Guest Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 As I said early when the Erickson Project thread was started, I'm uncomfortable with that name anyway... Before that, it used to be called the Kentucky Project. Didn't sounds as much like a one-man show. This is a sad state of affairs when we call a project that was made thanks to the *researchers* by the name of the *scientist* who only took someone else's (The Researchers) findings and only does her job of having the specimen's identified and the DNA revealed, and she is *paid* for it!. She is doing *what* she was *paid* for, and not anything else. I feel bad about this, and I think that this should be modified. *Each* researcher should be named, and included into the final report. It is not just Melba's report, it is the *researchers* report also, and they should be included and *noted* as contributing to this report.. IMHO, because without them Melba would have zilch! To me, That is *only* *fair* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Am I the only one on this board who has come to the conclusion that the Erikson and Melba deal is much to do about nothing? If they really had what they claimed they would not have taken so long to release to the public. Looks like profiteering to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Melba said the report will be out by the end of the year at the least and there is something to it but could not elaborate further according to the squatchdetective show I am listening to..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) I think that regardless of how professional and detailed Ketchum's research will be...there is just too many Biscardi connections to keep this clean.... I fear the main stream media will blow it up if they even catch a whiff of Biscardi on this. Perception is reality. For the good of the ultimate effort, Ketchum should step completely away and hand it off to third party experts and scientists. Edited July 25, 2011 by slabdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 25, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted July 25, 2011 Melba said the report will be out by the end of the year at the least and there is something to it but could not elaborate further according to the squatchdetective show I am listening to..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 25, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 25, 2011 By the end of the year at least or by the end of the year at the latest? A little difference I suppose, but hey who's counting any longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Melba said the report will be out by the end of the year at the least and there is something to it but could not elaborate further according to the squatchdetective show I am listening to..... The end of calendar 2011 ?! what is the next stage of concern after "red flag?".... "sinking feeling?".... "freezer feeling?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 At the least, it depends on the reviewers I'm sure. I guess the next stage in the grief process for you, Parn, would be despair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 At the least, it depends on the reviewers I'm sure. I guess the next stage in the grief process for you, Parn, would be despair. So according to- directly from - Ketchum, the paper is now in review, but has not yet been passed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 The end of calendar 2011 ?! what is the next stage of concern after "red flag?".... "sinking feeling?".... "freezer feeling?" how long would/should the much championed process of peer review take? if they rush it & it shows positive then it'll probably be argued it was done too quickly & wasnt thorough enough. if they drag it out too long, it'll probably be speculated they've got something to hide. all depends on which side of the fence youre on, imo. i listened to the blogtalk radio ( btw, nicely done chrisb.& squatchdetective)& it seemed to confirm my original thoughts on this. kick back, don't sweat it, chill & wait . because eventually it will all blow over or blow up,whichever the case may be. & of course, just imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I think that regardless of how professional and detailed Ketchum's research will be...there is just too many Biscardi connections to keep this clean.... I fear the main stream media will blow it up if they even catch a whiff of Biscardi on this. Perception is reality. For the good of the ultimate effort, Ketchum should step completely away and hand it off to third party experts and scientists. If you've been paying attentiion, there are coauthors in the paper and the study sure isn't built around Biscardis evidence. The hand offs were done early on, in a blind study to verify results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Not to mention Biscardi's foray was a late entry, and since has been expelled. Dr, Ketchum had no idea who he was, or his associates, she was a scientist not a BF Researcher. There are coauthors, third party verification and peer review. I think the scientific standards will be met. And the final determination will be done not by us here, or anywhere in the field, and not by one single scientist, but rather with science as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Not to mention Biscardi's foray was a late entry, and since has been expelled. Dr, Ketchum had no idea who he was, or his associates, she was a scientist not a BF Researcher. There are coauthors, third party verification and peer review. I think the scientific standards will be met. And the final determination will be done not by us here, or anywhere in the field, and not by one single scientist, but rather with science as a whole. Wow. A lucid post from someone who understands the process and isn't trying to stir the pot. Someone pinch me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Re: peer review process. One thing that's puzzled me throughout this saga has been the posting of statements, apparently attributable to Ketchum, that predicted when the "paper would be out." When I submit a manuscript, I have a vague idea as to when I might get a response (usually 2–3 months), but I have very little idea what that response will be. If I need to conduct a major revision, that might take me 2–3 additional months to complete, followed by another protracted review. Once accepted, it's often many more months (6–9 in my experience) before galley proofs are ready and I've got a pdf I can share - that's if the journal provides a "pre-publication" copy; many still don't. Many journals of course are much faster, but there are still plenty of papers out there getting published easily a year or more after they were submitted. All of this assumes the paper is accepted. If it's rejected, I'd expect the authors to spend a couple of months making some changes suggested by the initial review before sending the manuscript to a different journal to start the process anew. In other words, I'm skeptical when someone makes statements about when their paper is coming out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) ..... The hand offs were done early on, in a blind study to verify results. Actually, yahoo, if you ask her you will discover that she doesn't have the ability to sequence the DNA. Oops. How does that saying go? Something about "...but don't tell me it's raining..." Edited July 25, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts