Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Steven Streufert has announced the Ketchum paper was rejected and has failed peer review. He said their science was not sound and no conspiracy theory can change what this means. It failed. Even Igor Burtsev the Russian scientist that leaked the news posted the shocking message that MK's paper was rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 7, 2012 BFF Patron 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 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! Looks like a mass merger. Now my post makes no sense. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 This is bad news for all of us, I wanted it to be real but I had that gut feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Betcha Maury could find out.... Sam Squatch, you are...NOT the father LOL.. Well Sam had a lot of BF ladies..that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Steven Streufert has announced the Ketchum paper was rejected and has failed peer review. He said their science was not sound and no conspiracy theory can change what this means. It failed. Even Igor Burtsev the Russian scientist that leaked the news posted the shocking message that MK's paper was rejected. That was based on what Igor said. He has since recanted that "rejected" claim and has said it is back in review. Ketchum has never said it was rejected, and the one person that did changed his mind. So if Igor is to be believed, the "rejected" comment can be taken back off the table for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 That was based on what Igor said. He has since recanted that "rejected" claim and has said it is back in review. Ketchum has never said it was rejected, and the one person that did changed his mind. So if Igor is to be believed, the "rejected" comment can be taken back off the table for now. Wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 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. I would think that at some point early on in the process, the Journal would be forced to take the plunge: "Hey! They just might be right about this Bigfoot thingie". Otherwise there is no sense in sending the paper back again and again for revisions. That's what I would think, though that idea cuts both ways-I can't say the Science or Data must be unsound since they would have rejected it ages ago without requests for revisions, but if they accepted the Science/Data was there (more or less) some time ago, why are they still haggling over details of a submission of this magnitude? Perhaps the Journal Editors knew of the Sykes report and have been dragging their feet, unwilling to publish Melba's report unsupported? GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 That was based on what Igor said. He has since recanted that "rejected" claim and has said it is back in review. Ketchum has never said it was rejected, and the one person that did changed his mind. So if Igor is to be believed, the "rejected" comment can be taken back off the table for now. Trust me..this study is going NOWHERE. The conclusion is simply LUDICROUS.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 That was based on what Igor said. He has since recanted that "rejected" claim and has said it is back in review. Ketchum has never said it was rejected, and the one person that did changed his mind. So if Igor is to be believed, the "rejected" comment can be taken back off the table for now. That is it in a nutshell, I do think it was just Igors' unclear and convoluted writing style and not that he recanted or changed his mind. You are better off not asking anymore questions,lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 If, as some have proposed, mainstream science has a real problem with the existence of bigfoot, then that alone might be the major problem. *snip for space* Might be what she is presenting. Who are you and what have you done with Tontar? That was actually fairly reasonable... 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. Re-read the press releases...the claim is that they ARE related to humans...at least closely enough to interbreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I think we know what's up. If it is with a journal in Russia, nobody here will touch it. Bottom line. It's not with two or whatever they claim. It is DOA here. They say what they need to to keep us interested. This was dead here pre-Igor's first leak. I still think the first Igor leak was intentional to be relevant again. This has been a mess for years now. It shows Sykes exactly what not to do, which frankly given his track record, he already knows. It demonstrates how important a PR person is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Betcha Maury could find out.... Sam Squatch, you are...NOT the father Looks like Disotel's hair style and modest attitude toward public statement are catching on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Steven Streufert has announced the Ketchum paper was rejected and has failed peer review. He said their science was not sound and no conspiracy theory can change what this means. It failed. Even Igor Burtsev the Russian scientist that leaked the news posted the shocking message that MK's paper was rejected. And, as many people have pointed out, Ketchum has denied those rumors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Steven Streufert has announced the Ketchum paper was rejected and has failed peer review. He said their science was not sound and no conspiracy theory can change what this means. It failed. Even Igor Burtsev the Russian scientist that leaked the news posted the shocking message that MK's paper was rejected. The paper was sent back to K for revision, which has since taken place and resent back for peer review. Igor must have got his english mixed up? Reread the posts, starting about #10850. Edited December 7, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts