Guest Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 RHI journal has an article published on its website now, by Kathy Strain. Hairy Man article Proof that RHI journal is up and running. Book reviews section now contains a couple reviews as well. Don't know if this has been posted elsewhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) RHI journal has an article published on its website now, by Kathy Strain. Hairy Man article Proof that RHI journal is up and running. Book reviews section now contains a couple reviews as well. Don't know if this has been posted elsewhere... Thanks for taking time to link, I get irritated sometimes how many websites I must go to to stay abreast...and only b/c there is so little real news. This is refreshing, but I must admit I blew over the "Hominoid" reference first time I saw...LOL thanks Edited January 22, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 22, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 22, 2012 RHI journal has an article published on its website now, by Kathy Strain. Hairy Man article Proof that RHI journal is up and running. Book reviews section now contains a couple reviews as well. Don't know if this has been posted elsewhere... Yep, and Meet the Sasquatch has a book review (pub. posthumously by Daris Swindler). Kathy is a member here as is Dr. Meldrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Well, I am just stoked to see the site finally getting material, fleshing out. Been watching it, since I am still not unconvinced that the much anticipated journal article will not be published through the RHI. If Ketchum's paper is published in a better known mainstream science journal, the RHI will really be a powerhouse organization, IMO. If the paper comes through RHI, then I don't foresee bigfootery making any great leaps, prestige and credibility-wise, in the near future. The RHI represents the best effort to date to gather scientific credibility, methinks. How much uphill struggle that group has ahead depends on Ketchum. No pressure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Yep, and Meet the Sasquatch has a book review (pub. posthumously by Daris Swindler). Kathy is a member here as is Dr. Meldrum. What is Meldrum's user name here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 23, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 23, 2012 See my friends list and intuit...... otherwise we are not at liberty of divulging that as members/staff, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I want to say that the neanderthal,caveman,missing link view is just a myth.They never existed. Really. This is new to me. First, Neanderthal is not a missing link but a cousin so to speak. What is your source for the idea that the Neanderthal never existed. We have many bones fossils plus a complete genome. Are you saying their is some kind of conspiracy to make people to believe in Neanderthal to discredit something else. What ever source you are using for your conclusions is not very accurate and full of many errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 29, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 29, 2012 So could it be that The Relict Hominoid Inquiry will be the online publisher of last resort that will contain the Ketchum Project results? Just asking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Anyone? Bueller? Anyone? (in the know, that is...) Worth a shot, bipedalist. <shrug> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 So could it be that The Relict Hominoid Inquiry will be the online publisher of last resort that will contain the Ketchum Project results? Just asking? Wouldn't that make Todd Disotell one of the peer reviewers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) One of the possible reviewers, at least, I think...just says: "Manuscripts will be sent to two or more referees at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief and members of the editorial board. Reviewers are given the option of providing an anonymous or a signed review." Looks like reviewing/refereeing is part of the editorial board job description: "An editorial board, consisting of Ph.D.s or other-wise qualified professionals, is responsible for assisting with manuscript editing and reviewing in their respective area(s) of experience and expertise; assist in identifying willing, objective, and reputable outside reviewers and commentators; suggest appropriate topical areas to be addressed by the RHI journal and newsletter, and invite/solicit submissions to that end." Edited January 29, 2012 by notgiganto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Well, I am just stoked to see the site finally getting material, fleshing out. Been watching it, since I am still not unconvinced that the much anticipated journal article will not be published through the RHI. If Ketchum's paper is published in a better known mainstream science journal, the RHI will really be a powerhouse organization, IMO. If the paper comes through RHI, then I don't foresee bigfootery making any great leaps, prestige and credibility-wise, in the near future. The RHI represents the best effort to date to gather scientific credibility, methinks. How much uphill struggle that group has ahead depends on Ketchum. No pressure... It'll still be an uphill fight. The Skeptics have already positioned themselves to dismiss/ignore any potential results via a variety of lines of psuedo-argumentation (no confirmed BF to compare the genes to, sample contamination, etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Some of the skeptics on here may be Mulder, but I suspect there are some watching who would not participate in these forums,I think some of us would be surprised how many "closet" watchers are out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Some of the skeptics on here may be Mulder, but I suspect there are some watching who would not participate in these forums,I think some of us would be surprised how many "closet" watchers are out there. That could be. Wish we had some solid idea of how many though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 It'll still be an uphill fight. The Skeptics have already positioned themselves to dismiss/ignore any potential results via a variety of lines of psuedo-argumentation (no confirmed BF to compare the genes to, sample contamination, etc). Well this skeptic hasn't. I'm not only keeping an open mind, I'm hopeful and looking forward to some progress. I don't see why they can't find, genetic-wise, an uncontaminated, retestable strand of DNA that is "new" to science and fits here and there in the tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts