Guest Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) @Cotter: I do...it was on NPR Science Friday last week - but perhaps inverted from what we all might expect...sorry not recalling key names (one of those driving/listening events)... but in essence: A woman scientist, I believe in microbial work, published a peer-review paper claiming "alien life on Earth" in that she hypothesized these microbes were using Arsenic instead of Phosphorous at the DNA level to execute certain functions....it was big news and resulted in splashy headlines, press conferences and many awards/honors..including Time's Woman of the year or something similar......big treatment..... anyway eventually two groups try replication studies and cannot replicate the results....one group goes so far as to discover why she is getting Arsenic at DNA level..and do, the DNA was not adequately washed (given doses fed the microbes with arsenic) so in other words, bad methodology. The interviewee I believe (a virus guy) has written a book detailing this issue and the response of the Journal... a pat "We do not publish replication studies!" Huh? Wow, so it comes from both directions...the cost to bother replicating and then no venue to publish...no funding b/c you are disproving not inventing new knowledge and so on.....and so? Those Big Name scientists who saw a problem with the study at the get go didn't lift a finger either way, what motivation? A blogger did, and articulately apparently... pointing out the issues (and not if she liked cooking or not - that's BF posters!) accurately in advance of the replication studies. The more general discussion was how science,.and method, aren't so much about science as, like everything, profit...and how that drives a great deal of all of our scientific knowledge.... great program as most of those Ira shows are..... BF is a perfect example...early in my effort, in the office of a Big Cheese Primate Anthropologist I suggested i'd be the grad student...and would get the funding (LOL..what a retirement plan!) and her response, "We don't study problems we can't solve...' At the time I thought, really? I thought science was all about solving the unsolvable....?" But, in truth she is right on some levels....BF don't appear to want to be studied and b/c of the physical challenges (or cost with technology) it is a real question if study will be fruitful..on the profit scale.....and certainly many see the difficulties with proof...the Sasquatch Problem. (I think many of us feel our Government does know more and has chosen to not address...it is possible given the difficulty of managing our potential response....imagine if we had tried a protection effort in the 50's....versus today..how different our approach is today on these types of efforts....climate change anyone? sorry this was a digression....).. I think science is just our language of tested hypotheses and if a hypothesis isn't tested, well the knowledge doesn't exist in science....right? But we all know things/events/phenomenon do exist still unstudied b/c of the practical limits, the political limits, the funding...and so on.. there you go! p.s. I understand this might not be an issue of "too hot to handle" that you ask for an example from our perspective, but it may have been from the Journal's perspective...for the obvious reasons. Asking Mulder to name a paper not published b/c it was too hot isn't really fair in that who would know as it wasn't published? I read his statement as more of a, "I can see why a journal wouldn't." Didn't the cold fusion claims get replicated to a negative result ? Was that initial study peer reviewed? I don't recall if the replication studies were peer reviewed either, but then the potential dollars in that may well have driven the replication efforts. Don't see too much money in replicating Dr. Ketchum's work. Dr. Sykes is a good choice b/c he is headed toward a book, and potential revenue offset for something that will not generate profit (for the industry or public) and will potentially generate a lot of critisism. Edited July 17, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Minor update from F/B Sally Ramey Rest assured that things look good and are still progressing. As for the "other side," we all have to realize that even though Melba and her research associates are doing exactly what the BF research community has always wanted, there are those who are driven by jealousy and ulterior motives. For some reason, they think they can shout down this study before it's even published. Maybe they are afraid of the results, or maybe they don't want to have to be proven wrong if the results are counter to their beliefs. But as famed paleontologist Jack Horner will say, "Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you know." Folks, in the near future, we will all KNOW. Edited July 17, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) i have faith Dr. Ketchum is not a hoaxer, but in a panic moment I thought, why the heck hasn't Biscardi said anything? And the panic was...he is behind a huge hoax via Smeja...lol too much time with too much imagination and no data! But, really what has happened to Biscardi on this particular issue? He still has the Larry Jenkins toenail on his website and he strikes me as one who would seek a "pay back??" On the other hand his BF world is his own making and has a following all it's own..so he may be content to rest on...did he put out a DVD promising to prove PG film is a hoax? Don't answer as his is the Ketchum thread, but if you know his stand wrt to study please do. Edited July 17, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Good morning Mulder - do you have any examples of a 'hot topic' that a journal/journals would not publish due to one reason or another? Several that I'm not allowed to mention because of the way the rules of the forum are configured, but some "safe" ones would include: the age of the Sphynx (and the associated Giza Plateau), who and how many groups discovered America pre-Columbus, "Ooparts" (anachronistic or "out of place" artifacts), the Pre-Clovis theory, and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 17, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted July 17, 2012 i have faith Dr. Ketchum is not a hoaxer, but in a panic moment I thought, why the heck hasn't Biscardi said anything? And the panic was...he is behind a huge hoax via Smeja...lol Wow, that would beat any fictitious movie i've ever seen if it's the case.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Several that I'm not allowed to mention because of the way the rules of the forum are configured, but some "safe" ones would include: the age of the Sphynx (and the associated Giza Plateau), who and how many groups discovered America pre-Columbus, "Ooparts" (anachronistic or "out of place" artifacts), the Pre-Clovis theory, and others. Forbidden Archaeology - it's the good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 p.s. I understand this might not be an issue of "too hot to handle" that you ask for an example from our perspective, but it may have been from the Journal's perspective...for the obvious reasons. Asking Mulder to name a paper not published b/c it was too hot isn't really fair in that who would know as it wasn't published? I read his statement as more of a, "I can see why a journal wouldn't." Didn't the cold fusion claims get replicated to a negative result ? Was that initial study peer reviewed? I don't recall if the replication studies were peer reviewed either, but then the potential dollars in that may well have driven the replication efforts. Very nice post. Regarding the issues of what papers do get published, we should bear in mind that scientific journals have two competing motivations. First, they serve as arbiters of what is worthy science. By their selection of what is or isn't worthy of publication they drive scientific discussion and debate. Second, the journals need to make money. As such they would tend to choose articles that are cutting edge, ground breaking, or otherwise noteworthy. They sell subscriptions and sell individual articles as one of their primary sources of revenue. As such they aren't looking to publish replication studies because it is a "been there, done that" scenario and won't sell very well. Regarding cold fusion, while replication is problematic, there is still ongoing research going on with cold fusion. I was listening to a radio interview a year or two ago with a scientist that is involved with it, noting that there are international meetings and that scientists especially in Japan, Russia, and France are pushing on with experiments. From his perspective he thought there was something to the phenomenon, but that we haven't yet really found the correct parameters for being able to replicate it consistently. He also noted that in some cases there have been "flashes" of high energy, some which have resulted in injuries to the experimenters. They just don't yet know exactly what is causing the energy output or whether it is really fusion at all. I may be wrong on this recollection of the interview, but I found that it is interesting that there is still ongoing research that mainstream media hasn't touched on because it was initially deemed a failure and/or hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) I'm sure there is more private and government money in Cold Fusion research, than there is in research into whether Dinosaur tracks were less than 4000 years old. Edited July 17, 2012 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 You're kidding right, a paper likely to discuss an unnamed heretofore undiscovered primate or hominid in N. America and they are going to have difficulty fitting it into the publication schedule? This isn't like a free-lance submission to Reader's Digest for Pete's sake. Edited by bipedalist, Yesterday, 06:22 AM. Well folks IF the results of the DMK effort go as predicted ... Remember, All of the information is centered / focused on the One .... Initial expected Publication Just think how many OTHER things could/should take place .... Remember to Please read What she has said, not what has been said about her.. Of course please realize that I'm just saying..... lol 1). Nature ( or whoever has the Study) will accept and publish her work... it won't stop here... 2). The Erickson video will be released, and go viral. BTW, did I hear rumors about several others in the works ????? 3). One or more of her authors are probably currently working with National Geographic for a slam dunk edition about the History of Sasquatch, From hundreds of years ago up to the present.... This could be Juicy... With Tons of information and History to work with. 4). Remember that she has several authors who could be working with other Publications and News releases.... it won't stop with just Nature and Nat Geo .... 5). Dr. Meldrum will be a featured part of one or more articles. 6). The Sykes study will be completed ( maybe before the DMK is released ). 7). Palisades will release a phantom study or who knows what.... . Plus, Who knows what will happen when the believers come out of the wood work. Of Course please realize that I'm just saying..... SOOOOOO What say you ... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Did you mean Palisades or Paulides? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 on the other hand, people didn't accept that the world was round overnight. this forum is way more accommodating of the wide range of opinions held on the subject than offline. it's entirely possible that offline skepticism is so ingrained, that the publication of the article, the ensuing publication, and circulation of convincing video makes the majority of people that don't follow the subject simply say, "huh?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 When this comes out, Can you fathom the amount of calls the wildlife officers, local police, sheriff's office, etc... are going to receive ? Those poor guys are going to have to clone themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 You're kidding right, a paper likely to discuss an unnamed heretofore undiscovered primate or hominid in N. America and they are going to have difficulty fitting it into the publication schedule? This isn't like a free-lance submission to Reader's Digest for Pete's sake. Edited by bipedalist, Yesterday, 06:22 AM. Well folks IF the results of the DMK effort go as predicted ... Remember, All of the information is centered / focused on the One .... Initial expected Publication Just think how many OTHER things could/should take place .... Remember to Please read What she has said, not what has been said about her.. Of course please realize that I'm just saying..... lol 1). Nature ( or whoever has the Study) will accept and publish her work... it won't stop here... 2). The Erickson video will be released, and go viral. BTW, did I hear rumors about several others in the works ????? 3). One or more of her authors are probably currently working with National Geographic for a slam dunk edition about the History of Sasquatch, From hundreds of years ago up to the present.... This could be Juicy... With Tons of information and History to work with. 4). Remember that she has several authors who could be working with other Publications and News releases.... it won't stop with just Nature and Nat Geo .... 5). Dr. Meldrum will be a featured part of one or more articles. 6). The Sykes study will be completed ( maybe before the DMK is released ). 7). Palisades will release a phantom study or who knows what.... . Plus, Who knows what will happen when the believers come out of the wood work. Of Course please realize that I'm just saying..... SOOOOOO What say you ... lol That would be absolutely beautiful. I think it's time "footers" got the credit they deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Very interesting tidbit from Bobo on Joe Rogan's podcast today (I posted a link in General Discussion)... He says that Dr. Ketchum actually developed some new "techniques that hadn't been used before" over the course of the study, so the first thing the peer-review had to do was authenticate her method by replicating it twice before they could even get to the matter of the Bigfoot science. According to Bobo, her methods have now been authenticated, and it would make sense to me if THIS is part of the reason for the secrecy, because now she can patent her new DNA method, which would have much farther-reaching implications than just Bigfoot. So the combination of authenticating a new method PLUS the controversial subject-matter would be perfectly reasonable explanations for it taking so long, and it could also explain the frustration felt by those who are waiting on the results, since the "new DNA method" stuff has nothing to do with them yet is slowing the whole thing down. Pure speculation on my part, but it does fill some holes nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 My reading of that last response from the camp doesn't look like there is something imminent that we should all prepare for. I think she is getting confused on what some in the "Sassy Community" are doing and how they are behaving. To me those people are just tired of waiting all this time without a single word from the person at the center of it all. It just doesn't seem like what a person who has stated all she was interested in was "protecting" them would do. Even now, with things "looking good and still progressing" she still can't say a word and has some "spokesman" come out and give a statement like that? This has got to be the STRICTEST journal in the entire world to be able to demand all this secrecy for so long and have it extend down the line to anyone that has had any part in it no matter how trivial. With all this excitement about this "study/paper" we still have not received a single word from K that verifies anything. For all we know the thing could've been "handed back" by every journal she submitted it to and she is now looking for alternative means of publishing. Maybe it hasn't passed any peer review and she is redoing the whole thing. My point is we don't know anything concrete at all. That's what has people in the "sassy community" beside themselves. They have invested a big part of their time and life into this "study" that was "just around the corner" for the last 3 years or so. I don't blame them a bit either. Making a comment about the status of your work is NOT trying your science in the media. Nalajr Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts