Ketchum Paper out Tomorrow

CMcMillan wrote:Seems people don't understand how some Journals work.
Mary Ann Libert Journals are all payed for by the contributing authors.
A Scientist writes a paper sends it to Libert and pays for it to be published.
It is in a way self published.

CMcMillan wrote: Melba all she is doing is publishing the Journal her self. Nothing wrong with that.

Squatchmaster G wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:Seems people don't understand how some Journals work.
Mary Ann Libert Journals are all payed for by the contributing authors.
A Scientist writes a paper sends it to Libert and pays for it to be published.
It is in a way self published.

Mary Ann Liebert Inc is a commercial journal publishing house and it does charge its authors certain fees but they are definitely NOT any sort of self publishing or vanity publishing since they place HEAVY emphasis on the peer review process. If you check the listing for each of their journals you'll see that the editorial board lists are usually huge and impressive. They don't just accept every paper that comes in and publish it when the author's cheque clears, they're quite particular about upholding their reputation as publishers of reputable research. They're also very concerned about the apparent rise of "open access" journals that skimp on the peer reviews. They'd be highly insulted if they read what you wrote about them.

CMcMillan wrote: Melba all she is doing is publishing the Journal her self. Nothing wrong with that.

Actually there's a lot wrong with that. If Ketchum doesn't put her paper through a proper peer review process then she hasn't adhered to correct scientific processes and her research can be dismissed as pseudo-science by definition. Self publishing a formal scientific paper is a really, really bad idea. Inventing a fake journal is an even worse idea. If she wants people to take her seriously she needs to get her paper into a proper peer reviewed journal and if she's skipped that procedure then the scientific world will just laugh at her.


This is all pointless speculation anyway, we'll find out if Ketchum's paper is any good (or has been peer reviewed in any way) in a day or two.

CMcMillan wrote:
I work with Libert all the time.

CMcMillan wrote:All major Universities have their own Journals as well.
Duke, John Hopkins, Oxford, MIT etc...

CMcMillan wrote:
So you didn't answer my question.

CMcMillan wrote:
IF peer review makes something real science then why do people who are against Intellectual Design say that Peer Reviews mean nothing. That even Junk science can be peer reviewed.

Starz wrote:Every geneticist will now be reading it and posting opinions so where and how it was published is fairly ''MOOT''.

BurdenOfProof wrote:not a single bigfoot was proven real on this day

Tim, U.K. wrote:Oh please please please Mr. Erickson sir, can we see the footage now?

The Matilda Bigfoot footage has finally been release by Dr. Melba Ketchum and the Erickson Project. While some are saying it looks like a shag carpet and calling it fake, most have no idea that the 19 second clip is just a part of what Adrian Erickson has decided to release publicly. In the actual full-length video, the teenage Bigfoot actually gets up and walks up to the camera and growls. Black fangs are visible in the full video, and according to billionaire Wally Hersom and others who had the privilege to privately view it, it looks like a Wookiee from Star Wars.

Bigfoot DNA Tests: Science Journal's Credibility Called Into Question

Bigfoot is real ... maybe.

After months of waiting for a peer-reviewed scientific journal to publish findings on the validity of alleged Bigfoot DNA evidence, the time has come for answers. But is there enough empirical evidence to finally confirm that the elusive, tall, hairy man-beast of North America really exists? Maybe, but questions have now been raised about the scientific journal publishing the findings.

JC Johnson of Crypto Four Corners has been documenting hominids and other cryptids on the Diné Navajo reservation in New Mexico and the general Four Corners region for many years. The following information describes how the evidence for the study was obtained by his team and Bigfoot investigator Brenda Harris.

It seems that the Ketchum Bigfoot DNA study, which was supposed to rock the world with its iron-clad scientific evidence of Bigfoot, is a bust, and tells us more about junk science than about the mysterious monster. Scientists will not be impressed, but Bigfoot believers might be

The news site Ars Technica paid the $30 fee for a copy of the paper and called it "a mess." Meanwhile, famed Bigfoot researcher Loren Coleman wondered about the validity of the new journal on his blog CryptoZooNews, asking "Is this vanity publishing? Is this scientific suicide?"

While past redOrbit articles may have looked to viral footage, mostly proven to be hoaxes, as evidence of Bigfoot’s existence, science provides a whole new realm of persuasion for the non-believers with the latest DNA evidence.

As far as the nuclear genome is concerned, the results are a mess. Sometimes the tests picked up human DNA. Other times, they didn't. Sometimes the tests failed entirely. The products of the DNA amplifications performed on the samples look about like what you'd expect when the reaction didn't amplify the intended sequence. And electron micrographs of the DNA isolated from these samples show patches of double- and single-stranded DNA intermixed. This is what you might expect if two distantly related species had their DNA mixed—the protein-coding sequences would hybridize, and the intervening sections wouldn't. All of this suggests modern human DNA intermingled with some other contaminant.

Ketchum’s complaint — echoed by many on the Bigfoot and paranormal fields — that closed-minded scientists refuse to look at her evidence because they are afraid of its implications is absurd. If and when hard evidence is offered for Bigfoot, scientists will be scrambling to investigate and research this amazing scientific breakthrough.

The irony is that all the blurry photos, eyewitness reports, ambiguous footprints, and pseudoscientific DNA testing in the world have failed, whereas it would only take one Bigfoot, trapped live or found dead, to conclusively prove that the creatures exist.

The site also claims to be "open access," but charges 30 bucks to access the Bigfoot genome paper. It bears mentioning that the Bigfoot genome paper, at the time of this posting, is also the only paper in Vol. 1, Issue 1 of the new journal. Seeing as "open access" clearly does not mean what these researchers think it means, you'll forgive us if we remain skeptical when they say their data "conclusively proves that the Sasquatch exist as an extant hominin"; if we had to guess, we'd say that "conclusively proves that the Sasquatch exist as an extant hominin" doesn't mean what the researchers think it means, either.

While many people claim to have seen the creature, its existence has never been confirmed, despite a plethora of photos and footprints.

But now, even the sternest non-believer is sure to be convinced of Bigfoot's existence, as scienctific evidence has provided an abundance of persuasion with the latest DNA evidence.

But! Who are we to rain on Bigfoot's parade? Maybe the huge, hairy, beastly man-type creature is out there leaving DNA all over the place, and maybe Ketchum is the only one clever enough to track it down.

Sure, other "scientists" are saying that the supposed genetic samples from Bigfoot had to have been "contaminated" since "amateurs" with "no forensic training" had collected the data, but psssh. What's a little human spit on a sample when Bigfoot's realness is at stake?

CMcMillan wrote:Yea because Twitter is such a reliable source.

You claim about relaiable sources and post Face Book and Twitter?