Jump to content

The Ketchum Report


Guest

Recommended Posts

I would venture a guess that it was rejected not today or yesterday, but well before Igor's first leak 2 weeks ago. It has been in Russia for a while now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest VioletX

Igor does not say the American paper was rejected, too many assumptions are being made based on this post that seems to be speaking obtusely about the past and present in one post, so that it is hard to determine what exactly he is trying to say.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like Dr. Ketchum would have had much better luck if she had just referred to an "unknown hominid primate" in her paper rather than "Bigfoot".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest slimwitless

The always level-headed R.W. Ridley has posted his thoughts on these developments.

LINK

He's calling on the sample submitters to break their NDAs and come forward. If it's true the paper has been rejected, I can't say I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice write up Mr. Ridley. Can't say that I disagree with much of it. Salvage what you can, the Russians won't be a pushover if they are as credible as ours here.

Who has the largest smile after reading the clip that it was rejected?....................Moneymaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest VioletX

Re: Steven Streufert's contribution,(not sure if he is a member here), hasn't anybody noticed that he is in bed with Bigfoot Evidence and that both sources truly, IMO, are not meant to be taken literally.

Big Foot Evidence has prepared for the discovery of Bigfoot's existence by branching out to other crypto news and news of the weird, so of course they want to promote controversy and milk the Bigfoot mystique as long as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just FYI

Most if not all major science journals in the US and Europe require that papers submitted to them for review NOT be under review at another journal at the same time. I'm not sure how they police submissions, and I have never heard of a case where a paper was submitted to more than one journal at a time.

I hope this affair ends soon. I can't get any work done because of all the time I spend lurking on these forums.

Genes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest VioletX

Just FYI

Most if not all major science journals in the US and Europe require that papers submitted to them for review NOT be under review at another journal at the same time. I'm not sure how they police submissions, and I have never heard of a case where a paper was submitted to more than one journal at a time.

I hope this affair ends soon. I can't get any work done because of all the time I spend lurking on these forums.

Genes

I actually set a timer today so I would log off...it went off about 15 minutes ago. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest slimwitless

Nice write up Mr. Ridley. Can't say that I disagree with much of it. Salvage what you can, the Russians won't be a pushover if they are as credible as ours here.

Who has the largest smile after reading the clip that it was rejected?....................Moneymaker.

Whether it's true or not, the general response to the idea of a Russian journal is being met with considerable mockery in "blog-comment-o-sphere". I'm not qualified to judge but they are the only ones that can routinely put people in space.

I also humbly suggest a charlatan will always be confident someone else's proof will never surface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked this a few pages back but didn't get a response. Are Russian scientists/journals considered sub-standard?

Best.

Lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked this a few pages back but didn't get a response. Are Russian scientists/journals considered sub-standard?

Best.

Lee

It'd be cultural bias that would lead one to think so. I think the greater concern is that any US journal would jump at the chance to publish a groundbreaking discovery. The fact that none have to date raises concerns about the quality of the science.

If the issue was simply a perception of problematic interpretation of the data, that could have been addressed through a rewrite, with the data being allowed to stand on its own, or interpretation being couched in terms of a range of possibilities.

My guess, based on the history of all of this to date, is that the timing and content of the statements by MK are more likely to correspond with the paper's rejection by a US journal than near acceptance for publication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...