Guest Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 The link worked for me, but not the website itself, none of the links worked and obviously a lot of writing for the first page still needed....so whoever is "waiting to load that puppy up" on January 16 seems to have a busy few weeks ahead. But, I do seem to recall something similar to this a year ago? Sasquatch Genome Project or such attached to David Paulides site? Maybe even two such ones...this has all gone on so long, it has become a mish mash of comments like yours Science Critic...predictions that don't come to pass... and so many seem to behave as though they know, and as times passes, seem not to....? At any rate, given I was removed from a secret group recently w/o notification, I find this bit of unintended release intriguing, seems she has not been able to identify those close to her that still send this stuff around to BE. Keep trying. So what all these dates have passed? When it comes out it won't matter. And, I will be looking for a group geared toward understanding and finding the appropriate response through our Government...maybe! The links are not yet active. This is a placeholder, usually for the web designer or team to show the client what the layout will be, and how it will look once it goes 'live'. It is like a rough draft of graphics work you would show a client in the sign business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Yes, this is definitely a "placeholder" page IMHO. The web designer shouldn't have allowed it to be viewed live, but this sometimes happens. This is definitely placeholder copy (for the most part), although it is interesting they borrowed the lion phrase from the Smithsonian.... hmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) Surely someone leaked that URL. I suppose it wouldn't be difficult to guess if it was known Ketchum was using sasquatchgenomeproject.com (that domain was registered anonymously). I can't imagine someone being curious enough to try various permutations until they found the page - although I'm sure there are programs to do it automagically. And yeah, the Smithsonian thing is interesting. Edited December 22, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Sally has previously worked with the Smithsonian... but I've been saying that for at least 6 months. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) ^What are you on about? You keep talking about "breadcrumbs"? Breadcrumbs of information. I liken following this Ketchum business to following a trail of breadcrumbs. Some of the "crumbs" are rumor, some purposefully leaked. What is not to get? Someone dropped another "crumb" when this URL got out. Since there are PR people involved in all of this, we the willing, waiting audience - clamoring for info - are having bits of info fed to us in a controlled manner. Not making a value judgement on that, just the nature of the beast. Why have a PR person unless you feel you need to "handle" (read "manipulate") the info that reaches the press and public? I think having such a person is a very smart move, personally. That was all I meant. Edit to fix typo. Edited December 22, 2012 by notgiganto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) http://news.yahoo.co...2138222.html��a little food for thought, not exactly on topic, and yet it is in the general sense of "accurate science" or whatever, that does get discussed here. Personally, I think if the science was very tight in a study dealing with Bigfoot (by any name) that a Journal would be eager to publish. I do not think editors are that concerned about the impact to society's psyche or potential consequences to our corporations/government. I feel they would view it as an appropriate step to changing those views. If Journals were so self-editing we would not have seen all the Global Warming articles from the 70's forward as the implications/consequences of accepting that data was/is potentially far in excess of finding Bigfoots are real. And we can all remember the famous term coined by the opposition (for whatever reasons) "Junk Science." Bush Sr, finally, publicly, retracted that view to some degree in the last four years (can't recall exactly when).. and yet, the US still is considered a reluctant (and sometimes non-participating member) actor in Global resolutions..(sorry early am not recalling the world conferences name). That said, I do know Corporations hire scientists to write articles in opposition to many peer-reviewed studies, some of those do get to peer-review, many go to trade mags, or as white papers, intended to influence and discredit. It's a war out there on ideas....! Edited December 22, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 ^ Interesting quote from your article link: "According to Retraction Watch, editors at the Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry grew suspicious when four of his glowing reviews came back within 24 hours. Anyone who has ever submitted a paper for peer review knows that reviewers take weeks or months to reply." The boldfaced part is relevant to this thread, a reminder to those who are and were overly anxious for immediate publication. If a peer reviewer takes "weeks or months to reply", then each iteration of a paper will likely have similar delays. By "iteration" I'm referring to the need for a team of researchers to consider the critique of the peer reviewers and editorial comments, then get to work making revisions or doing further research and making revisions before resubmitting for another round of peer review. Each iteration of revision requires peer review. We should bear this in mind when discussing how long the process takes from initiation of research to publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Great point, Sleuth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 @ notgiganto: fair enough. @ everyone else: the link to the Yahoo article seems to be dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) http://news.yahoo.co...-172138222.html I think I may have just dropped it in as a hyper link w/o using the app here for links? Sorry. the title was "Opps! Five Retracted Science Studies in 2012" Edited December 22, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) ^ "Opps! Five Retracted Science Studies in 2012" Quite an eye-opener! A number of people were willing to work years for a science degree, then more years in a lab ... But for reasons only they would know, they became willing to lie and cheat in order to get published. ... Essentially destroying their own careers. Now it makes some sense for Science to take a cautious view of new discoveries. ETA: Still, all I want is for Dr. Ketchum's paper to come out so we all can see it!! That will prompt more controversy, I am sure. But will be more fun than what we got now. Edited December 22, 2012 by Oonjerah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 ^ "Opps! Five Retracted Science Studies in 2012" Quite an eye-opener! A number of people were willing to work years for a science degree, then more years in a lab ... But for reasons only they would know, they became willing to lie and cheat in order to get published. ... Essentially destroying their own careers. Good point BUT: I'm just saying ..... Such is the Lamestream Academic Society.. Even with lost ( destroyed careers) I would bet they didn't lose their jobs, ( or tenure )as they would in the private sector. They just added to their Resume. Please list those who have failed in the past and yet succeeded in following years.... That ( success after failure ) would be fair IF they did not intentionally falsify the information used on the publish attempt.... Now it makesave some sense for Science to take a cautious view of new discoveries. There will be no changes. It's all about the talking points of Academia ..... That caution will be slanted to the talking points deemed appropriate by the Lamestream Academics Nothing will change. ETA: Still, all I want is for Dr. Ketchum's paper to come out so we all can see it!! That will prompt more controversy, I am sure. But will be more fun than what we got now. Yes, the sooner the release the better..... BUT ....... No, .............. upon its release the fun will start ...... Then the Mayan domesday prophesy will apply to the Lamestream Academics and skoptics. So much information for the skoptics to digest and try to rip apart .. With no success .... Skoptics will go from feast to famine as their agenda ( against bigfoot ) is exposed.... Sad to say what impact this might have on the Lamestream Academic Anti-Bigfoot society..... IMHO .. This Ketchum venture has already endured more viscous attacks than the Patterson film.. Both have ........... and WILL ........ survive.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Has anyone heard about the quality of the HD video? The paper will do little for me. I want to see a big foot with my own two eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) IMHO .. This Ketchum venture has already endured more viscous attacks than the Patterson film.. Both have ........... and WILL ........ survive.. The Ketchum study will be put to the same scrutiny as any other scientific endeavor. So let's see what comes of this shall we? Edited December 23, 2012 by AaronD to remove trolling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) The Ketchum study will be put to the same scrutiny as any other scientific endeavor. So let's see what comes of this shall we? Thank you .. For the compliment ..... I have migrated from a skeptical ( 98% empty ) position to a 98% full senario. The remaining 2% is a visual encounter, all other questions have been answered..... I would like to see a Bigfoot in the flesh ...... Which may happen soon ( just missed this last weekend ) I have seen and read enough to accept that statement ( a believer) with a resounding yes. There is no honor in being a skoptic,, that is proven horribly wrong, at this point in the progression of the Ketchum report. Other than that small talk ..... What say you Edited December 23, 2012 by AaronD to remove trolling in a quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts