TimB Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Wee there we have it. The most modern and promising study for proving the case for Bigfoot has for all intents and purposes gone down in flames. I don't think it could have gone any other way. It's just Bigfoot business as usual. Huh? We have several non-experts re-iterating what they believed before the paper was released, most of whom haven't even read it. This forum is NOT the place to find conclusions- it's primarily uneducated opinion being slung around to make people feel important about themselves. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 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... Did you see the national geographic blog and Houston chronicle science blog? They mocked it without reading it. Established scientists don't want to risk their careers. Now that it's published, they don't have a risk. They can run all the tests and say they're going to disprove it. No risk to their careers and if it comes back agreeing with MK's paper, they're surprised. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 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. Let's see what you look like when you're 90. LOL. You think that looks remotely like any BF we've ever heard or read about? Looks human to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 It does look like an old man, but remember the study says Bigfoot is human. Exactly how many real closeup Bigfoot have people seen to know what a Bigfoot in Ohio looks like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Did you see the national geographic blog and Houston chronicle science blog? They mocked it without reading it. Established scientists don't want to risk their careers. Now that it's published, they don't have a risk. They can run all the tests and say they're going to disprove it. No risk to their careers and if it comes back agreeing with MK's paper, they're surprised. As I have stated before, the Lame stream Academic Scientific Bigfoot community is still in the Dark Ages.... Back in the Dark ages When deciding (discussing) the number of teeth a donkey had .... if someone went out side to count the teeth a donkey had, they were disqualified from the discussion.... At least they have learned to "Blog and MOCK" .... since they can not silence Melba.... So Sad...... So Sad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 I'm looking forward to the days ahead when someone who actually knows what they are talking about scientifically details their analysis. The shotgun attacks we are witnessing so far are sad and desperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 I read the report and I don't understand one sentence in ten. I guess you all must have paid your $30 and read it thoroughly and understood it all. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Did you see the national geographic blog and Houston chronicle science blog? They mocked it without reading it. Established scientists don't want to risk their careers. Now that it's published, they don't have a risk. They can run all the tests and say they're going to disprove it. No risk to their careers and if it comes back agreeing with MK's paper, they're surprised. If the science is sound - it's sound and does not require excuses. Scientists risk their careers every day - looking for the next big discovery for everything from Medicine to new animals - knowing if they don't do it they will either lose funding or their positions. No new stuff - no money to keep them in their jobs. Is it usual and customary for a Scientist (who she is trying to convince) to pay $30.00 or more to read a paper - written by someone with science that is unproven? If that is the usual order of business I would like to know. It's not always the fault of the lawyers or the Scientists. Again - just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Nature charges $200 for the year. Yes, it's much cheaper per issue, but a bigger upfront cost. Can't purchase individual issues. It's cheaper for post doctorates and students. So the answer is yes, charging for the journal is a common practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Is that charge to the people who are reviewing the articles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Everyone that wants to read it has to pay. Journalists just get it earlier, which is what the embargo is. Peer reviewers didn't have to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Does the published work of Melba's include the peer reviews? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) I'd like to know who the peer reviewers were. On a post on her fb page somebody comes out defending her and states that they recently spent some time vacationing with her and one of the reviewers.... I was like 'what?' she is chums with one of the reviewers? That doesn't seem proper at all... Edited February 14, 2013 by Scout1959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ishcabibble Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 I sat back all day today and watched this story unfold, and I have come to a crossroad. First off, while I am not a geneticist, I am a member of the scientific community (hydrology and GIS) so I am experienced with the academic/publishing world. Yes, all major, well-respected scientific journals charge a yearly subscription fee. Some are quite high when compared to mainstream publications, and yes, they all charge a reprint fee for specific papers. This Denovo thing, however, is neither a major publication nor a well-respected journal. To expect any respectable coverage of this paper from mainstream science at this point is laughable. And frankly, and I mean no disrespect to anyone here, I am disgusted with the way this thing played out. It seems to me that this, and the whole RD/MA/FBFB fiasco, and the unmentionable bigfoot sounds that break ice thing that got me into trouble a couple of months ago, hints at a darker and more troublesome pattern. That these kinds of people find it so easy to twist words and, I'd dare say, hurt people with their zeal to pull off a hoax so they can turn a buck. I've always been a skeptic, but I leave the door open because I can't rule it out yet. These latest antics have made me really question why I should keep paying attention. Seriously, Melba can't get her paper through peer review so she buys a new journal, changes the name, and publishes her paper...and then has the balls to call it published? Really? At best, it's insulting that she thinks any of us would give this a second look. Anyway, sorry for the wall of text, but this whole thing has me shaking my head in disgust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icicle Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 So there's double and single strands mixed in the DNA - which means contamination, she's holidaying with reviewers she says are anonymous, she claims copyright on pictures produced before she even heard of the artist, it is fairly easy to work out why the "lawyers" of the new journal wouldn't want their clients involved with someone claiming they'd objectively peer reviewed her, and her 'data does not support the conclusions she draws from it' according to real journals. If only there had been some kind of clue, maybe staring us in the face, that maybe she starts everything from the results she wants then sort of fills it all in from an unconvincing outline. Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts