Breaking: Dr. Melba Ketchum

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA Paper Has Been REJECTED

Breaking: Dr. Melba Ketchum


bigfootevidence.blogspot.com

This just in: The Ketchum paper has been rejected by peer review journals in the U.S. Before we give you the details, here's a statement from Steven Streufert of Coalition for Reason, Science, Sanity in Bigfoot Research:


It is official, then: The Ketchum paper was REJECTED and FAILED PEER REVIEW.

No conspiracy theory can change what this means: their science is NOT sound. It failed.

- Steven Streufert
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 6-12-2012 by RUFFREADY because: fix




posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
I knew it! I knew it !!!!! (stole that from Michael Caine movie "Zulu)

Well, I'm sure this is not the end. But the beginning of the end.

Anyway, I expected this,. Did you? Wonder what else will pop up on this?

This should be all over the news today I expect.

Bet there wil still be a book out and film per Melba Ketchum's deals she's gotton.

bigfootevidence.blogspot.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 6-12-2012 by RUFFREADY because: add it



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by RUFFREADY

Breaking: Dr. Melba Ketchum


bigfootevidence.blogspot.com

This just in: The Ketchum paper has been rejected by peer review journals in the U.S. Before we give you the details, here's a statement from Steven Streufert of Coalition for Reason, Science, Sanity in Bigfoot Research:


It is official, then: The Ketchum paper was REJECTED and FAILED PEER REVIEW.

No conspiracy theory can change what this means: their science is NOT sound. It failed.

- Steven Streufert
(visit the link for the full news article)



[sarcasm]

WHAT?!? Bigfoot isn't real?!" And people claiming to have scientific evidence of bigfoot are full of [snip] I can't believe it... shocked, just shocked!

[/sarcam]
edit on 6-12-2012 by Kandinsky because: removed profanity circumvention



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Read the article again (and some of the comments) it does seem it will get another chance in Russia (said, Igor Burtsev, the Russian scientist ) one person in the comment section said that would cost about $59.99 and for $9.99 extra it will get published in the back of a "water journal" whatever that is.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
So, the US has rejected it, but the Russian scientist are still reviewing it? Is that how this is reading?

I'm going to have to reserve judgement until the Russians make their decision.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
Read the article again (and some of the comments) it does seem it will get another chance in Russia (said, Igor Burtsev, the Russian scientist ) one person in the comment section said that would cost about $59.99 and for $9.99 extra it will get published in the back of a "water journal" whatever that is.


There's dozens of pay-to-publish "journals" out there, but they carry no clout, except with the ignorant and the delusional... I don't know if you follow the 9/11 stuff, but the "journal" that published the "thermite" article was in fact not peer-reviewed and in fact was pay-to-publish...

It was laughed at by the mainstream media, for that very reason, but it dragged up here and on other fringe sites endlessly...

If they go that route, it makes them endlessly LESS credible...



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

There's dozens of pay-to-publish "journals" out there, but they carry no clout, except with the ignorant and the delusional... I don't know if you follow the 9/11 stuff, but the "journal" that published the "thermite" article was in fact not peer-reviewed and in fact was pay-to-publish...

It was laughed at by the mainstream media, for that very reason, but it dragged up here and on other fringe sites endlessly...

If they go that route, it makes them endlessly LESS credible...


That helps demonstrate US peer-review may have some "pay-to-NOT-publish" influences.

edit on 6-12-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
Read the article again (and some of the comments) it does seem it will get another chance in Russia (said, Igor Burtsev, the Russian scientist ) one person in the comment section said that would cost about $59.99 and for $9.99 extra it will get published in the back of a "water journal" whatever that is.


There's dozens of pay-to-publish "journals" out there, but they carry no clout, except with the ignorant and the delusional... I don't know if you follow the 9/11 stuff, but the "journal" that published the "thermite" article was in fact not peer-reviewed and in fact was pay-to-publish...

It was laughed at by the mainstream media, for that very reason, but it dragged up here and on other fringe sites endlessly...

If they go that route, it makes them endlessly LESS credible...


That helps demonstrate US peer-review may have some "pay-to-NOT-publish" influences.



I don't think that follows at all.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
never mind can't use source
edit on 6-12-2012 by RUFFREADY because: (no reason given)


It had to do with an interview that can't be linked to oh, well
edit on 6-12-2012 by RUFFREADY because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I don't mean to contradict anyone here, but let's not forget that:

- many (.many) papers are reject the first time it is submitted (sometimes more) ... until we see the rationale it is an assumption to say it was "bad" science - which surprises me about the proclamation of the scientist in the article - which takes on the vacuous "nyah nyah nanny nanny boo boo" tone.

- We have to admit that there is great force behind the purposeful attempt to delegitimize this field in general.

- the source is a blog.

Maybe we should actually see the paper, the actual rejection notice, and review the facts before we jump in the 'ding dong the witch is dead' bandwagon.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I don't mean to contradict anyone here, but let's not forget that:

- many (.many) papers are reject the first time it is submitted (sometimes more) ... until we see the rationale it is an assumption to say it was "bad" science - which surprises me about the proclamation of the scientist in the article - which takes on the vacuous "nyah nyah nanny nanny boo boo" tone.

- We have to admit that there is great force behind the purposeful attempt to delegitimize this field in general.

- the source is a blog.

Maybe we should actually see the paper, the actual rejection notice, and review the facts before we jump in the 'ding dong the witch is dead' bandwagon.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


"great force"? What's that meant to mean?
edit on 6-12-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


Perhaps it sounded too conspiratorial ... thanks for noting the comments' ambiguity.


What I mean is that there is a great deal of inertia behind the old status quo in both academia and science. This is the cause of many struggles to get certain things looked at seriously; including cryptozoology.

Many scientists enter the fray having already been assured that the efforts of the mostly amateur crypto hunters out there, despite their best efforts to comply with the forms and methods of established science, are laughable.

There is an interesting tale to offer as an example of this.... but for some reason it is often ignored... and mostly scoffed at by any who have staked their reputation on the proclamations of sanctioned and sponsored research. If you have the pateince to hear it you may see what I mean by "great force."

When the Americas were first being seized from its' inhabitants, a serious and almost maniacal effort was established to ensure that everyone believed that the natives were savage, ape-man like primitives. Many stories of cannibalism were propagated initially, and then it was followed by an insistent characterization of all native cultures and civilizations as backward, socially bereft of value, stagnated in the dark ages.

I won't belabor the why's and wherefores of the effort. But it is verifiable that a concerted "official" (church and state jointly) process of eliminating any moral or humanitarian considerations of the 'occupation" of the Americas.

Archaeological evidence to the contrary was promptly disseminated and scrubbed of value.

In what is now the US, there is ample evidence of a mound-building culture with a highly advanced understanding astronomical (and by inference mathematical) science. Their engineering belies any notion of 'stupid half-animal primitives' but was recast into the academic arena as such things as 'make shift' root cellars, and small hovels for storing materials... but in fact they were precisely aligned with impressive engineering skill and what clearly requires knowledge we have little hesitation to attribute to such contemporary structures as those found in Stonehenge and other European places.

One of the more unusual consistencies reported all over the continent was the presence of human remains that defy explanation in that they were far too large (8-9-10 foot plus individuals) with double rows of teeth. The historical records show literally thousands of such reports. Yet for some reason, this thread into history was cut clean by the establishment as outrageous nonsense.... just like Bigfoot.

Insofar as Ketchum's results, I cannot speak to their validity. For reasons that escape me, the information is NEVER made public for our own review... instead it is presumed that we must not see it until the 'scientific community' has blessed it. I am of the opinion that the effort to conceal history, both natural and mankind's is not a subject with which the "public" can be entrusted. I would love to understand why that is so, if it is as I perceive.

All I know is , just as there are members who seek out an immediately jump to quash theories on ATS, there are members of the scientific community who revel in denying the search... and thus leap to diminish the perceived value of anything that such a search might find.

Here's something you might enjoy .... if you are so inclined... it's from another thread... but I'm hoping the author won't mind:



Check out Nighthawk1954's thread: The Giants Of Ancient America: “8′ Tall With Double Rows Of Teeth”

edit on 6-12-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
It's not surprising it was rejected by peer review this first time around.
Peer review is a process that often sees papers rejected the first time around.
It doesn't mean as much as one might think to see this rejected.
It's not verification of a falsehood, or an indication of crap science.
For whatever reason, the paper was rejected, and now Ketchum has the chance to amend and resubmit.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I assume you are referring to the Si-te-cahs?

I think the only actual evidence of these "giants" is oral history? And there were some con artists in the 1800s claiming to sell artefacts or tours or something?

But as far as I know there's NO - and I mean none at all - archaeological evidence of giant people with two rows of teeth... if you have any link to such evidence I would LOVE to see it. Genuinely!

I also think that those stone structures are pretty easily explained (and make more sense) without giants... as was pointed out on that thread, 8-12" people wouldn't fit inside most structures CTers associate with them, and aside from the size of the stones used there's no other ACTUAL evidence of giants.

If you know otherwise, please post links and share!



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Igor Burtsev speaks out as Ketchum loses supporters. Is the peer review process moving to Russia after 2 years of rejection? Michael Merchant, Steven Streufert and James Bobo Fay issue statements.


This is an weekly up date from "Bigfoot Evidence" Just thought I'd through it out there.
Also, the previous post I tryed to do which wouldn't let me "link" is now on George Knapps" Face book page
if anyone's interested, they can read "that" there.




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


Actually, no. This is not my principle area of interest or study; just one that I enjoy following.

I have heard the opposite though, regarding the lack of evidence.... especially that academic media, and her friends, often seize and sensationalize the huckster's and their exploits while ignoring what they cannot explain. It's all hearsay to me. Which includes the oft-repeated assertions that 'there's no proof.'

The reason I do not simply accept the assertion that all evidence is manufactured or exploited hoaxterism is because I now the culture and players in the areas of academic publication and have witnessed first hand the suppression of data and information which could trigger a public discussion of how science is "protected" by the information gatekeepers. Especially when they would have to admit their zealous objections were misplaced.

But of course, this is a choice. You needn't expect me to assume you will believe or reject what I say.

I believe there are many areas - especially of ethnography (and curiously, anything that deals with antiquity,) which have been the virtual victims of information genocide... perhaps because the image of the dissenting academics and researchers are more important than the facts.... to them - who rather uniquely get to "decide" what is called true, and what is determined to be worthy of pursuit.

edit on 7-12-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


Actually, no. This is not my principle area of interest or study; just one that I enjoy following.

I have heard the opposite though, regarding the lack of evidence.... especially that academic media, and her friends, often seize and sensationalize the huckster's and their exploits while ignoring what they cannot explain. It's all hearsay to me. Which includes the oft-repeated assertions that 'there's no proof.'

The reason I do not simply accept the assertion that all evidence is manufactured or exploited hoaxterism is because I now the culture and players in the areas of academic publication and have witnessed first hand the suppression of data and information which could trigger a public discussion of how science is "protected" by the information gatekeepers. Especially when they would have to admit their zealous objections were misplaced.

But of course, this is a choice. You needn't expect me to assume you will believe or reject what I say.

I believe there are many areas - especially of ethnography (and curiously, anything that deals with antiquity,) which have been the virtual victims of information genocide... perhaps because the image of the dissenting academics and researchers are more important than the facts.... to them - who rather uniquely get to "decide" what is called true, and what is determined to be worthy of pursuit.

edit on 7-12-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)


I don't know man.

I think until you see evidence, rumours of evidence is just that - rumours.

Charlatans have lied about evidence for pretty much the entire history of humanity.

If people want to make fantastic claims, let them provide proof, or expect to be ridiculed and ignored.

The alternative is a scientific community driven by hearsay and guesswork and rumour-mongering..



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by longlostbrother

There's dozens of pay-to-publish "journals" out there, but they carry no clout, except with the ignorant and the delusional... I don't know if you follow the 9/11 stuff, but the "journal" that published the "thermite" article was in fact not peer-reviewed and in fact was pay-to-publish...

It was laughed at by the mainstream media, for that very reason, but it dragged up here and on other fringe sites endlessly...

If they go that route, it makes them endlessly LESS credible...


That helps demonstrate US peer-review may have some "pay-to-NOT-publish" influences.

edit on 6-12-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)


No, it helps demonstrate that actual journals publish on the basis of merit, not the dollar. How in the world did you come to your conclusion?



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Seems like the peer review is being "held up" because of all kinds of "science issues" (so its not thrown out completly?) if you go to the link provided Robert Lindsay has all the latest information (so he says) on whats going on with the whole mess as of dec. 8th 2012. (skroll down to the 3rd story) robertlindsay.wordpress.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Lets get a few things strait here. First, I'm personally not surprised it got rejected based on the 'evidence' they've made public, as I also said in the first thread that talked about this. I'm a molecular biologist mind you and what they have of 'evidence' is random crap.

Second, the blog in the OP talks about 'journals', as in plural. If it is indeed plural, then the paper has been rejected by editors, and not peer reviewers. The former takes a few days to a week, while doing the second round of 'real' review takes several weeks. The editor reads everything that comes in, and if the data sounds acceptable and the story of the paper fits the journal, then it gets send to peer reviewers.
Also, the majority of acceptable journals (As in, you actually need some results, and not just pay-to-publish) requires that you don't publish your paper in other journals, which means you have to submit your manuscript to a single journal at a time.

Also, the US centric view of rejection is weird. Yes, the journal itself it situated in the US, but the majority of peer reviewers, and often also the editor, is not located in the US. Interwebz you know.

So by sending it to a "russian journal" tells me that they are sending it to a no-name journal that'll publish anything. I wouldn't be surprised if this 'journal' is Pravda..
edit on 9/12/12 by Thain Esh Kelch because: (no reason given)
edit on 9/12/12 by Thain Esh Kelch because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join