Guest Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 ^^^^ link please to where it shows Ketchum has confirmed it's in peer review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 I know this has probably come up many times in the last 10,000 pages but indulge me please, I'm slow today.... Do we know how many of the samples Ketchum and Sykes are testing are duplicates of each other and has Sykes got 'steak'? I realise Justin and Bart are having their sample analysed by a third party, but I'm less clear if Sykes is in on the action. I understand that people will say it is difficult to ascertain for sure if something is a "true duplicate". For example, if the Olympic Project submits saliva from a licked trail cam it is impossible to say for certain that two individual specimens were not licking the trail cam at the same time, though why a couple of Bigfoots would want to engage in such a curious activity is beyond me at the moment and it would be hard to avoid cross-contamination in a scenario like this anyway. To stop waffling, if there is a significant overlap of specimens tested by both researchers and Sykes does report before Christmas with the conclusion that none of the samples come from unknown primates, this rather sweeps the rug from under Ketchum's feet doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted September 26, 2012 Admin Share Posted September 26, 2012 It would if Ketchum only has the same samples, but if she has samples that Sykes does not and she claims it is from an unknown primate or whatever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbhunter Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Here ya go SS...This was a release Dr K did earlier this year on FB; Dr. Melba Ketchum says- "For everyone that keeps asking for when the paper will be out, please understand that 1) I cannot talk about our data or it will never get published. Those are journal rules. 2) I cannot divulge which journal as that will kill our paper also so speculation is futile. 3) Peer review and publication can take 5 to 26 weeks and then there is the question of revision where they ask you to change or ...re-write or edit some of the paper. It is a rare paper that is accepted without some revision. I know this because I peer review for some well known scientific journals also. 4) Timing is very difficult to say the least because of #3 and once again, I am sure the journal would reject the paper if I told you exactly when I think the paper would be out. Soon is as much as I can say. I cannot afford to lose all of the exceptionally difficult work that my co-authors and I have put into this project. I am asking you to understand this! Please. 5) I also ask you to understand that I am not trying to be rude or disrespectful to anyone by my silence. I would love nothing better than to scream our results to the world. But, like everything else in the world of Sasquatch, it will NOT prove ANYTHING if the data doesn't undergo the rigors of peer review in the scientific community. It has to convince the skeptics (or at least skeptical scientists) or it is just another attempt to prove the existence of BF that cannot be substantiated even though we have overkilled the science on this project beyond all realms of reason. So, I guess the question is, do we rush and and fail, or do we play by the rules and prove something once and for all that will vindicate thousands who have had sightings. They are real and most if not all of the people on FB (facebook)here are believers. Please, let's do this right so the world will know once and for all that there is a real and illusive creature that is alive and well right here in our own backyards. If I have any news I can share, I will share it here though, OK?" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Impressive post, KB....and I agree. Getting a solid "Here ya go--proof positive that BF exists!" result is well worth the waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Thanks, but I've seen that before. I don't see any where that it states the paper is in peer review. That whole statement pretty much just says" I can't talk about my data or the journal I'm in communication with. Stop asking questions, the paper will be out soon". The part about peer review(as I read it) is just explaining the amount of time it may take if the paper makes it that far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 If you care about statements made by Dr. Ketchum, doesn't the one suffice to you in which she stated the paper would be out this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 It would if Ketchum only has the same samples, but if she has samples that Sykes does not and she claims it is from an unknown primate or whatever... I take your point, but if we knew that Sykes and Ketchum had, say, three samples in common and Sykes stated that NONE of his samples tested positive, then it would make me feel (even) less confident in Ketchum's methodology. Though, of course, we wouldn't know whether the three samples had also been rejected by Ketchum too. Unfortunately, I expect Sykes to announce that there is no DNA evidence for an unknown primate in North America - that's my hunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Here ya go SS...This was a release Dr K did earlier this year on FB; Dr. Melba Ketchum says- "For everyone that keeps asking for when the paper will be out, please understand that 1) I cannot talk about our data or it will never get published. Those are journal rules. 2) I cannot divulge which journal as that will kill our paper also so speculation is futile. 3) Peer review and publication can take 5 to 26 weeks and then there is the question of revision where they ask you to change or ...re-write or edit some of the paper. It is a rare paper that is accepted without some revision. I know this because I peer review for some well known scientific journals also. 4) Timing is very difficult to say the least because of #3 and once again, I am sure the journal would reject the paper if I told you exactly when I think the paper would be out. Soon is as much as I can say. I cannot afford to lose all of the exceptionally difficult work that my co-authors and I have put into this project. I am asking you to understand this! Please. 5) I also ask you to understand that I am not trying to be rude or disrespectful to anyone by my silence. I would love nothing better than to scream our results to the world. But, like everything else in the world of Sasquatch, it will NOT prove ANYTHING if the data doesn't undergo the rigors of peer review in the scientific community. It has to convince the skeptics (or at least skeptical scientists) or it is just another attempt to prove the existence of BF that cannot be substantiated even though we have overkilled the science on this project beyond all realms of reason. So, I guess the question is, do we rush and and fail, or do we play by the rules and prove something once and for all that will vindicate thousands who have had sightings. They are real and most if not all of the people on FB (facebook)here are believers. Please, let's do this right so the world will know once and for all that there is a real and illusive creature that is alive and well right here in our own backyards. If I have any news I can share, I will share it here though, OK?" I should print that and put it somewhere for motivation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 I take your point, but if we knew that Sykes and Ketchum had, say, three samples in common and Sykes stated that NONE of his samples tested positive, then it would make me feel (even) less confident in Ketchum's methodology. Though, of course, we wouldn't know whether the three samples had also been rejected by Ketchum too. Unfortunately, I expect Sykes to announce that there is no DNA evidence for an unknown primate in North America - that's my hunch. I think in order to make any judgement you would need to know whether the data between the two studies was in any way comparable. If Sykes didn't sequence the same regions of the genome, you might not know if anyone is actually wrong. I expect Dr. Ketchum will have more data from each sample than Sykes, and probably more samples. So it will likely be the Sykes study that will benefit from Ketchum's data overlapping his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 If you care about statements made by Dr. Ketchum, doesn't the one suffice to you in which she stated the paper would be out this year? Not really. If I remember right she also said it would be published last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Suesquach Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 KB, thanks for that info. Can you divulge when Dr. K posted that on FB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 If it is in peer review as some are saying, then it is possible that the paper may fail peer review and not be published. I am of the opinion that the paper has failed peer review at one or more journals and it is now being shopped to other journals. This is just my speculation. I am not very optimistic that the paper will be published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 (edited) Hi Zigoapex. I know it has been explained a few times in the thread here. But this simple point of the matter is this; It is in peer review and in NOT in Dr K's hands anymore regarding release. The peer review board is compromised of many of her "peers" with doctorates and other very qualified people to look at all of the documents. Depending on the scope of what is trying to be accomplished, has a direct bearing on how long it takes. There could be a call for more pics, video, dna or whatever else they need to get it completed. You have to undertsand that these folks will be putting their names and reputations on the final document, so it is important to have a completely passable document. I wouldn't doubt it is many more months and it wouldn't surprise me if it is tomorrow this is completed. KB I understand that, but it seems there is something on that side of it that has something going on, I believe Dr.K did accrue the extra data needed(she is probably trying to push them herself because of the protection agenda). I'm thinking the peer review itself is the one with the problems and is deadlocked or having problems with external pressure. Edited September 27, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 If it is in peer review as some are saying, then it is possible that the paper may fail peer review and not be published. I am of the opinion that the paper has failed peer review at one or more journals and it is now being shopped to other journals. This is just my speculation. I am not very optimistic that the paper will be published. My speculation is that the paper has been "accepted for publication". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts