originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
It moves. Not a lot, but there is movement. Hence, animatronic, or some really fancy puppet. Neither would be cheap.
Again, why would it necessarily need
to be animatronic (or a puppet) to be fake? Why are you only considering these two options?
Sorry, not playing that game.
= No, you can't.
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.
No, that isn't "known". It is assumed by quacks in general though, as opposed to real scientists who go back and provide better science after
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.
It doesn't require an assumption at all as much as not really being able to find any credible scientist who does agree. There are some claims of
genuine research type scientists agreeing, that always end up with "page not found" though. Surprisingly, the co authors themselves are very quiet on
Ketchum censored it herself by refusing to go through peer review and publish her results.
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.
Papers get rejected by publications all the time. In fact, most do. Why should Ketchum be any different? It is quite the opposite anyway, she withdrew
it from review from one very credible publication rather than admit there were problems, let alone fix it (would you like a link to a scientist who
That the authors didn't seem to know that they can use spellcheck, or understand the phylogenic tree and unknowingly used well known "April 1st" type
joke papers as genuine references could have had something to do with it (they even spelt the proposed subspecies name wrong to zoobank). Though it
was really the trouble they had supporting their bogus conclusions, that was probably the main reason it was withdrawn. Rather than fix the main
problems, it's easier to run off with a "Galileo Complex" and claim a "conspiracy of science".
The wookie/rug she provided that apparently likes her blueberry bagels probably didn't help either though. The reason for that for anyone not visually
impaired is that it's obviously fake and ridiculous with nothing provided to indicate it being otherwise.
So some mainstream guy claims it's BS, and you assume he's right, and she's wrong?
No assumptions necessary, you mean 7 or 8 "mainstream guys" who entirely disagreed with it. Including at least one Ph.D in Evolutionary
Genetics/Biology who has research experience in this very subject. It is more about considering their interpretations, explanations and
. Did you?
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
Qualifications are important to establish likely relevant knowledge and expertise and as such should be (and are) taken seriously. The methods, data,
interpretation and reproducibility etc. are most important and these are largely what she refused scrutiny of.
We know Ketchum studied for 2yrs to gain her Doctorate and enter Vet School, which enables her to administer horse tablets in at least one state
(though possibly not others), but seems to list no other academic credentials that anyone can find...yet you are sneering at not only a "Chemistry
Ph.D " but others including a research scientist with a "Ph.D in Evolutionary Genetics/Biology" and you think that helps you? It doesn't.
Haskal Hart Ph.D was a big supporter of her study and urged everyone to give it a fair appraisal despite the subject. He also seems to believe bigfoot
is likely to exist and thus seems like a good and unbiased reviewer who spent 8 mths studying her results
, consulting closely with Ketchum
herself, before reaching conclusion and trying to submit his own paper to "De Novo". That he received no response shows what a sham her "journal" is
and how interested she is in receiving any valid criticisms (apparently she feels there are none) which is one of the mainstays of science.
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.
He had little choice but to reach a reasonable, parsimonious conclusion of what the results obviously indicated based on what he was presented with as
she refused to submit either her methods or her work to the genuine scrutiny of the scientific community.
A bunch of students gathering on YT is not a credible source of validation or invalidation.
You do realise what is required to become a "Ph.D student" in the first place (which can differ from country to country) which would usually require a
degree at minimum and that it can take many years of rather demanding specialist research and thesis work to achieve? These are young scientists
seeking advice from a Ph.D in Evolutionary Biology
who does have direct experience in genome sequencing of certain species
Not up to the standard of a Vet to you of course.
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.
Not really. Science is tough (there is good reason for that) and doesn't always get it right.
Out of curiosity, from your own understanding as no doubt you wouldn't be a blind believer, perhaps you could give a basic rebuttal to these
There seems some good explanation for laymen from these people. Could you explain why this "hybridisation" proposal doesn't conflict with known
genetics re biological evolution, or why David Winter might be unduly critical when he says it is obviously not a "homonid sequence" to begin with,
or wonders where the rest of the genome is (lol), or why he feels the sequences could not have recombined in the time frame the paper claims
(consistently with known hybridisation), why he might be nitpicking with his find that 60% of certain of the genetic sequences are unmatched
to anything on earth
etc. Could you, instead of sneering at them, successfully show why their claims are wrong?
If it showed an unknown species, scientists would agree. They don't think it does, they think it's nonsense.
edit on 23-8-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it