The Ketchum Report

[Guest BFSleuth]

I am not sure if stiles at Oxford ever said he was going to publish a paper.

As noted in the Sykes-Sartori Report thread, they are projecting publication before the end of the year.

http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/academic/GBFs-v/OLCHP

[Guest Tontar]

Tontar, are you suggesting that the Denisova donor may have had "scales, wings, or worse"? What would be the difference between a finger... and say a steak, or a toenail, or a hair sample?

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. However, I am suggesting that DNA in itself, is not the same, nor is it similar, to a type specimen, an actual organism. Regardless of whether there is a finger, or a slice of skin with hair on it, that has DNA that is useable, there is no way to reconstruct an animal from that DNA, so in other words, if Ketchum has DNA that is a lot like human DNA, and a lot like gorilla or chimp DNA, or is a lot like Neanderthal DNA, it still doesn't produce an image of what the source animal really is, or was, or would look like. It might as well be from a miniature aquatic human as from a giant hairy human, since I think it quite unlikely that the DNA can be deciphered enough to tell what size the source animal was, whether it had hair or scales or feathers, a tail, or no tail, webbed feet or clawed feet, went on all fours or was upright. DNA in itself does not demonstrate what sort of animal it came from if it is truly "unknown" DNA. There is no Rosetta Stone for DNA, with which anyone can recreate what an animal was like that gave up the unknown DNA sample.

In other words, using DNA as a way to document the existence of an unknown animal, in the absense of a body, is useless. What would anyone draft up for it's physical description?

Edited July 6, 2012 by Tontar

[AaronD]

Why would you think these were the only two possible conclusions? How can you even begin to predict what a not-yet-written scientific paper will say?

Mike

Didn't say those were the only ones, just askin questions.......

_{We have 220 pages of predicting what a " not yet published" paper will say.}

Or that answer...LOL

[Guest]

And thats about all you're going to get until the paper is published and you get to see it. Would that be unusual?

Yes that would be unusual. This is the first paper I've ever heard of were the authors can't talk about anything or even mention the journal's name they have submitted to before publication. Somethings not right. Since the Georgia hoax, when I start hearing about a bunch of nda's having to be signed, it puts a big fat red flag up for me.

[AaronD]

Yulp, always gotta be something......

[Wheellug]

Yes that would be unusual. This is the first paper I've ever heard of were the authors can't talk about anything or even mention the journal's name they have submitted to before publication. Somethings not right. Since the Georgia hoax, when I start hearing about a bunch of nda's having to be signed, it puts a big fat red flag up for me.

So... a red flag raiser for you, for a publishing effort, is not talking about it?

Just trying to clarify your perception.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Wheellug

[Guest]

Nalajr

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? Please tell us all how you have a pipeline into what is going on.

Well, for one, I can read and remember what she said,no pipe line needed.

GOD, I think I need a scorecard to keep track.

no scorecard needed, just some comprehension

[Guest Nalajr]

THANK YOU Squating Squatch for CLEARING that up and your other post.

There were a couple other scientists that have had multiple papers actually published who chimed in several pages back that said almost the exact same thing you said. They BOTH said what they would be doing is FAR from keeping it secret and they would tell everyone that would listen who was publishing it, when it would be out and a brief synopsis of what their papers were going to show and confirm. Hardly sounds secret to me.

I wish our country kept its military tactics and operations as secret as this supposed JOURNAL and the papers author is. Maybe after publication she can do seminars at the Pentagon and tell them how to keep earth shattering info TOP SECRET for 3 years or until she gets the go-ahead from this ultra-strict "journal."

Nalajr

[Guest BFSleuth]

... or perhaps she could give a lecture to a business school on "Ethics and NDA's" or "How To Keep A Secret When Forum 'Experts' Cry Out For The Big Reveal"...

[Guest Nalajr]

Hey ZIG, you might've seen where I said

"Is there anyone, on any of these forums or sites that can independently CONFIRM that a "paper" has been written and submitted to a "journal?"

I made the KEY WORDS BOLD for you.

My comprehension skills are just fine, thanks for worrying though.

I think there are a LOT of people that are wanting just a little more than "Melba Said So" just as Squating Squatch said. That's ALL there has been for 3 years and it's wearing a tad thin.

You can continue to accept the word of ONE PERSON as to what's happening over this extended time period, but many of us are not willing to extend that courtesy after all the "soon" and "just around the corner" and "out for peer review" comments.

Doesn't anyone find it strange that a team from OXFORD can announce a study of their own in the paper, ask the people to send them supposed DNA material, perform the testing on it and then tell everyone that the data will be presented by the end of the year with the actual paper to follow and yet NOTHING even close to that level of detail has been transmitted from this study. Not even CLOSE. I find that odd. It's almost like our brothers across the pond are operating with journals that have a whole different set of rules and mandates for Subjects of the Crown than they do for good ole American authors. Wonder why that is? Anyone have an idea?

Nalajr

BF Sleuth, I think a BUSINESS SCHOOL is EXACTLY where she should give a talk about this study. GREAT SUGGESTION.

Nalajr

Edited July 6, 2012 by Nalajr

[Guest]

Yes that would be unusual. This is the first paper I've ever heard of were the authors can't talk about anything or even mention the journal's name they have submitted to before publication. Somethings not right. Since the Georgia hoax, when I start hearing about a bunch of nda's having to be signed, it puts a big fat red flag up for me.

I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this.It's not that they can't talk about it, it's that they shouldn't in order to maximize the earning potential of such a spectacular discovery. Whenever or however it happens, the person who definitively proves the existence of Sasquatch WILL make money off of their discovery. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's the way it is. And IMO there is absolutely nothing wrong with playing it smart in the interest of financial gain. Sure there will be those who have convinced themselves that making money off of this would somehow be immoral, but that's not going to matter. If this report is the real deal (I still think it is!), then they are doing EXACTLY what they should be doing.

[Guest]

So is it common practice when you are trying to get a paper published to make everybody sign nda's. I'm not buying that the journal just decided in Melba's case that everything has to be "super secret" and that she can't even divulge if the paper's been accepted or where its at in the peer review proccess. Now I can possibly see with this subject matter that the journal may not want their name mentioned until it's ready to be published, but all I've seen is "we can't say anything, just take our word for it". As far as the nda's go, I can understand having the people who submitted samples to not disclose their results until publication if the samples tested positive for bf, but not to totally shut them up about having any knowledge about if the paper has in fact been accepted and if its in review or not. That's the problem I have with it. Way to much secrecy.

[Guest BFSleuth]

For folks that are confused about NDA's, they are a common legal agreement used in business, especially in Research and Development. I have no idea if they are common or not in science, someone with more knowledge of the use of NDA's in the scientific field could perhaps enlighten us.

As noted by several folks back several "chapters" in this thread, many professions require that you have the ability to keep your mouth shut if you sign an NDA. If you get a reputation as a "squealer" in my profession you can kiss your career goodbye.

Some of our forum members have submitted samples and have noted they have also signed NDA's on this project. They haven't "spilled the beans" in spite of the duration of the wait, and I respect their silence very much. It is amusing to read advocates pushing for violation of these agreements, with all the courage of one who doesn't have to face the consequences.

[Guest MikeG]

I am not sure if stiles at Oxford ever said he was going to publish a paper.

I think you mean "Sykes".

[Guest]

Now I'm confused. When did this become a business enterprise.. I thought Ketchum wanted to publish a paper proving the existence of sasquatch and start a non-profit foundation to protect bigfoot. I don't see where that equats into a business adventure. What does she plan to make profits off? And I'm not looking for anybody to break their nda's, my problem is with the nda's being drawn up in the first place. IMHO when it comes to bigfoot , nda's are drawn up to hide something. that something usually isn't helpful to the evidence of bigfoots existence. I could be wrong in this case, I guess time will tell.