Drew Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Anybody going to buy this? I plan on snagging a copy later today. No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 So when the editors were advised to not publish such a controvertial paper, Ketchum acquired the rights to the journal and renamed it to preserve the existing peer reviews? So was the original journal called Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TH68 Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I am not surprised that no other journal would accept it. Shame on them If it was indeed "Nature", too late now!!! The science will stand or fall on it's own. I predict that it will stand on it's own and lead the way for others to follow and advance it. I really want to hear what Dr. Meldrum has to say once he has digested all of it. At last he will be vindicated. He may have to alter his hypothesis or again maybe not. I don't know what the science will reveal and i know I will not understand it. I await the explanations like everyone else. In my zeal to catch up on all of this once I woke up this morning I went on some of the other blogs. I won't do that again. The BFF is civil and thought provoking. I look forward to developments. This is indeed historic and has begun 2013 as the year of the Sasquatch. I guess anything is possible. Bodies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Unfortunately, Dr. Meldrum was never happy about this. And now that the gigantopithecus fantasy has gone out the window, he will be even more disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest darkangel Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Check out Lindsay's new post, claims to have copy of the paper, shes due to publish on fri Not sure if this is new info Please don't believe anything he says. Believe me, I should know. IF he does actually have a copy, it's the like the boy who cried wolf. He shouldn't be believed. He's lied so many times about having "Inside sources". I can't believe that so many people go to him for BF "news". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest craichead Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I'm doubting there will be any pictures accompanying the paper because it doesn't look like any of the authors cited is one of the photogs from the Erickson study. If their photos were in there, they'd be credited as well. Though some of the names I didn't come up with anything on google so one of them could possibly be a photog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Shame on the other journals? What? You don't know what is in the paper. If they submitted a paper of smeared poop, is it really the nasty journals that are to blame here? Until you read the paper, I'd suggest you not label the other journals as the problem. The most likely explanation, is that the paper is ridiculous, and the other journals saw that. So they decided to make their own journal and publish it there. plus, how else are you gonna make $30.00/per download? Here is a common sense take on this whole thing: http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/02/ketchum-bigfoot-dna-paper-released-problems-with-questionable-publication/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) A) According to Ketchum, this journal is not her journal. BÂÂ) I'd be all over downloading this, but you need a credit or debit card. =/ Now if they accepted PayPal... " There is a nice short clip of Matilda breathing in the supplemental part of the paper. When and how the rest comes out is up to Adrian." - https://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum/posts/567983746547079 Edited February 13, 2013 by gershake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I'm doubting there will be any pictures accompanying the paper because it doesn't look like any of the authors cited is one of the photogs from the Erickson study. If their photos were in there, they'd be credited as well. Though some of the names I didn't come up with anything on google so one of them could possibly be a photog. She has said on FB that there is a short video clip attached to the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Shame on the other journals? What? You don't know what is in the paper. If they submitted a paper of smeared poop, is it really the nasty journals that are to blame here? Until you read the paper, I'd suggest you not label the other journals as the problem. The most likely explanation, is that the paper is ridiculous, and the other journals saw that. So they decided to make their own journal and publish it there. plus, how else are you gonna make $30.00/per download? Here is a common sense take on this whole thing: http://doubtfulnews....le-publication/ So Drew - you ARE indeed then going to get the paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Chad Triplett: "Thank u Melba for answering. However we all have been told that multiple photographs an video (more than jus ericksons) would be released when your paper became published so it would go hand in hand an help substantiate your study with visual evidence." Melba Ketchum: "No, but they didn't like any of the stills so they are not in the paper." Melba Ketchum: "Not even some of Adrians. I have one that you can see the face clearly. When the dust settles, i will probably release it when I do an interview." Melba Ketchum: " To get an idea of bias, the Lesula monkey paper in PLOS One used 6800 bases of DNA sequence to prove it was a new primate. We have aligned 2.7 million bases of nuclear DNA on two of the three Sasquatch genomes in this first manuscript and generated a phylogenetic tree to prove it. We also had 20 whole mitochondrial genomes at 16,500 bases each. That same publication wouldn't even send ours out for peer review." Richard Smothers: "The monolithic response by the scientific publishing community in its attempt to keep this from seeing the light of day is disgusting. I'm hoping very much that you can form a supportive alliance with Sykes and the Oxford project, since they're going to be in the same boat. Having the two papers corroborate results would be of enormous benefit." Melba Ketchum: "They won't be in the same boat. They are at Oxford and they are male." Melba Ketchum: " Obviously I want to thank Wally Hersom since this wouldn't have happened without him. Also Adrian Erickson. These guys spent a fortune to get all of the testing and genomes done!" Craig Spigles: "Guess the only question left is......Was it worth it?" Melba Ketchum: "No, hind sight is 20/20. If I didn't feel obligated to Wally, Adrian and all of the submitters, I would have walked away what with all of the lies told about me and accusations of a hoax." Melba Ketchum: "My faith in God is all that got me through this. Everytime I was persecuted, I thought about how much worse Jesus had it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest darkangel Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 It actually doesn't surprise me that she had to go the self-publishing route. I was afraid that no journal would accept it no matter how good the science was for one reason: "Bigfoot doesn't exist". That's the mindset of almost everyone in the scientific realm. Anytime someone comes forward with any information that goes against the academically-accepted norm, they are scoffed and ridiculed. That's just human nature. I only hope that this self-publishing venture gathers enough steam to get a mainstream conversation going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 So Drew - you ARE indeed then going to get the paper? Hell no, I'm going to wait for someone to download it, and post it in PDF form for educational purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Please don't believe anything he says. Believe me, I should know. IF he does actually have a copy, it's the like the boy who cried wolf. He shouldn't be believed. He's lied so many times about having "Inside sources". I can't believe that so many people go to him for BF "news". I didn't say I believe him. In fact I think it's one last pathetic ride on her coat tails. He has always scrambled to break every morsel on this melba dna story. i just had to see what he had to say. When I said not sure if this was new info I was wondering if it was already covered in this thread. Hope that clears up why I mentioned it and let me point out that I don't put much stock in him for my bigfoot "news" Edited February 13, 2013 by shuseby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) This just popped up.... http://www.eurekaler...dd-tg021213.php also where it is published is irrelevant now that every expert in the world will be reading it and offering their professional opinions. Edited February 13, 2013 by grayjay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts