Guest Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I'm just praying for an honest review panel. I've read too many improperly close-minded comments from "scientists" on the subject to blindly trust that this paper will get a fair review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) When rwridley said he was reading that on RB's blog....I thought he actually was referring to the real "RB" (who I didn't think had a blog and it was driving me crazy trying to find it ) Apparently RB is rwridley's nickname for the Bigfoot Field Reporter... (ahem) any one have the address for DNA Diagnostic's lab....I think I need to send some flowers... To be fair, someone else referred to Bigfoot Field Reporter as Rona Barrett (RB) earlier in the thread which I thought was funny. I was just picking up where they left off. For those who don't know, Rona Barrett is a gossip columnist from way back. Not sure if she's still at it, but I thought the name fit BFR. Edited July 27, 2011 by rwridley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 To be fair, someone else referred to Bigfoot Field Reporter as Rona Barrett (RB) earlier in the thread which I thought was funny. I was just picking up where they left off. For those who don't know, Rona Barrett is a gossip columnist from way back. Not sure if she's still at it, but I thought the name fit BFR. Not blam'n you rw... I was the one that went off half cocked... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Not blam'n you rw... I was the one that went off half cocked... I didn't think you were blaming me. I just didn't want to take credit for someone else's line. I'm sensitive to that kind of stuff since I make my living writing. It's all good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 (Rhetorical? If not . . .) Sounds like giving up too early to me. I might try a troubled manuscript on 2 or 3 journals - modifying it according to reviewer's comments each time - before giving up and just keeping it in gray-lit form as a "report." Plus, there are plenty of for-profit, online only journals (technically peer-reviewed) that would probably publish some form of what they have for about $100/page. Announcing months ahead of time that a report would be out just seems sort of . . . odd. No, by no means rhetorical! To me you definitely make some of the most interesting posts on this board and I love to read them. Thanks for the reply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I'm just praying for an honest review panel. I've read too many improperly close-minded comments from "scientists" on the subject to blindly trust that this paper will get a fair review. How will you determine if it did get a fair review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 How will you determine if it did get a fair review? How would you? Not being a smart@$$. I am legit curious how another scientist would know if he trusted the findings of something that passed peer review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 They teach you in basic statistics how to read research papers and critique the methodology. I imagine anyone who has taken that kind of course could do it, including myself, along with several other members of this forum. We will also have a wide variety of opinions about it too..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 They teach you in basic statistics how to read research papers and critique the methodology. I imagine anyone who has taken that kind of course could do it, including myself, along with several other members of this forum. We will also have a wide variety of opinions about it too..... Won't it also matter to some who reviews/publishes the findings? I remember when they released the Orang Pem. as a species people just rolled their eyes due to the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 How would you? I don't know, that's why I put the question to Mulder. The only way I'd be able to make such a determination would be to read the original manuscript, the original reviews, and the editor's decision letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I don't know, that's why I put the question to Mulder. The only way I'd be able to make such a determination would be to read the original manuscript, the original reviews, and the editor's decision letter. So it is still only opinion and up for scrutiny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Not to mention Biscardi's foray was a late entry, and since has been expelled. Dr, Ketchum had no idea who he was, or his associates, she was a scientist not a BF Researcher. There are coauthors, third party verification and peer review. I think the scientific standards will be met. And the final determination will be done not by us here, or anywhere in the field, and not by one single scientist, but rather with science as a whole. Here’s a quote from MELBA KETCHUM from http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/ From her interview with Dave Paulides where Melba Ketchum appear on Bigfoot Busters on Blogtalk Radio. What follows is a partial transcript of the interview. “Well, mitochondrial DNA is a 16.5-thousand base loop of DNA that lives in the mitochondrial, or a little organelle, that’s in the cytoplasm of the cells. It is maternally inherited. There’s approximately 100 mitochondria in each cell, so there’s 100 copies per cell., making it much more plentiful and much tinier than your regular nucleic genomic DNA, which is in the nucleus of the cell, and it only has the copy from the mother and from the father. So you’ve basically just got your chromosome that carry it. So you do not have the copy numbers that you have for the mitochondrial DNA. And these little tiny organelles, with this little tiny loop of DNA, oftentimes, if some of them get degraded – say the DNA gets moist and mold and bacteria starts growing on it and that’s how it gets degraded – you’ve got 100 times better chance of actually retrieving that little bitty loop of DNA from the mitochondria than the nucleus of the cell. So it’s used in degraded remains. I worked on the World Trade Center disaster. There was a team of forensic scientists that was put together to analyze the remains and a lot of these, the only thing that was left was the mitochondrial DNA because of the condition of the remains. It survives better and there’s more copies of it, so that’s how you end up being able to see it much more often than your nuclear DNA.†Now her stating “I worked on the world trade center disaster“, got me curious so I Google a list of forensics scientist/forensic anthropologist that worked on the World Trade Center disaster and I could not find her name or having any acknowledgments. Also theirs no mention even under her DBA of Shelterwood laboratories. I found this interesting. Now I can’t say she’s not telling the truth but I couldn’t find anything about her working on the world trade center disaster. I think this is a job for Squatchdetective to follow up on. Steve’s from New York and probably can dig deeper into this better than I can. P.S. Steve be very wary of your new friend who used to worked with Tom B. Good luck. http://www.genecodesforensics.com/news/CashHoyleSutton.pdf http://www.jonhoyle.com/GeneCodes/MethodsDevelopedToIdentifyV.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) Now her stating “I worked on the world trade center disaster“, got me curious so I Google a list of forensics scientist/forensic anthropologist that worked on the World Trade Center disaster and I could not find her name or having any acknowledgments. Also theirs no mention even under her DBA of Shelterwood laboratories. I found this interesting. Now I can’t say she’s not telling the truth but I couldn’t find anything about her working on the world trade center disaster. I think this is a job for Squatchdetective to follow up on. Steve’s from New York and probably can dig deeper into this better than I can. P.S. Steve be very wary of your new friend who used to worked with Tom B. Good luck. From: http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Sept_11_Panel_Makes_Recommendations_For_DNABased_ID_After_Mass_Disasters.html "KADAP was organized and funded by the NIJ, the research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, based on a request from New York City's chief medical examiner. The New York State Police Forensics Identification Center was responsible for analyzing any reference DNA samples and several private laboratories tested samples from the World Trade Center site." Why don't you do your own research and ask the NYSPFI if Dr. Ketchum or DNA Dignostics was involved or if she possibly did it to assist Texas A&M's help with the indentification process before raising an eyebrow on a public forum? Edited July 27, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 So it is still only opinion and up for scrutiny? Depends on what your "it" refers to. If you mean "the ability to determine if there was bias in the peer review process" then yes, that would be a subjective call. The most objective way I'd know to approach the question would be to have complete transparency in the review process, which is something we don't have unless we are the editor of the journal that publishes the paper. That's also the only way I'd know to determine if there was bias in the review of a paper that was rejected for publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 From: http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Sept_11_Panel_Makes_Recommendations_For_DNABased_ID_After_Mass_Disasters.html "KADAP was organized and funded by the NIJ, the research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, based on a request from New York City's chief medical examiner. The New York State Police Forensics Identification Center was responsible for analyzing any reference DNA samples and several private laboratories tested samples from the World Trade Center site." Why don't you do your own research and ask the NYSPFI if Dr. Ketchum or DNA Dignostics was involved or if she possibly did it to assist Texas A&M's help with the indentification process before raising an eyebrow on a public forum? She still is not mention in your link as well as per her own bio, she was not associated with any of those listed. Do you have a problem with raising eyebrows? Thats whats being discuss here about the whole dna issues and who what and where thats in question. Now if someone can show her role in the 9/11 dna research as she stated, please bring it forward. I can't find any, but maybe someone else can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts