Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 ^ Actually it gets worse. Go back a few pages in the thread.
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 If you're talking about Justin's statement.. Yeah - I heard.... It just keeps getting worse..
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Melissa, there are three curious citations blowing in the wind. 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!) She also cites http://www.qc.cuny.edu/Academics/Degrees/DMNS/Faculty%20Documents/Hickerson2.pdf "Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modelling" is not "lending credence to the existence of Sasquatch". The paper uses the sasquatch (which it interprets as not existing) to help illustrate the dangers of relying too heavily on ecological niche modeling. For the purposes of their paper they could have just as easily inserted unicorns or dragons. Doesn't she also cite "Molecular cryptozoology meets the Sasquatch" Another tongue-in-cheek paper? Galileo must be rolling in his grave. That's a big matzo ball out there. Edited February 25, 2013 by Cornelius
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 For all the leaks this study had, how did this stuff not get out?! Seriously. Pretty easy to see why no co-authors or anyone else associated is not rushing in to rescue. We waited how long for this?!
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 Is there anything in the "agreement" between Dr Ketchum and a submitter barring legal action or a civil suit against her for some type of breach of contract or malpractice? Pretty well stated if a submitter broke the Nda and went public, she'd sue them. I'd think of I went to the footwork some of y'all did to gather the evidence and this is what that work yielded, I'd try to sue her for as much as I could. It's one thing to be a little in over your head when writing a paper, but using a well known joke in the science geek community is way beyond that. Geez. And she claimed it was passed over because of sexism and bias. Holy cow.
Guest Theagenes Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 Class action maybe. If I were a submitter I would be furious.
Sunflower Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 I'm sure that the three scientists whose names appear on this "joke" paper would be very interested to see their names being used in an April Fools Day joke. The three are legitimate and if you do a simple google or bing search you will find them along with a litany of information. I'm not going to put links so that you can say later that I listed misinformation. Do your own legwork. In fact, I might email all three and inform them of this oversight.....
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Theagenes, I know Melba states others contributed to the writing of the paper - I wonder if she will blame them - or take the blame herself. Has she said anything at all about this? The stuff with Justin was bad enough - this just makes it even worse. I feel bad for the submitters - but I feel even worse for Wally... Sunflower: re: Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates This particular paper may have started out as a serious endeavor - but once they found out it was horse hair (not yeti or Yak hair) it was turned into a joke. Check out the link below - and read some of the comments sent to the main author of the paper: http://www.lanevol.o...ANE/yeti_2.html Edited February 25, 2013 by Melissa
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) The Leading Author of a paper is always responsible for the contents. There is no getting out of that one. Edited February 25, 2013 by BigGinger
Guest mitchw Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Paulides is the one who brought Ketchum into study and appeared with her, requesting samples. He has a relationship with Wally. He has supported the Ketchum study on his NA Bigfoot Search site. I think many people will be interested to hear what he has to say. Edited February 25, 2013 by mitchw
Guest Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) http://www.bigfootlu...ademic.html?m=1 Readable for most of us! A review of sorts from a named source and that 'ole hybrid theory that makes no sense is hit hard..... It doesn't make sense unless, as so often rumored, this is an oblique reference to "out of this world" DNA (the angel DNA rumors.)...but MK seems to use male "unknown primate" DNA when I see references? The Linda Moulton Howe interview was focused on UFO/DNA manipulation ...I don't recall Ketchum agreeing with that theory during the interview, but didn't finish that podcast and didn't listen carefully ... and don't plan on listening again, I don't do well with these web podcasts, I end up writing or reading and tune it out....... I am still trying to figure out why so many who believe BFs are inter-dimensional (Paulides seems to?) think this paper would support that view, and still seem to..well a few days ago anyway. Edited February 25, 2013 by apehuman
Guest Theagenes Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 Theagenes, I know Melba states others contributed to the writing of the paper - I wonder if she will blame them - or take the blame herself. Has she said anything at all about this? The stuff with Justin was bad enough - this just makes it even worse. I feel bad for the submitters - but I feel even worse for Wally... Melissa, the only thing I have heard about as far as comments from the "co-authors" is what Calwaterbear posted on the JREF forum. Pat Wojtkiewicz (listed as second author and credited with writing and editing in the acknowledgments) said that he was aware of an earlier version of the paper but hadn't see the most recent. He tested a few samples for her but didn't get any DNA and helped he format a couple of images. Thomas Prychitko said he had does some testing for her and was aware there was a paper, but he didn't have anything to do with writing it. If CWB, got any other responses to his inquiries, I'm not aware of it.
Drew Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 Can we just get a show of hands? When Dr. Ketchum goes on Coast to Coast and says she is revising the paper, and she will have her samples retested, can we all just agree to ignore her? This is as bad as the Georgia hoax as far as I'm concerned.
Recommended Posts