Guest PorkSol Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Quote from her facebook "The high def video is in the supplemental part of the manuscript." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest darkangel Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I didn't say I believe him. In fact I think it's one last pathetic ride on her coat tails. When I said not sure if this was new info I meant already covered in the thread:) I apologize for jumping the gun and misunderstanding you. I'm just frustrated that people like him, Rick Dyer, Biscardi, etc., get so much attention in our community for being nothing more than shysters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 also where it is published is irrelevant now that every expert in the world will be reading it and offering their professional opinions. Hopefully... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Today is my birthday...is it your Birthday too? (music from Beatles...oh so old!) So, I will not object if anyone feels a desire to lay a gift of one BF DNA paper on me today! What I am hearing here is: no photos, no video.... and $30 for the paper (that's typical with the real Journals) Is this venue a real peer-review Journal? Not to me, it sounds like it was created for this event..and the idea one must register to understand the submission process really odd....this feels like Melba Ketchum to me and in line with the other many copyright filings, etc...going on since the beginning....there must be a way to make money from BF.....and she is sure to find it!!? I still can not figure out what the "Frontiers of Zoology" Journal is that also seems associated with this...see the first posts last night....and hoping RL reveals that as well, as contrary to many, I have found his accuracy remarkable given the closed community this is...he is not a "shyster" in my book (he is controversial, edgy, and a blogger of topics i don't read...except the BF stuff) the way Biscardi and Dyer seem to be...and many others actually.. So? nada.. I am still dependent on people like GenesRus to read this and review.....!!! I wanted to see the pictures...! it's my birthday...! And this thread should top 700 pages this week! Edited February 13, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 ^ I cannot find that quote, the one I saw said that there was a short clip of Matilda breathing in the supplemental part of the paper??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Please note, she is posting this on PR websites, these are not news articles or anything like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) I still can not figure out what the "Frontiers of Zoology" Journal is that also seems associated with this... It's the name of the journal that peer reviewed her paper. After peer review was completed, she acquired the rights to the journal and renamed it to LeNovo before publishing her paper there. Edited February 13, 2013 by gershake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I apologize for jumping the gun and misunderstanding you. I'm just frustrated that people like him, Rick Dyer, Biscardi, etc., get so much attention in our community for being nothing more than shysters. No problem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PorkSol Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 ^ I cannot find that quote, the one I saw said that there was a short clip of Matilda breathing in the supplemental part of the paper??? There is a face book entry where she says "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." If you go under that entry and expand comments, there is one where she says "The high def video is in the supplemental part of the manuscript." Not sure if the layout is different when you are logged into facebook, I don't have an account so I'm viewing her page without being logged in. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Melba-Ketchum/359075637446173 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 ^ I cannot find that quote, the one I saw said that there was a short clip of Matilda breathing in the supplemental part of the paper??? Chat room please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Not surprised to see this released in what may be/appears to be a self release, and up for sale. I would encourage bigfoot enthusiasts not to buy it, and not to support what will soon be exposed as junk. Edited February 13, 2013 by LWD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Please folks....PLEEEEEASE....do not spend your hard-earned dollars on anything that demands same unless you know, up front, that the proof is in it. (My bet? Guess.) But if you do....report it here huhwillyahuh...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) I don't think this has been posted here. This is from The Sasquatch Genome Project page http://sasquatchgeno...oject.org/home/ "We encountered the worst scientific bias in the peer review process in recent history. I am calling it the “Galileo Effectâ€. Several journals wouldn’t even read our manuscript when we sent them a pre-submission inquiry. Another one leaked our peer reviews. We were even mocked by one reviewer in his peer review. We did finally pass peer review with a relatively new journal. It took a fresh outlook on the part of the editors and their careful selection of reviewers with knowledge of next generation whole genome sequencing in order to pass. I have no idea who the reviewers were though I have the reviews. That was kept confidential as is the way journals handle peer reviews. That was only part of the delay and problems associated with publication though. After this journal agreed to publish the manuscript, their legal counsel advised them not to publish a manuscript on such a controversial subject as it would destroy the editors’ reputations (as it has already done to mine). I have documentation on all of this drama. So, rather than spend another five years just trying to find a journal to publish and hoping that decent, open minded reviewers would be chosen, we acquired the rights to this journal and renamed it so we would not lose the passing peer reviews that are expected by the public and the scientific community. Denovo, the new journal is aimed at offering not only more choices and better service to scientists wanting to submit a manuscript, but also reviewers and editors that will be fair, unlike the treatment we have received. We furthermore have adhered to all of the standards set here in the link below, especially since the entire review and agreement to publish was done at the previous journal": http://publicationet...hor-own-journal Still looks like good business in the face of institutional obstructionism to me. It advances the ball and it is amusing to me how many people are arraying themselves trying to force a fumble or claim that there was/is a fumble. At the end of the day there will be two arms in the air and a lot of grumbling as the whistle blows. Those claiming there is a hoax now have the study available. You now have hard the hard data you've been demanding all along. Buy it, disect it, and back up your claims with substantive evaluation rather than subjective ad hominum attacks. Ketchum's delivered. Edited February 13, 2013 by JDL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) It's the name of the journal that peer reviewed her paper. After peer review was completed, she acquired the rights to the journal and renamed it to LeNovo before publishing her paper there. Huh? A Journal that provides peer-review but does not publish? I can't find any history on this Journal...does anyone know who the publisher is, or the other work they have published or apparently only peer-reviewed? I see the rating tier for review... and the level three blinded..etc...so if they reviewed what were those results? It didn't publish with them, why? Ahh, thanks for post above. TN Bigfoot is original on that, and the pages adding here too fast! . I would like to see all that "drama' with that Journal and those reviewers....the good and bad... I am not buying this guys as the real trajectory this study took with Journals......and not sure why, but it just sounds too self serving....or perhaps the claim all declined to take it on is too one-sided. I suspect that is not because of the subject, but the work product... especially on the last Journal..the "New Frontiers".... but all that drama would be interesting reading! How is it really trying to get published....? Sykes will demonstrate for us if that is really the case (subject over content) I suppose? Edited February 13, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 It's the name of the journal that peer reviewed her paper. After peer review was completed, she acquired the rights to the journal and renamed it to LeNovo before publishing her paper there. Clever Girl! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts