Guest Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 I'll send ya'all the bill for my transcription efforts. My price? One digital fist pound please.. *<pound>* For ma dwg....
Guest gershake Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Thanks for clearing this up, slabdog!! Good news indeed!
Guest Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 According to Squatchdetective's blog, July 25, THE DNA GAME: "The Study is not out for peer review." The next sentence reads "In reality it is now as we sit here. " Seems like an unfinished sentence fragment that tantalizes me...??? Blog link So is it out for review or not? Notgiganto, if you read the previous sentence in the blog, you'll see that Steve's writing a "hearsay vs. fact" statement. As in: HEARSAY:"The Study is not out for peer review." FACT:"In reality it is now as we sit here." So, he's saying it IS out for peer review now, just as he stated on the shows Sunday night. Hope this helps.
Guest ChrisBFRPKY Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 I think Steve was addressing the charge :"The Study is not out for peer review." with the response: "In reality it is now as we sit here." There's alot of interference being run. There are some players saying things or leaking old outdated info in some sort of an attempt to muddy the water IMO. What motives could they have? I think they were in the fame/money before, but NOW, they're NOT. But, I think last Sunday's SD show was one of the best information sharing shows we've had. That was a 2 year investigation that Steve shared, who is really envolved, who is not, and how some, let's say "questionable character" individuals were envolved. And to top it off there was some great word of mouth taken directly from Dr Melba Ketchum that tells us we should be looking at results by the end of the year. (I was kinda hoping Dr Ketchum would call in during the show but I completely respect her wish to concentrate on the science at this point.) Hopefully she'll be on later in the year when the results are ready. Chris B.
Guest Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 So, he's saying it IS out for peer review now, just as he stated on the shows Sunday night. Right, but the disconnect I see is Ketchum's assertion that the paper will be out by the end of the year. If it's in peer review now, it might be rejected or it might require a significant and time-consuming revision. How can she know when it will be out if she doesn't yet know that it will be out? The key might be her use of the word "report." It sounds to me like, whether the paper is accepted and published or not, Ketchum plans to issue some kind of general consumption summary of findings - a "gray literature" report - by the end of the year.
Guest gershake Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 The key might be her use of the word "report." It sounds to me like, whether the paper is accepted and published or not, Ketchum plans to issue some kind of general consumption summary of findings - a "gray literature" report - by the end of the year. Hmm. What would be your opinion on that?
bipedalist Posted July 26, 2011 BFF Patron Posted July 26, 2011 If it's in peer review now, it might be rejected or it might require a significant and time-consuming revision. How can she know when it will be out if she doesn't yet know that it will be out? I guess you've got to wonder if it's rejected, if it will be a "pay your own way" journal article then. Certainly, if all the team is still together a few of the players would have the money for such an undertaking. It sounds to me like, whether the paper is accepted and published or not, Ketchum plans to issue some kind of general consumption summary of findings - a "gray literature" report - by the end of the year. Guess you've also got to wonder if this comes about, if it would significantly reduce the chances of a major player journal picking it up at all, ever.
Guest Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Hmm. What would be your opinion on that? (Rhetorical? If not . . .) Sounds like giving up too early to me. I might try a troubled manuscript on 2 or 3 journals - modifying it according to reviewer's comments each time - before giving up and just keeping it in gray-lit form as a "report." Plus, there are plenty of for-profit, online only journals (technically peer-reviewed) that would probably publish some form of what they have for about $100/page. Announcing months ahead of time that a report would be out just seems sort of . . . odd.
Guest Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Saskeptic (or others), I'd like an opinion on this. How would a scientific peer review look upon samples collected by lay people of varied backgrounds which were then submitted to the study? Many of samples were probably collected by individuals much like myself. Sure I could follow specified protocol on collection methodology, but if I am not a scientist per se with relevant degree, could my samplings be called into question by the reviewers for those reasons? Custody protocol would likewise be raised. Especially if the results contain Human DNA (Which of course may be much more divergent then Homo Sapien). In addition, if a sample had been salivated/chewed on by other unknown predator animals, would that be the type tissue contamination cause problems with the sample? TIA
Guest Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 I think Steve was addressing the charge :"The Study is not out for peer review." with the response: "In reality it is now as we sit here." There's alot of interference being run. There are some players saying things or leaking old outdated info in some sort of an attempt to muddy the water IMO. What motives could they have? I think they were in the fame/money before, but NOW, they're NOT. But, I think last Sunday's SD show was one of the best information sharing shows we've had. That was a 2 year investigation that Steve shared, who is really envolved, who is not, and how some, let's say "questionable character" individuals were envolved. And to top it off there was some great word of mouth taken directly from Dr Melba Ketchum that tells us we should be looking at results by the end of the year. (I was kinda hoping Dr Ketchum would call in during the show but I completely respect her wish to concentrate on the science at this point.) Hopefully she'll be on later in the year when the results are ready. Chris B. Thanks Chris and Efrum for pointing that out the 'hearsay vs. fact' section of the blog. It just didn't "read that way," to me. I get it now. I am pleased that we finally have information related to the status of the study from an interview with the person around whom it centers. Great job Steve! Bip, I think you nailed it: the results will be published one way or another, i.e. as an article in a non-peer reviwed science journal or mainstream publication, if the current paper fails. If it does fail, I think that the chances of it ever being taken seriously by another major player journal/scientific organization is nil.
southernyahoo Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 The key might be her use of the word "report." It sounds to me like, whether the paper is accepted and published or not, Ketchum plans to issue some kind of general consumption summary of findings - a "gray literature" report - by the end of the year. Saskeptic , do we have a citation for her use of the word "report"? If not then I'm assuming you got this from the thread title, which I don't think came from Ketchum. She has a paper in review, thats what we know at this point, and I've not heard anything about any other type of "report" coming from Ketchum. A progress report "verbally" given to SD seems to have occured, and perhaps Ketchum doesn't see any reason the paper wouldn't pass review and has been given an alloted time by the journal that it will take for review. We don't know if her optimism is ultimately misplaced or not, but since this would be such a huge discovery, granted, it's possible. 1
Guest Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 If you weren't into Bigfoot and got caught up in this mess, I can see why she would say "to heck with it" and put her findings out there peer or no peer review for anyone interested just to be done with it. We are a miniscule audience in the grand scheme of things but we can be annoying. The harassment might actually be the motive to stop her from reaching the finish line before others who seem to want to get there first. For that reason alone, I hope she digs her heels in and never lets go, "hell hath no furry", and all that, would apply if it were me walking in her shoes. At least until the money ran out anyway.
Guest Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Saskeptic , do we have a citation for her use of the word "report"? If not then I'm assuming you got this from the thread title, which I don't think came from Ketchum. She has a paper in review, thats what we know at this point, and I've not heard anything about any other type of "report" coming from Ketchum. A progress report "verbally" given to SD seems to have occured, and perhaps Ketchum doesn't see any reason the paper wouldn't pass review and has been given an alloted time by the journal that it will take for review. We don't know if her optimism is ultimately misplaced or not, but since this would be such a huge discovery, granted, it's possible. Correct. The word "Report" did not come from Dr. Ketchum. It is soley my contribution to the topic. To my knowledge she's made no statement about submitting a companion report to her peer reviewed paper.
Guest Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Correct. The word "Report" did not come from Dr. Ketchum. It is soley my contribution to the topic. To my knowledge she's made no statement about submitting a companion report to her peer reviewed paper. I thought that word was attributed to a statement of hers someone had posted in the giant Erickson thread as well. Short answer "no": I'm certainly not in touch with Ketchum personally, and I have no means to confirm that she has used that word. If she didn't claim that a report would be issued by the end of the year, it's still an odd statement for an author to predict the when of publication when the if is not yet established.
Guest parnassus Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Saskeptic (or others), I'd like an opinion on this. How would a scientific peer review look upon samples collected by lay people of varied backgrounds which were then submitted to the study? Many of samples were probably collected by individuals much like myself. Sure I could follow specified protocol on collection methodology, but if I am not a scientist per se with relevant degree, could my samplings be called into question by the reviewers for those reasons? Custody protocol would likewise be raised. Especially if the results contain Human DNA (Which of course may be much more divergent then Homo Sapien). In addition, if a sample had been salivated/chewed on by other unknown predator animals, would that be the type tissue contamination cause problems with the sample? TIA There are a couple of problems presented by the sample collection issue. Bear with me: Many of the samples submitted are undoubtedly from known domestic or wild animals. So much for those. What about the rest? From the very matter of fact statements made by Paulides and the relatiionship he has exhibited wirh Ketchum I assume that the balance of the samples are human (probably some are Native American) and that the claim will be made that these are Bigfoots. That may sound absurd. But are there any collection circumstances that might support that contention? Obviously there are. Here's one: I think it is a virtual certainty that Paulides and possibly others will bring forth "credible" individuals who will swear that they obtained their specimen (which showed human DNA), not from an unknown source, but from a Bigfoot. This kind of story will not cut it for any front line scientific journal, unless it is presented as a negative study. ps the hybrid rumor will prove to be false; if they had hybrid DNA it would already be shouted from the rooftops and every media outlet (not to mention the far fetched quality of this proposition).
Recommended Posts