Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) nevermind! Edited February 23, 2012 by summitwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Melba, how did you ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) Perhaps it is because one can poke holes in a paper that has not yet passed vigorous review? So the paper hasn't passed review yet? So much for being published this week. =pI side with the "it's fishy" crowd on this one. The team may have good intentions, but it looks bad to me. The paper is being hyped by people "leaking" information or talking it up. PR people going to BF message boards to spread the word and constant "it is so awesome, I can't wait!" from Dr. K - followed by "well of course we can't talk specifics!" I also hate how almost no concrete information is available on this paper (findings, publication date, journal it is in, what stage of the process it is in, etc.) - yet there's already talk of a second paper? Which, to me, casts doubt on the findings of the first. If the first paper is definitive, I-can-finally-rub-my-friends'-faces-in-it-proof... what's the second paper about? I'm not saying it won't have a happy ending, but my hopes certainly aren't up. If it is what the rumor mill says it is, I'll be elated. I'm just not buying any t-shirts yet... Edited February 23, 2012 by ShadoAngel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 What I don't understand about this whole discussion is that too many people here seem to think the effort, the report, the publication, the pre-release press, the comments or lack of same, etc. should be by some normal rules, when the crux of this whole matter is that if the DNA validates some currently unknown biological entity, however near or far it may be from us "humans" on the family tree, this matter is so far from "normal" that any expectation of normal rules or procedures is truly naive (most diplomatic word I could think of. The other options were less kind). Normal just doesn't apply. Can those who want normal procedures please wake up and pay attention to the potential (but very abnormal) impact that Dr. Ketchum and Ms. Ramey may be dealing with? Bill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) So the paper hasn't passed review yet? So much for being published this week. Oh dear! This is what happens when quotes are taken out of context. The paper HAS passed the peer review stage. The quote you have lifted was the spokesperson using a hypothetical situation to explain why they haven't released data or results prior to the full publication. She said words to the effect of imagine what would happen if we released information that hadn't been peer-reviewed. That information was only a few posts ago. - I'm 100% with Bill on this. If this paper contains what it's lead author claims it contains, this is going to the first item on the National News, and is going to shatter many people's world view. There could hardly be a more exciting thing happen in biology/ zoology. The only thing that counts is the quality of the science that is in the report, and if that stacks up, the inconsequential babble surrounding pre-release protocols is going to amount to a whisper in a hurricane. Mike Edited February 23, 2012 by MikeG -Fixed code errors in quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Spot on Mike. So what is this, Cognitive dissonance central now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 How do you know the paper has passed the peer review stage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Because they've said so. The Ketchum team, that is. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest apaulo Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I will be checking the news websites at 2pm EST today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Bill is correct about how unusual such a paper would be, and that we probably should not expect it to follow the normal trajectory of any old paper. What I would expect is zero hype, zero leaks, and certainly not " our data is (sic) so awesome" statements from the lead author on a Facebook page. For folks who think skeptics are posting to hedge our bets or poison the well toward the paper, I disagree. Many of my posts in this thread are in response to specific questions from others or in response to specific erroneous statements made by others. As to my hesitations about the paper, think for a moment about how risky such an approach would be in terms of seeking a " gotcha" when so many are claiming that there is a paper and it will be published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 That's good to hear, apaulo. It's important that people stay abreast of the national and international situations. However, if you're looking for news on the release of the paper, I believe I am right in saying that the Ketchum team have ruled it out on today's date. They quashed that rumour a week ago. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Because they've said so. The Ketchum team, that is. Mike When did they say this? Where was this announced? This contradicts them saying they can not state how far along the review process they are. More red flags than a red flag factory on national red flag day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 @Gigantofootecus Which skeptics are hoping to eat crow? For instance, here's my stance. After I have considered the same evidence as everyone else (except for witnesses) I state that it is perfectly reasonable to say for all intents and purposes BF doea not exist. So I'll say it. Bigfoot does not exist as far as I can tell. Bigfoot does not exist. If more evidence comes out in the form of a Melba paper with verifiable DNA, hit-and run road-kill or a hunters shooting, then that will supply more and new evidence. With this new evidence, I might then reach a new and different conclusion. Bigfoot does exist. Why do you and Mulder seem to think there's crow to eat if BF is proven to be real? If there is crow to be eaten, I don't remember the Georga boys believers/supporters eating crow back when that all happened. Remember, there were a few here who did believe them. The skeptics said no (as did many BF proponents too). But I don't recall any crow eating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted February 23, 2012 Admin Share Posted February 23, 2012 For folks who think skeptics are posting to hedge our bets or poison the well toward the paper, I disagree. Parn is posting to get a laugh, plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 WTB1, what you said x2 People that believe Bigfoot could not exist don't hang around Bigfoot forums! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts