gigantor Posted February 13, 2013 Admin Share Posted February 13, 2013 PLEASE REFRAIN FROM POSTING PICTURES. Thank You Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 The paper should be judged on its content and not on ad hominem diatribes. It doesn't surprise me that the existing journals would not publish it. They have a private agenda that has nothing to do with science. Whatever Melba Ketchum has, it should be capable of being duplicated if true. It probably will be test duplicated since the novel genome will have commercial value for pharmaceutical purposes. Ketchum's interpretation of the data might or might not be controversial, but the data will be testable by similar sets of laboratories. The Randi people are going wild with ad hominem comments. They impugn themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Is this why this site has been so slow recently? I tried to get on earlier and wasn't able to? Wonder how many ppl are on right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pruitt Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/2/prweb10427105.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Just to confirm and for those just tuning in this is a newly created journal by MK et al: Here is what appears in google search: DeNovo| accelerating science www.denovojournal.com/ Published Journal, Novel North American Hominid, Melba Ketchum, Bigfoot DNA , DeNovo, Illumina, Sasquatch, google4de1bfebaedf3365.html It makes no sense for a journal to contain meta keywords like seen above. They point directly to Melba and the study. The reverse who is lookup provides the following data: Reverse Whois: "Domains By Proxy, LLC" was found in about 11,606,747 other domains NS History: 1 change on 2 unique name servers over 0 year. IP History: 2 changes on 2 unique IP addresses over 0 years. Whois History: 1 record has been archived since 2013-02-05 . Reverse IP: 167,793 other sites hosted on this server. Log In or Create a FREE account to start monitoring this domain name Preview the complete Domain Report for denovojournal.com Registered through: GoDaddy.com, LLC (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: DENOVOJOURNAL.COM Created on: 04-Feb-13 Expires on: 04-Feb-14 Last Updated on: 04-Feb-13 Registrant: Domains By Proxy, LLC DomainsByProxy.com 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States Administrative Contact: Private, Registration Domains By Proxy, LLC DomainsByProxy.com 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598 Technical Contact: Private, Registration Domains By Proxy, LLC DomainsByProxy.com 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598 Domain servers in listed order: NS1.MEDIATEMPLE.NET NS2.MEDIATEMPLE.NET Site Profile and Search Rank Website Title: DeNovo| accelerating Science Title Relevancy0%Meta Description:Sasquatch DNA, Bigfoot Genome, Forest People, Sasquatch Genome, DNA, Phylogenetic, Genome, Next Generation Sequencing, Illumina, Texas University, PublishingDescription Relevancy:0% relevant.Meta Keywords: bigfoot, dna, discovery, forest people, justin smeja, melba ketchum, next generation sequencing, phylogenetic tree, phylogentic sasquatch, phylogeny, sasquatch, sasquatch discovery, sasquatch whole genome, science, the olympic project Keyword Relevancy:0% relevant AboutUs: Wiki article on Denovojournal.com The URL seen below is not even a functioning website. http://www.denovoscientificpublishing.com/ Edited February 13, 2013 by Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted February 13, 2013 Admin Share Posted February 13, 2013 So it's going to be a self-published study? Does that mean it didn't pass peer review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 http://www.prweb.com...web10427105.htm Looks promising. I've done registered and waiting approval. So it's going to be a self-published study? Does that mean it didn't pass peer review? ....or possible didn't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole, I could think of a dozen other possibilities also. One of those is called......Pride! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Not necessarily, Gigantor. It could have passed peer review, and she is just making a site for reference. She did say it would talk about the peer review! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 The paper should be judged on its content and not on ad hominem diatribes. It doesn't surprise me that the existing journals would not publish it. They have a private agenda that has nothing to do with science. Whatever Melba Ketchum has, it should be capable of being duplicated if true. It probably will be test duplicated since the novel genome will have commercial value for pharmaceutical purposes. Ketchum's interpretation of the data might or might not be controversial, but the data will be testable by similar sets of laboratories. The Randi people are going wild with ad hominem comments. They impugn themselves. I agree spur. Although I am initially disappointed in that it isn't the 4th of July event that I was looking forward to, it still means that there is work on the table to be reviewed and analyzed (for those that have the courage to do so). We will also get a look finally at some reportedly excellent images provided by the Ericsson project. I believe that this is the initial step for acceptance. It is part of the three stages of truth: First it is ridiculed. Second it is fiercely and violently opposed. Third, it becomes self-evident. — Arthur Schopenhauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 gig, she's putting up the genome site tomorrow that will explain the delays and the peer-review. It possibly could have been peer-reviewed elsewhere and the new site is geared around the new science. It might fall under others, but think of how many future studies will be done in the future that would fall under this classification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reelback Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I'm worried this is just a hoax with falsified evidence. The BF Smeja DNA has me nervous since it was shown by another test to be a bear. Every journal in the world would kill to prove the most amazing species that has ever be found. None want to take a risk? I'm pretty sure this paper is going to be ridiculed to high heaven. I truly hope I'm wrong bit I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 It looks like DeNovo is a journal that was created for the very purpose of publishing Dr. Ketchum's study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Not necessarily, Gigantor. It could have passed peer review, and she is just making a site for reference. She did say it would talk about the peer review! The site appears to be a legitimate attempt at launching an independent journal. Also, there appears to be a pointed jab made at mainstream journals with the site's subtitle, "accelerating science". She already has the Sasquatch Genome project setup for the purpose you suggest. It looks like DeNovo is a journal that was created for the very purpose of publishing Dr. Ketchum's study. Yes, unequivocally. Every journal in the world would kill to prove the most amazing species that has ever be found. None want to take a risk? I disagree. I think there are many who wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. The subject has been completely ridiculed for ages. There is such a stigma attached to it that to involve yourself by publishing a paper would drag your reputation down. It is the sort of thing that gets dismissed at the door I imagine. And to make matters worse, they have a study provided by a group largely made up of forensic scientists from what I can see. They are broaching into the domain of academia's DNA geneticists. I imagine that with their internal politics they weren't too welcome. Melba has mentioned that forensic scientists are the ones who have advanced the field more through doing the work whilst geneticists are often confined to too much theorizing and debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) I believe that this is the initial step for acceptance. It is part of the three stages of truth: First it is ridiculed. Second it is fiercely and violently opposed. Third, it becomes self-evident. — Arthur Schopenhauer That was true of Copernicus..Ketchum is no Copernicus Edited February 13, 2013 by ronn1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reelback Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I'm worried this is just a hoax with falsified evidence. The BF Smeja DNA has me nervous since it was shown by another test to be a bear. Every journal in the world would kill to prove the most amazing species that has ever be found. None want to take a risk? I'm pretty sure this paper is going to be ridiculed to high heaven. I truly hope I'm wrong bit I doubt it. I disagree. I think there are many who wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. The subject has been completely ridiculed for ages. There is such a stigma attached to it that to involve yourself by publishing a paper would drag your reputation down. It is the sort of thing that gets dismissed at the door I imagine. And to make matters worse, they have a study provided by a group largely made up of forensic scientists from what I can see. They are broaching into the domain of academia's DNA geneticists. I imagine that with their internal politics they weren't too welcome. Melba has mentioned that forensic scientists are the ones who have advanced the field more through doing the work whilst geneticists are often confined to too much theorizing and debate. I do not. If the paper was scientifically valid it would have been published by a well respected journal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts