Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I find that a bit odd.. So, the lawyers allow the peer review process to take place, but when finished, the lawyers step in and say, "NO don't publish this, even though the peer reviews are positive" - so she buys the journal and re-names it?? Why wouldn't the lawyers have stepped in before peer review took place? Do other scientific journals run papers by their legal dept's before publication?? I personally love how she blames this on the lawyers. I guess anything is possible but why would a lawyer (who is being paid anyway) care what a journal publishes.. I don't see legal counsel being gatekeepers for approving what to review or not. A governing body or lead from a particular journal are capable of doing that. I do, however, find it odd that legal would weigh in on public perception. You would reason that would fall under PR's domain. I can only conjecture that perhaps that it was the implications of what the study concluded: That there are intelligent massive hairy beings out in the forest and that they are a sort of "people". I don't know what a journal is dependent on in terms of funding but when money is involved there are political ramifications that arise. Perhaps legal was asked to weigh in on this aspect? It is just a guess until she releases the correspondence which she should do in a timely manner. Everything should be completely transparent from here on out. There should be no watermarks on material and no gates to pass through. I understand selling the paper to recoup costs, but let the information flow. Transparency is what will win the day. Trying to protect and hoard the evidence (like EP is doing right out of the gate) will only serve to fortify the wall btw this study's subject and the conventional mainstream bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I'm beginning to think that even a body won't be enough for many here. The sanest statement yet. "I won't accept bigfoot until you show me physical evidence." "I won't accept physical evidence until you show me the DNA analysis." "I won't accept the DNA analysis until you show me video." "I won't accept video unless it shows the face" "I won't accept video of the face unless I can see the teeth" "I won't accept video of the teeth unless I can see the gums" And so on..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reelback Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 There was a you tube vid posted on another page, it says its private. Can anyone else see it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 There was a you tube vid posted on another page, it says its private. Can anyone else see it? Should be gone, now. Ketchum posted on FB that she would pursue legal action if it got posted without authorization, again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 A body with an unimpeachable evidentiary chain, respected and credentialed and unbiased scientific people working on it plus one or a family in captivity would do it for the scientific skeptics. I don't believe Bigfoot exists, but if Jeff Meldrum announced he had a BF body in his lab or knew a site where they could regularly be observed, and that any professor of zoology in the US was welcome to inspect it or go with him to observe, that would be plenty to assume there must be something in it. It wouldn't care where the body came from, That would be scientific though. What we generally see is stuff more suited to a carnival sideshow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I don't see legal counsel being gatekeepers for approving what to review or not. A governing body or lead from a particular journal are capable of doing that. I do, however, find it odd that legal would weigh in on public perception. You would reason that would fall under PR's domain. I can only conjecture that perhaps that it was the implications of what the study concluded: That there are intelligent massive hairy beings out in the forest and that they are a sort of "people". I don't know what a journal is dependent on in terms of funding but when money is involved there are political ramifications that arise. Perhaps legal was asked to weigh in on this aspect? It is just a guess until she releases the correspondence which she should do in a timely manner. You know, I was going to edit my last post - to say exactly what you said in the bolded section (bolded by me) - but the site timed out on me.. I guess the BFF doesn't like me today. Honestly, I don't know why an attorney (who would be paid on retainer) would care how much money the journal makes.. If a lawyer was to get involved - I could imagine they would step in if there was an issue of legality - that could get the entire journal into trouble. But, simply because her work is so controversial - I doubt that.. Isn't that Science?? LOL. I am having a VERY hard time buying into this part. Now, someone in PR might have cause to be concerned - but controversy is sometimes it's own best PR - just ask Biscardi. Everything should be completely transparent from here on out. There should be no watermarks on material and no gates to pass through. I understand selling the paper to recoup costs, but let the information flow. Transparency is what will win the day. Trying to protect and hoard the evidence (like EP is doing right out of the gate) will only serve to fortify the wall btw this study's subject and the conventional mainstream bias. Yeah - that's gonna happen. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 So...How long before we get someone who has read the paper, understands it, and comes in here to explain their take on it? I have MANY questions. I am also deeply interested in the implications of a positive outcome. Political, social, scientific, ecological...There are bound to be huge changes in our understanding of many things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Renie Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) I think it was reported on MK's FB page that they got the video made private because it wasn't supposed to be out there. Edited February 13, 2013 by Renie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I wouldn't sweat the Matilda vid that was 'released'. It was inconclusive at best. Could have been a miriade of different mammals, with or without a suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Ben Radford has read the paper. Developing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) You know, I was going to edit my last post - to say exactly what you said in the bolded section (bolded by me) - but the site timed out on me.. I guess the BFF doesn't like me today. Honestly, I don't know why an attorney (who would be paid on retainer) would care how much money the journal makes.. If a lawyer was to get involved - I could imagine they would step in if there was an issue of legality - that could get the entire journal into trouble. But, simply because her work is so controversial - I doubt that.. Isn't that Science?? LOL. I am having a VERY hard time buying into this part. Now, someone in PR might have cause to be concerned - but controversy is sometimes it's own best PR - just ask Biscardi. Yeah - that's gonna happen. LOL. Melissa, you're absolutely right. It doesn't make any sense at all. This journal that supposedly has attorneys on retainer didn't exist until January; they've never published an issue, but they reviewed and accepted her paper, but change their mind due to legal advice and decide not to publish; so Melba buys them, changes the name and publishes it herself along with some high school level opinion paper on how mean academic scientists are. But hey! For only $30 you can see the PROOF that the scientific establish didn't want you to see! But wait! There's more! Act now and you get a bonus 15 seconds of footage of a shag carpet that breathes! Yeah, I would say there are a lot of problems here. Edited February 13, 2013 by Theagenes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silent Sam Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Should be gone, now. Ketchum posted on FB that she would pursue legal action if it got posted without authorization, again. Without authorization again? That's humorous considering the original PUBLIC video was embedded directly into the online version of the paper. Now when you view the paper you see the same embedded video listed as private. In other words it wasn't posted without authorization, it was simply another error in an ever growing list. BTW this post is copyrighted with all rights preserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I still have the Matilda video open in a tab. If anyone can instruct me in how to record it from Youtube, I could do that and upload it somewhere anonymously (don't want to get my bottom sued off, haha). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 How many 30 dollar downloads do you think she'll generate from this? 100? 1000? that's not a lot of money considering the torpedo that is bearing down on her reputation. Like all things BF, it's a circus. I however am going to wait to see what folks have to say about the DATA, which to my understanding is still not available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I still have the Matilda video open in a tab. If anyone can instruct me in how to record it from Youtube, I could do that and upload it somewhere anonymously (don't want to get my bottom sued off, haha). You can save it from your cache if you know how to do that. On Macs you can save it from active processes. You can download "Wondershare Free Youtube Downloader" and it will do it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts