Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 That would explain the wait CO!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Just which scientific journal was that? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Isn't that from TIm Fasano's website? He is not someone I respect, personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 He's not respected by much of ANYbody, near as I can tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 If I was going to scoop a huge story out on a blog that I have created (which is only about this subject), I wouldn't make it story number two. Wedged between "Does the Freeman Bigfoot video show an infant?" and "Return to the Fasano Photo area". That's just me. I would be inclined to make that the main headline on my science journal about skunk apes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted December 27, 2011 Admin Share Posted December 27, 2011 Anonymous sources... but then, no paper yet after what is it now? two years? I guess there is still 4 days left 'til the end of the year... when the paper was supposed to be out by. Or has it changed again and it's by this spring? I lost track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I'm really tempted to rename this thread "Man claims that Ketchum Dna Results rejected by Science Journal". If he worked for a newspaper- they would never allow him to print a piece like this, without being 100% sure that his sources were vetted, and he most likely would have to have them go "on the record" before they'd print an accusation of this type. I'm not saying it isnt true, I'm saying he's pretty vague about exactly how he knows it to be true. "Two unrelated sources" ?? He's not mentioning how they are related to the project, or how they would know- seems suspect to me. Being that its a post on his own website, well he can pretty much claim whatever he wants- but I'll tell you with the $$ that is behind the project, I'd be very careful about making claims like this before they release anything- so that I wouldnt wind up getting my butt sued off. Guess time will answer all questions... Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted December 27, 2011 Admin Share Posted December 27, 2011 I think you should rename the thread. The title is not accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 "The paper submitted by Melba Ketchum on Bigfoot DNA study has been rejected out of hand. It has not just been handed back, it has been rejected. I have it from two unrelated sources in the Bigfoot world that the cornerstone of the Erickson project has crashed in flames. Gibberish. If a paper is submitted to a refereed journal and the journal agrees to review it, the journal is contractually obligated to provide the author with the reviewers' comments. No scientific journal would even begin to enterain a concept that has been worked backwards. That is "ad-hoc_ science". That is when you state the conclusion up front and then fill in the blanks. The project was never even a theory or an hypothesis; it was stated as a fact up front. They went straight too conclusion and only looked for evidence that would support their theory." Gibberish. The discovery and description of a new species falls into the realm of natural history, which is hardly the ultimate in experimental science. One goes out, looks around, finds something suspected of being new,and reports it so others can weigh in. The null hypothesis is "It is nothing new," while the alternative hypothesis is "It is something new." The burden is on the author to reject the null hypothesis. If a party of extraterreatrials knocked on my door today to ask me to take them to my leader. and if I documented the visit with video, photos, eye witnesses, and tissue samples, I wouldn't be allowed to write a paper because I failed to hypothesize such an encounter upon waking? Nonsense. "Nature" may well reject the paper -- it is considered a prestigious journa and receives far more papers than it can publish. Rejection cannot be equated with failure on the author's part. I suspect whoever wrote the msterial quoted above would have difficulty differentiating between Shinola and excrement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 This was discussed yesterday in the Ketchum Report Thread. Someone claiming to be Paulides refuted the TF's claim on the Bigfoot Evidence Blog. Ketchum Report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 This was discussed yesterday in the Ketchum Report Thread. Someone claiming to be Paulides refuted the TF's claim on the Bigfoot Evidence Blog. Ketchum Report I saw the article as well, and even as a three years newbee it hasn't much to support the view except "sources." (I entered the Bf world knowing about the DNA study). I imagine Biscardi is his source and Biscardi probably knows something b/c even if the Toenail got "repped" to another he still has people that tell him things...odd world Bigfootery. So, it is possible. What is interesting is Smeja...an article this morning he will be on a podcast (someone summarize please!, I don't listen to those shows) Jan 1. I think I read here one of his buds urging him to hold on till Dec 31....so sounds like he has his deadline set...regardless. I do not beleive Paulides posted there. A few weeks ago it seemed Bindernagel had, but within a few more posts those imposters gave themselves away by plugging their own website. Don't see anything quite so revealing on these posts, but appears same imposters to me....or another who saw the "fun." What is nice about that site...the guy isn't into all the serious BF BS....and so he can put the ridiculous out for emotional releif....is it damaging to BF research? What isn't? There are only a few websites that aren't somehow perceived as ridiculus by the "world." I do like his idea of pulling others stuff from across all the groups..so many websites I never visited (like Fasano's..why would I?) b/c there is just not any reliable "peer-body" to review anyone's work....except the good 'ole boy network....so, all in all, I think the site is a good addition...just don't believe any "names" you see attached to posts unless it links to their "Open ID" or something! Happy New Year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I'm really tempted to rename this thread "Man claims that Ketchum Dna Results rejected by Science Journal". If he worked for a newspaper- they would never allow him to print a piece like this, without being 100% sure that his sources were vetted, and he most likely would have to have them go "on the record" before they'd print an accusation of this type. I'm not saying it isnt true, I'm saying he's pretty vague about exactly how he knows it to be true. "Two unrelated sources" ?? He's not mentioning how they are related to the project, or how they would know- seems suspect to me. I'd pull the thread entirely myself. Renaming would be a MINIMUM response. "Nature" may well reject the paper -- it is considered a prestigious journa and receives far more papers than it can publish. Rejection cannot be equated with failure on the author's part. If Nature did indeed reject it, then the meme about how Henry Gee is so open to publishing a sasquatch paper is just more Skeptic misinformation. Which would not surprise me one bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I agree pull the thread poor journalism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted December 27, 2011 Admin Share Posted December 27, 2011 Merged the two Ketchum threads. ONE thread about the topic is plenty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Matt Moneymaker wasn't the only one to write Nature Editors, nor the only one to receive a reply. Perhaps he was the only one to post the reply. I don't believe we are waiting for a paper in any of the Nature Publishing groups journals. She has been published, in 2005, and perhaps that journal is a possibility. But, I think most prestigious Journals have their Jan articles online now? Nothing is coming up. But, with the online ability, some do publish on their website beyond the print version. I suppose, with Smeja granting a "BF webcast" interview Jan. 1, 2012 we shall know more, even if nothing comes of the rumored Dec 31, 2011 announcement date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts