bipedalist Posted January 3, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 3, 2012 For everyone that keeps asking for when the paper will be out, please understand that 1) I cannot talk about our data or it will never get published. Those are journal rules. 2) I cannot divulge which journal as that will kill our paper also so speculation is futile. 3) Peer review and publication can take 5 to 26 weeks and then there is the question of revision where they ask you to change or re-write or edit some of the paper. It is a rare paper that is accepted without some revision. I know this because I peer review for some well known scientific journals also. 4) Timing is very difficult to say the least because of #3 and once again, I am sure the journal would reject the paper if I told you exactly when I think the paper would be out. Soon is as much as I can say. I cannot afford to lose all of the exceptionally difficult work that my co-authors and I have put into this project. I am asking you to understand this! Please. 5) I also ask you to understand that I am not trying to be rude or disrespectful to anyone by my silence. I would love nothing better than to scream our results to the world. But, like everything else in the world of Sasquatch, it will NOT prove ANYTHING if the data doesn't undergo the rigors of peer review in the scientific community. It has to convince the skeptics (or at least skeptical scientists) or it is just another attempt to prove the existence of BF that cannot be substantiated even though we have overkilled the science on this project beyond all realms of reason. So, I guess the question is, do we rush and and fail, or do we play by the rules and prove something once and for all that will vindicate thousands who have had sightings. They are real and most if not all of the people on FB here are believers. Please, let's do this right so the world will know once and for all that there is a real and illusive creature that is alive and well right here in our own backyards. If I have any news I can share, I will share it here though, OK? ">- Dr. Melba Ketchum facebook update from Dr. K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Purely FYI. Here's the latest Facebook post from Melba Ketchum: For everyone that keeps asking for when the paper will be out, please understand that 1) I cannot talk about our data or it will never get published. Those are journal rules. 2) I cannot divulge which journal as that will kill our paper also so speculation is futile. 3) Peer review and publication can take 5 to 26 weeks and then there is the question of revision where they ask you to change or re-write or edit some of the paper. It is a rare paper that is accepted without some revision. I know this because I peer review for some well known scientific journals also. 4) Timing is very difficult to say the least because of #3 and once again, I am sure the journal would reject the paper if I told you exactly when I think the paper would be out. Soon is as much as I can say. I cannot afford to lose all of the exceptionally difficult work that my co-authors and I have put into this project. I am asking you to understand this! Please. 5) I also ask you to understand that I am not trying to be rude or disrespectful to anyone by my silence. I would love nothing better than to scream our results to the world. But, like everything else in the world of Sasquatch, it will NOT prove ANYTHING if the data doesn't undergo the rigors of peer review in the scientific community. It has to convince the skeptics (or at least skeptical scientists) or it is just another attempt to prove the existence of BF that cannot be substantiated even though we have overkilled the science on this project beyond all realms of reason. So, I guess the question is, do we rush and and fail, or do we play by the rules and prove something once and for all that will vindicate thousands who have had sightings. They are real and most if not all of the people on FB here are believers. Please, let's do this right so the world will know once and for all that there is a real and illusive creature that is alive and well right here in our own backyards. If I have any news I can share, I will share it here though, OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 3, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 3, 2012 For everyone that keeps asking for when the paper will be out, please understand that 1) I cannot talk about our data or it will never get published. Those are journal rules. 2) I cannot divulge which journal as that will kill our paper also so speculation is futile. 3) Peer review and publication can take 5 to 26 weeks and then there is the question of revision where they ask you to change or re-write or edit some of the paper. It is a rare paper that is accepted without some revision. I know this because I peer review for some well known scientific journals also. 4) Timing is very difficult to say the least because of #3 and once again, I am sure the journal would reject the paper if I told you exactly when I think the paper would be out. Soon is as much as I can say. I cannot afford to lose all of the exceptionally difficult work that my co-authors and I have put into this project. I am asking you to understand this! Please. 5) I also ask you to understand that I am not trying to be rude or disrespectful to anyone by my silence. I would love nothing better than to scream our results to the world. But, like everything else in the world of Sasquatch, it will NOT prove ANYTHING if the data doesn't undergo the rigors of peer review in the scientific community. It has to convince the skeptics (or at least skeptical scientists) or it is just another attempt to prove the existence of BF that cannot be substantiated even though we have overkilled the science on this project beyond all realms of reason. So, I guess the question is, do we rush and and fail, or do we play by the rules and prove something once and for all that will vindicate thousands who have had sightings. They are real and most if not all of the people on FB here are believers. Please, let's do this right so the world will know once and for all that there is a real and illusive creature that is alive and well right here in our own backyards. If I have any news I can share, I will share it here though, OK? bump, lol http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/01/dr-melba-ketchum-do-we-rush-and-and.html?spref=fb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Someone with mad forum skillz feel free to delete my late (but easier to read) post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 3, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 3, 2012 Hey, but I linked to the blog .......on the bump (I sort of like the subdude quote box in light green) I'd settle for the pressie and online abstract of the article in tomorrow mornings journalsphere though......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RioBravo Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Sounds like she's all in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 And now the scales fall from my eyes and I see once more....and we still don't know what the DNA means with any certainty other than that there may be cat people walking around in the woods with something horribly wrong with their tooth enamel. Apparently amelogenin locus is more than tooth enamel info: http://projects.nfstc.org/workshops/resources/articles/Identifying%20Sex%20Chromosome%20Abnormalities%20in.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I don't think this post tells us much that's new. But..... She really nails her colours to the mast at the end though. She uses the word 'Sasquatch' and explicitly links this to the big hairy thing that people have had sightings of all over N. America for decades. She also appears to locate herself as part of the Bigfoot Community, rather than just a dispassionate scientist. In the past she's not made this direct link so explicitly and you almost got the impression that her data existed in isolation. Am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RioBravo Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I don't think this post tells us much that's new. But..... She really nails her colours to the mast at the end though. She uses the word 'Sasquatch' and explicitly links this to the big hairy thing that people have had sightings of all over N. America for decades. She also appears to locate herself as part of the Bigfoot Community, rather than just a dispassionate scientist. In the past she's not made this direct link so explicitly and you almost got the impression that her data existed in isolation. Am I wrong? That's how I read it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I think you're right, and it must be getting close given this advancement of her public position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Apparently amelogenin locus is more than tooth enamel info: http://projects.nfstc.org/workshops/resources/articles/Identifying%20Sex%20Chromosome%20Abnormalities%20in.pdf Humor Jerrywayne, humor....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 It was interesting about what she said about observing Squatches 'after' she had compiled most of her data, and has gone back a few times to check them out, or something to that affect. Is Dr.K having multiple sightings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 to be fair, it seems that the sentiments you are addressing are mostly the product of one member, who blames the absence of bigfoot evidence on scientists, No, I blame institutional scientists for not accepting and engaging with the evidence to hand (hairs, tracks, eyewitness reports, films, etc). There's plenty of evidence. yet assumes that Ketchum is an infallible scientist. We don't have the study in front of us yet to analyze, but none of the allegedly leaked criticisms of the study has been shown to have any legitimate scientific basis. It's all been a bunch of "word lawyering" and rhetorical smoke and mirrors. He seems not to be concerned with the irrationality of his position. The only irrational position to be concerned about is that of the Skeptics who refuse to engage the evidence as a whole and who keep making assumptions about a study no one outside the review process has seen yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Humor Jerrywayne, humor....... Si, si, amiga. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 The only irrational position to be concerned about is that of the Skeptics who refuse to engage the evidence as a whole and who keep making assumptions about a study no one outside the review process has seen yet. As opposed to the irrational position of the proponents who make assumptions that have no basis in reality. Has there been a review process Mulder? How would you know? Please answer my questions for once. Starting here: Where is the answer to my question about the skeptics who first reported on the Nature rejection? Links please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts