bipedalist Posted December 7, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) ....."They didnt even read it all. This is a long paper 50 pages" First mistake, specific directions to authors, initial submission in 500 words or less. Doh! j/k Edited December 7, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I really do not know Kezra, I am not really privy to that. But I do think that it will be the American journal that publishes and that we don't have to wait too much longer ; ) Thanks Vx.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Yes, but what happened to your policy of assuming someone is lying until proven otherwise? Why the trust all of a sudden? Because it's a statement that makes proponent evidence look bad. Proponents and researchers are always lying or wrong. Skeptics, Debunkers, etc are NEVER lying or wrong. That's how it works in Skepticland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Ok.. This thread is being re-opened..... with a clear warning. The personal comments, and sniping back and forth at each other end- right now...! There has been a substantial amount of work created for staff this evening, because some people either seem unaware that the forum has a strict set of rules, or you're just choosing to ignore them. If any of you need a refresher- they can be found here --> http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=boardrules If the conversation continues in a mature, intelligent, and polite manner- the thread will remain open. If it does not, it will be closed, indefinitely if need be... and some of you will be hearing from members of staff. Thank you for your patience, while staff worked through resolving some of the issues from earlier. Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spader Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I really hate to bring this topic up, because we are all of sound mind here. But could Melba Ketchum be a "patsy" for the purpose of Bigfoot's actual existence never being a legitimate topic? I think we all know that there are certain interests that may lose a lot if Bigfoot was proved to be a real, living, SELF AWARE, being. I can't even imagine what type of organizations that would pop up to protect our "Brothers and Sisters of the forest". What are your thoughts? By the way, I, like others are awaiting absolute proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Wow, all this fuss over dna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbhunter Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 WIse words Wickie! KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I think it's totally possible but I also think she made a lot of bad choices throughout which in turn, didn't show her or her research in the best of light. Even now, with her "PR" people...I mean, sheesh already!! I do like your disclaimer of "we are all of sound mind here." Good one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 ... this is a paper on BIGFOOT!, for chrissakes, the biggest discovery in a Century. The journal wants to drag out the process to comb over some tiny niggling details? I would think not. I think it means there are still major problems, and may likely always be major problems with it. If, as some have proposed, mainstream science has a real problem with the existence of bigfoot, then that alone might be the major problem. Who knows, the science in Dr. Ketchum's paper might be just fine, the paper might be wonderfully drafted, it might have all the proper elements of a traditional, acceptable scientific paper. It might simply be that the major problem for the journals is the basis of the paper, not the alien DNA, not the angel DNA, not whatever unknown theory of how they were made, but the mere fact that this is a paper declaring that a previously determined mythological beast really does exist. If the journals that have been sought really can't get past the idea that bigfoot exists, it doesn't matter what niggling details there are, it's that one big one that they have to consider. It might be that simple. It might be that they are thinking, "bigfoot again? This time it's DNA proving they exist? And still no body? And they want us to print a report that proves they exist with only DNA and no body, no body parts, no pictures, no video?" It could be that a publication would not want to take that risk, as compelling as the paper might be, since the major obstacles that science and the skeptical world (the people who would read the journals), would immediately ask for those supporting bits of evidence, the body, the specimen, the photos and all that. It really could be the same age old obstacles that the journals are having, and less the actual quality of the paper's contents. After all, there's got to be a zillion papers published that could have been used as a template for this one. Even if this is her first go at publishing a paper, she could tailor it to a standard format that would be acceptable. It might just be the basic premise that is the problem, the second problem being the lack of a specimen to really back up the DNA. Everyone knows that declaring that bigfoot is real would be a huge deal, and I'd think that it would always come back around to the "specimen" problem. For a mainstream science journal anyway. The problem might be Ketchum's "presentation", but it doesn't necessarily have to be. Might be what she is presenting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 My take...complete BS. why? There's NO WAY BF appeared on the scene 15000 years ago..that's *yesterday* in evolutionary time. Humans appeared 100,000 plus yrs ago. Second...no way a FERTILE hybrid reproduces from a *human mother* and *UNKNOWN* that is not even related to humans. It is possible that the *Unknown* is actually the BF DNA and the Mitochondrial DNA (Human mother) is contaminated in the sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 What is up with the news that the papers have failed peer review? I posted a thread on it with references but it has vanished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Wickie makes a good point...Can there be a consensus at ALL, now, about the Ketchum Paper? It seems like some are getting pretty entrenched in their opposing opinions, and it may require Herculean effort to move them from that. Is THAT really the goal? I thought the goal was solving the mystery, regardless of WHO, specifically, gets the 'credit'. Silly, naive, nooby me...Since I have only been coming here a decade or so, how was I to know? I can see the potential for a good outcome...Perhaps we should begin to anticipate that there is MORE work to be done, however the Ketchum Report goes. Accept that it will need supporting evidence for wider public acceptance. Continue to build an evidence set that DOES get broader, every year...In spite of hoaxing, and motives. The ACTUAL evidence gets better and better...Go look at the 'Brown Footage' thread, if you don't believe me. I don't think the knowers are going to be convinced they didn't see a sasquatch if the results are negative. I don't think JREF is going to be swayed to admit the existence of sasquatch if the results are positive. So...Why are we here, again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) What is up with the news that the papers have failed peer review? I posted a thread on it with references but it has vanished? Ask a mod. (They said they didn't want another thread on the Ketchum thing since this one was here.) Edited December 7, 2012 by GuyInIndiana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 So what's up with it? Is this the end now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 My take...complete BS. why? There's NO WAY BF appeared on the scene 15000 years ago..that's *yesterday* in evolutionary time. Humans appeared 100,000 plus yrs ago. Second...no way a FERTILE hybrid reproduces from a *human mother* and *UNKNOWN* that is not even related to humans. It is possible that the *Unknown* is actually the BF DNA and the Mitochondrial DNA (Human mother) is contaminated in the sample. Betcha Maury could find out.... Sam Squatch, you are...NOT the father Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts