), a rather inelegant propulsive system prone to break downs in the ankle, knee, hip and spine. The recurrent laryngeal nerve- why design it that way creationists? A brain that is prone to all sorts of psychosis, haywires, and degeneration. Simply put we are not "intelligently designed" and if we were that designer should be straight up fired- they did a crappy job!!! Twisted Evil

Give up, dude. Tzieth and CMcMillan refuse to accept any evidence for evolution. Not once has either of them presented any facts to support their deluded notions either, except for hoaxes and immense leaps of logic.

Yet you still can't explain why No Complex Life has Evolved on MARS if Evolution. I am waiting for an Explanation or for us to find complex life of Mars since the theory says Life will ADAPT and Evolve over years.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  Tzieth on Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:37 pm

Ravinoff wrote:
SciaticPain wrote:Macroevolution is microevolution simply over a longer time. Creationists attempt to distort the issue by drawing a distinction between the two which modern biologists simply don't recognize.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm

And of course the founder of ID had problems with his computer simulation of evolution-its a simulation and probably loads of human error in how he made it after all.

And if we were "intelligently designed" that designer certainly wasn't very intelligent! He/she gave us extra teeth that need to be removed, an inefficient respiratory system (I would rather have the system of birds with air sacs), a rather inelegant propulsive system prone to break downs in the ankle, knee, hip and spine. The recurrent laryngeal nerve- why design it that way creationists? A brain that is prone to all sorts of psychosis, haywires, and degeneration. Simply put we are not "intelligently designed" and if we were that designer should be straight up fired- they did a crappy job!!! Twisted Evil

Give up, dude. Tzieth and CMcMillan refuse to accept any evidence for evolution. Not once has either of them presented any facts to support their deluded notions either, except for hoaxes and immense leaps of logic.

Did you seriously go there? lol... You have yet to prove any "FACTS" about evolution.

Here is the Paradox... I.D. Does have proof. It is in the fact that Macro-Evolution does not work. And Micro-evolution only goes so far. For one family to evolve into another, there MUST be intelligence behind it.

Now it is a given that neither of you will even entertain the notion that such an intelligence is "God". and you laugh at alien intervention.. However again there is another paradox.. If alien life does not exist, again, neither does macro evolution. -CHECKMATE-

Darwinist have been battling creationists for so long, that they do not see the folly behind their own belief. Yes, I agree that creationism is a setback to scientific discovery. (If the answer is "God made it." then why even bother to look?) However, it is now Darwinistic Macro-Evolution that is holding science back and filling it with red tape. You are now doing what renascence era Christian science was doing... Filling science up with huge amounts of red tape to meet your own beliefs. THIS IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS. This is why science is not working now. Proving other ways that Micro-Evolution works and trying to attribute it to Macro is not science, it is folly. They are not even the same thing. Mutation is not evolution, it is merely adaptation. A fixed gene-pool rewiring it's self to meet various needs. A Canine cannot become a feline or vise-versa because they do not share the same gene-pool.

Do you not see the problems Macro is causing? Or the Cover-up?

1.Taxonomy is constantly changing to accommodate Macro: Can't Prove that man came from apes, so lets put them all together in a B.S. Family called Great Apes. Lion's and Tiger's are very far removed from one another in their genus, so lets make up two new genus's to put them into and the fact that they can interbreed proves macro. (I don't care what you call them they are still Cats!!!)

2. Rewritting the definition of a Genus: Lets split up certain species and put them into B.S. Genus's ie; Orangutans are in Pong, Chimps are in Pan, Gorilla's are in the genus "Gorilla". The case is then made on how similar chimps are to humans as far as DNA, but no one mentions how close chimps are to Orangutans and gorillas. Just the 1.6% difference in DNA between Chimps and Humans. And the 2.3% difference between gorillas and humans.. Want to know the difference between gorilla's and chimps? It is ALSO 2.3% How is that mathematically possible? Because DNA does not carry the same genes! We have genes common with pigs and we have genes common with apes. But we do not have 100% of any of the two, nor do they have 100% with us. However almost all great apes (Except Humans) Share the same type of genes. You will not find a genetic defect where a human has ape-feet. You will not find a genetic defect where a chimp has human feet. Because neither of us carries the others genes for feet!
But yeah lets all change things around and put apes in Homindae and lable Humans as "Great Apes"... Oh and while we are fudging things, lets keep contradicting our fudging with crap like this---> http://www.ethiopianreview.com/articles/14564

3. Passing Peer reviews based on B.S.: If you look up published journals of science on Macro-peer reviews, they are complete B.S. The experiments are of Micro-evolution. Macro is never proven, and yet they pass this crap? This is why I do not take Melba's rejection as the fault of her science. There is an agenda and her paper did not meet that agenda. (Watch the same happen to Sykes).

So it is not me who is making the far-fetched claim. If Macro-Evolution is real.. PROVE IT!. You have yet to do so.

P.S. That link you gave was complete B.S. as well.

"There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons." They are countering fact with opinion. That Opinion will stay an opinion until there is proof. And as of now, there isn't.
avatar
Tzieth

Posts : 478
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 43
Location : Vancouver, Washington

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  mark_boy on Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:56 am

Ravinoff wrote:
SciaticPain wrote:Macroevolution is microevolution simply over a longer time. Creationists attempt to distort the issue by drawing a distinction between the two which modern biologists simply don't recognize.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm

And of course the founder of ID had problems with his computer simulation of evolution-its a simulation and probably loads of human error in how he made it after all.

And if we were "intelligently designed" that designer certainly wasn't very intelligent! He/she gave us extra teeth that need to be removed, an inefficient respiratory system (I would rather have the system of birds with air sacs), a rather inelegant propulsive system prone to break downs in the ankle, knee, hip and spine. The recurrent laryngeal nerve- why design it that way creationists? A brain that is prone to all sorts of psychosis, haywires, and degeneration. Simply put we are not "intelligently designed" and if we were that designer should be straight up fired- they did a crappy job!!! Twisted Evil

Give up, dude. Tzieth and CMcMillan refuse to accept any evidence for evolution. Not once has either of them presented any facts to support their deluded notions either, except for hoaxes and immense leaps of logic.

Give up? Never!

I'm not expecting to present any facts, there aren't any. For them to say I respect your view is enough for me. Even if Ketchum's theory that Bigfoot is Humans hybridized with an unknown ape I not sure how that gives any scientific validity to a ID / Creationist theory. Tzi & CMc what do you think?

Anyway, back to OP. IMO, Ketchum's paper will just as likely be rejected by Journals in Russia, I don't see where this bias against Russian science comes from.
avatar
mark_boy

Posts : 13
Join date : 2012-08-01
Location : Essex, UK

View user profile https://twitter.com/mark_b_o_y

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  Tzieth on Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:50 pm

mark_boy wrote:
Ravinoff wrote:
SciaticPain wrote:Macroevolution is microevolution simply over a longer time. Creationists attempt to distort the issue by drawing a distinction between the two which modern biologists simply don't recognize.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm

And of course the founder of ID had problems with his computer simulation of evolution-its a simulation and probably loads of human error in how he made it after all.

And if we were "intelligently designed" that designer certainly wasn't very intelligent! He/she gave us extra teeth that need to be removed, an inefficient respiratory system (I would rather have the system of birds with air sacs), a rather inelegant propulsive system prone to break downs in the ankle, knee, hip and spine. The recurrent laryngeal nerve- why design it that way creationists? A brain that is prone to all sorts of psychosis, haywires, and degeneration. Simply put we are not "intelligently designed" and if we were that designer should be straight up fired- they did a crappy job!!! Twisted Evil

Give up, dude. Tzieth and CMcMillan refuse to accept any evidence for evolution. Not once has either of them presented any facts to support their deluded notions either, except for hoaxes and immense leaps of logic.

Give up? Never!

I'm not expecting to present any facts, there aren't any. For them to say I respect your view is enough for me. Even if Ketchum's theory that Bigfoot is Humans hybridized with an unknown ape I not sure how that gives any scientific validity to a ID / Creationist theory. Tzi & CMc what do you think?

Anyway, back to OP. IMO, Ketchum's paper will just as likely be rejected by Journals in Russia, I don't see where this bias against Russian science comes from.

No it wouldn't sway either. Creationists would view them as the Nephilim (Or the descendants of Cain, though I have no clue why.) I.D. who believe in Sitchin's translations of the Sumerian's would see them as either remnant Anunnaki or what ever it was they used to make us... It would not sway Darwinism either, just simply force them to revamp a lot of things. (Which would be a huge setback and all the more reason for them to be biased on this, but as a whole, it would not damage that theory of evolution.)

But you bring up a valid point of taxonomy when you say "Unknown ape." And I think this is where confusion is starting. In paleo-anthropology, there is a defined difference between human and ape, because there had to be. You had more than one type of human existing concurrent. Now, five concurrent humans are confirmed. Heidelberg, Neanderthal, Sapiens,Habilis, Denisova. Also there is the possibility Erectus and Sapiens-Sapiens may have also shared an era with the other five. (I left a few of the known's out because it is being debated as to weather they were other races of the same things. Even Heidelbergis might be another race or subspecies of Neanderthal)

All of these guys were "Human" but none of them looked like the other. Even Homo-Sapiens would have looked noticeably different from Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens. (Us) In that they had a slightly different bone structure and a small brow ridge and possibly were covered in hair as they are thought to be direct descendants of H.Erectus.

Under Homo you had Australopithecines which fell into the ape category and some could have even been bipedal or semi bipedal based on femur's that were found. And there were a-lot of those guys. So unlike, today there was a distinction between human and ape because there had to be. But from what I gather from reading the comments of the blog, even non-ape-campers were having a problem with this because "Bigfoot clearly does not look human!" Today all we see are apes and ourselves so if it is big and hairy they want to call it an ape. What Ketchum's paper said, according to the press release, was that the unknown hominid was related to Homo-Sapiens. This would mean that the other half was already a type of Human (Homo Genus). But what I am wondering now was weather she actually meant "Homo-Sapiens" or "Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens". If we are dealing with other human types, then I can see why something as insignificant as that (For Modern times) could cause rejection.

P.S. I also do not understand the bias over Russian Science. People keep assuming they are some backwater country and completely forget that they were the first to launch a satellite into space, The first to put a human in space, and were only a few weeks behind the U.S. in making the Atomic bomb. I think the false stereotypes from the cold-war are to blame for this. There was a time when I would only date Russian women because I found their intellect way superior to average American women. (Brains turn me on. LOL)
avatar
Tzieth

Posts : 478
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 43
Location : Vancouver, Washington

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  CMcMillan on Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:11 pm

Now that we almost have confirmation that the Ketchum Study has failed, where does that leave us?

Not sure if the Ketchum paper has Failed.
I would think if it failed she would just publish it and put it out on the web for everyone to read.
I am not going to make a call on the paper till Ketchum publishes it or says she isn't.


I know people think I am some big I.D. / creationist supporter.
I am actually a just a big supporter in reading and thinking about things.
Just because I see holes in the science of Evolution doesn't mean I don't believe in some aspects of evolution. I think as TZ says Micro Evolution does happen.
I think some of the leaps that science takes is wrong. because decoding the past is difficult.
If you recall the original Planet of the Apes. Near the end when Taylor is in the cave and showing Dr.Z the false teeth and stuff. Taylor says what they are then the Dr. says he can come up with other valid explanations of what they are. This is the problem with reconstructing the past.
Will someday someone look at a comic book of Superman and think he was real?
Scientists are taking their best GUESS based on evidence they believe. It could be wrong.
I enjoy looking at all aspects of Ideas and love to explore different theories of Evolution, Ancient aliens, Creationism etc..


P.S. I also do not understand the bias over Russian Science. People keep assuming they are some backwater country and completely forget that they were the first to launch a satellite into space, The first to put a human in space, and were only a few weeks behind the U.S. in making the Atomic bomb. I think the false stereotypes from the cold-war are to blame for this. There was a time when I would only date Russian women because I found their intellect way superior to average American women. (Brains turn me on. LOL)

I agree with you here TZ. People seem to think Russian Science is backwards. Aren't they still the ones also that are sending people to the space station.
Since our country cut spending to NASA we will have to rely on Russian Space science.

Wouldn't it be a kick in the pants of Russians actually discover Bigfoot/Yeti first.
Then you would see all the US scientists going But we had evidence first See!!

avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  Ravinoff on Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:30 pm

CMcMillan wrote:

P.S. I also do not understand the bias over Russian Science. People keep assuming they are some backwater country and completely forget that they were the first to launch a satellite into space, The first to put a human in space, and were only a few weeks behind the U.S. in making the Atomic bomb. I think the false stereotypes from the cold-war are to blame for this. There was a time when I would only date Russian women because I found their intellect way superior to average American women. (Brains turn me on. LOL)

I agree with you here TZ. People seem to think Russian Science is backwards. Aren't they still the ones also that are sending people to the space station.
Since our country cut spending to NASA we will have to rely on Russian Space science.

Wouldn't it be a kick in the pants of Russians actually discover Bigfoot/Yeti first.
Then you would see all the US scientists going But we had evidence first See!!


There is a lot of bias regarding Russia still present, I think it's just persistent Cold War propaganda. But the reason people would tend to view Russian research on Bigfoot more skeptically seems to make sense, in that the Russian government would have a vested interest in playing up Bigfoot reports in Russia for tourism purposes. That doesn't mean I don't think Russia has unidentified primates, in fact the Siberian taiga seems like the most likely place to find at least 3 of the types described by Loren Coleman. It's just that anyone connecting the discovery of a major new species to a specific country should be taken with a grain of salt (like North Korea's unicorns).

As for my opinion on Ketchum? Eh. Never did think anything would come of this one. It's the Sykes/Oxford study I've got an eye on.
avatar
Ravinoff

Posts : 63
Join date : 2012-11-13
Age : 23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  BurdenOfProof on Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:15 pm

CMcMillan wrote:
Ravinoff wrote:
SciaticPain wrote:Macroevolution is microevolution simply over a longer time. Creationists attempt to distort the issue by drawing a distinction between the two which modern biologists simply don't recognize.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm

And of course the founder of ID had problems with his computer simulation of evolution-its a simulation and probably loads of human error in how he made it after all.

And if we were "intelligently designed" that designer certainly wasn't very intelligent! He/she gave us extra teeth that need to be removed, an inefficient respiratory system (I would rather have the system of birds with air sacs), a rather inelegant propulsive system prone to break downs in the ankle, knee, hip and spine. The recurrent laryngeal nerve- why design it that way creationists? A brain that is prone to all sorts of psychosis, haywires, and degeneration. Simply put we are not "intelligently designed" and if we were that designer should be straight up fired- they did a crappy job!!! Twisted Evil

Give up, dude. Tzieth and CMcMillan refuse to accept any evidence for evolution. Not once has either of them presented any facts to support their deluded notions either, except for hoaxes and immense leaps of logic.

Yet you still can't explain why No Complex Life has Evolved on MARS if Evolution. I am waiting for an Explanation or for us to find complex life of Mars since the theory says Life will ADAPT and Evolve over years.

Are you serious?

Evolution is the process that happens to self replicating organisms.

As far as we know there are no self replicating organisms on Mars, hence no complex life. Simple.
avatar
BurdenOfProof

Posts : 263
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  CMcMillan on Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:10 pm

http://www.marsnews.com/focus/life/
Would you like to rethink your answer since Bacteria is self replicating:

Carbonate globules
The carbonate patterns form a unique signature of life, and the density and compostion of the carbonate patterns is consistent with how terrestrial bacteria operate. Carbonate by itself, however, is abundant in non-living materials.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Organic compounds usually created by bacteria were present in the meteorite. There has been much controversy about whether or not the PAHs are contaminants from the Antarctic environment, or are present from Mars.

Magnetite globules
These globules are created by bacteria on Earth as well as some chemical processes. However, the distinctive tear-shape in the Martian evidence is only created by bacteria. Some scientists are still not conviced.

Microscopic fossil-like structures
The most dramatic evidence of all, pictures were shown at the press conference of worm-like structures present in the meteorite. While they are much smaller than terrestrial bacteria, they look very similar, but could also just be mineral structures. More pictures have been created since then. The initial skepticism about them has partially been silenced by recent discoveries of similar terrestrial fossils of similar (nanobacterial) scale.


After mapping cosmic radiation levels at various depths on Mars, researchers have concluded that any life within the first several meters of the planet's surface would be killed by lethal doses of cosmic radiation.[109] In 2007, it was calculated that DNA and RNA damage by cosmic radiation would limit life on Mars to depths greater than 7.5 metres below the planet's surface.[30] Therefore, the best potential locations for discovering life on Mars may be at subsurface environments that have not been studied yet.[110]
[edit]Life on Earth under Martian conditions

On 26 April 2012, scientists reported that lichen survived and showed remarkable results on the adaptation capacity of photosynthetic activity within the simulation time of 34 days under Martian conditions in the Mars Simulation Laboratory (MSL) maintained by the German Aerospace Center (DLR).[111][112]
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  BurdenOfProof on Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:32 pm

I wasn't aware life had been found on Mars yet? But I havent really been following whats going on there with the latest mars rover and everything. Im guessing it would be quite a big deal if it was found?
avatar
BurdenOfProof

Posts : 263
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  Tzieth on Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:17 pm

BurdenOfProof wrote:I wasn't aware life had been found on Mars yet? But I havent really been following whats going on there with the latest mars rover and everything. Im guessing it would be quite a big deal if it was found?

I am unsure to this as well... They found evidence in fossilized microbes. (Which I was referring to.) But I am unsure as to what the two new rovers have found other than liquid water and evidence of an ocean.

What I do know is that according to Sitchin's translations of the Sumerian epic of creation. Mars is the other 1/3 of Earth and the Asteroid Belt makes up the rest of the 1/2. So in theory fosslized microbes found on Mars could have been from Tiamat (pre-earth)

What I also leave out of Annunaki Intelligent design is that there had to be some degree of Macro evolution lol. According to Sitchin, earth life came in the form of already existing life that existed on Nibiru's moon that collided with Tiamat and then began growing more complex on the newly formed Earth. The I.D. only came in the form of Homo-sapiens being engineered by crossing Annunaki DNA with the predominate Hominid that was already evolved on Earth.

It's not the biological aspect of the Sumerian account that I find intriguing. That is a dead end street that leads to the same old dead end that both creation and evolution lead to. But the forming of Earth actually has evidence and it explains a lot of the astronomical missing links. Of all the planets in our solar-system, Only Earth has signs of plate-tectonics. Though we found mountains on both the moon and mars, they are either crater made, or sedimentary (Dunes). Planets are either devoid of surface water (Such as Mars) or completely covered with water (Such as Uranus and Neptune.) But no planet has both. Even though they now think Mars may have had an ocean, they think it was 20 feet at the deepest. If Earth was drained of it's Oceans it would resemble a large asteroid and no longer retain it's spherical shape suggesting that we truly are 1/2 a planet that was once a water planet that lost 1/2 it's mass with the water filling in the holes. It also explains comets. For starters "Where did they come from?" more debris from Tiamat. And "Why do they keep coming back?" The sun hurls them away, but what was hurling them back? Now that it is confirmed that we have a Binary system, we know the answer to that. Nibiru/Planet-X or not, the Sumerians still spoke of a second sun that we have only just now discovered. It can be argued from their pictographs weather or not they thought there were 11 planets but when you see that one of those planets has rings and is coincidentally located where Saturn should be (If there were 11 planets.) Then you begin to think maybe they actually knew some stuff they should not have known.

Anyway... If this is the case, and Mars was once part of the same Planet that Earth was, then I don't find it any big-deal that Mars has fossilized microbes.
avatar
Tzieth

Posts : 478
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 43
Location : Vancouver, Washington

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  DPinkerton on Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:25 pm

I think part of the problem with getting the paper published the peer review...I agree it is necessary, but are there any scientist who will attempt to recreate the findings? If no one else is performing the same test...then there is no way it can be reviewed.

I am very curious to see the Oxford results...I wonder if they will be able to get someone else to review their findings?

Or will it come down to comparing the only two who are doing study?

DPinkerton

Posts : 171
Join date : 2012-08-14
Location : Colorado

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  BurdenOfProof on Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:58 pm

What I can imagine is going on is out of the 100 samples, some have returned as known animals, but some were contaminated by the Human that collected it (very easy to do). Ketchum then jumped to the conclusion that this was bigfoot as she compared the contaminated DNA to the genbank which returned no matches. This does not mean bigfoot is human. It means you have human samples that arent in the genbank (which is to be expected). Genbank represents an extremely tiny sample of humans.

Sykes will have the experience to come to that conclusion rather than jumping to bigfoot.

Where does that leave bigfooting? Still no monkey to be found?
avatar
BurdenOfProof

Posts : 263
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  Tzieth on Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:08 pm

even if that was the case, the unknown NTDNA still came back as Homo Genus. that would still make it Human. Just not Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens.
avatar
Tzieth

Posts : 478
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 43
Location : Vancouver, Washington

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  Kel on Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:30 pm

What I've always found so frustrating about the Paper Discussions ~

1) The Press Embargo ~ some (inc Melba) say that is for the duration of peer review, others say it is for the one week prior to publication, others say there is no such embargo, period, and that many with papers in review discuss them at technical conferences.

2) Peer Review ~ the quality/acceptance of your paper can only be as good as the corresponding reviewers' work. Just how are these people engaged? Are they paid, or is it a professional courtesy?

3) Publication ~ I've read that publication by any "respected" journal also REQUIRES samples be deposited and made available at several recognized universities, museums or research labs so other scientists are free to run independent tests. When I mentioned this before, somebody claiming great knowledge of the process said that's no longer necessary. Which is it?

4) The Journal ~ I read an article on the submission of fossil papers that discussed the online movement away from the high costs, lengthy waiting periods and general "snobby" monopoly associated with the old-line science journals.


Would it truly be a death blow if Melba publishes independently, or in a Russian journal? I guess we'll all know in time (but probably not SOON). I think not, since it's still just one piece of a 2-part puzzle. We need a body.

avatar
Kel

Posts : 164
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  Tzieth on Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:47 pm

I don't see it as a set back if she is published in a Russian Journal. Russia has among the best Science in the world.

If the "Old Boy Club" conspiracy is real, then Sykes paper will be published. If his findings are the same as Melba's then it doesn't matter if Mad Magazine published her.. there it is dated and done. Melba will still get the credit first.

However, if this is the case, and Now that Sykes knows what Melba's results were and his are the same, he may opt to say "I found nothing." and that would suck Sad
avatar
Tzieth

Posts : 478
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 43
Location : Vancouver, Washington

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  Kel on Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:58 pm

I don't think Sykes would do that, Tz. It might be heresy to say this around here, but I personally don't think a Sasquatch "discovery" would top the fame and fortune he already found with The Seven Daughters of Eve ***. It will just be one more piece of a very lucrative pie for him ~ with another book and lecture tour. He's hard at work identifying more "Daughters", and I believe he runs a side biz where you can send in your own DNA sample to learn which "Daughter" is your ancestor.

***Edit to add: Assuming DNA report only, and that he doesn't pull a body out of his hat.
avatar
Kel

Posts : 164
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  Tzieth on Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:06 pm

Kel wrote:I don't think Sykes would do that, Tz. It might be heresy to say this around here, but I personally don't think a Sasquatch "discovery" would top the fame and fortune he already found with The Seven Daughters of Eve ***. It will just be one more piece of a very lucrative pie for him ~ with another book and lecture tour. He's hard at work identifying more "Daughters", and I believe he runs a side biz where you can send in your own DNA sample to learn which "Daughter" is your ancestor.

***Edit to add: Assuming DNA report only, and that he doesn't pull a body out of his hat.

Well you may be right, considering the fact that he is not a Bigfoot researcher lol. If he were, I would be more worried lol
avatar
Tzieth

Posts : 478
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 43
Location : Vancouver, Washington

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  jerrywayne on Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:35 pm

Tzieth wrote:
BurdenOfProof wrote:Ok, Ive read on the blog comments and on JREF that someone emailed the Russian scientist and he confirmed that the paper is going to be published in Russia.

Im not saying this is true but if it is does anyone think the paper actually has any credibility?

That was obviously a troll lol. But if this is the case, it would have more credibility. We are brainwashed into thinking Russia is some backwater country when in fact, it's universities in the eyes of Europe put ours to shame. My ex fiancee was from Moscow and had a law degree. Her degree would not transfer here, however it would in England. A law degree from an American University won't transfer to Europe as they do not feel our Universities are on par with theirs (except the ivy league ones)

But say Russian Universities are a backwater and their science was thirdworld. (Remember, they used to be our rival during the space race and they beat us into space.) If ketchums paper was passed and published over there, and then Sykes paper passes in some esteemed journal of science, it is only going to give Ketchum and whatever journal that picked her up more fame.

At this point, I don't think it matters who publishes her anymore, she still wins. (Unless Sykes finds something completely different)

Funny how charges of Trolling roll off the keypad effortlessly nowdays.

I'm the fellow that e-mailed Dr. Burtsev. I did not expect a reply, but thought I would try. His e-mail address accompanied a posting/press release of his comments. Here is the brief exchange. First, my e-mail:

Dr. Burtsev,

Pardon the intrusion. Do you know the name of the scientific journal that will be publishing Dr. Ketchum’s sasquatch DNA study? There is some speculation here in the USA that the paper will be published in a Russian journal.

Thank you for your time.

Here is Dr. Burtsev's quick reply:

Dear Sir,

Yes, it supposed to be published in a Russian scientific journal, issued in both versions -Russian and English, end on-line.
When it will be close to issue we shall inform the public how to get it.

Igor Burtsev

My first impression of Burtsev's comment was that the DNA report was going to be published in Russia. I had a discussion at BFF that allowed the possibility that the report might be published by an American journal and a Russian journal. Also, I have seen speculation that Dr. Burtsev may be talking through his hat.

Dr. Burtsev's e-mail is inhome@yandex.ru Try to get more info, if he is still revealing.

jerrywayne

Posts : 5
Join date : 2012-08-11
Location : Dallas, Texas

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  BurdenOfProof on Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:00 pm

thanks for the info jerry

the russian thing just adds to the complete circus show that this has become
avatar
BurdenOfProof

Posts : 263
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Ketchum paper published in Russia

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum