Guest Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 It may be a lot of things (or none) but it ain't a hoax. Think I said this before about a hundred pages back and I still believe it. It just doesn't fit the bill. Maybe it's just me but I've been sensing a whole lot of nihilism in Bigfoot circles of late. Think we oughta give this a little more time - there's something in it. I got premium and everything but this thread is the only one that matters in my humble opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 I'm as big a skeptic about this for a whole host of other reasons, but there's no way it's a hoax. The whole premise is doomed from the get go without a body or significant part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 (edited) To be honest, I see the name Igor Burtsev, and a statement of 32 BF's at one time and do get a bit twitchy. I think she means blobsquatches. The article contains a clear-as-day picture of four of them. Four lots of BS. Edited September 27, 2012 by corvus horribilus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 (edited) The person who circled those is clearly out of touch with reality. Edited September 27, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 .... to be grounds for rejecting the paper... OK...Time for a little bit of dissecting what this actually says not what many want it to say. The question that was asked was specifically referring to MEDIA. "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?" "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." There is absolutely NOTHING in there that states that the ideas, concepts, and journal submissions cannot be discussed with anybody other than the media and that is exactly what the real scientists have been saying all along regarding this issue. Dr. Ketchum is at liberty to discuss her findings with her colleagues, at conferences, and with anybody else AS LONG AS IT IS NOT A JOURNALIST. The last sentence in the reply from the journal is obviously a continuation of the previous sentence regarding a discussion with a journalist or media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 OK...Time for a little bit of dissecting what this actually says not what many want it to say. The question that was asked was specifically referring to MEDIA. There is absolutely NOTHING in there that states that the ideas, concepts, and journal submissions cannot be discussed with anybody other than the media and that is exactly what the real scientists have been saying all along regarding this issue. Dr. Ketchum is at liberty to discuss her findings with her colleagues, at conferences, and with anybody else AS LONG AS IT IS NOT A JOURNALIST. The last sentence in the reply from the journal is obviously a continuation of the previous sentence regarding a discussion with a journalist or media. Well to be honest your theory has obvious holes in it. 1) What's to prevent a journalist from getting the information from a "scientist" that has no investment in the paper being published? 2) Who is qualified to be considered a "bigfoot" scientist? 3) How do you know the results haven't been shared with other scientists? Perhaps there are more and they are honoring the embargo as well. Perhaps those that don't know aren't qualified to be shared with. I know I fit that bill. 4) If, say, a heart surgeon publishes a paper on a new technique with surgery but wants to share his moustachy information with his peers, I'm guessing it won't hit the mainstream news and affect the publishing process. There just isn't nearly as much interest in heart surgery and other fields as there is in Bigfootology. If a "bigfoot" researcher were to share his or her results with other bigfoot researches, it would be all over the internet before the researcher finished the presentation. I am pretty sure that would be considered sharing info with a journalist. Those are the easy reasons a thoughtful person would see. I'm sure there are many more for greater minds than myself. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 OK...Time for a little bit of dissecting what this actually says not what many want it to say. The question that was asked was specifically referring to MEDIA. There is absolutely NOTHING in there that states that the ideas, concepts, and journal submissions cannot be discussed with anybody other than the media and that is exactly what the real scientists have been saying all along regarding this issue. Dr. Ketchum is at liberty to discuss her findings with her colleagues, at conferences, and with anybody else AS LONG AS IT IS NOT A JOURNALIST. The last sentence in the reply from the journal is obviously a continuation of the previous sentence regarding a discussion with a journalist or media. I think the slippery slope is the term 'journalist'. I'm an independent freelance journalist, with connections in the newspaper business throughout the midwest. Would Dr MK talking about info on this site, with me as a member, violate the above? Thing is, the media is nearly everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 There is absolutely NOTHING in there that states that the ideas, concepts, and journal submissions cannot be discussed with anybody other than the media and that is exactly what the real scientists have been saying all along regarding this issue. Dr. Ketchum is at liberty to discuss her findings with her colleagues, at conferences, and with anybody else AS LONG AS IT IS NOT A JOURNALIST. The last sentence in the reply from the journal is obviously a continuation of the previous sentence regarding a discussion with a journalist or media. Publishing in an open forum that a journalist could read would be crossing the line, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 This is such a long thread, I really cannot read every page of it lol Does anybody know which journal she is going to publish in? Peer reviewing can take a long time, if the reviewers keep coming back with questions etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 No one knows. There's lots of speculation but no one knows. That is what leads to the "Frustration" you are seeing. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 OK...Time for a little bit of dissecting what this actually says not what many want it to say. The question that was asked was specifically referring to MEDIA. There is absolutely NOTHING in there that states that the ideas, concepts, and journal submissions cannot be discussed with anybody other than the media and that is exactly what the real scientists have been saying all along regarding this issue. Dr. Ketchum is at liberty to discuss her findings with her colleagues, at conferences, and with anybody else AS LONG AS IT IS NOT A JOURNALIST. The last sentence in the reply from the journal is obviously a continuation of the previous sentence regarding a discussion with a journalist or media. Just the first clue might be to go back and read the OP of this thread. You might recall that this entire thread was started by (.... drumrolls...) the media. So then, publishing confirmation of which journal she has submitted the paper or whether it is in peer review on Facebook or on this forum would constitute what? It would constitute publication that is accessible to the media. Now put yourself in the shoes of Dr. Ketchum and assume that you have a paper that is well into or might even be through the process of peer review. For what good reason would you publish information about the status of the paper at this time (other than of course to throw a bone to quibbling forum members)? Does anybody know which journal she is going to publish in? The journal staff, Dr. Ketchum et al, and the peer reviewers know. Beyond that, nobody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 I'm as big a skeptic about this for a whole host of other reasons, but there's no way it's a hoax. The whole premise is doomed from the get go without a body or significant part. So what is your theory as to where DNA comes from, if not a critter? Does it spontaneously generate, like maggots from meat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Geez Mulder how manys times must you trot out this, this.....I don't even know what to call it anymore!!! Of course DNA comes from a biological entity...how many times must I tell you that! You obviously have some point....or my logic must really get under your skin, just get over it already...your arguments are become like a very old broken record.....big yawn for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 While Mulder does get on that particular argument like a dog on a bone, it's for good reason. DNA comes from a biological entity and to my knowledge would be impossible to "hoax". Even without a type specimen the finding of DNA that might place the biological entity somewhere between man and the closest known ancestor and that would be able to place it on the taxanomic tree would be sufficient to establish the existence of the species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Come on Cerv- you know he means that DNA IS a body part. I believe the way to resolve it is for you to say it's not a significant body part in your eyes. You want to see the shape of the part. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts