Guest slimwitless Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Someone just asked if the paper would be published in an established journal or a new one. Sally's response: @Curt - Sally here - It's NOT one of the ones you pay to publish your paper. Is that what you mean? I'm guessing she wasnt aware of this new journal and/or the speculation in this thread when she posted that. Again, I'm not sure how they can continue to refer to the specifics of a journal (however vague) if the paper hasn't been accepted.
bipedalist Posted February 29, 2012 BFF Patron Posted February 29, 2012 Guess the question could be narrowed by asking: anthro? bio? crypto? And then we can play twenty questions from there?
Guest Shaun Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 This whole thing is enough to put anyone off the subject. If I hadn't seen one with my own eye's I'd think this was all crazy, I certainly wouldn't think a serious science journal would take any interest.
southernyahoo Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Thats an interesting conundrum to have seen one, but not believe there is anything about bigfoot that science would take seriously. It suggests to me that some feel scientists shy away from even biological evidence, not because it couldn't be real, but because it takes science to prove it. Could happen that way I guess.
Guest Particle Noun Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Confirmed: Sally here - Normally, I would not answer a question about the journal, but I think this rumor needs nipping in the bud. It is not a cryptozoological journal -- and before anyone even asks, it is not Meldrum's new BF journal, either.
bipedalist Posted February 29, 2012 BFF Patron Posted February 29, 2012 Good, but not unexpected news, indeed. Should be reassuring about the direction they are heading too.
Guest MikeG Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 If it hadn't passed peer review, she wouldn't be able to say "it" for certain. So I am taking this a a sign that it will be announced tomorrow afternoon at 7pm GMT and published on Friday Mike
Guest HucksterFoot Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 \ And red circles! Yellow lines.
Guest Particle Noun Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 If it hadn't passed peer review, she wouldn't be able to say "it" for certain. So I am taking this a a sign that it will be announced tomorrow afternoon at 7pm GMT and published on Friday Mike HAHAHAH!
Guest Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Assuming the technical details of the study are done correctly (no lab error), all you need is ONE. DNA comes from a cirtter, and unknown dna comes from an unknown critter. It's that simple. Usually I don´t agree with your statements, but when you´re right you´re right, and you´re right in this case IMO. Then there´s the whole discussion of the holotype, but let´s not blur this statement of yours.
Guest Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 If it hadn't passed peer review, she wouldn't be able to say "it" for certain. So I am taking this a a sign that it will be announced tomorrow afternoon at 7pm GMT and published on Friday Mike lol i will believe it when i see it.
Guest Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Would be nice to have an phd anthropologist working on this. especially if it is human dna. am i right? Nope, molecular geneticists are what you need at this stage. Mulder, If this works out and I hate this phrase ...... But it's a win - win Dont worry we will have plenty of other stuff to discuss! I know it's hard to believe but most of us here are on the same side! Spot on!
Drew Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Since the DNA is allegedly human... A human geneticist, and a biological antrhopologist, would be the ticket.
Guest slimwitless Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) Relevant quotes from Ketchum today: Fact: This paper has not and will not go to a cryptozoology "journal" of any type. Stringent, skeptical review is necessary for the success of this paper, thus the length of time it is taking to get this out. It would have been out a long time ago if we would have chosen to send it to some obscure journal or some type of crypto journal but I prefer the more difficult path because it makes the paper credible to the scientific community. The entire study will be 4 years in March. The paper was written in 2011. Edited February 29, 2012 by slimwitless
Guest Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) it's still Wednesday...so i can add....Paulides posted a new blog...it is, well...I will just focus on one statment for this thread... he says something to the effect that as we "are closing in on the DNA".... combined with the EP website statement they couldn't get more scientists interested, and the loss of Dr. K as a team member, and the emergence of a New Cypto Peer review Journal?.....ahhhhh! No, it cannot be. It will be published in Science tommorrow... Because I see Dr.K's FB quote above.. so yes, Science tommorrow! , 'optimism produces the results it seeks' Edited February 29, 2012 by apehuman
Recommended Posts