Guest Jodie Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I'm surprised that she is even concerned what we think one way or the other. The FB page puts me off too, it seems unprofessional but the only other alternative to give updates would be a personal website, I suppose. THe only time I ever saw that happen was when they were pushing that fossilized lemur critter as the missing link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 ^The "Ida" announcement is an interesting parallel, Jodie. The unveiling of the fossil itself at the American Museum of Natural History coincided with the release date for the publication and a book - all on May 19, 2009. The History Channel documentary aired May 25th. Check this out though: "The fossil has been shrouded in secrecy and its unveiling unfolded more like a Hollywood production than a scientific discovery." "Hurum and team have been studying the fossil in secret for the past two years, going to great lengths to keep the finding under wraps until they were ready to publicly announce it." " "There have been lots of reasons for the security and secrecy surrounding this project," said Anthony Geffen, producer of the new documentary. "The scientists wanted to get on with the research, and then get to that day, which is today, which is incredibly exciting for all of us, when the find could come out." " So actually, the Ida discovery played out as an antithesis to what we've seen with the Ketchum study. Ida was kept secret until the day that the paper was published. Once the paper was made available, everything else (book, documentary, press conference) was unleashed. The paper came first, not pronouncements about some paper clearly made months prior to it even being accepted for publication. Of course, this whole fanfare over scientific discoveries is not universally lauded by us scientists. The lead scientist (Hurum) on the Ida discovery strikes me as a self-promoting blowhard as much as anything else. It's pretty funny (to me, at least) that after all his blustering, the paper in PLoS One required at least two formal corrections post-publication. There's also the very significant charge that in their paper the authors make the statement that they are NOT advocating from their data that Ida is ancestral to the line that gave rise to anthropoids (i.e., us), yet they splashed the "missing link" rhetoric all over the press conference, book, website, and documentary. That was/is lame . . . and potentially intentionally sleazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Many scientists seem to worry more about what their peers are saying about them than the pursuit of science. I'm glad someone came along that didn't buy into that. Having an independent income stream can be a big help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It's not the mere fact of discussing findings pre-publication, it's the way it's done. This gem in particular (from FB a few weeks ago) just gave me a sinking feeling about this whole thing: "Our data is [sic] amazing and beautiful and all cutting edge." If that kind of rhetoric gives people confidence, have at it. I read stuff like this and it evaporates any confidence I might have had. I think you ought to take what she said in context, and also think knowing her would help you. What she meant there in my opinion is that the sequencing was done with the latest technology. Her being blown away by the Data and stating it was amazing and beautiful , could be representative of how you would feel in experiencing a profound and renewed sense of wonderment in nature when you finally accept Bigfoot as a reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 If someone has found something so incredible, I won't speak for others but I do think that most people (myself included) wouldn't want to wait so long to present them. Regardless of who reviews them or where they're being published, if the findings are THAT impressive, I'd want to show them to the world ASAP. That's all I'm saying on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) For me, it isn't so much that she is answering questions, it is the answers she is giving. Maybe the answers are accurate, I have no way to confirm it, but I can say that alarm bells are ringing when she states she has heard them speak and that she had gained massive field experience. She never answered any of my questions, like had she taken any pictures or video and how would releasing something like a picture have any relation to a paper on DNA, she just blocked me from interacting with the page because she obviously only likes questions that help steer her FB page in the 'right' direction. She did mention however, when another person asked about pictures and video, that they (Sasquatch I guess) didn't like electronics. Anyway, nobody will be more jacked up if this is all true, but I suspect this all amounts to nothing of significance. IMHO Cheers Edited March 12, 2012 by summitwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 ^She blocked you for asking such simple questions? Wow...red flags indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) If someone has found something so incredible,...... I do think that most people ........wouldn't want to wait so long to present them. Regardless of who reviews them or where they're being published, if the findings are THAT impressive, I'd want to show them to the world ASAP. ......... Except that, until they are properly published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, her findings aren't worth the paper they are written on. In fact, release early before peer review and they would be absolutely ripped to shreds by all and sundry, and she wouldn't be able to defend them. Besides, there are some rules regarding what can be pre-released, and having come this far, why jeopardise the publication of this (apparently) ground-breaking work? Releasing early, prior to publication, would be a great way to shoot yourself in the foot. Mike Edited March 12, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) ^The "Ida" announcement is an interesting parallel, Jodie. The unveiling of the fossil itself at the American Museum of Natural History coincided with the release date for the publication and a book - all on May 19, 2009. The History Channel documentary aired May 25th. Check this out though "The fossil has been shrouded in secrecy and its unveiling unfolded more like a Hollywood production than a scientific discovery." "Hurum and team have been studying the fossil in secret for the past two years, going to great lengths to keep the finding under wraps until they were ready to publicly announce it." " "There have been lots of reasons for the security and secrecy surrounding this project," said Anthony Geffen, producer of the new documentary. "The scientists wanted to get on with the research, and then get to that day, which is today, which is incredibly exciting for all of us, when the find could come out." The difference is that with Ida, it was a discovered object that could be kept secret. Dr Ketchum had to solicit samples from BF investigators to obtain the materials for her project. Good luck keeping that under wraps, not to mention the added attention from the Sierra shooting incident. Edited March 12, 2012 by Bonehead74 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I know Bone, but no situation is going to be exactly alike. If it were me, I would have never responded to the leaks, no FP page, and absolutley not one word from me until the thing was done and published. It would have been a monumental effort on my part to keep quiet, but with something that big, I believe I could resist temptation. Saskeptic, I had the same take on the whole Ida situation and when I heard how this was developing with books, and film, web site domains being bought, etc....I began to get a bad feeling. Now I do sincerely hope I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) MikeG and others: Don't be surprised by Saskeptic's response. Ketchum herself has been the leaker, starting a long time ago. That is important to understand. Seventeen months ago she came out of the blue and alleged that she had the proof And she continues to. She wasn't forced to do that. She never had to say a word about her findings. She got samples, she may even have solicited samples, no problem, and all she had to do was keep quiet about the results. She wouldn't do it. So don't be suggesting that she is "responding to leaks." She herself is the one who has done the leaking. The other leaks, ie Stubstad, were and are not very important; she never had to respond to him. And she is the one who leaked the copyright documents. She is the one who leaked the stuff about other labs, respected co-authors, She is the one who scheduled a presentation at a bigfoot convention (and then backed out), while not presenting at any scientific conferences. So she has leaked and promised and leaked and promised and not delivered. Not to mention the "rock star" comment. And the stuff she has leaked frankly looks very weak. Now she wants to make that all go away. But that data was the basis for her statements 17 months ago. What happened? Data doesn't go away, Now she and her PR person are hiding behind some very misleading statements about journal policy, embargos, peer review, secrecy, presentations, announcements, et al. She has got some people here glued to their computers on Thursday afternoon waiting for NBC to flash the news around the world...... To a person in the natural sciences, that is bizarre. leaked, promised, leaked, promised, hid. Those are the facts. If you aren't a scientist, if you haven't done research, written and submitted papers to journals, and dealt with all that, you may not realize how bizarre this whole thing is. I don't speak for Saskeptic, but that is what he is responding to. And it is of her making: the skeptics didn't do it, the media didn't do it, the journals didn't do it, the scientists didn't do it. the peer reviewers didn't do it. She did it. If she hadn't done it, nobody would be saying anything now. p. Edited March 12, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) I don't deny it for a second, Parn. See my Mohammed Ali comparison. As I said........who cares about the fluff, it will be the science on which this story stands or falls. I was just a little surprised that Saskeptic didn't make the same point. You're commenting on the fluff. I'm interested in the science. Mike .....although, as a point of order, the story has leaked from more than one place, with Messrs Stubstad and Smeja amongst others contributing to the melee. Edited March 12, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) Way to go Mr. Parn!!! About time someone called it like it is!!! Edited March 12, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 If she hadn't done it, nobody would be saying anything now. I think that's a stretch. The story of the Sierra shootings was the catalyst for most of what has transpired. Those details surfaced without any help from Melba Ketchum. As far as her leaks, let's see...she claims to have "proof" in the form of a co-authored paper going through a secretive peer review process. Anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Hi Parn: Regarding the leaks. You are saying that she leaked all of the pertinent information? Even the leaks she responded to? Can you point me in the direction where you found that or perhaps explain a bit better? Thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts