Guest Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 ^You can use that term if you like, but you'll be the only one, and the rest of the world will be confused by your statements. If that's what you're after, go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) Are Ketchum (or Ramey) saying anything at their various outlets about Paulides forthcoming book? are her statements about sightings related to the book? from his site: 2/27-David Paulides will be Appearing on Coast to Coast Radio with George Knapp on March 25 Discussing David's new book Based on his postings, I would say that the book will likely be an expansion of his thoughts on bigfoot behavior (is this the sightings/place that Ketchum is talking about?), Native American legends (that they represent human beings) and previous DNA testing (the stuff he got from the Track Record archives, plus whatever else he has dug out, all of which is either indeterminate or human). I have to think that, since it seems clear that Ketchum's paper hasn't been accepted anywhere, that the current buzz is designed to boost interest in "bigfoot is human", behavior and DNA, and thus boost sales of Paulides book. His site says April but, I think it will come out sooner. One hand washes the other. She helps his book sales, which in turn sets the stage, historically, for her paper (if it ever comes out). p. Edited February 28, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 No, I was just hoping it wasn't a veterinarian journal so hadn't mentioned that. Do you think it would be less credible if it was published in a veterinary journal? DVM's rely on solid, reputable and peer reviewed journals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Are Ketchum (or Ramey) saying anything at their various outlets about Paulides forthcoming book? are her statements about sightings related to the book? from his site: 2/27-David Paulides will be Appearing on Coast to Coast Radio with George Knapp on March 25 Discussing David's new book Based on his postings, I would say that the book will likely be an expansion of his thoughts on bigfoot behavior (is this the sightings/place that Ketchum is talking about?), Native American legends (that they represent human beings) and previous DNA testing (the stuff he got from the Track Record archives, plus whatever else he has dug out, all of which is either indeterminate or human). I have to think that, since it seems clear that Ketchum's paper hasn't been accepted anywhere, that the current buzz is designed to boost interest in "bigfoot is human", behavior and DNA, and thus boost sales of Paulides book. His site says April but, I think it will come out sooner. One hand washes the other. She helps his book sales, which in turn sets the stage, historically, for her paper (if it ever comes out). p. I don't think that's clear at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Yeah, how is it possibly clear that that her paper hasn't been accepted anywhere. It seems clear you don't WANT it to have been accepted anywhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Huh? Quick re(re?)summary of the publication steps in typical scientific journal = submission, rejection or decision to review it, review 1, rejection or acceptance or opportunity to revise, submission of revision, review 2, rejection or acceptance, galley proof preparation and review, page charge payment, publication. The vast majority of papers that are in review will never be published by the first journal to which they are submitted, especially if that journal is Science or Nature. Do we know where the paper is in this process? Once the paper is published, I thought scientist from all over the world double check the results. If they can replicate the methods used and get the same results, the paper is accepted as a fact. If the paper is so poorly written then the publisher doesn't even bother to publish the paper in their jounal or they give the author time to revise it. Is this correct? I know you are a bird expert and I saw a nice big Flicker bird in my Oregon backyard yesterday as a side note. It was digging in the grass. Some other birds are appearing too. One had a orange slash across it head and was about the size of a Robin. What kind is this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RioBravo Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) Yeah, how is it possibly clear that that her paper hasn't been accepted anywhere. It seems clear you don't WANT it to have been accepted anywhere! Here's the post from 2/22 on her Facebook page " Q: Will the paper be published? A: I truly believe it will. We have overwhelming evidence. " Sounds like the paper is currently under review. Edited February 28, 2012 by RioBravo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Do we know where the paper is in this process? Nope, and I'm still open to the idea that there never was a paper at all. I've not seen one. That said, I agree with RioBravo that statements recently released suggest that the paper is in review, i.e., there's certainly no guarantee it will be published anywhere. Once the paper is published, I thought scientist from all over the world double check the results. If they can replicate the methods used and get the same results, the paper is accepted as a fact. Kind of. I think what you're referring to here is the development and establishment of a scientific theory. A single pioneering paper chronicles the evaluation of one or more hypotheses. If that paper appears in print at all, it should mean that the editors of that journal were fully confident in the statements in the paper. (Papers are sometimes discredited atfer publication too, with a formal retraction from the journal. See the Wakefield vaccination/autism paper as one example.) Once one paper addresses and interesting hypothesis, others soon follow either attempting to replicate analysis in the first paper or expanding to the next logical step to advance the science in that area. When a large body of unassailable work has been produced, and it seems to point in the same general direction, it often follows that someone will coalesce that work into a theoretical paper, i.e., propose a new scientific theory to organize that work and from which new predictions can be tested. (Of course, science sometimes progresses the other way too, with abstract theories proposed first and scientists devoting entire careers conducting experiments to test hypotheses that logically stem from the theory.)If the paper is so poorly written then the publisher doesn't even bother to publish the paper in their jounal or they give the author time to revise it. Is this correct? If the data and analysis are compelling and relevant for the journal, it'd be rare for the paper to be rejected outright just for being poorly written. Revisions are far more likely to be about sending authors back to the drawing board to re-analyze. I'm working on one of those today with the hope that the journal will accept our new version of the paper. . . . One had a orange slash across it head and was about the size of a Robin. What kind is this? Varied Thrush, well known to fans of the weird '90s TV show Twin Peaks. Incidentally, Varied Thrush has its population center in the mountainous coniferous forests of the PNW, and I think its strange whistled song has been mistaken for bigfoot "communication whistles." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 not to derail, just supplimenting the above remark about Varied Thrush: saw this one outside my home last month. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I'll make a little prediction here........ I bet we are rather more focused once the Ketchum report is published!!! I don't think the varied thrush will get a look-in! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) How do I know it hasn't been accepted? As soon as the paper is accepted and the word transmitted to Ketchum, it will be announced. Good grief, why do you think they have all this PR apparatus set up? So they can hide the fact that they have achieved their goal??????? There is nothing to stop Ketchum/Ramey from saying: "The paper has been accepted for publication." That's all she has to say. Nothing prevents her from saying that. She could even say which journal; and she could say when it will appear, which she should know almost immediately. Nothing stops her from disclosing this. What she can't do is do interviews with the press about the contents of the paper. (Not to mention the language that K/R have been using, which indicates it hasn't been accepted for publication.) Varied Thrush, well known to fans of the weird '90s TV show Twin Peaks. Incidentally, Varied Thrush has its population center in the mountainous coniferous forests of the PNW, and I think its strange whistled song has been mistaken for bigfoot "communication whistles." Saskeptic, is it a thrush that sounds almost exactly like a cow elk? what species is it? Edited February 28, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 There seems to be a preperation going on lately from Dr Ketchum (which I think we should call her by the way, 'Ketchum' seems so uncivilised) and her people. I'm hopeful this is significant and that we may see the paper released fairly soon. I think the terms of a paper being released by a journal (imminent release and discussion thereof) are irrelevant. There seems to be numerous people involved and allegedly tied into some form of NDA. The NDA is the reason nobody is discussing release date or publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I know for all the criticism I've taken from a lot of my friends over the years for talking about what I've witnessed so openly, that I can't wait for this to be over! My FB post, since I'm so humble and mature, may just be an attachment of the findings, along with a pic of one of my fingers flying high:) Good luck, Melba! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Yeah, how is it possibly clear that that her paper hasn't been accepted anywhere. It seems clear you don't WANT it to have been accepted anywhere! Can you please show me where it has been confirmed that her paper has been accepted for publication. As far as I know, no one has claimed that the paper has been accepted for publication. There are claims that the paper has been submitted and that it will be published. However, there is no confirmation that it has actually been accepted for publication. Dr. Ketchum states that no date has been set which leads me to believe that the paper as of today has not been accepted for publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 There might be many perfectly valid reasons the journal has requested quiet about the status of the paper from the MSK team pending actual publication. Further, all parties are likely quite grateful for quiet by anyone in the "know" about the probable results. In the meantime, this forum thread is a good way for people to let off a little steam about one's natural impatience. I caution all skeptics to not be so skeptical. It could be embarrassing for you when the truth comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts