norseman Posted June 11, 2023 Admin Share Posted June 11, 2023 Just now, Huntster said: They'd have to pay me if I was expected to kill it. Im talking about the peer review process. You discover something and then expect me to pay to review it. Does Ford make consumer reports buy the vehicles it tests? Is it contingent on the report itself? A Bad review? Get my drift? 1 minute ago, ThePhaige said: and you would be canceled just like others and she... I disagree. As I’ve said many times Ketchum did this to herself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted June 11, 2023 Share Posted June 11, 2023 2 minutes ago, norseman said: Im talking about the peer review process. You discover something and then expect me to pay to review it. Does Ford make consumer reports buy the vehicles it tests? Is it contingent on the report itself? A Bad review? Get my drift? I disagree. As I’ve said many times Ketchum did this to herself. as you would be doing it to yourself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 11, 2023 Admin Share Posted June 11, 2023 1 minute ago, ThePhaige said: as you would be doing it to yourself... How do you review yourself? It’s great! Trust me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted June 11, 2023 Share Posted June 11, 2023 2 minutes ago, norseman said: If I had the smoking gun? The greatest discovery of the century? DNA of a 800 lbs ape man roaming North America? I would shout it from the roof tops and drop the report from airplanes like chieu hoi pamphlets!........... Which century? This should have been solved in the 19th Century, never mind the 20th or 21st. The official, complete, and continuing silence of the National Forest Service and California Dept. of Fish and Game after the PG filming, and at the dawn of today's environmental extremism, should be enough evidence to convince any critical thinker to admit that government has absolutely no intention for this to be solved. Get close to glory, and my bet is that they'll shut you down like they did Ketchum, Patterson, Freeman, Krantz, Meldrum, etc, etc, et al. Quote ........The fact that she makes people pay? Is a red flag…. You need to unfurl your white flag, my Belived Friend. I've repeatedly given you a link to her whole tamale. It's 100% free. Here it is yet again: https://sasquatchgenomeproject.org Quote ........She appeals to the Bigfoot community while distancing herself from the scientific community......... Maybe she's come to the realization that the Bigfoot community actually does want answers, and the scientific community does not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted June 11, 2023 Share Posted June 11, 2023 10 minutes ago, norseman said: Im talking about the peer review process.......... Me, too. Why would Nature commission non-geneticists to review genetic work?: https://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/author_responses_to_referees__first_review.pdf Quote Referee #1 (Remarks to the Author): I must state at the outset that I am not a geneticist, and hence not fully qualified to evaluate the DNA data in proper critical fashion. Bottom line: there is obviously the backbone here of a paper that includes a lot of interesting data, but it needs a lot of work before it can be accepted. 1. My main advice (discussed further below): include better graphics (especially a similarity tree/distance tree/phylogram/cladogram of some sort). Authors’ Response: We have added 9 phylogenetic trees and added more data in the form of whole genome sequencing.......... Quote ........You discover something and then expect me to pay to review it........ Not my understanding. You discover something, sent it to Nature for publication, and they pay somebody to review it. If Natures reviewers work for free, that would be an interesting conversation in and of itself, wouldn't it? Quote ........As I’ve said many times Ketchum did this to herself. Yeah, that's the final hand washing disclaimer to justify the event. It's becoming common in politics today as well. In irder to remain aloft in the clouds upon final judgement, The Judge must make the final condemnation the result of the condemned's doing. Okay. She has been condemned. Drop leaflets throughout the Great Northwest to alert your neighbors. Add a small reward for a sasquatch steak to your leaflet. If you get one, choose your geneticist carefully. You might want to review the FREE Ketchum manuscript to determine the 11 genetic labs NOT to utilize. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 11, 2023 Admin Share Posted June 11, 2023 15 minutes ago, Huntster said: Which century? This should have been solved in the 19th Century, never mind the 20th or 21st. The official, complete, and continuing silence of the National Forest Service and California Dept. of Fish and Game after the PG filming, and at the dawn of today's environmental extremism, should be enough evidence to convince any critical thinker to admit that government has absolutely no intention for this to be solved. Get close to glory, and my bet is that they'll shut you down like they did Ketchum, Patterson, Freeman, Krantz, Meldrum, etc, etc, et al. You need to unfurl your white flag, my Belived Friend. I've repeatedly given you a link to her whole tamale. It's 100% free. Here it is yet again: https://sasquatchgenomeproject.org Maybe she's come to the realization that the Bigfoot community actually does want answers, and the scientific community does not? Two separate issues. Ketchum torpedo’d herself. That was not the case 10 years ago. Of course. One bar is very low bordering on tabloid fiction. And the other? The bar is very very high. 3 minutes ago, Huntster said: Me, too. Why would Nature commission non-geneticists to review genetic work?: https://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/author_responses_to_referees__first_review.pdf Not my understanding. You discover something, sent it to Nature for publication, and they pay somebody to review it. If Natures reviewers work for free, that would be an interesting conversation in and of itself, wouldn't it? Yeah, that's the final hand washing disclaimer to justify the event. It's becoming common in politics today as well. In irder to remain aloft in the clouds upon final judgement, The Judge must make the final condemnation the result of the condemned's doing. Okay. She has been condemned. Drop leaflets throughout the Great Northwest to alert your neighbors. Add a small reward for a sasquatch steak to your leaflet. If you get one, choose your geneticist carefully. You might want to review the FREE Ketchum manuscript to determine the 11 genetic labs NOT to utilize. Good luck. Thank you for proving my point for me! Not my understanding either…. Better explain that to Hiflier. So she included photos and video of Matilda…..gee I wonder why her paper wasn’t published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted June 11, 2023 Share Posted June 11, 2023 2 minutes ago, norseman said: .......Thank you for proving my point for me! Not my understanding either…. Better explain that to Hiflier. Your point? About hiring reviewers unqualifed to review genetics? Should Ford hire banana pickers to perform their quality control program? I can't understand any of this silliness, especially with Nature on silence mode like officialdom throughout the history of this phenomenon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 11, 2023 Share Posted June 11, 2023 28 minutes ago, norseman said: This isn’t the mating behaviors of the North American ground shrew. Nope. It isn't. But if the paper was in Nature magazine then you would have to pay the Journal to read it. That's the way journals work. Read up on it because sometimes researchers even have to pay the journals to have their papers published. Monetizing science papers is big business. Sometimes researchers get paid zero but it still costs to read a paper because the cost covers the expense of publishing the journal. It can cost the public to read about that new frog in Africa. And if someone wants to read a consumer report on a Ford product the they pay for that too. Heck, small local newspapers on line have subscriptions. It's the way of the world. Buy a new trail cam? One pays the advertising costs built into the price as is that case for just about everything we buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 11, 2023 Admin Share Posted June 11, 2023 4 minutes ago, Huntster said: Your point? About hiring reviewers unqualifed to review genetics? Should Ford hire banana pickers to perform their quality control program? I can't understand any of this silliness, especially with Nature on silence mode like officialdom throughout the history of this phenomenon. If Chewbacca was her photo and video section of her peer review paper? I can hear the giggling from here…. As I said earlier? If Dr. Hart thinks it’s Bigfoot DNA? Pick it up and resubmit it. It’s been 10 YEARS. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 11, 2023 Admin Share Posted June 11, 2023 1 minute ago, hiflier said: Nope. It isn't. But if the paper was in Nature magazine then you would have to pay the Journal to read it. That's the way journals work. Read up on it because sometimes researchers even have to pay the journals to have their papers published. Monetizing science papers is big business. Sometimes researchers get paid zero but it still costs to read a paper because the cost covers the expense of publishing the journal. It can cost the public to read about that new frog in Africa. And if someone wants to read a consumer report on a Ford product the they pay for that too. Heck, small local newspapers on line have subscriptions. It's the way of the world. Buy a new trail cam? One pays the advertising costs built into the price as is that case for just about everything we buy. If Nature published the paper? And CNN reported on it? Why would I need to buy the paper? Heck! They reported on her failure…..for FREE! This is NOT COMMON practice Hiflier…. Her DeNovo pay per view website was a giant RED FLAG. SORRY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted June 11, 2023 Share Posted June 11, 2023 1 minute ago, norseman said: If Chewbacca was her photo and video section of her peer review paper? I can hear the giggling from here…..... Not if the reviewers were cartoonists. It's clear that at least one wasn't a geneticist. Quote ..........If Dr. Hart thinks it’s Bigfoot DNA? Pick it up and resubmit it. It’s been 10 YEARS. Why? Dunno. Why bother? Isn't it clear that Nature doesn't want to publish this? It is to me. 1 minute ago, norseman said: If Nature published the paper? And CNN reported on it? Why would I need to buy the paper? Heck! They reported on her failure…..for FREE!............ Yup. Let CNN pick and choose the words and sentences they wish "published" to the unwashed. There's the ticket to knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 11, 2023 Share Posted June 11, 2023 1 minute ago, norseman said: Her DeNovo pay per view website was a giant RED FLAG. SORRY. The cost pays for the Journal. Period. There is nothing unusual about that. But as long as you keep these stupid little arguments and distractions going then YOU won't have to discuss the things that scientifically matter to this subject, and everyone else will be too afraid to add any input lest they have to deal with you. Good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 11, 2023 Admin Share Posted June 11, 2023 4 minutes ago, Huntster said: Not if the reviewers were cartoonists. It's clear that at least one wasn't a geneticist. Dunno. Why bother? Isn't it clear that Nature doesn't want to publish this? It is to me. Yup. Let CNN pick and choose the words and sentences they wish "published" to the unwashed. There's the ticket to knowledge. They might as well have been. They were watching a Looney tunes episode go down…. No. It’s not clear at all. Most people could not read the paper if they wanted to…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 11, 2023 Admin Share Posted June 11, 2023 2 minutes ago, hiflier said: The cost pays for the Journal. Period. There is nothing unusual about that. But as long as you keep these stupid little arguments and distractions going then YOU won't have to discuss the things that scientifically matter to this subject, and everyone else will be too afraid to add any input lest they have to deal with you. Good job. The only person cutting Melba Ketchum off at the knees? Is Melba Ketchum. She is a text book example of what not do…. Again I am sorry you find this 800 lbs Gorilla in the room stupid.🤷♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 11, 2023 Share Posted June 11, 2023 Just now, norseman said: Most people could not read the paper if they wanted to…. Most people aren't able to read ANY scientific paper as it is. The media picked up on the nest discovery when it as first announced. But the follow up results of the scientific investigation of those nests? Plus the genetic testing outcome? How come THAT didn't make the media? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts