Guest Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 no. I don't have any faith in this paper. I'm trying to figure out why anybody does. After three years all you got is some people sent some samples to Ketchum and signed nda's. Melba says the results are beautiful That's it. that's all you got. Realistically you don't even know if the samples have been tested yet, or a paper submitted and to top it all off,Now we have a discrepancy with the sierra kills sample .Lots of faith here. The pgf I understand that. You atleast got a film to study and speculate about, but this study? I don't get it. Realistically we do know that the samples have been tested. Numerous submitters have said they recieved the results. Let's at least be accurate with the complaints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 ^^^^ Really. All I've heard is they can't say anything because of nda's and according to Ketchum in this link, the submitters don't know anything. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/07/robert-lindsay-releases-high-resolution.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 There are some submitters like David Paulides, Adrian Erickson and Derek Randles who know the absolute final results. But soon hopefully the entire world will know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Yes, you do need to be friended in order to view the page. Turn on the charm... Now why would I want to do that. You have to be apart of her super secret fan club so you can wait for her to post info that she never gives out? No thanks I don't blame them for not friending you, lol I don't blame them either.lol There are some submitters like David Paulides, Adrian Erickson and Derek Randles who know the absolute final results. But soon hopefully the entire world will know So they say, But according to Ketchum they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 You have to be apart of her super secret fan club so you can wait for her to post info that she never gives out? I wouldn't categorize Facebook as "super secret". If anything it is the opposite. I think that's the point of using it. I do get the idea that your bottom line complaint is that Dr. Ketchum isn't giving the teensiest bit of information to the general public or the mucky mucks at the BFF. I think you've made that point very clear. By the way, did you read the links in my post 7546 regarding the policies of the journal Nature? Which part of the embargo policy do you think would allow Dr. Ketchum to release the information you are requesting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 It's Thursday at noon eastern right now. Any takers in the pool for this week? Last Thursday was Denisovan Day. Time is ticking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I think it's gonna be Nov. or Dec. before it's published. Like she said in the past, they want to overkill the information that is put in the report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I wouldn't categorize Facebook as "super secret". If anything it is the opposite. I think that's the point of using it. I do get the idea that your bottom line complaint is that Dr. Ketchum isn't giving the teensiest bit of information to the general public or the mucky mucks at the BFF. I think you've made that point very clear. By the way, did you read the links in my post 7546 regarding the policies of the journal Nature? Which part of the embargo policy do you think would allow Dr. Ketchum to release the information you are requesting? Yes I read it and I don't see anything that won't allow her to state if she submitted a paper, what journal, and if its in peer-review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 There has not been any info released. I'm not the one that's going to be crying when this doesn't go the way everybody's been hoping for. This has taken way to long. Imo something smells. I'm squating squatch, and I have yet to see any example of a journal embargo that is so restrictive that Ketchum can't answer those simple questions. I REPEAT, I didn't ask for results or the containt of the paper. Just if it has been submitted, what journal(s), and what is the state of the paper at this time. Very simple. It's possible it was submitted about a year ago and I think that science papers can spend a year in review pretty easily, especially one that would carry the magnitude sufficient to prove this extraordinary legend. It might have such an impact that genetic scientists would be directed to conduct back studies to track down origins of the unique DNA possessed by sasquatch. Add to this the preparations the Journal must make after acceptance potentially coupled with documentary projects to appease the great thirst of info post release, you can begin to grasp the consumption of time. This wouldn't just be about proof, it will be about having alot more answers up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Yes I read it and I don't see anything that won't allow her to state if she submitted a paper, what journal, and if its in peer-review. "Material submitted to Nature journals must not be discussed with the media, except in the case of accepted contributions, which can be discussed with the media no more than a week before the publication date under our embargo conditions. We reserve the right to halt the consideration or publication of a paper if this condition is broken... ...For all these reasons, Nature journals have refused to publish papers prematurely released to the media. Journalists who break our embargoes have been removed from the press-release circulation list, and we shall continue to use this sanction when appropriate." Seems rather unambiguous to me. Putting myself in her shoes, I don't think it would be worth risking publication, especially this late in the game, to satisfy the eagerness of certain people on the BFF. A few cryptic messages on a FB page might be the extent of it. Complete stonewalling would also be a worthwhile option. The less opportunities for potential refusal to publish the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 that embargo is talking about the content of the paper, not the paper itself. here is a quote from Embo journal that is publish by Nature. Embargo Policy The content of papers and any associated press releases is strictly embargoed until the official date of publication of a manuscript. link http://www.nature.com/emboj/about/authors.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 It is simply amazing how we keep coming back to this. Ketchum has stated she cannot discuss the paper. We have seen embargo policies that prove that this is NOT an unusual practice. The only people I see who keep harping on "why won't she say anything" are Skeptics with an axe to grind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Rather than run around in circles arguing about how the embargo policies are interpreted by a journal such as Nature I decided to check for myself. I sent an e-mail: "I read through the policy statement and it didn't seem to preclude confirming that a paper has been submitted or under peer review. If I submit a paper is it permissible to confirm with media that I have a paper in submission and if it does get into peer review is it allowed to confirm that fact as long as I don't discuss the contents of the paper?" The reply I received: "We ask that you not discuss your papers submitted for consideration as the review process is confidential. Though you are encouraged to discuss your work with fellow scientists and at conferences, our policy is that you not discuss any work submitted to Nature with journalists. As such, confirming that a paper has been submitted or is under review would mean discussing the work, which is counter to our policy." Hopefully this can lay to rest the issue of, "OH MY GOSH, WHY WON'T SHE AT LEAST CONFIRM!????" Take a breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Suesquach Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Finally an answer! +1 BF Sleuth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 That's some solid stuff right there BFS! That should answer SS's question on why she won't give the Journals name or give the peer review date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts