Sierra Shooting from A-Z

[southernyahoo]

Tim:here you go.

From facebook; if you don't believe this is a true verbatim quote, or if you just want the date and time, please look it up and report back. Otherwise I'll assume you believe it to be true.

Yep, I don't blame Dr. Ketchum for not wanting to just present findings outside the technical writings of the paper. Most people here seem to share the sentiment that she shouldn't say anything until the data is peer reviewed, while you argue that it is no big deal. Then you cry foul when she makes any comment on FB about how confident she is in the data. Of-coarse, you're still not considering that the Journal can impose the embargo, and stop release of the more technical info, in any form to include science conferences.. This would likely jeoprodize publication, no?

Is that your big endgame Parn?

[Guest BFSleuth]

Tim:here you go.

From facebook; if you don't believe this is a true verbatim quote, or if you just want the date and time, please look it up and report back. Otherwise I'll assume you believe it to be true.

I think I would err on the side of not raising any issues a publication might construe as a violation of embargo, given the controversial nature of the study. In their shoes I think I would CHOOSE to do the same and not ruffle feathers with any editor on the journal staff. Just my opinion.

I'm curious Parn, when you released information prior to publication in journals what kinds of modalities did you use? Forum discussions, interviews, teaser articles, or presentations at a conference? Just trying to get a sense of what you think would be allowed in normal course of prepublication activity. Another question is are you aware of anyone that has had a paper rejected from a journal for violating an embargo, and what kind of activity did they do?

Yep, I don't blame Dr. Ketchum for not wanting to just present findings outside the technical writings of the paper. Most people here seem to share the sentiment that she shouldn't say anything until the data is peer reviewed, while you argue that it is no big deal. Then you cry foul when she makes any comment on FB about how confident she is in the data. Of-coarse, you're still not considering that the Journal can impose the embargo, and stop release of the more technical info, in any form to include science conferences.. This would likely jeoprodize publication, no?

Is that your big endgame Parn?

Parn, I am curious from your experience what kinds of prepublication activity you have engaged in. I'm also curious whether you can site a circumstance where a paper was rejected for violation of embargo and what kind of activity did that author engage in? Just trying to get a sense of what the parameters are for embargoed activity from your point of view.

[Guest]

We aren't really being told everything

I agree with that.

Listening to Smeja's interviews, it's clear that his story has changed in how things happened. Is that because he's afraid of any consequences that could possibly come later?

The way he tells the story in the two interviews I have heard, makes me wonder about several things.

1. Did they have prior knowlege of sasquatches in the area and were they there for that purpose?

2. Did the creatures look so similar to humans, that they were afraid to show the world what they had done?

3. Are they hiding additional samples, or even a body? ( If i remember correctly, Smeja said he gave multiple people samples to keep hidden)

The other obvious conclusion is that it's all a hoax, in which case there would be no reason to discuss it further, so I don't care about that side right now.

[Cotter]

Well if Smeja's account is hoaxery, by proxy, isn't the Ketchum analysis a hoax? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it been acknowledged that Justin has a sample in the study?

[Guest]

Looking at it from a beleiving stance, I'm trying to figure out why Smeja's account has changed.

[bipedalist]

I don't recall direct acknowledgement from Sally or Melba K. that the Smeja sample is involved. The talk comes from the Sierra Kills thread and possibly some sample submitters as I recall (and on blogtalk radio shows from the Olympic Project as I recall). I'm sure I will be corrected if mistaken. Dr. K has acknowledged that these beings are actively hunted at this time (which she detests) but that is all the direct referencing I have seen from her that I can recall.

I think changes to the story occurred for many reasons: protection from prosecution, corrections to accuracy based on the RL account and may continue to change in the book (we shall see, it should be released soon, right?). How much of any changes were in order to avoid NDA violations and potential contamination or problems with the dna study, publication or embargo I guess will be known soon enough too if the science is published and the book is published and distributed.

Oh, almost forgot Kindareal all of your suppositions have been brought up much earlier in the thread and it really is a long read, but I'd recommend it. Also, welcome to the forum.

Edited April 26, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest parnassus]

BF

I must confess to a bit of frustration by the fact that your idea of embargo has been completely befuddled, possibly by some people who want you to remain in the dark. I won't charge anyone with deliberately muddying the waters, but you should understand that there seem to be three alternatives here:

1. Someone is deliberately saying things that aren't true.

2. Someone is just saying stuff without regard for whether it's true ie they don't know the truth, because they have no knowledge/experience with the system

(You should realize that alternatives 1 and 2 make scientists very uneasy about what is going on, over and above the question of the existence of bigfoot.)

3. Listeners aren't doing their part to become informed. The information is all over the internet, google is your friend, and here in this thread posted by me and by Saskeptic.

Here it is one more time: the embargo is something between the journal and selected members of the media. The journal allows premature access, so the media can have time to adequately prepare a story, The media agrees not to make it public until right before the paper is actually published. If the media violates the embargo by doing a piece two days before publication instead of one, they may get punished by not getting any more premature access. See what's missing in this arrangement/agreement/punishment? 1) the author. 2) rejecting the paper. They are not part of the embargo equation/agreement/arrangement.

So in answer to your question, no, I have never heard of a paper being rejected because the embargo was not adhered to. It wouldn't make sense.

I will tell you some of my personal experience as to why some people at certain times don't discuss their papers, or the journals to which they have been submitted, or rejected. And that is because the they fear embarrassment because paper may not be accepted or has actually been rejected. That is human nature, and that is the real world that I know. Certainly, public announcement of submission to a particular journal should not be done. You don't announce that you have submitted an article to Nature.

Rules vary somewhat but the author can do all sorts of things as far as discussing the research. Many papers are presented in preliminary form before publication. One could post preliminary data on a blog. etc etc. No one that I know of keeps a secret about having a paper accepted, by whom, and the general time of its publication. The one thing which is a complete no no is to widely publish the exact paper that is going to appear in the journal. That should be obvious...for one thing, it's a copyright issue. Journals frown on some other behaviors, for example, giving news conferences.

I hope that anwers some of your questions. You don't have to believe me, ask Saskeptic and/or consult the journal of your choice. They all have instructions to authors online.

p.

Edited April 26, 2012 by parnassus

[Guest]

I don't recall direct acknowledgement from Sally or Melba K. that the Smeja sample is involved.

I do recall an interview with Derek Randals where he said that at a sample from the Sierra Kills was given to Dr. K for study. Not sure about aknowledgement from Sally or Ketchum.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Kindareal

[bipedalist]

Yes, I edited my post to reflect the Olympic Project talk on blogtalk radio before reading your above post ^

[Guest]

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse. I'll switch gears.

Surely any book written about the incident or project wouldn't "hit the stands" until after the results are released, right?

Any pre-revelation monetary gain would be a huge buzz kill for me.

[Guest slimwitless]

I don't recall direct acknowledgement from Sally or Melba K. that the Smeja sample is involved. The talk comes from the Sierra Kills thread and possibly some sample submitters as I recall (and on blogtalk radio shows from the Olympic Project as I recall). I'm sure I will be corrected if mistaken. Dr. K has acknowledged that these beings are actively hunted at this time (which she detests) but that is all the direct referencing I have seen from her that I can recall.

Sally Ramey revealed the sample from the shooting incident is in the study. She also said she's not sure whether anyone knows the whole truth about the incident (I'm paraphrasing).

Edit to add actual quote from FB:

Sally here - I will confirm ONLY what has already been confirmed in the public domain as samples SUBMITTED to Melba: tissue reported to be from the shooting incident; a toenail; blood from two incidents in New Mexico and hair. We cannot comment further.

and

Sally here - "reported" to be from the shooting incident. Personally, I am not confident that anyone knows the whole story about what happened, and I am not going to stake my word on it.

Edited April 26, 2012 by slimwitless

[bipedalist]

edit, due to edit above.

Edited April 26, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

I agree. I don't remember any statement about the Sierra Kills 'steak' either on MK's Facebook page or on BFF.

[bipedalist]

Remember though, some earlier comments posted by Dr. K. (or maybe her factor Ramey) on Facebook did "disappear" (.... as witnessed and related to in some of the threads here about..... or on some of the BF blogs or both) so just because it can't be found there now doesn't mean it wasn't once there. Whether mention of The Sierra Sample was one of them I can't say....

edited to add after edits above that apparently acknowledgement still exists on FB that the sample was one of those public samples reported to have been submitted based on the reported Sierra's retrieval of samples.

Edited April 26, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

Thanks for the quotes Slim.

Why would comments "disappear"? Maybe to distance themselves from the way the samples were obtained?