Guest Silver Fox Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 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. I can't clarify the very close to completion statement. These people talk little enough as it is and I don't like to pester them. I don't know the name of the journal, no. I don't even know if this is going to publish as a single-author paper either. That is Stubstad's contention, but I don't see how he knows that.
Guest Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 As I have answered previously, an agreement was made between all parties involved to remain silent until the paper was accepted for publish. Will there be a press conference? I think it will be similar to the "Ardi" discovery: Press conference first, followed by the documentary on a major channel.
Guest Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) SweetSusi, No I'm not a police detective. David Paulides was and is the person who runs this organization and website. There's a lot of interesting material to read there. MK is MK Davis, he did the original stabilization video of the Patterson Gimlin film. He recently became very controversial after alleging something more happened during the filming. CM is the Cryptomundo web blog that has a feed here at BFF. Edited June 15, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist
Guest Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 SweetSusi, No I'm not a police detective. David Paulides was and is the person who runs this organization and website. There's a lot of interesting material to read there. MK is MK Davis, he did the original stabilization video of the Patterson Gimlin film. He recently became very controversial after alleging something more happened during the filming. CM is the Cryptomundo web blog that has a feed here at BFF. Thank you! I'm on my way to read this web blog.I really appreciate all of your assistance. Now I have some new resources to study.
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 Click on the "Click Here" to read Richard Substad's Sasquatch DNA Research. Very interesting. http://www.sciencealivenews.com/ Seems he is finding that: 1. Sasquatch is 100% human. 2. There is a common "Eve" ancestor to DNA samples taken from Southwest and Northeast USA, both coming from the “Franco-Cantabrian glacial refuge†15000 to 30000 years ago in Europe. He doesn't claim that the work is definitive, but does note it indicates further research is justified.
Guest vilnoori Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) 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. -ajcianiHear hear. It is only fair, since without the original sample, idea and so forth the paper would not be written in the first place. Often the idea person is not the nuts and bolts researcher or the writer, and all of them should be given credit. I've had the experience of being left out of the loop on one or two occasions and it is not nice at all, especially if it was part of a discussion at one point and you were the "idea" person who initiated it all in the first place. Just because someone else ran with the ball and popped it in the hoop doesn't give them the right to take all the credit. There is a common "Eve" ancestor to DNA samples taken from Southwest and Northeast USA, both coming from the “Franco-Cantabrian glacial refuge†15000 to 30000 years ago in Europe. Does this mean it was mDNA that was looked at? Given that they may have had the ability to interbreed with NA females and on occasion abducted them just for that reason, the mDNA info might not be all that relevant. It might just mean that there was a significant amount of modern human being added to the original strain. We really need an analysis of the nuclear DNA to rule out a more ancient origin, similar to what was done with the Denisova sample. Edited June 15, 2011 by vilnoori
Guest Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 Silver Fox, FYI, the Olympic Project has donated a lot more than just saliva. A hell of a lot more. Let me guess...your NDA won't let you say how much an what? Will you be able to do so once the paper is out?
Guest Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 Human to me means that they have souls and can pass for human. They are bi-pedal, but Yikes Twice for the rest of it. BTW Mom, My boyfriend is half BF instead of half Indian or Italian or something . Seriously this is a mistake or contaminated evidence.
Guest Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Mulder, I don't like the NDA any more than you do. Tell ya what, I'll ask Melba tomorrow just exactly what I can say. If she says it's cool to at least say what the samples are than I will here on this forum tomorrow. Best I can do.
Guest ajciani Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Wow Derek, that stuff (what can and cannot be disclosed) is usually spelled out in the NDA. Typically, an NDA contains what cannot be disclosed, followed by some exemptions to that rule. Does this mean it was mDNA that was looked at? Given that they may have had the ability to interbreed with NA females and on occasion abducted them just for that reason, the mDNA info might not be all that relevant. It might just mean that there was a significant amount of modern human being added to the original strain. We really need an analysis of the nuclear DNA to rule out a more ancient origin, similar to what was done with the Denisova sample. Yeah, I've been left out a couple times too, and I was actually involved in the work, let alone consulting on it. Stubstad does mention the possibility that bigfoots are some type of fertile hybrid, with mtDNA coming from human females, and the Y chromosome coming from some non-human male. I have heard some descriptions that bigfoots look Geico caveman-ish, which is perfectly in-line with them being straight-up human, with some throwback genes or morphologies.
Guest Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Mulder, I don't like the NDA any more than you do. Tell ya what, I'll ask Melba tomorrow just exactly what I can say. If she says it's cool to at least say what the samples are than I will here on this forum tomorrow. Best I can do. Hey, that's more than fair...I wasn't ragging on you about it...just really really curious.
Guest vilnoori Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Wow Derek, that stuff (what can and cannot be disclosed) is usually spelled out in the NDA. Typically, an NDA contains what cannot be disclosed, followed by some exemptions to that rule. Yeah, I've been left out a couple times too, and I was actually involved in the work, let alone consulting on it. Stubstad does mention the possibility that bigfoots are some type of fertile hybrid, with mtDNA coming from human females, and the Y chromosome coming from some non-human male. I have heard some descriptions that bigfoots look Geico caveman-ish, which is perfectly in-line with them being straight-up human, with some throwback genes or morphologies. Maybe they should do Y-chromosome testing if they still have samples left. I'm not sure what work has been done on ethnic typing by Y-chromosome to compare it to, but it would be a lot simpler than doing the whole genome. It is doable and not as expensive, either.
Guest Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Mulder, here's what I can say. The Olympic Project has multiple samples in the DNA study including tissue, hair and saliva. I will also add that we have submitted a substantial amount of samples, enough in fact that they can be studied, tested and retested for quite some time. That is all I can say at this time. I know everyone is sick and tired of waiting, but this is way to important to rush. I can also assure you that Melba is being incredibly thorough. The last thing this study needs is hurried sloppy science. I can also say that it will not be much longer.
Guest Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 ^Thanks for the update! And you are correct...no need to rush the science and give the Skeptics more room for their song and dance routine!
Guest Silver Fox Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 ^Thanks for the update! And you are correct...no need to rush the science and give the Skeptics more room for their song and dance routine! They are already yucking it up over the Stubstad interview. They're laughing their heads off about all this stuff. I saw them at one of their forums. They're never going to quit. When Ketchum's paper comes out, they are going to roast it like a marshmallow over a fire. They've already said that they will not accept the findings. And they are sharpening their knives over the Erickson video footage too. They've already announced that they will not accept this either. They are going to rip that to smithereens as bad as they dogpiled on the P-G film. Skeptics are so open-minded!
Recommended Posts