Guest Jodie Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 I have a copy, but I'ld have to dig it up at this late hour. It'll wait until the am, but basically, I think I remember him thinking they were some kind of human. I don't know if he wrote that before or after sequencing started. I don't put much faith into what he says either way. The DNA will speak for itself, and hopefully soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 So, upon being shown your error, you prefer to not do the honorable thing and admit your mistake? Got it. Oh no you don't...you do NOT get to pull that crap with me, Sas. Finish the quote: If he's so freaking open to the idea, why isn't he publishing the paper? The nature of the crits alleged to be received have nothing to do with results or methodology, so those must be sound. There is a lot of bloviating about "no testable hypothesis" and other such BS. Answer the question, Sas...why would Nature (assuming Nature DID reject the paper) not publish a paper on the subject that passed on it's technical merits, but is dunned by some reviewers on specious and spurious "no testable hypothesis" grounds? That's "Rules Lawyering" and word-gaming, Sas, and you darn well know it. Show me a supposed crit of the study that has been leaked that addresses the actual scientific findings. (That x number of samples were sent to y number of labs and z were the genetic results obtained.) As usual, I won't be holding my breath. I do not know, but I would assume that there is some "freaking" flaw in the manuscript that precludes its publication if, in fact, reports are accurate that it has been rejected by Nature. The bolded part is interesting. Have you read the manuscript? Have you read its rejection letter from the journal? Have you read the reviews themselves? If not, on what basis do you conclude that any portion of it must be sound? I've read the same things here on this board that you have, Sas. And if they accurately reflect the crits of the study, then NONE of them are in the least bit scientific. NO leak that we have been shown has in any way shape or form demonstrated that the study itself was either poorly designed or improperly executed procedurally. As I said above, the crits have all been shameless attempts to IGNORE the proceedures AND the findings and instead blow smoke up our collective hoo-ha-s about "testable hypotheses". This is the first that I have heard that Ketchum has disavowed the bf is human hypothesis. If this is true, those who leaked information that the report would sugust that bf is human were providing incorrect information. Am I correct that we are all in agreement that Parn's conclusion that Bf is a human is an untestible hypothesis without a body. It seems to me that we have four possibilities. Parn's "conclusion" is NOT what the claim made by Paulides/Stubstrad were reported to be. The alleged finding was that BF shared approximately 2/3 of it's differentiating markers with humans and the remaining 1/3 with other higher primates (chimpanzees, if memory serves). Paulides is known to push the "BF is human" angle, but no one and nothing ties that claim to the Ketchum study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 (edited) I think it would be rare for any research paper to be published in Nature or any publication of that caliber without having at least one rewrite request or other form of rejection. I certainly hope that nobody on this forum is operating under the false impression that just because a work submitted to Nature about something important automatically qualifies it for publication on the first submission. That is just serious ignorance. Many major studies published in Nature and other major journals have gone through many many rewrites, scrutiny, and editorial "suggestions" in order for the work to be published. Publication of a paper in a journal is a major effort and isn't one and done by any means. I remember my professor telling us the three most important things for published writing is "rewrites, rewrites, and rewrites". Especially for a scientific publications. Let's just all take a breath and wait for the process to work its way through. Edited December 29, 2011 by BFSleuth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Considering the amount of misinformation that's floating about in the bigfoot ocean, how was it determined that Nature had rejected, let alone even reviewed the Ketchum report? Without any actual... oh, you know... evidence, isn't this all just speculation? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Maybe the plasma spheres are disseminating misinformation? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted December 29, 2011 Admin Share Posted December 29, 2011 Without any actual... oh, you know... evidence, isn't this all just speculation? RayG 33 Pages of speculation and counting................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 http://www.nature.com/authors/submit_manuscript.html How about we work with facts of the submission process instead of assumptions? I'm sure all the clarification regarding the steps in getting a paper published can be answered by the Journal in question. Unless of course someone here has themselves been published by Nature and can speak from first hand experience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Maybe the plasma spheres are disseminating misinformation? Plasma spheres? Has this place really made that big of a break with sanity? Any closer to the gravity well and even your fuzzy logic reactor won't get you out!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Plasma spheres? Has this place really made that big of a break with sanity? Any closer to the gravity well and even your fuzzy logic reactor won't get you out!! I don't believe so...this is a discussion forum and this is what's being discussed. About the BFF - Is it right for you? >The BFF is an independent forum dedicated to the discussion of the Bigfoot phenomenon. While the Forum is independent, it is owned and operated by the Centre for Fortean Zoology which is not a Bigfoot research organization and has no official ties to any Bigfoot organization. Pizeo-electrical activity on fault lines is a well known phenomina, BF possibly being sighted in an area with fault lines isn't beyond the realm of possibility. Discussing both is allowed within the forum rules. Narrow interpretations of what this website is or should be are subject to the site owners opinion, not ours. Grayjay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 X2. Idk who fasono is but he's speaking out of his posterior. Seeing that Grayjay edited out a profanity I doubt that *you* used the word Posterior! GrayJay must have either a dictionary or an excellent vocabulary of non-profane words to substitute. That's just too funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Nope...LOL! Just following directives.... and my apologies to the General for not comming up with a better word... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/10951-june-thru-december-2011-sc-actionsbusiness/page__pid__129080#entry129080 Profanity/Word Censor Filter: 27-11 Yea: southernyahoo, BobbyO, LAL, BuzzardEater, Incorrigible1, VAfooter, bipedalist UNANIMOUS! Explicit or implied foul language (profanity) even that represented in part by special characters such as asterisks (and/or other place-holders designed to bypass forum software word censoring filters) will result in edits. Though mods may consider intent and target, all such violations are subject to immediate edit/removal by moderators/administrators. In no case will content be deleted unless it is impossible to save the meaning of the phrase or sentence due to violations (in which case a whole sentence or post might have to be eliminated). The forum moderation/administration staff reserves the right to consider a separate discussion area for members to discuss "adult-language elements" of BF behavior if there is a way to determine how to implement such a subforum in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Oh no you don't...you do NOT get to pull that crap with me, Sas. This "crap" you refer to is me pointing out an error in your characterization of the origin of Henry Gee's opinion of cryptids, offering you the opportunity to do the honorable thing and apologize to the BFF for that error, and confirming that the petulant "No I won't" reply you offered really was the display of character you wanted to stick with. There's crap here alright, folks . . . Answer the question, Sas...why would Nature . . . not publish a paper I have now answered that question twice. This third time, my answer remains the same, but I'll expand a bit if it helps. I just did a bit of checking on acceptance rates for Nature. Of all the manuscripts submitted, about 2/3 are rejected out of hand. This is "handed back" - these are not sent out for review at all. They are winnowed out by the editorial staff. Note that people generally submit their highest quality research to this journal, so that's thousands of manuscripts each year, written by really smart people who think the work is really important, that never even make it to being considered for review. Of the 1/3 or so that do get reviewed, only about 1/4 will ultimately get published. According to, you know, Nature, the journal received 10,287 submissions in 2010 and published 809 of those papers, for a roughly 8% acceptance rate. So basically to get published in this journal, your submission must be better than 92% of the best work of the best scientists in the world. So here's a great example of your lack of critical thinking on this issue, Mulder. Rather than going to the source for actual data to provide a better understanding, you prefer to lob thinly veiled insults at myself and other skeptical BFF members to the effect that somehow we are the reason Dr. Ketchum hasn't published her paper in Nature. We've trumped up Henry Gee's willingness to consider cryptid submissions as one of our diabolical skeptical tactics to keep the world from learning about bigfoot (or something like that - I'm having a hard time figuring out what you really think is the problem here, given that I've already illustrated that our perceptions of Gee's willingness to consider crypto-papers comes from Gee himself.) If you had taken a moment to actually learn something about this journal, you'd have seen for yourself that Nature rejects over 90% of its submissions. Given that information, why on earth would anyone assume that a manuscript submitted there would, indeed, be published? Of course, it gets stranger still . . . (assuming Nature DID reject the paper) On what basis would you assume this, given that we don't even know if a manuscript was submitted there? . . . not publish a paper on the subject that passed on it's technical merits, On what basis do you know that such a paper (if it exists at all) "passed on its technical merits?" What does that phrase even mean? Show me a supposed crit of the study that has been leaked that addresses the actual scientific findings. (That x number of samples were sent to y number of labs and z were the genetic results obtained.) As usual, I won't be holding my breath. I'm glad you won't be holding your breath because I have not made any claims about the contents of peer review evaluations of a manuscript submission that I am not even convinced exists. If Dr. Ketchum prepared such a manuscript, submitted it to Nature, and had it rejected, then she would have received a written explanation for the journal explaining why. If that's the case, she's free to share that information with whomever she likes. I don't understand why people choose to wind their panties in knots over bits and pieces of "leaked" information, the veracity of which is not at all established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Nope...LOL! Just following directives.... and my apologies to the General for not comming up with a better word... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/10951-june-thru-december-2011-sc-actionsbusiness/page__pid__129080#entry129080 Profanity/Word Censor Filter: 27-11 Yea: southernyahoo, BobbyO, LAL, BuzzardEater, Incorrigible1, VAfooter, bipedalist UNANIMOUS! Explicit or implied foul language (profanity) even that represented in part by special characters such as asterisks (and/or other place-holders designed to bypass forum software word censoring filters) will result in edits. Though mods may consider intent and target, all such violations are subject to immediate edit/removal by moderators/administrators. In no case will content be deleted unless it is impossible to save the meaning of the phrase or sentence due to violations (in which case a whole sentence or post might have to be eliminated). The forum moderation/administration staff reserves the right to consider a separate discussion area for members to discuss "adult-language elements" of BF behavior if there is a way to determine how to implement such a subforum in the future. Thankfully, Grayjay, you have a *Large* and *varied* vocabulary! That was just too cute to see posterior and the edit notification about a profanity being removed. BTW: Good Job..and Too Cute to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 I think it would be rare for any research paper to be published in Nature or any publication of that caliber without having at least one rewrite request or other form of rejection. I certainly hope that nobody on this forum is operating under the false impression that just because a work submitted to Nature about something important automatically qualifies it for publication on the first submission. That is just serious ignorance. Many major studies published in Nature and other major journals have gone through many many rewrites, scrutiny, and editorial "suggestions" in order for the work to be published. Publication of a paper in a journal is a major effort and isn't one and done by any means. I remember my professor telling us the three most important things for published writing is "rewrites, rewrites, and rewrites". Especially for a scientific publications. Let's just all take a breath and wait for the process to work its way through. Fair comments, all. I certainly don't hold that, but our Skeptical bretheren seem to be touting the notion that "rejection" = "worthless" AND still won't pony up any evidence that any crit received had any scientific validity. I think it would be rare for any research paper to be published in Nature or any publication of that caliber without having at least one rewrite request or other form of rejection. I certainly hope that nobody on this forum is operating under the false impression that just because a work submitted to Nature about something important automatically qualifies it for publication on the first submission. That is just serious ignorance. Many major studies published in Nature and other major journals have gone through many many rewrites, scrutiny, and editorial "suggestions" in order for the work to be published. Publication of a paper in a journal is a major effort and isn't one and done by any means. I remember my professor telling us the three most important things for published writing is "rewrites, rewrites, and rewrites". Especially for a scientific publications. Let's just all take a breath and wait for the process to work its way through. Fair comments all... I certainly don't believe that. However, our Skeptical bretheren seem to believe that "rejection" = "worthless" and "game over" for the study. They also have been unable to present any crit of the alleged study that was made on any real scientific basis (instead preferring to site crits that consist of verbal kung fu and Rules Lawyering). Considering the amount of misinformation that's floating about in the bigfoot ocean, how was it determined that Nature had rejected, let alone even reviewed the Ketchum report? Without any actual... oh, you know... evidence, isn't this all just speculation? RayG Proponents didn't start this, Ray...Skeptics did by posting that Nature had rejected the paper, and you kept bringing it up time after time after time. Plasma spheres? Has this place really made that big of a break with sanity? Any closer to the gravity well and even your fuzzy logic reactor won't get you out!! check and make sure your irony/sarcasm meter is plugged in and fully functional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 So, upon being shown your error, you prefer to not do the honorable thing and admit your mistake? Got it. I do not know, but I would assume that there is some "freaking" flaw in the manuscript that precludes its publication if, in fact, reports are accurate that it has been rejected by Nature. The bolded part is interesting. Have you read the manuscript? Have you read its rejection letter from the journal? Have you read the reviews themselves? If not, on what basis do you conclude that any portion of it must be sound? I remember that Melba had to suddenly cancel a presentation at a BF conference this past summer to run to England, or someplace in Europe because of an issue with the project. Since that time all she has said is that everything will be revealed soon. It seems that any problems that reared their ugly heads have been overcome, but I wonder if those issues delayed the BF announcement/revelations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts