Bigfoot News
Bigfoot Evidence
Bigfoot Evidence
RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 



The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Page 2 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:05 pm

You missed where she had a Peer Review already.
And that the lawyers of the Journal said it would be Bad Business to publish the Paper.

She has put the article out for all to read so anyone can review it now.
She has also stated that the stuff will be uploaded to GenSource.
So far she is complying with the requests from others. Doesn't sound to me like she is hiding any of her research.
She rushed this out for some reason.

As i have stated Peer Review is not perfect since some Peer reviews have never caught the Plagerism in them.

avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Woodwose on Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:13 pm

CMcMillan wrote:And that the lawyers of the Journal said it would be Bad Business to publish the Paper.

Since when did lawyers have any say on business practice?

I would suggest that the lawyer story is likely an excuse that was fabricated by either by Ketchum or the journal. If the journal had second thoughts about publishing then 'our lawyer says not to publish' is a superficially credible get out.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Squatchmaster G on Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:17 pm

CMcMillan wrote:You missed where she had a Peer Review already.
That's an unsubstantiated claim. She's never revealed which journal performed the alleged peer review and she also never said whether that alleged peer review required any changes before the journal would print the paper.


CMcMillan wrote:As i have stated Peer Review is not perfect since some Peer reviews have never caught the Plagerism in them.
That's irrelevant. A peer review isn't supposed to check whether the paper is 100% original, it's supposed to check that the paper follows correct scientific procedure and that the conclusions are supported by the data.
avatar
Squatchmaster G

Posts : 202
Join date : 2013-01-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  DPinkerton on Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:18 pm

Woodwose wrote:Since when did lawyers have any say on business practice?

Um...since when have lawers NOT been having a say? The legal system, threat of lawsuit, legal ramifications, etc...drive our current business system. They define what can be made, release to the public, how it will be released, controlled, etc...

I think you fail to realize how important the legal system is to business.


DPinkerton

Posts : 171
Join date : 2012-08-14
Location : Colorado

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Woodwose on Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:22 pm

I thought the Journal was called the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology and that Ketchum bought them out - renaming it Denovo?
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Squatchmaster G on Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:25 pm

The claim that a journal was prepared to print her paper but changed their mind on their lawyer's advice is also unsubstantiated.

Woodwose wrote:I thought the Journal was called the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology and that Ketchum bought them out - renaming it Denovo?

I heard that the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology never printed an issue and was created about a month before DeNovo. It only existed in name and was created for free so I'd be interested to hear how much Ketchum 'paid' for it.
avatar
Squatchmaster G

Posts : 202
Join date : 2013-01-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Woodwose on Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:31 pm

DPinkerton wrote:Um...since when have lawers NOT been having a say? The legal system, threat of lawsuit, legal ramifications, etc...drive our current business system.

I appreciate that - obviously a lawyer would advise on legal issues that are related to business practice (that's just stating the obvious). I just fail to see how there would have been any legal implications if the journal had published the paper.

It may have been deemed bad publicity and the controversy could have damaged sales, but that isn't a legal problem. Publicly admitting that this was the reason for not publishing would also be bad publicity.....so when all else fails, blame it on the lawyers.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Woodwose on Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:32 pm

Squatchmaster G wrote:It only existed in name and was created for free so I'd be interested to hear how much Ketchum 'paid' for it.

If true this makes the lawyer story even more suspicious.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:19 pm


CMcMillan wrote:As i have stated Peer Review is not perfect since some Peer reviews have never caught the Plagerism in them.
That's irrelevant. A peer review isn't supposed to check whether the paper is 100% original, it's supposed to check that the paper follows correct scientific procedure and that the conclusions are supported by the data.

Its not Irrelevant,
It shows the flaws in Peer Review.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Squatchmaster G on Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:26 pm

CMcMillan wrote:Its not Irrelevant,
It shows the flaws in Peer Review.

No one ever claimed there wasn't. But it's still a necessary step in the scientific method.
avatar
Squatchmaster G

Posts : 202
Join date : 2013-01-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:49 pm

Again show me the proof that she DID NOT have a peer Review?

You are jumping on because she published her own paper that it didn't have one.
As you said Peer Review is annoynoms so no one has to step forward or be listed.

Show evidence that what she said about the Lawyers of the Journal did not say that.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Woodwose on Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:52 pm

You cannot prove a negative.

Besides which no one is categorically saying that her claims regarding peer review and the journal lawyer are lies. It's just speculation about aspects of Ketchum's statements that don't seem to make sense.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:57 pm

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/10/06/the-end-of-peer-review/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2010.00261.x/abstract

http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2007/07/26/is-a-shift-away-from-peer-revi/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_publishing

Peer review is a central concept for most academic publishing; other scholars in a field must find a work sufficiently high in quality for it to merit publication. The process also guards against plagiarism.
Failures in peer review are sometimes scandalous. The Bogdanov Affair in theoretical physics is one example. The Sokal Affair is another, though this controversy also involved many other issues.

Rena Steinzor wrote:


Perhaps the most widely recognized failing of peer review is its inability to ensure the identification of high-quality work. The list of important scientific papers that were initially rejected by peer-reviewed journals goes back at least as far as the editor of Philosophical Transaction's 1796 rejection of Edward Jenner's report of the first vaccination against smallpox.[17]
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  DPinkerton on Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:01 pm

Speculation....you nailed it there.

I am not a geneticist, I do not believe you are...I do not believe anyone who frequents this forums is. So based on that fact alone..."we" can do nothing but speculate. "We" are not trained nor practiced in the fiend...we have no doctorates...we have used (probably not even seen) the equipment required to perform DNA analysis. "We" have not read the paper....and even if we have as i mentioned it would mean little since we are not qualified. If "we" were geneticist and had read the paper...we would still be unable to debate this without having reviewed the original data and performing analysis of our own.

So to summarize..."we" are unskilled individuals speculating on something we know very little about. We have no business doing so...especially in scientific terms. Our best course at this point? Wait for those who are skilled to take the necessary steps to support or disprove.

DPinkerton

Posts : 171
Join date : 2012-08-14
Location : Colorado

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Squatchmaster G on Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:03 pm

CMcMillan wrote:Again show me the proof that she DID NOT have a peer Review?

You are jumping on because she published her own paper that it didn't have one.
As you said Peer Review is annoynoms so no one has to step forward or be listed.

Show evidence that what she said about the Lawyers of the Journal did not say that.

I never said she was outright lying, I said that her claims were unsubstantiated. Do you understand what that means?



Note that these three links are all discussing the same article and that article is about peer review in economics journals, not science journals. Did you even read the links or did you grab some random pages that had something negative to say about peer reviews?


CMcMillan wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_publishing

Peer review is a central concept for most academic publishing; other scholars in a field must find a work sufficiently high in quality for it to merit publication. The process also guards against plagiarism.
Failures in peer review are sometimes scandalous. The Bogdanov Affair in theoretical physics is one example. The Sokal Affair is another, though this controversy also involved many other issues.

Rena Steinzor wrote:


Perhaps the most widely recognized failing of peer review is its inability to ensure the identification of high-quality work. The list of important scientific papers that were initially rejected by peer-reviewed journals goes back at least as far as the editor of Philosophical Transaction's 1796 rejection of Edward Jenner's report of the first vaccination against smallpox.[17]

No one ever said that peer review was perfect or flawless. That doesn't change the fact that it's still a necessary part of the scientific method.

The second section your quoted there is about peer review in philosophical papers, not scientific papers.




Last edited by Squatchmaster G on Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Squatchmaster G

Posts : 202
Join date : 2013-01-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:09 pm

Its about Peer Review in general since it was listed in Science Sights as well
didn't you even read it yourself?
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Squatchmaster G on Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:11 pm

CMcMillan wrote:Its about Peer Review in general since it was listed in Science Sights as well
didn't you even read it yourself?

I definitely read it. You can't generalise about peer review like that, the requirements are different for scientific papers and economic papers and philosophical papers.

avatar
Squatchmaster G

Posts : 202
Join date : 2013-01-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:14 pm

So now Peer Review is Different between different fields?

Seriously stop moving the goal post
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Squatchmaster G on Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:21 pm

CMcMillan wrote:So now Peer Review is Different between different fields?

Seriously stop moving the goal post

Research papers in science, philosophy, economics and mathematics will all have different methodologies and requirements and the peer reviews will reflect this. This really, really isn't a difficult concept to grasp, I really don't know why you're having such a hard time grasping this. Did you think the study of philosophy and science were exactly the same or are you just trolling the thread and trying to derail the discussion to some irrelevant topic?
avatar
Squatchmaster G

Posts : 202
Join date : 2013-01-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:23 pm

No your the troll.
I have brought more Links and discussions to the paper.
you keep harping on Peer Review
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Squatchmaster G on Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:29 pm

CMcMillan wrote:I have brought more Links and discussions to the paper.
... and most of them were irrelevant and pointless.


CMcMillan wrote:you keep harping on Peer Review
You keep dismissing peer review and saying that Ketchum was right to go ahead without it. As we've seen, the result of that was that she became a public laughing stock and everyone rejected her pseudo-scientific junk and she's now had to try and cobble together some sort of independent peer review after the fact.

Note that Ketchum tried really hard to claim that her paper had been peer reviewed by some mystery journal beforehand and she's now trying to get a new peer review. Ketchum obviously thinks that peer review is really important. Are you disagreeing with Ketchum as well as me?
avatar
Squatchmaster G

Posts : 202
Join date : 2013-01-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Woodwose on Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:02 pm

DPinkerton wrote:So to summarize..."we" are unskilled individuals speculating on something we know very little about. We have no business doing so...especially in scientific terms. Our best course at this point? Wait for those who are skilled to take the necessary steps to support or disprove.

I certainly agree that we need to wait on an expert analysis, but I really don't see any harm in speculating about it in the mean time.

In the process of trying to understand what has been said about the paper it's certainly possible to learn something new. I've read a lot about DNA, hybridisation and Neanderthals today and whilst I cannot claim to fully understand everything, I now know a lot more than I would if I just sat back and waited for an expert opinion.

I also appreciate that I was mistaken about some apects of inheritance and hybridisation. Again, that wouldn't be the case if hadn't had these discussions.

In that respect I think that speculation can be very useful.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:39 pm

Squatchmaster G wrote:
CMcMillan wrote:I have brought more Links and discussions to the paper.
... and most of them were irrelevant and pointless.


CMcMillan wrote:you keep harping on Peer Review
You keep dismissing peer review and saying that Ketchum was right to go ahead without it. As we've seen, the result of that was that she became a public laughing stock and everyone rejected her pseudo-scientific junk and she's now had to try and cobble together some sort of independent peer review after the fact.

Note that Ketchum tried really hard to claim that her paper had been peer reviewed by some mystery journal beforehand and she's now trying to get a new peer review. Ketchum obviously thinks that peer review is really important. Are you disagreeing with Ketchum as well as me?

What your Links to people trashing her are the only ones that are relevant?
Seriously?

you are Infering something into her motives which you have no clue about.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  CMcMillan on Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:50 am

Here's one of the first Ph.D.s to step up to the plate and defend Dr. Melba Ketchum's recently published paper that's been rejected by mainstream science. Ketchum posted this statement on Facebook by Biochemist, David H. Swenson of Green Resources Redux, Inc. regarding her Bigfoot DNA paper:


Brien Foerster, Jeff Kart, and other interested parties. I went over the manuscript by Melba Ketchum on Bigfoot genomics. My desktop had difficulty with a blast analysis of the consensus sequences. It helped me understand more about the project. This collaborative venture has done a huge project that taxes me to fully grasp. I see interesting homology with a standard human sequence with 99% match for mitochondria. From my abbreviated study, the nuclear genome seems to have human and nonhuman sequences.

My opinion of the creature is that it is a hybrid of a human mother and an unknown hominid male, Just as reported. For all practical purposes, it should be treated as human and protected under law.

Brien, selection of Melba's lab for your studies is a very good call.

Sasquatch is real, as proven by genetic analysis.
http://www.greenresourcesredux.com/675107

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/02/dr-melba-ketchum-quotes-real-phd-about.html#moretop
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Woodwose on Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:01 am

This collaborative venture has done a huge project that taxes me to fully grasp

That sentence alone tells you all you need to know.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Ketchum Paper - What the experts say.

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum