Guest Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Nope, but the Skeptics don't want to admit that...they just want to keep ad hom-ing Ketchum with irrelevancies. I think I could hardly be defined as a skeptic - at least the way you mean it Mulder. I have questions about all this. I have questions about the things that have leaked out, and the things she is saying. If that makes me a skeptic - then so be it. Personally, none of this matters, until her paper is published - if it is published and the scientific community weighs in on it. The scientific community will be the ultimate deciding factor as to whether any of this is relevant and something they buy into. That's on her, not me or any other skeptic. It's her paper to sell within a highly competitive field. A field, I might add, that already thinks this topic is on the fringes of reality. I have not made any decisions on how I feel about anything - where her work is concerned - other than I wish she would finish her paper and leave the legislating to those who do legislating. I wish she would simply get the paper published and let the "science speak for itself" as she has stated herself many times. I do not dislike Melba - I give her props for even going down this road - but I think I speak for many when I say - just get to the end of the road please. Once she publishes the paper, that's it. The chips will fall where they may. She can't force anyone in the scientific community to buy into her paper - but at least the paper will be out there. I can't deny there are a lot of questions and some of those questions are good on both sides. But, only Melba can answer those - if she chooses to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) .Perhaps she has managed to trap the scientific community to a degree, which is why this is taking so long. I would more say the time is being used to allow the media its time to do its thing...as the "powers that be" work to find a way out of this thing with the primate angle in the fore at best. If the science was sound and the data irrefutable then none of this would be necessary. Edited December 20, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC To remove political content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Rockie - are you saying Melba was given mis-information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 If the science was sound and the data irrefutable then none of this would be necessary. How exactly do you know whether the "science is sound and the data irrefutable"? You don't. Nobody outside a small circle of people have seen it. After the paper is published then you can start making assertions regarding the soundness of the science and data. Questioning the soundness of science and data in advance of actually looking at it is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I think I could hardly be defined as a skeptic - at least the way you mean it Mulder. I have questions about all this. I have questions about the things that have leaked out, and the things she is saying. If that makes me a skeptic - then so be it. You? No. Others who are also trying to foist off the BBB nonsense as proving any relevant fact about the study? Yes. If the science was sound and the data irrefutable then none of this would be necessary. Given the number of very active controversies in Science involving challenges to the prevailing orthodoxy that is a highly inaccurate statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Like I said a year ago, "when" or I should say "if" the paper comes out we will know. But I guess it doesnt matter does it since the paper will never publish will it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) Ahhh, so muddy these waters we had a public internet press release by Dr. Ketchum that this is happening in days not months (when was that? Dec 2?) in advance of publication but apparently through peer-review? That certain answer has been withheld it seems to me: an almost yes, and almost no...geez! One would think that in (claimed five years of, per Science Critic, "devoted time" what other kind of time is there? wasted I suppose!) the time this has been in review (at least a year.....?) a better plan for launch would be in place.... We don't know if it was rejected, still in review, or headed to the black hole of popular media...... it sounded as though review was not complete..or with an Ok to publish, and yet it did too...... The pleading for silence has been replaced by Dr. Ketchum's interviews . But, we were also told by those involved that it is being (or was already approved) simultaneously considered by a Russian Journal..huh? It just doesn't sound great, on the other hand this kind of news will draw fire from many, even within BFdom, and novel approaches by a Journal to handle it seem reasonable, so lots of outs for the change up..... Hahahaha, I am so tired of speculating on the why's and half-truths....and trying to find that little diamond in the rough competition and forces surrounding our Bigfoots... that gives me confidence ... We know the official Igor back story, but it doesn't really hold as motivation to out her results, not in my mind, except that it was an escape so to speak, to do so...and could have easily been a plan as a careless mistake on her part (really? given the atmosphere...now we are lax and make such a huge mistake?)? Don't know, and heading toward not caring...ahh, that's not true! I do care, and want to see the actual study....but, in a peer-reviewed journal and as for the Sierra Kills being the backbone? Ouch.... that I wanted to see as raw data and evidence for the Government and citizens....not happy still about that....and if Dyer's claim is true...well, that's one good reason.... Edited December 20, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 You? No. Others who are also trying to foist off the BBB nonsense as proving any relevant fact about the study? Yes. Mulder - with all due respect - what actual "facts" do we have about this study? So far it's all speculation and gossip - even coming from Ketchum herself. Until she is able to publish the paper. Until she publishes something - and we can throw that paper on this site and discuss it line by line - all this - is nothing more than speculation. So, as I see it, right now - no one is wrong until she publishes her paper - or simply releases it and people can see what's in it. I just wish she would let the "science speak for itself".. I don't blame people, however, for having questions that is just normal human behavior. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 You're right, Melissa, we have no FACTS yet. So does that mean people should be allowed to make them up until she shows otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) Embargoed "Genetics" paper with no keywords turned out to be this: http://www.newswise.com/articles/first-whole-bat-genome-sequencing-gives-insight-into-flight-immunity-could-help-scientists-understand-how-to-mitigate-viral-infections Edited December 20, 2012 by gershake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Orygun Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 You're right, Melissa, we have no FACTS yet. So does that mean people should be allowed to make them up until she shows otherwise? Can you imagine how much the forum traffic would screech to a halt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Embargoed "Genetics" paper with no keywords turned out to be this: http://www.newswise....iral-infections OMG ! Batfoot is real ! lock your doors and hang some garlic !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Mulder - with all due respect - what actual "facts" do we have about this study? The question wasn't about the study itself, Melissa. You put your hat in with the crowd that keeps citing the BBB report as somehow being relevant to the issue of the study. I was (accurately) pointing out that the BBB report has nothing to do with the quality of the science of the study, or Ketchum's personal credibility whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 The question wasn't about the study itself, Melissa. You put your hat in with the crowd that keeps citing the BBB report as somehow being relevant to the issue of the study. I was (accurately) pointing out that the BBB report has nothing to do with the quality of the science of the study, or Ketchum's personal credibility whatsoever. I asked questions - questions that are actually pretty good. You are putting me in a camp. When the BBB is forcibly shut down for the mafia like tactics you discussed then you win. But, I am not in the habit of accusing individuals or businesses of "shaking" anyone down for money.. The BBB report has as much validity as anyone reading the report - puts in it. I never said it had anything to do with her paper you read into that. Seriously though, Mulder, if you think these things wont matter outside this community - you're wrong. NiceGuyJohn said: You're right, Melissa, we have no FACTS yet. So does that mean people should be allowed to make them up until she shows otherwise? Did I say people should be allowed to make things up? No, I did not. Near as I can tell, those were official sites. Having worked for a Tax Attorney in Dallas Texas - that State Tax site looked legit to me. Those things are out there - and I hope she deals with it. I'm personally not sure what can be discussed when it comes to all this - so I am gonna stop discussing this stuff. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) I asked questions - questions that are actually pretty good. You are putting me in a camp. When the BBB is forcibly shut down for the mafia like tactics you discussed then you win. But, I am not in the habit of accusing individuals or businesses of "shaking" anyone down for money.. The BBB report has as much validity as anyone reading the report - puts in it. I never said it had anything to do with her paper you read into that. Seriously though, Mulder, if you think these things wont matter outside this community - you're wrong. NiceGuyJohn said: Did I say people should be allowed to make things up? No, I did not. Near as I can tell, those were official sites. Having worked for a Tax Attorney in Dallas Texas - that State Tax site looked legit to me. Those things are out there - and I hope she deals with it. I'm personally not sure what can be discussed when it comes to all this - so I am gonna stop discussing this stuff. Thanks you beated this dead horse so long, they can't even get a DNA sample to identify it as a horse. One has nothing to do with the other, the thread is about the paper not BBB reports. The scientific community does not look at your BBB report when reviewing a paper,it will not change their decision about the study, so why keep beating the stain on the ground where there use to be a dead horse ? Edited December 20, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts