Jump to content


Photo

The Ketchum Report


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
14386 replies to this topic

#121 southernyahoo

southernyahoo

    Skunk Ape

  • Steering Committee
  • 3,983 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 09:04 AM

Actually, yahoo, if you ask her you will discover that she doesn't have the ability to sequence the DNA. Oops.


It makes sense to me to outsource the sequencing in order to corroborate your initial findings. It won't matter much if she could have done it herself in the long run. It's all about the evidence, the science, and the conclusions that can be drawn from it. Which you'll have no say in , concerning the paper and passing review. :(
  • 0
www.texlaresearch.com

"The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His work is like that of the planter — for the future. His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way. He lives and labors and hopes."Nikola Tesla

Body + human DNA = Human

#122 HairyGreek

HairyGreek

    Chiye-tanka

  • Banned
  • 960 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 09:18 AM

Re: peer review process. One thing that's puzzled me throughout this saga has been the posting of statements, apparently attributable to Ketchum, that predicted when the "paper would be out." When I submit a manuscript, I have a vague idea as to when I might get a response (usually 2–3 months), but I have very little idea what that response will be. If I need to conduct a major revision, that might take me 2–3 additional months to complete, followed by another protracted review. Once accepted, it's often many more months (6–9 in my experience) before galley proofs are ready and I've got a pdf I can share - that's if the journal provides a "pre-publication" copy; many still don't. Many journals of course are much faster, but there are still plenty of papers out there getting published easily a year or more after they were submitted. All of this assumes the paper is accepted. If it's rejected, I'd expect the authors to spend a couple of months making some changes suggested by the initial review before sending the manuscript to a different journal to start the process anew.

In other words, I'm skeptical when someone makes statements about when their paper is coming out.

I don't recall hearing or reading her say anything but "hopefully soon" and/or "shortly". I love to see if she said anything more concrete. I had not heard that.
  • 0

#123 HairyGreek

HairyGreek

    Chiye-tanka

  • Banned
  • 960 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 09:23 AM

Actually, yahoo, if you ask her you will discover that she doesn't have the ability to sequence the DNA. Oops.

How does that saying go? Something about "...but don't tell me it's raining..."

I do not think "skeptic" is the proper word for you...

I'll say no more.
  • 0

#124 indiefoot

indiefoot

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,876 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 09:25 AM

I say we start a publication date "pool" at a buck a pop.
  • 0

#125 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 10:22 AM

I don't recall hearing or reading her say anything but "hopefully soon" and/or "shortly". I love to see if she said anything more concrete. I had not heard that.


See http://s2.excoboard....24825/2242699/1
  • 0
Another day, another million trailcam-days, another ten million securitycam-days, another 8 billion miles driven in the US, and still no bigfoot images and no bigfoot roadkills.

#126 HairyGreek

HairyGreek

    Chiye-tanka

  • Banned
  • 960 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 10:33 AM

See http://s2.excoboard....24825/2242699/1

So then I assume you did your due diligence and also listened to the radio show to confirm that this is what, indeed, was said? Even if it is correct, I am not sure how "if all goes well, spring 2011" is by anyone's definition definitive. I guess I am not understanding the point in what everyone is trying to make. She didn't say April, 21, 2011. She didn't even say April. She also included a caveat. So what? If I was in the group going over her paper, I would probably be terrified to put my name on it even if it was perfect and all evidence was there. I am sure they are being extra cautious about making sure they are not getting snookered before releasing the results of the peer review. I would, and I tend to believe they are real.
  • 0

#127 SweetSusiq

SweetSusiq

    Skunk Ape

  • Sésquac
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 10:40 AM

But you quite rightly explain that the KR & EP are 2 different things, clearly..

It's Mr SF who mainly references everything to the EP, not all of us.. ;)

I brought it up a while back actually with regards to the OP & the alleged Shootings, as people were still referring to certain things within it as the EP, which as far as i'm aware would have absolutely zero to do with the Sierra stuff except for their Samples are being tested by the same Doctor, who will ultimately/hopefully soon enough release the KR.. :)

:blink: But I'm sure that It was Mr. Brown(M.B.) with the candlestick (CS)in the library (LB).. :rolleyes:

Edited by SweetSusiq, 25 July 2011 - 10:42 AM.

  • 0

#128 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 11:25 AM

So then I assume you did your due diligence and also listened to the radio show to confirm that this is what, indeed, was said? Even if it is correct, I am not sure how "if all goes well, spring 2011" is by anyone's definition definitive. I guess I am not understanding the point in what everyone is trying to make. She didn't say April, 21, 2011. She didn't even say April. She also included a caveat. So what? If I was in the group going over her paper, I would probably be terrified to put my name on it even if it was perfect and all evidence was there. I am sure they are being extra cautious about making sure they are not getting snookered before releasing the results of the peer review. I would, and I tend to believe they are real.

Snookered?Tsk tak there you go....That may be crossing the line...

So are you saying the paper hasn't been written?

Edited by parnassus, 25 July 2011 - 11:32 AM.

  • 0
Another day, another million trailcam-days, another ten million securitycam-days, another 8 billion miles driven in the US, and still no bigfoot images and no bigfoot roadkills.

#129 HairyGreek

HairyGreek

    Chiye-tanka

  • Banned
  • 960 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 11:31 AM

Snookered?Tsk tak there you go....

*sigh*...

Posted Image
  • 1

#130 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 11:39 AM

*sigh*...

Posted Image

Greek
I loved that fable, and you may recall that the trolll's mistake was swallowing the little goats' stories.
Not happening.

Edited by parnassus, 25 July 2011 - 11:41 AM.

  • 0
Another day, another million trailcam-days, another ten million securitycam-days, another 8 billion miles driven in the US, and still no bigfoot images and no bigfoot roadkills.

#131 HairyGreek

HairyGreek

    Chiye-tanka

  • Banned
  • 960 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 11:41 AM

Greek
I loved that fable, and you may recall that the troll's mistake was swallowing the little goats' stories.
Not happening.

Only you would paint the troll as the protagonist. God love you, Parn. :rolleyes:
  • 0

#132 BigSlick

BigSlick

    Bukwas

  • Members
  • 314 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 12:08 PM

The end of calendar 2011 ?!
what is the next stage of concern after "red flag?".... "sinking feeling?".... "freezer feeling?"

I listened to one of the radioshows last night and recall the month november thrown out there, ill try to find it. It was stated the paper is out and is being peer reviewed and should be finished the process by november... I was half asleep mind you, I will find specifics when I get home....
  • 0

#133 gershake

gershake

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,558 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 02:18 PM

It was stated the paper is out and is being peer reviewed


!!!!
  • 0
"Me and my people break bread, sit and smoke, the conversation rich, but that depends on what you consider broke" - Talib Kweli

"a pack of dogs and cigarettes" - Jack White

#134 notgiganto

notgiganto

    Yowie

  • Inactive
  • 1,059 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 02:42 PM

!!!!


According to Squatchdetective's blog, July 25, THE DNA GAME: "The Study is not out for peer review."
The next sentence reads "In reality it is now as we sit here. " Seems like an unfinished sentence fragment that tantalizes me...???
Blog link
So is it out for review or not?
  • 0
I may believe in the possibility of the existence of relict populations of undiscovered hominoid creatures, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck...

I don't think that what 'bigfootery' is searching for is Gigantopithecus, or even a descendant thereof...but I reserve the right to be wrong :)

#135

  • Guests

Posted 25 July 2011 - 05:27 PM

I listened to it last night, I thought it was in peer review, mea culpa on that one.
  • 0

#136 notgiganto

notgiganto

    Yowie

  • Inactive
  • 1,059 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 05:54 PM

I listened to it last night, I thought it was in peer review, mea culpa on that one.


It's all good Jodie, you were reporting what you thought you heard, since you listened to the interview (there was an interview right?). I started listening to the radio show, and found that I just did not have the patience(as I should have) to wait for one or two bits of status info last night.
I am just bloody confused...
  • 0
I may believe in the possibility of the existence of relict populations of undiscovered hominoid creatures, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck...

I don't think that what 'bigfootery' is searching for is Gigantopithecus, or even a descendant thereof...but I reserve the right to be wrong :)

#137 Polypodium

Polypodium

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 438 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 05:58 PM

Silver Fox,

Is it or isn't the Ketchum involved paper out for peer review? This should be easy for you to confirm with all of your sources inside this thing.

Cheers,

Polypodium
  • 0

#138 HairyGreek

HairyGreek

    Chiye-tanka

  • Banned
  • 960 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 05:58 PM

I listened to it last night, I thought it was in peer review, mea culpa on that one.

Jodie, I think the blog is alluding that it is out of peer review. It almost looks like someone cut off the end of a sentence they felt was saying too much.
  • 0

#139

  • Guests

Posted 25 July 2011 - 06:00 PM

No, Melba wasn't on the show, they had interviewed her and was relaying the information. I heard something was coming out at the end of the year at the least. Maybe I assumed it was in peer review, perhaps they meant it would be released for peer review at the end of the year???
  • 0

#140 notgiganto

notgiganto

    Yowie

  • Inactive
  • 1,059 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 06:05 PM

Jodie, I think the blog is alluding that it is out of peer review. It almost looks like someone cut off the end of a sentence they felt was saying too much.


Hopefully, Squatchdetective will pop in and clarify...big differences between "not out for peer review" vs. "not out OF peer review" vs. "out of peer review." That unfinished sentence, paired with the sentence before, it is interesting.
  • 0
I may believe in the possibility of the existence of relict populations of undiscovered hominoid creatures, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck...

I don't think that what 'bigfootery' is searching for is Gigantopithecus, or even a descendant thereof...but I reserve the right to be wrong :)