Cotter Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 The only reputation she has is as a vet confirming the pedigrees of cats and dogs, who recently went out of business. I fail to see how this would have any effect on that. Well, after this fiasco, do you feel she will try to find work within her field? Of DNA analysis? Do you think getting busted for hoaxing a DNA analysis would affect her career in DNA analysis? Or do you suspect she'll go to a different career path that DNA analysis hoaxing wouldn't affect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 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...? 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...? ..dude, if you to dab burn lazy to open your own wallet. Why should anyone share theirs with you.....this isn't like...spread the wealth around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spirithawke Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 The journal she allegedly bought, doesn't even appear until Jan. 4. I can find no record of it publishing anything. Her story I believe was: This "new" journal was willing to take the risk for their first publication because (presumably) they wanted the notoriety. Then the evil lawyers stepped in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 There are 10 other names listed... just saying. Yes. I'm not sure whether they have no reputation to lose either, or have simply done a job of work in sequencing DNA as requested. No doubt we'll find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Sorry new to this lol My understanding is she bought this journal because it was the only one he paper passed peer review with. She wanted to preserve that when she found out they were not going to publish. The revisions (such as taking out the stills) were for the journals it didn't make the cut for. At least that's the way I take it. Well my point being - they must have told her in a method that was preservable without buying the journal itself.. Did they send her an email that self destructed or something? She states the paper was accepted - they must have sent her an email. She said the reviewers had issues with specific parts of her paper - they must have emailed her or sent her something through the USPS..Right? So, why buy the journal when the correspondence was already there and available? Just thinking out loud here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) It is odd, and all I can come up with is the motivation to buy a fledgling Journal without any presence would be to acquire the reviews and exercise control over them. She states she did so b/c it passed that peer review and then they wouldn't publish. She wanted to retain the positive reviews, by reviewers she also says she had no information about. What does she gain by buying hidden peer-reviewers of an as yet unrated Journal? She may not be able to change their initial agreements for anonymity without their agreement. And if positive reviews it seems they would come forward of their own willingly to support a new Journal, like the DeNovo, without buying the old.. Seems almost as likely the reviews were negative, or it did not pass even that review process, and she acquired to prevent that from emerging, now with control over those reviewers and their obligations to the original Journal? I really hate thinking that, but I am trying to make sense of a very cloudy picture, and the inconsistent statements in her statement/post are jumping out at me, perhaps disproportionately b/c I have not read the paper and must wait for someone like...who? Who will tell me what to think of this? Counting on you all! Also, who or what were the leaked "peer reviews" she mentioned? I never saw those. Edited February 13, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 And here we go..... http://neurodojo.blo...-or-vanity.html From the article linked in this post... Note his critique has nothing to do with the science involved. I see his photo. He clearly admires Brent Spiner's character in "Independence Day". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Yes. I'm not sure whether they have no reputation to lose either, or have simply done a job of work in sequencing DNA as requested. No doubt we'll find out. https://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/about/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Also, who or what were the leaked "peer reviews" she mentioned? I never saw those. The only "leaks" I have seen came within her own camp... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spirithawke Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Well my point being - they must have told her in a method that was preservable without buying the journal itself.. Did they send her an email that self destructed or something? She states the paper was accepted - they must have sent her an email. She said the reviewers had issues with specific parts of her paper - they must have emailed her or sent her something through the USPS..Right? So, why buy the journal when the correspondence was already there and available? Just thinking out loud here. Good point! I guess the only thing I could think of is she didn't know what individuals did the peer review. Now that she owns the journal she has those records? Without the names of who did the peer review it means nothing Ya I'm stretching lol Edited February 13, 2013 by spirithawke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Well, after this fiasco, do you feel she will try to find work within her field? Of DNA analysis? Do you think getting busted for hoaxing a DNA analysis would affect her career in DNA analysis? Or do you suspect she'll go to a different career path that DNA analysis hoaxing wouldn't affect? 1. She went out of business anyway, so her reputation had already suffered 2. Someone who wants to know whether Fluffy is pure Persian is not likely to check the local vet lab to see if they've been involved in Bigfoot hoaxes. So no, I don't think she would stand to lose much. What she does normally is not a job that requires much of a reputation. You need more of a good reputation to sell used cars. https://sasquatchgen...ject.org/about/ My virus protection REALLY REALLY doesn't like that page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 My virus protection REALLY REALLY doesn't like that page. It's still somewhat glitchy and supposed to go fully live later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 So in a nutshell, we buckled up for a big dissapointment. Whats happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 You need more of a good reputation to sell used cars. LOL! Seriously tho, our thoughts on this matter differ. I do see your point however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Okay I've read it and I'm going to back through it again, but there are some serious problems. For one thing much of her paper seems to hinge on her sample 26 which from it's description (tissue and hair) sounds like the steak, but when you look up 26 on her table of samples it lists it as a toenail from Arizona. Going through her table listing the provenience of her samples, there is nothing that matches the description of the steak even though it is discussed and described in the main body of the paper. Big problem. Did she go in and remove the obvious references to the steak after the recent bear reveal, but left the main information in the body of the paper? Yikes. One of the other 3 samples that had the nuDNA sequenced is #140. Only problem is her list of samples and their provenience only goes up to #111. Is it supposed to be #14? Who knows. So two of the main samples that she relies on have problems with their provenience. On the mtDNA she has 16 diffenent haplotypes mostly common type for white people in North American, yet she leaps to the conclusion that this means that all of these haplotypes came over as a result of the Solutrean hypothesis with no reasoning at all behind that claim. Nothing. It's a complete non-sequetor. The paper has the veneer of science, but when you actually start deconstructing it, it's a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts