Guest BFSleuth Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 That is a fair assessment Sas. It would be presumptuous to declare that something will be published in advance of receiving notification of acceptance, unless she's saying that the fall back position is to publish in an alternative journal.
southernyahoo Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 Another thing is that this research is privately funded. I'm sure that factors into the NDA's as well. That is a fair assessment Sas. It would be presumptuous to declare that something will be published in advance of receiving notification of acceptance, unless she's saying that the fall back position is to publish in an alternative journal. I think Dr. Ketchum said her paper "will come out". Not quite the same as "will be published". So an alternate if needed, is probably there.
Guest Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 But she keeps saying "the journal" is the reason she is not allowed to talk. Unless she is starting her own journal. I would hope that isn't the case.
Cotter Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 She can publish her own paper if she desires. So I think that some hairs may be getting split here. Additionally, I would ask those that have experience in the publishing arena if they've ever participated in a paper like this - involving said private submissions, with some of said submitters lawyered up, and with a subject matter of such magnitude. I think the insight is good, but I don't necessarily think that the insight is drawn from a similar situation. We've been hearing 1st and 2nd had information from what, maybe 4 folks that have been published? That's not a very significant number to be drawing any generalizations or conclusions from. However, I may be wrong.
Guest Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 I would say Saskeptic is pretty much spot on. My brother in law has a Phd in Micro Biology and is employed by a private company conducting cancer research. I discussed this with him and the Ketchum fiasco and he said the same thing. I think its important to look outside the bigfoot "community" for actual scientific research methods and proceedures. I dont know what is up with Melba Ketchum but everything seems much more complicated and fishy than it should be. Apparently my first attempt at this got eaten by a glitch. Are you implying that if a scientist is considered "part of the community" then their credentials are suspect? That's not objective, Darrell, but it is an attitude I see all too often in Skeptics.
Guest Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 My brother-in-law has a PHD in eugenics and he says this is completely normal. He is not surprised at all at the length of time this is taken and feels that it probably should take more time. He says that it's important to look inside the bigfoot community to get a better idea of how actual research methods and procedures work with regards to bigfoot.
HOLDMYBEER Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 Arizonabigfoot, Can you flesh that last sentence out for me a bit? He's talking about field method or what as applied to the study?
Guest Darrell Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) Apparently my first attempt at this got eaten by a glitch. Are you implying that if a scientist is considered "part of the community" then their credentials are suspect? That's not objective, Darrell, but it is an attitude I see all too often in Skeptics. Umm ya, thats because I am a skeptic......did I blunder into a true believer thread by accident? Edited May 25, 2012 by Darrell
Guest Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 Arizonabigfoot From which college or university did your brother-in-law receive his Ph.D. in eugenics? Genes
Guest Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 Umm ya, thats because I am a skeptic......did I blunder into a true believer thread by accident? Yeah, but are you a "Skeptic?" If you're just a plain old, lowercase "s" skeptic then Mulder's cool with you.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) Are you a skeptic, a Skeptic or a Saskeptic? There is clearly a difference I used to be just an ordinary skeptic until I took an arrow in the knee from the reports and documentaries. Edited May 25, 2012 by OntarioSquatch
Cotter Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) @ Darrell: I believe what Mulder is trying to ask is if you consider the results released from a scientist that is considered 'part of the community' less credible than results from a scientist not considered 'part of the community'. From my point of view, if that is what you indeed were implying, I am hoping you could expand a bit on your reasoning. Thanks. Edited May 25, 2012 by Cotter
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 I would be much happier to have a skeptical scientist find BF DNA than a proponent scientist. It would be like a public outing, "I was very skeptical, and was shocked to find this result!" Something like that, followed by a dinner of crow tar tar with a fine chianti.
Guest Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) That was my point. If some brother-in-laws can say people "inside the community" aren't capable of actual research or following procedures, my brother-in-law can say they are better at it. Either way, it's means nothing. Being able to conduct high quality research, and following procedures is much different than having the evidence to write about. I do not have a Phd, I have a Master's in history, so I do know a bit about conducting research, and putting together a paper. Not trying to speak for anyone else, but who really has focused all of their abilities on a full-time study of Bigfoot? There is not very many full time employment opportunities in the field. I guess what I'm trying to say is that from what I've seen, this community has enough people capable of doing quality research. Edited May 25, 2012 by arizonabigfoot
Recommended Posts