bipedalist Posted February 20, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 20, 2012 Dr. K sounds like Kevorkian......I'd go with her full initials MSK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Oh yeah, LOL. I retract that suggestion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 more quotes: Sally Ramey: "No, when a paper is accepted into publication, there can be NO discussion of the pub date at all until the press embargo on the paper is lifted. This is a strict rule. The ONLY reason anyone even knows that Melba has been working on a paper is due to the leaks of former associates." Ketchum: "I have been very fortunate to obtain a good site in the last year. I have seen them and have learned volumes about them. Never even thought I would see one. I was so wrong. They are truly amazing! This makes me so much more determined to get protection for them. So, not only do I have DNA, but now have massive field experience." Ketchum: "No, they are very shy. I know that they can be studied. I have been doing that when I am not working, but they shun electronics to a large extent so getting pictures is very difficult. Some people have been able to get pictures but it is the exception rather than the rule." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 so why is ramey talking about it more if its all secret, it either is or it isnt, more bait hype Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) Sasky: Dr K certainly works for me. Thanks for the suggestion. Bill Bill I have to say, I laughed when I read your post about the MK initials, but not at the post, but admiring your attention to details, and I could see why you are doing such a good job with the Patterson film, hat's off to you, I hope you obtain the rest of the data you need when you go to the site, I think that is going to help you nail it down. @ Bipedal Ape I think it's what's in the report they can not talk about, not what she believes or experienced. Edited February 20, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 she is talking about her sighting not her report so to speak and she clarified why she cant discuss publication dates or speculate when. SO IMO no she isnt....these staements above are quoted from her new facebook page not her personal one. She was asked if she had seen one and another person asked about when it may come out so they responded....its not talking about the paper at all...Two different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 more quotes: Sally Ramey: "No, when a paper is accepted into publication, there can be NO discussion of the pub date at all until the press embargo on the paper is lifted." But what about the pre-submission versions or the original submitted version of the manuscript? Nature, for example, states: You are welcome to post pre-submission versions or the original submitted version of the manuscript on a personal blog, a collaborative wiki or a preprint server at any time (but not subsequent pre-accept versions that evolve due to the editorial process). So while specifics of the communications between the submitter and the journal are not to be discussed publicly, there doesn't seem to be any restriction on the pre-submission version or the original submitted version being posted to a personal blog. Of course that's just the policy Nature has, and she may have submitted to a lesser known journal. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 If even Nature allows that, why would a lesser-known journal forbid it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) zigoapex: "Bill I have to say, I laughed when I read your post about the MK initials, but not at the post, but admiring your attention to details," Well, over the last four years, "MK" (meaning M. K. Davis) has been so everpersent in everything I do (given he was the most prominent PGF analyist before I got into it), it hit me right away when somebody referred to Dr. Ketchum as "MK", and the way posts and remarks of days/week/s even years past, are constantly brought into current discussions, I just saw a potential for confusion crying out, and there seems to be so much confusion now, I couldn't stand the prospect of more. Anyways, thanks for the nice comment. (and back we go, waiting for a report to surface) Bill Edited February 20, 2012 by Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) more quotes: Ketchum: "I have been very fortunate to obtain a good site in the last year. I have seen them and have learned volumes about them. Never even thought I would see one. I was so wrong. They are truly amazing! This makes me so much more determined to get protection for them. So, not only do I have DNA, but now have massive field experience." Ketchum: "No, they are very shy. I know that they can be studied. I have been doing that when I am not working, but they shun electronics to a large extent so getting pictures is very difficult. Some people have been able to get pictures but it is the exception rather than the rule." Oh oh, if this is for real, great, for myself though, alarm bells are ringing!!! If she is fortunate enough to "obtain a good site" and not only have DNA and "massive field experience", what is the wait for? The DNA report publication is one thing, but if she is observing them at will AND gaining massive field experience, surely there are loads of pictures now, as well as video. This is all sounding a little too much for me. If I'm wrong, great, but I think this whole thing, or the FB page at the very least, is a load of equine droppings. Edited February 20, 2012 by summitwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 You mean "uh oh," not "oh oh." Also, she is not claiming observation AND field experience; the observation IS the field experience. Finally, she says they avoid electronics, so that's why she's not gathering "loads of pictures." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) But what about the pre-submission versions or the original submitted version of the manuscript? Nature, for example, states: So while specifics of the communications between the submitter and the journal are not to be discussed publicly, there doesn't seem to be any restriction on the pre-submission version or the original submitted version being posted to a personal blog. Of course that's just the policy Nature has, and she may have submitted to a lesser known journal. RayG To quote Alice in Wonderland it is getting "Curioser and Curiouser". Indeedy! As a 'Believer" and supporter, I must admit I'm somewhat baffled by recent events. The NDAs seems unenforceable, I presume they are being adhered to out of courtesy by the signers towards DMK. Still, SOMEBODY out there is talking (as verified by one of her facebook posts) and at any time somebody else might get tired of waiting and give Robert Lindsey a jingle. DMK is either VERY confident of her data or wildly shooting from the hip vis a vis her facebook statements about the data and her sightings. You can't take either of those statements back now! If she's so confident then why isn't there a publication date? If the evidence is so strong then somebody will publish it, and if they've accepted her work it seems likely you would have a publication date at this point. Either there's some deliberate obfuscation going on or it hasn't YET been accepted for publication! At this point in time!? I don't see the point in her talking. It does seem a bit of a tease. She's basically saying she has proof the BF exist but she won't show us. We have to wait for a publication date that she says she doesn't have. I guess she means well and is trying to reassure all of us in Internet Bigfoot Land (IBL) that she has the goods and will deliver. I guess, and thanks if so... Several other things could be happening. Acceptance could be in the can, but they haven't settled on a publication date-either her, the journal or both, each for their own reasons. I suppose that could be happening given the earth shaking nature of her putative findings. Also Commercial considerations might have come to the fore-lining up Media Deals etc taking precedence over release of the data. It seems as though they are trying to take control of the procession of events after 'disclosure' as per her statements about protection etc. It seems a bit control freaky and unsettling to me. Her job, it seemed,was to test the DNA and present the findings. I'm not sure what she has to say about protection of the species, their habits and behaviors, Historical sightings, Current Range etc is any more relevant than what I would have to say about those subjects or countless other BFF members. It seems well intentioned, but perhaps is a bridge too far as far as her responsibilities. I don't see how or why she or her team should shoulder the job of 'Meet the Sasquatch'. There's plenty of people willing and more able to do that. Road to Hell paved with Good Intentions and all that... Lastly, if I was them, I would be a little anxious about someone stealing my thunder. Obviously Stubstad is working on a project and there well may be others. Many rumors put the BFRO in posession of a variety of evidence. I don't know MM, but he doesn't seem like the person to sit by idly while this thing builds up. Somebody out there may see the advantage to pulling the trigger first and letting the chips fall where they may. From a competitive point of view such an action would make sense. If what she's hinting at is true, then it's a great day. I imagine she is under a lot of pressure-self imposed as well as outside-and I hope it all works out well. Good Luck and Best Wishes! But still wonderin'... GK Edited February 21, 2012 by gerrykleier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 and if they've accepted her work it seems likely you would have a publication date at this point. I think this is where you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I think this is where you are wrong. Could be, but most seem to publish on a set schedule and I presume they would know when the next issue was coming out. If that issue was full then they must know when the next issue with an open slot is to be published. If the editors are going to bounce a previously scheduled article and substitute hers instead, they should be able to do so quite quickly. Maybe some of the people with experience with journals can chime in, but I think once an article is accepted, then a publication date follows very quickly thereafter. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 It shouldn't matter if she has a publication date or not, there's no actual restriction on publishing a pre-submission version, or even the original submitted version. Well, unless she didn't submit it to Nature. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts