Jump to content

The Ketchum Report (Continued)


Guest Admin

Recommended Posts

Guest J Sasq Doe

Like, "where is that editorial board and where are those other papers of the Journal of Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology?

It will take a team of scientists to peer review...

Those are valid critiques/questions, unlike much of what else has been written in here about Dr. Ketchum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tyler H

I haven't seen anything to cause me to doubt her findings.

It's interesting how much can be missed when one's eyes are tightly shut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest slimwitless

Better put some money on the story behind the boots then friend, LOL!

I suggested they crowdsource it with a kickstarter campaign. I never joined the tar pit so I have a few bucks to kick in.

Edited by slimwitless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest J Sasq Doe

How on earth can you say her conclusions stand?

I have not seen anything to the contrary by any identifiable expert in that field that has obtained the data from her study and invalidated her conclusions. If you know of one then you can certainly supply a link to cite your stance, correct? You don't expect me to just take your say-so on that, would you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BartloJays

I have not seen anything to the contrary by any identifiable expert in that field that has obtained the data from her study and invalidated her conclusions. If you know of one then you can certainly supply a link to cite your stance, correct? You don't expect me to just take your say-so on that, would you?

You're joking right?

How about releasing the full sequence data as even our in-house qualified experts seem to be having a "BLAST" (no pun intended) with what little has been made available. Am I missing something here? How about you give us one qualified individual who will stand up for her data? Why are the co-authors silent and where are they? Where's the lab reports that should've been included as appendices with her paper?

I use this analogy if this was a paper on "recognized" mammals such as ungulates feeding on a particular grass in N CA, this would be arguably the worst paper on ungulates imaginable comparitively (for argument's sake). Now you have a controversial hybrid hypothesis declaring a new species without a physical specimen.... BTW, by perception,it's understandably the most improbable species because of presumed non-viability,and we should expect the bar should be lowered to meet her standard and science is biased by not giving it serious consideration? I'd contend the bar should be raised even higher and you use every piece of ammunition you got after 5 yrs. You owe that to the financier, to the submitters, for christ's sake you owe it to yourself. Instead it goes down a proverbial rat hole, with no definite substantiation of a "successful" peer review, purchasing your own journal as a smoke and mirrors tactic, fictitious names, missing people, charging 30$ on and on... it's a circus and guess what? We're all guilty by association of subject.

You're right, this paper is "standing" alright. The question is what is it standing in?

In-house guys please feel free to correct me if I'm off anywhere on expectations

Edited by BartloJays
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Theagenes

I think that sums it up pretty nicely.

Just releasing copies of the actual reports from the various labs would be a great show of transparency and there is no reason not to do that.

Of course if I'm Wally I'd also like to see copies of the invoices. Just sayin.'

Edited by Theagenes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, this paper is "standing" alright. The question is what is it standing in?

I thought you were going to say "Todd Standing".

Thought I'd also add this comment from Meldrum:

"To make an end-run around the process by erecting a facade in the form of a so-called new journal and allege that it is edited and reviewed, without providing any of that information on the public web page, it appears that she has undertaken an effort to self-publish, just to get it out there," Meldrum told The Huffington Post. "And, to boot, she's charging $30 a pop for a copy of the paper."

"The issue(s) as I see it is the way the study has been conducted and presented. Science has no room for cloak and dagger behind the curtain secrecy. There have been numerous inconsistencies, if not flat out lies, obvious signs of an agenda being pushed, and now what seems to be profiteering taking place. NDA's, copyrights for book and film deals, viewing fees, teaser clips of videos, business contracts, financial partnerships, I fail to see how these are normal and acceptable parts of a non-biased scientific inquiry."

Edited by Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so anyone here know why Dr. Ketchum would cite a known farce paper as part of her literature cited page? Number 5 in her lit cited page of her paper is:

Milinkovitch, M C, Caccone, A and Amato, G. Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31:1–3. (2004)

This citation immediately follows this statement (i shortened it a bit )

as part of the "evidence lending credence to the existance of sasquatch ... in peer reviewed manuscripts".

So that paper is often brought up as one of the best known April Fools Jokes in research literature. Seriously guys, it is very well known. It is well written , appears to be legitimate, but as you read it gets more and more ridiculous, and culminates in asking you to check the publication date - april 1st.

really well done, hilarious piece of work! minkovitch and his tribe got alot of props and publicity for it.

why would you include that as "evidence leading credence to the existance of sasquatch"!

slowstepper (because fast steppers often fast step right in the middle of it!)

Edited by slowstepper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

Hooting and Hollaring all the way to the bank!

Sorry, I'm all out of buyer's remorse policies, she had me fooled for a good time too.

Edited by bipedalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IThought I'd also add this comment from Meldrum:

Are you sure the second part of your quote is from Jeff Meldrum, not Mathew Knapp?

why would you include that as "evidence leading credence to the existance of sasquatch"!

slowstepper (because fast steppers often fast step right in the middle of it!)

I think I read it longer than she did.

"All our analyses clearly indicate that the yeti is nested several nodes within a specific ungulate group"

http://www.lanevol.org/LANE/yeti.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tyler H

I have not seen anything to the contrary by any identifiable expert in that field that has obtained the data from her study and invalidated her conclusions. If you know of one then you can certainly supply a link to cite your stance, correct? You don't expect me to just take your say-so on that, would you?

Have you been following this thread at all?

Several geneticists here have broken it down syllable by syllable. I never ask anyone to take my word for such things.

so anyone here know why Dr. Ketchum would cite a known farce paper as part of her literature cited page? Number 5 in her lit cited page of her paper is:

Milinkovitch, M C, Caccone, A and Amato, G. Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31:1–3. (2004)

This citation immediately follows this statement (i shortened it a bit )

as part of the "evidence lending credence to the existance of sasquatch ... in peer reviewed manuscripts".

So that paper is often brought up as one of the best known April Fools Jokes in research literature. Seriously guys, it is very well known. It is well written , appears to be legitimate, but as you read it gets more and more ridiculous, and culminates in asking you to check the publication date - april 1st.

really well done, hilarious piece of work! minkovitch and his tribe got alot of props and publicity for it.

why would you include that as "evidence leading credence to the existance of sasquatch"!

slowstepper (because fast steppers often fast step right in the middle of it!)

I could not have dreamt up a funnier turn of events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Silent Sam

so anyone here know why Dr. Ketchum would cite a known farce paper as part of her literature cited page? Number 5 in her lit cited page of her paper is:

She's a veterinarian/horse fancier who cites an April Fools paper that clearly indicates a purported yeti sample was actually from an odd-toed ungulate... rhinoceros, tapir, HORSE.

More here.

And also here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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