Guest Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) Don't have to. I'm not writing for a fact-checked publication here, or for money. It's perfectly acceptable for journalists to report what they hear or what they find in the way or research via others' writings, etc. In the case of the Erickson Project, it is so locked down, that we have no alternative but to report anything we can find by way of sources or writings. Otherwise there's nothing to write. And I do try to check them for credibility as best I can. Perhaps a disclaimer might serve you well, because when the correct information is finally released it will lessen the criticism you will receive for reporting inaccurate information. (IMO ) Edited June 14, 2011 by Sasky
Guest Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) Silver Fox, FYI, the Olympic Project has donated a lot more than just saliva. A hell of a lot more. And Silver Fox you haven't even listed the important samples that The Erickson Project have provided as well. Edited June 14, 2011 by Sasky
indiefoot Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 I'm glad for all the participants. I hope that that the findings are profound enough to stop the bickering and start the process of education. I for one would like to see Monster Quest and Finding Bigfoot replaced with Nova and National Geographic specials.
Guest Silver Fox Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 Silver Fox, FYI, the Olympic Project has donated a lot more than just saliva. A hell of a lot more. Great to know. The source I read said only "saliva?" I was hoping there was more.
Guest Silver Fox Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 And Silver Fox you haven't even listed the important samples that The Erickson Project have provided as well. That is correct. That is because I am not aware of anything they provided or that they provided anything. This is good to know.
Guest Silver Fox Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 Perhaps a disclaimer might serve you well, because when the correct information is finally released it will lessen the criticism you will receive for reporting inaccurate information. (IMO ) Not worried. I'm just reporting rumors. When you do that, how many of them turn out to be true in the end, eh?
Guest Silver Fox Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 I'm glad for all the participants. I hope that that the findings are profound enough to stop the bickering and start the process of education. I for one would like to see Monster Quest and Finding Bigfoot replaced with Nova and National Geographic specials. Wouldn't that be amazing?
Guest Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 Not worried. I'm just reporting rumors. When you do that, how many of them turn out to be true in the end, eh? Very true, hehe.
Guest Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 Erickson's team. Sasky - since you are on the team, can you answer the question that I posted earlier? This: Posted 09 June 2011 - 08:28 AM I do have a question, and opinion is welcome as well as - especially, actual insight if anyone knows. My feeling at this point is at the borderline between anticipation and aggravation waiting for this. I can understand the wait but there is one thing I just don't quite understand. My question is - why the total silence on status? Sure - the NDA prevents talking about any details, but why not at least give us the current status, or even updates that say - "no change, still waiting for peer review to complete"? Why nothing? It makes me feel like the persons involved really could not care less what we think, or know, or feel about what they are doing. This post has been edited by Harry: 09 June 2011 - 08:30 AM 0
Guest Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) Susie, there has been a bit of a witch hunt going on over Paulides by some that is undeserving. Much of it stems from a single comment he made to Mike Rugg a few yrs ago. Was there 'history' between the two? I don't know. I'm sure they are both good people too, having never met either one. Then when DP simply looked into MK Davis claims, well there was another little linch mob, much of it seemed motived by the first incident. But all he really did was INVESTIGATE because that's what police detectives are trained to do. Instead he was branded as being in on MK's claims. I tried to point out that he was merely investigating it at CM, but my post and I found out others, weren't allowed. That was the last time I posted there I believe. I don't like it when the deck gets loaded. Don't discount his work in Tribal Bigfoot because of the old lynch mob methods that go on in this field Susie. And after so many years on the job, anyone will have a few scrapes on their uniform. I'm sure any officer here will tell you that they have faced dilemmas in the field that put them in difficult situations. Prag, You are so special, and I truly do appreciate your unending assistance to me and others with questions and needing help or advice about anything and everything related to the Bigfoot species that you so freely share with me, and the others whom you've helped.. Susi asks: I read this and I have a couple of questions, 1) But all he really did was INVESTIGATE because that's what police detectives are trained to do. Susi asks: (You are a police detective?) Why would someone be fussing just because someone did some investigating to verify or their refute claims, correct? That's necessary in a field where there is occasional hoaxing, I would think. Is Paulides a person or a forum? Instead he was branded as being in on MK's claims. I tried to point out that he was merely investigating it at CM, but my post and I found out others, weren't allowed. Susi asks: What is CM, and why would they not post people's comments? Is this all BF related and thus subject to strenuous examination to weed out the liars and possible hoaxers, or are they limiting the truth from being revealed? Is CM a website or a forum? Who or what is MK? Thanks Prag, I'm learning as I go, and usually I catch up pretty quickly! I Hope...Yikes. Edited June 14, 2011 by SweetSusiq
Guest ajciani Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 Update on peer review process. They are very close to completion, but there is no exact time on when it will be done. Author is confident it will be worth the wait as the data is very complete. I was surprised when you said it had gone out for review in February, but nothing had been heard yet. Journals usually only give a month to a reviewer to submit their review. When it carries on like that, it usually means the editor was unhappy with more than one review, and had to send it out again. Could you clarify "close to completion". To me, that phrase means that the reviews have come in, "accept with modifications," and the comments should be easy to address. It may not even need to go out for a second round of review. That would give a time frame of a couple weeks to make improvements, a couple more to get a proof, another week to make corrections, and then about a week until it is online; so one to two more months. BTW, any idea which journal? Oh, as to the single author thing. Single author papers are rare, because you usually have to deal with other people; your adviser, your student, someone who supplied other data, etc. Particle physics papers can have a few thousand authors (even if only one person did the analysis and wrote the paper), while pure theory papers often have a single author. Just from my own standards, the paper should probably list the people who collected the samples as co-authors, even though they aren't a normal part of the publishing community, because the analysis work started with the sample collection. I have a friend who has recently tipped me off to an interesting phenomena, observed experimentally. If I did some computer calculations to investigate it, and wrote a paper, even though I did 98% of the work, I would still feel obligated to list him as a co-author, even though I could pull the experimental results from his paper. On the other hand, if he was Joe Blow to me, then I would pull the experimental results from his paper (for comparison), and write a single author paper.
Guest ajciani Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 Jeff Meldrum is talking about tracking one down. He is talking about using tracking dogs to trail one. Live capture is very difficult. Opens up a gigantic can of worms. So is use of tranquilizer darts. Going by some historical references, it would seem that live capture is actually rather easy, especially when it is a female, and you manage to surround her.
Guest ajciani Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 Please tell me that the Erickson project is doing double blind research testing results. Double blind testing is only applicable to statistical sampling of different populations, relative to the introduction of an externally applied influence. It's purpose is to remove subjective influences from possibly subjective measurements. While some of the Erickson analyses may be of a subjective nature, the data is a set of singular observations, made without any externally applied influence.
Guest Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 Sasky - since you are on the team, can you answer the question that I posted earlier? This: Posted 09 June 2011 - 08:28 AM I do have a question, and opinion is welcome as well as - especially, actual insight if anyone knows. My feeling at this point is at the borderline between anticipation and aggravation waiting for this. I can understand the wait but there is one thing I just don't quite understand. My question is - why the total silence on status? Sure - the NDA prevents talking about any details, but why not at least give us the current status, or even updates that say - "no change, still waiting for peer review to complete"? Why nothing? It makes me feel like the persons involved really could not care less what we think, or know, or feel about what they are doing. This post has been edited by Harry: 09 June 2011 - 08:30 AM 0 As I have answered previously, an agreement was made between all parties involved to remain silent until the paper was accepted for publish.
Recommended Posts