Guest mitchw Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Here's a link to Nature Journal's instructions to authors regarding public discussion of papers. If we assume that the Ketchum Report has been accepted by Nature, then this is what she is going through now. http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 (edited) The only thing I believe you can be certain of, based on that MM post, is that there is nothing earth-shattering in it...definitely not some sort of hybrid, "one third of the way to a chimpanzee.." etc. (Are you there, Richard?) if there was that kind of DNA result, the paper could be written in crayon without a zoologist and still there is no way an editor lets it get away without at least a conditional acceptance. I guess I don't agree with your assessment. An extraordinary claim is more likely to make a journal like Nature nervous. This is especially true if the initial submission sought to prove the existence of "Bigfoot" (it's been said they've been asked to remove that kind of explicit language for something more palatable - like "unknown primate"). And don't forget the issues regarding the origins of the Sierra Steakâ„¢. Human DNA puts someone in the hot seat. I don't think Ketchum would even use that sample if these things tested human. I'm also struck by the comment that the paper needed a zoologist involved? A zoologist? To prove humans leave DNA in the woods? Here's a link to Nature Journal's instructions to authors regarding public discussion of papers. If we assume that the Ketchum Report has been accepted by Nature, then this is what she is going through now. http://www.nature.co...es/embargo.html Ketchum stated on her Facebook page the paper is not currently at Nature. I think it's somewhere else. And I think we're close to finding out. Edited December 4, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 4, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted December 4, 2011 Here's a link to Nature Journal's instructions to authors regarding public discussion of papers. If we assume that the Ketchum Report has been accepted by Nature, then this is what she is going through now. http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html Thanks, and duly noted for new members, veterans have now seen that for the third, fourth and fifth time now and think it's a wonderful document. Nature is a tough audience and that is duly noted as well, esp. by the Ketchum team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Here's a link to Nature Journal's instructions to authors regarding public discussion of papers. If we assume that the Ketchum Report has been accepted by Nature, then this is what she is going through now. http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html it hasn't, so we can't, and, thus, she isn't. slim: you wrote: An extraordinary claim is more likely to make a journal like Nature nervous. As far as the journal is concerned, such a finding of a hybrid or a massive difference from humans and other hominids is unambiguous (and verified by other labs), and is exactly what they want to publish. I think I'm in a position to say that. You don't have to believe me. What they don't want is the epitome of mundane passed of as the extraordinary eg "we have found a bunch of modern human DNA and it's actually from bigfoots because it was collected by people who believe in bigfoot and in places where they think the bigfoots are because of noises and footprints and reports and that means that there is a bigfoot and he is human and if we look close enough in the DNA someday we might find some differences from modern humans but so far, we haven't found any." That would make them VERY nervous. I think I'm in a position to say that. You don't have to believe me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 My own naked speculation: Ketchum's post at BFF some time ago was grumpy (read -- the Nature rejection was fresh). Now, her FB post is virtually cheery (read -- her paper was accepted for review by an alternative journal). Opinion: Moneymaker's ever present, over-the-top enthusiasm is virtually syphilitic. He thinks a declined paper submitted to Nature has forced top scientists to think about the reality of Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 it hasn't, so we can't, and, thus, she isn't. slim: you wrote: As far as the journal is concerned, such a finding of a hybrid or a massive difference from humans and other hominids is unam extraordinary[/b] eg "we have found a bunch of modern human DNA and it's actually from bigfoots because it was collected by people who believe in bigfoot and in places where they think the bigfoots are because of noises and footprints and reports and that means that there is a bigfoot and he is human and if we look close enough in the DNA someday we might find some differences from modern humans but so far, we haven't found any." That would make them VERY nervous. I think I'm in a position to say that. You don't have to believe me. [/quote Parn, do you have a list on mind of the journals Ketchum may have submitted the paper to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Good luck with that. Parn didn't talk before when the question was raised and he probably won't talk now. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 no. in the first place, DNA doesn't have to do anything. in the second place, perception is not fact or truth. in the third place, height is multifactorial and we can't look at DNA and determine height. But most obviously, the tall man posted by Tim has a condition called acromegaly, not genetic gigantism. Where were you when I had this discussion with Nona? , I was making most of these points myself. Nona was adamant that if the DNA couldn't show us a giant hairy brutish humanoid, it was of no use, and I disagreed. That was the perception I was arguing against, and that was the point of Tim B. There are giant humans and very small ones but they are both modern humans. We couldn't necessarily tell from the DNA what the size of the donor is, the DNA could show us what genus it is from and why it is "not" a modern human or a known ape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 My own naked speculation: Ketchum's post at BFF some time ago was grumpy (read -- the Nature rejection was fresh). Now, her FB post is virtually cheery (read -- her paper was accepted for review by an alternative journal). Opinion: Moneymaker's ever present, over-the-top enthusiasm is virtually syphilitic. A+ for "virtually syphilitic." I assume you chose the term "alternative journal" because your brain would explode if you considered the possiblity that it's a mainstream journal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 I'm interested in the testable hypothesis reason for handing it back. What would be a testable hypothesis? That the DNA doesn't belong to something known? That the DNA is from an uncatologed extant hominid or hominin? Both of these seem testable and falsifiable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 (edited) As far as the journal is concerned, such a finding of a hybrid or a massive difference from humans and other hominids is unambiguous (and verified by other labs), and is exactly what they want to publish. I think I'm in a position to say that. You don't have to believe me. What they don't want is the epitome of mundane passed of as the extraordinary eg "we have found a bunch of modern human DNA and it's actually from bigfoots because it was collected by people who believe in bigfoot and in places where they think the bigfoots are because of noises and footprints and reports and that means that there is a bigfoot and he is human and if we look close enough in the DNA someday we might find some differences from modern humans but so far, we haven't found any." That would make them VERY nervous. I think I'm in a position to say that. You don't have to believe me. As for what they want and don't want, I don't have to be in your position to agree. Obviously (if the rumors are true), she didn't make the case with Nature. If all she has is modern human DNA then this story makes absolutely no sense. For starters, why would Ketchum claim extraordinary "proof"? Why would she reaffirm her connection to Erickson and his footage? Why would Randles believe the results validated General's story (you know, the one about shooting an eight foot tall monster)? Modern human DNA can't explain any of those things. If you're right, Ketchum and all involved better prepare themselves for an onslaught of ridicule and criticism. Edited December 5, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Maybe she put the words "sasquatch" or "bigfoot" in there so they gave it back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 It's possible, since we have no defined genetic profile for those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Well, if Nature tossed it, that put's paid to the contention that the editor of Nature is open to a BF paper now doesn't it? This notion that a dna identification paper "has no testable hypothesis" is meaningless. What could be more testable than a dna result? You run the test and analyze the results. There's nothing to hypothesize about; the results are what the results are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 If you hypothesize that the results are for a bigfoot, how do you test that hypothesis without a body? I remember vaguely hearing that she used the word bigfoot at some point, whether it was sending out samples or in her paper, I wish I could recall exactly what context it was used, and it was rejected? Does anyone else recall that rumor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts