Guest Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Im of the opinion that the Sykes study will amount to nothing in the end. Either it will not publish or publish with a negative conclusion. This is just my opinion but lets see what happens by this time next year. Darrell, is there a single thing in BF evidence and/or research that you DO think amounts to something? I am seriously asking. I think we have the cart before the horse. We are discussing when the paper will be published or released. However, it has not been confirmed that the paper has been accepted for publication. So I think the issue is whether or not Ketchum's paper will be accepted for publication. The more time that passes without the paper being accepted for publication the more likely it won't be accepted for publication. In my opinion anyway. One thing I am sure of is that I won't being paying any money to read the paper. 1) People who have published papers in the past have chimed in to indicate that an extensive delay makes it MORE likely that the paper will eventually be published. Papers that simply aren't going to make the journal get File 13-d much earlier in the process. 2) Why would you NOT read the paper if published? If it is published, that means the research has passed your precious "peer review" and is considered valid. Would that not at all interest you to see published proof of a new specie of higher primate found living in a place no one (in science) knew one existed before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Here's one possible explanation for not wanting to read the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Darrell, is there a single thing in BF evidence and/or research that you DO think amounts to something? I am seriously asking. Unfortunately at this time no. Footprints are the closest. Until I see one myself I will remain skeptical. Not hear one, or think I saw one, or hear wood knocks, or see stick formations, but see one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 ^Would not the forensically-typed hairs (Pinker, Moore, Fahrenbach, et al) be better evidence? They can at least be demonstrated to come from an animal. Tracks can theoretically (as you point out) be hoaxed. How do you hoax a hair being actual animal hair, let alone of a type not matching any on file? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 The 3 scientists that I have read in THIS thread have said that NOTHING like this EVER happens when they, or any of their colleagues have published papers. In fact they ALL said they have NEVER seen anything like this in their history in the scientific community. Maybe they're not publishing in REAL journals. That could be it I guess. Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I don't recall any of the three scientists indicating they had to request samples from a population of rabid fans of cryptozoology in the absence of being able to collect their own samples, broadcasting the research effort in advance, needing to sign NDA's with some of the submitters, nor being the subject of intense speculation and character assassination in blogs and forums. Not one of them indicated that. Some of them experienced up to three years in the process from initial research to publication. How's Dr. Ketchum doing on that time line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 ^If I'm figuring it correctly, between 1/2 and 2/3 the way through, based on a 3-year timeframe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 The 3 scientists that I have read in THIS thread have said that NOTHING like this EVER happens when they, or any of their colleagues have published papers. In fact they ALL said they have NEVER seen anything like this in their history in the scientific community. Maybe they're not publishing in REAL journals. That could be it I guess. Nalajr Perhaps THEIR subject matter didn't catch anyone's attention. This is a unique experience- most heart doctors don't have message boards set up following their procedures in minutia. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Or perhaps its not the subject matter, but all the nda's involved. I still don't believe its the so called "journal embargo" that's kept everything quite. Darrell, is there a single thing in BF evidence and/or research that you DO think amounts to something? I am seriously asking. 1) People who have published papers in the past have chimed in to indicate that an extensive delay makes it MORE likely that the paper will eventually be published. Papers that simply aren't going to make the journal get File 13-d much earlier in the process. 2) Why would you NOT read the paper if published? If it is published, that means the research has passed your precious "peer review" and is considered valid. Would that not at all interest you to see published proof of a new specie of higher primate found living in a place no one (in science) knew one existed before? The impression I got from the scientists in this thread seemed their opinion was the opposite of your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) nm.... Edited August 27, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 It's a shame Richard Stubstad doesn't post here anymore. I think that gentle man felt he was being hounded. As someone who's read every word on this thread I miss his input more than ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) His sample results came back with modern human mtDNA yet people didn't really give it much consideration did they. Edited August 30, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 2) Why would you NOT read the paper if published? If it is published, that means the research has passed your precious "peer review" and is considered valid. Would that not at all interest you to see published proof of a new specie of higher primate found living in a place no one (in science) knew one existed before? I did not mean that I would not read the paper if it was published. I meant that "I would not pay money" to read the paper. I may be wrong but I was of the opinion that if it is published in a major journal than I would be able to access the paper free. If I can access it for free I will read it regardless of where it is published. If I have to pay money to somebody or some entity to read the paper, I will decline." For example, if you have to have a premium membership on this forum to read "an early release" version of the paper, then I won't read the paper and wait for it to be released to the general public. I certainly would be excited to read a paper that establishes a new species. My optimism that this paper might establish the existence of bf has waned quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) Usually you have to end up getting a subscription to the journal or something like that. There would probably be some cost involved, unless you could check it out at a school library or something. I don't know but I'm probably waiting for the pop-up or scratch and sniff version. I have a Masters in history, and I know when to stay in my lane. I trust there will be plenty of people here that will be more than capable of letting me know whether we're poppin bottles or not. jk Edited August 30, 2012 by arizonabigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 If the paper is published in a major journal, then expect to pay in the range of US$80-150 to buy a copy. I wouldn't recommend subscribing to the journal, unless reading really technical reports is your thing. It will likely be a very technical read, as are most science papers, which is why most people get their science news in the "digested" form: from science journalist's review of the paper and its implications. I'll probably buy a copy just to challenge myself to learn more about DNA research methodology, but I'm sure that there will likely be a number of excellent journalists that will cover the story in pretty decent detail. Any BFF member buying a copy of the paper should note the BFF doesn't allow posting in a manner that abuses copyright, so let's not get into having a "sharing" experience here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts