Guest Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 What is OTLS? here's a link.http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/texas-dna-specialist-writes-that-sasquatch-is-a-modern-human-being/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Seriously SS that's your "source"?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 For the sake of argument (etc), if her science were sound but the paper was a mess, Should not be too difficult to find a brilliant but starving science writer to revise it. Part of bein' smart is knowin' what you're dumb at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 For the sake of argument (etc), if her science were sound but the paper was a mess, Should not be too difficult to find a brilliant but starving science writer to revise it. Part of bein' smart is knowin' what you're dumb at. Not always true. I know plenty that have the minds to do anything they want but can't articulate it in a way that makes sense for others to understand. It's why there's always a market for ghost writers. But finding a writer that is willing to sign the NDA with all the copyrights remaining with Ketchum could have been a problem. Most writers would want to write about it after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) Maybe that is part of the problem? 1. The applications for copyrights and domains indicate a goal of overarching..what? I really don't get that part beyond an obvious desire for revenue opportunity arising after the publication. It goes much further than what I personally feel would be an appropriate response, that early in the effort (wasn't it 2010 for some of these apps?). Nor do I feel the level of NDAs required was appropriate, as Oxford has shown us how that is handled efficiently. So, from here it seems a concerted effort to "corner the BF market" that might arise from the study is part of the problem. My personal experience is people generally like a piece of the pie, and if you don't share you might lose the whole pie, but certainly will lose cooperation. And as noted, most don't like to be an integral part, or solution, to a problem and not benefit in appropriate proportion...(if this is such a Big deal and offers so much potential future profit...spread it around...glory and $$). 2. The addition of the controversial Sierra Kills sample, and apparent lack of reporting or cooperation with Government agencies, is a "red flag" for me. It more or less overshadows the 100 plus samples, or 30 plus submitters of hair etc. and their non-injurious collection. Separating the Sierra Samples at the get go, releasing that data alone, and in light of the shooter's need to know (2 years approaches IMO intentional infliction of emotional distress!), made the most professional/ethical sense to me. It is that sample that is tanking right now, that sample that is the lightening rod of emotional responses, and is overshadowing those other in the study. But, maybe that is the sample that elicited so much donor money, who knows? it points to profit over people (or BFs)...IMHO.... That information has been known since about 2011 and it wasn't leaked from within the study... it's from Justin, not under an NDA, and public record.. 3. Now I struggle b/c apparently Justin was told a "human type" being was killed, lived with that for some time, but with no report, nothing tangible and a breakdown in communications over independent testing. If that would "sink" the study it makes no sense she didn't forward a PhD on the project to call him, or the other's helping him. His situation is very different than any sample holder and he deserves an answer (that's the standard of our legal system, even if you find him "guilty" ). I don't worry about WH 4. The money spent, if the OTLS! blog is correct, is amazing, but not something one can judge, except that WH has the money and can choose to spend it how he sees fit, and how that agreement is fashioned is up to him. Those issues, did she meet the contract agreement, etc are WH's deal, and may not be relevant at all..she may have performed perfectly for his desire, one can't judge that from the info provided.. So? It is hard to envision this as a "clean" study, in that the bubbling controversy we see now is that proverbial...where there is smoke there is fire? It looks like ambition and bills got out of hand....and still a 'few more weeks' to publish. The only way out of this mess seems to be forward, and publication, soon. Edited February 1, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Doesn't the lack of publication beg for a kill? Ketchum should just publish everything, vids and all, so the public and science can get on with it. Just because a bunch of worthies says the paper meets their publication standard doesn't mean Bigfoot's existence has been proven. It's just a big step. Publish, Melba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 ape- good post and points well taken especially about the emotional disstress and question marks in his mind. If you know Justin he is a solid individual and sincere in his endeavor to help solve this mystery. If anyone one needs vindication it is him. I can't speak for sure but I think that Barts' effort were to help with the process of vindication for his friend and along with finding truths in this mystery and I believe the efforts of the sierra site project have made some real tangible inroads in that effect. As for MK, well I will researve my opinion only because she has endured enough redicle already and may truely have her hands tied; I don't know. One thing I would like to say is to the BFF is that without making any effort this whole cudundrum would while in the mire and stay put, my hats off to all the members who are out in the field enduring the elements to help solve this mystery. In time I pray only that the truth will come out, only the truth. We just can't push it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Doesn't the lack of publication beg for a kill? Ketchum should just publish everything, vids and all, so the public and science can get on with it. Just because a bunch of worthies says the paper meets their publication standard doesn't mean Bigfoot's existence has been proven. It's just a big step. Publish, Melba Just publishing it in a non-scientific journal would be a step back for the community, especially after all this time. You're correct that publishing won't prove anything, but it's a big step in getting science accepting it. The journals are like the court system of the scientific community. And like a court system, once precedent is set, it opens the door for more. If she rushed to publish, every detractor could use the "the scientific community already rejected it" excuse for every single attempt later. She just needs to keep making the revisions they ask for and keep trying. I know the community wants the info now, but this is bigger than just us. There's still hope with the Sykes report as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) I guess there is another way out, in terms of Justin's situation, and this being a "trying" public push to publish now (rather than allow the peer-review process it is in to wind down), and that is to get the coauthor, or authoritative opinion he seeks, to confirm what she has told him apparently directly on the phone, or email. I didn't listen to the radio link above, but it sounds like ti was a "joke DJ" type program? Ridicule is the "new media" in many ways, and a transition we are dealing with in every facet of life...the quick twitters that go out to thousands... from MM even on this..... But that ridicule only seems to survive really on this fuzzy new media internet (watching last episode 30rock now and funny scene online posting)..and when traditional outlets or journalists take hold of the story it gets some respect, and so will she. That is a more probable future for her, rather than ridicule, if her work is well done. Edited February 1, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 She just needs to keep making the revisions they ask for and keep trying. I know the community wants the info now, but this is bigger than just us. There's still hope with the Sykes report as well. I agree, provided she is getting feedback from reviewers. You have to stay the coarse provided the process is moving things along, and the requests from reviewers are logicly warranted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 ****. I'll be on vacation then. (A 92% failure rate is huge. Do you have a source for this?) Keep in mind that "rejection" means "won't publish", not necessarily "bad science". Space is a consideration. Each issue only has so many pages, which limits the total number of articles per issue and hence per year. Good papers can be "rejected" because there simply is not an available slot for them at all, or there are "more important" papers ahead of it (though I can't imagine what would be more important than discovering a new, extant, bipedal primate). The Ketchum paper is supposedly ~50 pages, which is a big minus, as those with experience with Journal papers have said (~15 pages is the preferred lenth due to the aforementioned space considerations). That said, IIRC Nature's reviewers were cited as the source for the "no testable hypothesis" BS that got floated a year or so back. There IS no "testable hypothesis" in documentary science. You take your evidence, analyze it, and report the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 njjohn#13314; Getting scientists to give credibility isn't the goal. It's getting society at large to believe it. Just because the tenured worthies at Yale think something isn't going to convince the rest of us, 40% of whom are creationists and who knows how many don't buy climate change. You don't need peer review to publish a book that all can read. There's something wrong with a Journal sitting back and taking its sweet time, while there's no leverage on them to get on with it. Just say YES or NO and let's get on with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 njjohn#13314; Getting scientists to give credibility isn't the goal. It's getting society at large to believe it. Just because the tenured worthies at Yale think something isn't going to convince the rest of us, 40% of whom are creationists and who knows how many don't buy climate change. You don't need peer review to publish a book that all can read. There's something wrong with a Journal sitting back and taking its sweet time, while there's no leverage on them to get on with it. Just say YES or NO and let's get on with it. Society won't believe without scientific credibility. It's the first step. And once the first study is out there with DNA evidence something exists, then universities will let their anthropology departments fund studies to find out more. There are 1000's of Sasquatch books out there and society hasn't jumped on board. It's not about leverage, it's about getting it right. Science isn't just maybe, it's definitive. Scientists are where the problems lie, not the science. I fail to see where creationism or climate change would come into the discussion. Neither have been proven or disproven. Climate change is actually the perfect example of how a select few scientists with an agenda can give science a bad name. You can argue that the journals are being too elite, I'd argue that there's much more science and not enough journals to get around. And with the economy and journalism in a changing state, money and political influences via grants often takes precedence over discovery. And it's a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) I'm distressed that a Journal can string this out as long as an author is willing to wait. How long does it take to read a paper? Or to run the same tests again, if you wish? It's Kafkaesque how these judges can keep on delaying judgement (ok ok, Joseph K's goal would have been to delay judgement). It makes so little sense that I'm starting to question Ketchum's credibility, which is particularly distasteful. How long will Wally H. wait or insist on waiting. If Ketchum pubishes a book every scientist on earth in every discipline will be able to get a copy and go over it. Won't somebody be able to raise some money to do a study and replicate the results? There are many grant giving organizations out there, even people richer than Wally.(no offense Mr. Hersom) Edited February 1, 2013 by mitchw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I only post here when I have a question or something relevant to add, (not often,lol), but did I miss something from the last radio interview? Did MK say it was in revision still, rejected?? I was under the impression they were waiting for a publication date. Maybe I should have listened, but on first attempt, I could not find the right show/link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts