Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) I hope you guys realize that if it wasn't for these rumours from RL we wouldn't even know about things like the Sierra Kills right now. Basically we know a lot more information than we're even supposed to and apparently some of us can't handle it. Especially JREFers. Edited September 14, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Transformer, your list of facts you presented are as far as I can tell very likely correct. The questions are whether it makes sense for a press release of that information in advance of publication date and release of press embargo for the paper itself, and whether such a press release might be create difficulties with any NDA's. Regarding the NDA's it might be that making such a press release will give an opening for people that have submitted samples to the study to talk to the press. Justin's case notwithstanding I think any release of that nature might start opening the proverbial can of worms and give major media incentive to start snooping around. This might also absolve the press from issues with embargoes if they then have information available to flesh out a story and publish. It could easily get out of hand. I don't see any reason why a press release would be in the best interest of the project at this point. It would be far better to wait until the embargo is lifted then issue a press release and possibly do a press conference or book speaking engagements to get the word out. As I noted in a post last week after I contacted a major journal to ask them what their policy is regarding embargo, your point that "Dr. Ketchum is hoping to have her research (which is augmented by many geneticists from major universities in the US) in a major science journal soon" might also be problematic regarding journal policies, even if you don't name the journal: "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." So it seems to me that continuing to argue that Dr. Ketchum et al should or ought to make some kind of press release or give out some kind of information to the public is really a red herring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 To be fair, though, BFS, that only applies at Nature (and their group of publications), and we don't know that that is where this paper is. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) The main point is that NO work is being discussed in the press release. The press release is an overall statement of generalities that do not discuss her specific work at all. Also, I think that assuming that Nature is the the specific journal that is on the table is throwing darts in the dark unless you have any specific knowlwedge that Nature is the journal that the work has been submitted to and is under review or set for publication in. Plus, there is no mention of what journal much less Nature in the post I made. So in reality the red herring is assuming that Nature has an imbargo on Dr. Ketchum's work without one bit of evidence that Nature is even on the table. I see that Mike G beat me to the last point. Edited September 14, 2012 by Transformer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 True, I used Nature as an example of a major journal when I contacted them to get clarification of their policies. If anyone cares to continue the research with other journals I would be interested to know if their policies differ greatly. I would be a bit surprised if there were major variations, but I could certainly be wrong about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Moderator Statement - Please read before posting! Morning guys. Hope you're all well. I'd like to remind you all that the people involved in the DNA study are members here on the BFF. As such, the rules apply for their protection, the same way you'd expect them to protect you. I'm losing count on the amount of rule reminders the staff have posted here, but it's becoming a little silly now. Please help us on the staff by following the rules. They make BFF the great forum it is, and keep this place enjoyable for everyone. I've deleted several posts this morning, so some of you may see your replies to those posts have been edited. Suspending members isn't fun, and kinda ruins my day, so please take the above into consideration. ETA The Ketchum report is an emotive subject, if you want to be able to say what's on your mind without worrying about moderation, then why not join the PMP? You can take it to the Tar Pit there, and get it off your chest. Plus there's a whole lotif really useful content from BFF 1.0 More info here: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted September 14, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) I hope you guys realize that if it wasn't for these rumours from RL we wouldn't even know about things like the Sierra Kills right now. Basically we know a lot more information than we're even supposed to and apparently some of us can't handle it. Especially JREFers. I think you give too much credit to Sierra Kills/RL and not enough to Stubstad personally. Think about it. Edited September 14, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 The main point is that NO work is being discussed in the press release. The press release is an overall statement of generalities that do not discuss her specific work at all. Unless someone makes a coherent point regarding why a press release would be necessary or even advisable I don't think it would be advisable. That was the main point of my post above. Who would benefit from making a press release and what are the risks involved with making a press release prior to the paper getting out of embargo? The beneficiaries would of course be forum members or others in the bigfoot community that are frothing at the mouth for some kind of confirmation of all the rumors and speculation. I just don't see how that would benefit the researchers or contributors, and depending on the journal may put the consideration of the paper in jeopardy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Transformer, you hit it on the head. I am fearful we will have the same facts a year from now. "soon" was the word we heard about a year and a half ago. I visited the forum for a while.. Am I correct that as of today no one has confirmed that the paper has been "accepted for publication"? Am I correct that as of today no one has confirmed that the paper passed peer review? The only confirmation I am aware of is that the "paper was submitted for peer review" which occurred a year and a half ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 The clearest thing we got from Ketchum was that "it will be published in 2012". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 When and where did she say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) Her Facebook, on June 6th, in reply to one Billy Mills asking. https://www.facebook...tal_comments=85 Edited September 14, 2012 by gershake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 What puzzles me about the standard fare of debate in this thread is the ongoing statements that say there is no paper or there is no DNA evidence and how can we say there is unless Dr. Ketchum confirms it, etc. etc. It seems more like folks are fishing for detailed and explicit confirmation from Dr. Ketchum, hoping she is reading this thread and will be prompted to make the "big reveal" for our benefit. As gershake notes ^ she has stated she expects publication "in 2012" and many forum members have confirmed they have submitted samples and are under NDA's. I think trying to argue the position that this is all a hoax, fraud, or vaporware is seriously trying to paddle without oars. There's plenty of indications that there is a DNA study that has revealed something new and interesting and has been submitted for peer review and undergone rewrites working with a team of scientists. Anyone that is serious about finding more information can read through this thread or more importantly read through statements made by Dr. Ketchum on her facebook page. Or try becoming trustworthy enough to have private chats with certain forum members or Dr. Ketchum if you are that interested. Otherwise you are just stirring the mud with speculative nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Well said, BFS, but the word of mouth truly does not constitute final proof. That will only come after publication. One doesn't have to be a big naysayer to delay accepting the claims of "DNA proves bigfoot exists" until true scientific reports come out verifying that's the case. Plenty of people keep saying it's a done deal because this guy or that guy sent in samples and the research supposedly has confirmed on several points, but until something gets published that has withstood scientific scrutiny, those stories are really no more valid than anything else. Until someone publishes, it's all speculation, no matter where one stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Exactly and well said, Tontar. Until the publication of the paper and further review by DNA scientists we don't have much to go on. However, questioning whether there is research, DNA samples, or a paper is a tad bit flabberghasting at this point for anyone that does a little reading and investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts