Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Who is Denovo? That is my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 14, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted February 14, 2013 It is a latin phrase meaning something along the lines of "new", like a de novo genetic mutation+suddenly appears in other words rather than passed along through a hereditary line of markers.... Oh, denovo scientific is the name of the company publishing the new online journal that she bought out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) Just one persons opinion: Orchestrated, premeditated, fraud. And another person's prediction: In its core findings, Ketchum's paper is going to stand the test of time, despite the superficial, ignorant, and abundant criticism by people who know essentially nothing about the subject. Sykes's study will largely agree with Ketchum. Edited February 14, 2013 by Oak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 And another person's prediction: In its core findings, Ketchum's paper is going to stand the test of time, despite the superficial, ignorant, and abundant criticism by people who know essentially nothing about the subject. Sykes's study will largely agree with Ketchum. And you know this how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) http://www.seattlepi...vel-4273696.php http://beforeitsnews...dy-2440878.html http://m.indianexpre...-study/1037448/ http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/ Edited February 14, 2013 by Kings Canyon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) I will do that. I am getting a press pass issued tomorrow from my local hometown paper. I need as many questions to ask all parties involved as possible. I wonder if you could actually get a geneticist to evaluate the paper, perhaps from your University? I imagine few will purchase, or even be aware of it in a meaningful way, and walking a copy to someone (or emailing) with a plea might work? Has John Hawks a copy? What does he think? It wouldn't seem anyone involved in other ongoing studies would even respond to such a request. On other news, I do wonder who/what the heck was the Journal...Frontiers of Zoology and what that Editor has to say about why it wasn't published there, and why Ketchum purchased that fledgling effort to rename as DeNovo. Also, when you write your story I hope your local paper publishes! On "Oak's" prediction, I think everyone hopes at it's core, or in certain essential elements, this work will stand up over time. Especially for those of us that know the real effort, long wait, and hope of so many submitters and also that Bigfoots are real....., Zigopex, thanks for the info on ZooBank...do you know how that Taxonomic commission decides a registration rises to award of the designation? Edited February 14, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Oak I think in the long term you are on the right track. We have no way of knowing about the Sykes study and what percentage it will agree with Ketchum's but this opens the door to more and more interest in using good science to analyze evidence gathered in the field. In the long term I think a large part of Ketchum's paper will be vindicated. Somebody has to break "the glass ceiling" so to speak. At least the continual results of human contamination and degraded over and over in years past will no longer be accepted by the submitting researchers, they'll be alot more informed when they submit their hard earned evidence and will not accept the standard issued lines of "to degraded for results, or human contamination". I feel this study gives those people who spend their precious time and resources in the field a leg up so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 And another person's prediction: In its core findings, Ketchum's paper is going to stand the test of time, despite the superficial, ignorant, and abundant criticism by people who know essentially nothing about the subject. Sykes's study will largely agree with Ketchum. Have you read the paper? What is it specifically in her paper that you think proves the existence of BF? What are these core findings that will stand the test of time? Seriously. I just don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Umm ... ??? That looks like my dad! Looks completely human. If that looks completely human...you have indeed witnessed some ugly people in your life time LOL...not jonesing your pops in the least. Look how deep sunk those eyes are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Erickson may take years? Maybe it just isnt that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TH68 Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 And another person's prediction: In its core findings, Ketchum's paper is going to stand the test of time, despite the superficial, ignorant, and abundant criticism by people who know essentially nothing about the subject. Sykes's study will largely agree with Ketchum. Well said Oak. Dr. Sykes' study will indeed corroborate Dr. Ketchum's findings on all points. The bottom line is she put it out there for the world to see and study. If there is legitimate criticism I welcome the opportunity to evaluate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 I wonder if Wally Hersom still believes he spent wisely and has gotten his moneies worth? I also ponder, if the peer review process was so trying and Dr. Ketchum was getting resistance by major journals why did she not bring Meldrum into the equation and show her cards? Meldrum has access to quite a bit of resources and contacts. I am sure Jane Goodall, Esteban Sarmiento, Jeff Meldrum, John Bindernagel, Anna Nekaris, George Schaller and Ian Redmond all would have given their time and expertise to review and advise based on her findings and the Ericksons videos. If only she had extended an olive branch. Why this did not happen is beyond me? I personally think it is because Paulides planted the poison pill early on and soured her to the likes of Bindernagel, Meldrum and John Green and a little bit of her catching the meglomania bug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 And another person's prediction: In its core findings, Ketchum's paper is going to stand the test of time, despite the superficial, ignorant, and abundant criticism by people who know essentially nothing about the subject. Sykes's study will largely agree with Ketchum. Well personally, if this paper was going to "stand the test of time" - I don't see why it would not have been picked up by an established scientific journal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Just one persons opinion: Orchestrated, premeditated, fraud. Wasn't that the same thing you were saying before the paper came out? Just and observation. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 I could not agree more Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts