Bigfoot: I want to believe

[SoCalCoug]

Okay, I just chanced upon (google search) the tags that have been entered for that embargoed article. It is, indeed, the Ketchum report. It's coming out tomorrow.

This was the entry in a google search I did - the link to the page wasn't available, but the tags are active:

DeNovo| accelerating Science | About the Authors
http://www.denovojournal.com/#!about...ShareSasquatch DNA, Bigfoot Genome, Forest People, Sasquatch Genome, DNA, Phylogenetic, Genome, Next Generation Sequencing, Illumina, Texas University, ...

You should be able to recreate my find - google "denovo accelerating science" (the name of the journal).

[SoCalCoug]

Here is a purported press release:

LATEST NEWS: DeNovo - Accelerating Science publication date scheduled for Winter 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THREE BIGFOOT GENOMES SEQUENCED IN 5-YEAR DNA STUDY
New Research Paper Published Friday Shows Homo Sapiens/Unknown Hominin Hybrid Species Extant in North America

DALLAS, February 10th --A team of scientists will publish their five-year long study of DNA samples from a novel hominin species, commonly known as “Bigfoot” or “Sasquatch,” on Friday February 15th, 2013. The results suggest that the legendary Sasquatch is extant in North America and is a human relative that arose approximately 13,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an novel primate species.
The study, “Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies,” was conducted by a team of experts in genetics, forensics, imaging and pathology. The team, led by Dr. Melba Ketchum of DNA Diagnostics in Nacogdoches, TX, included Dr. Pat Wojtkiecicz, Director of the North Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory; Ms. Aliece Watts of Integrated Forensic Laboratories in Euless, TX; Mr. David Spence, Trace Evidence Supervisor at Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences; Dr. Andreas K. Holzenburg, Director of the Microscopy & Imaging Center at Texas A&M University; Dr. Douglas G. Toler of Huguley Pathology Consultants in Fort Worth, TX; Dr. Thomas M. Prychitko of Wayne State University in Michigan; Dr. Fan Zhang of the University of North Texas Health Science Center; and Sarah Bollinger, Ray Shoulders, and Ryan Smith of DNA Diagnostics.
In total, 110 specimens of purported Sasquatch hair, blood, skin, and other tissue types were analyzed for the study. Samples were submitted by individuals and groups at 34 different hominin research sites in 14 U.S. states and two Canadian provinces. Ketchum’s team sequenced 20 whole and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes, as well as 3 whole nuclear genomes, from the samples.

[falafel]

What is this DeNovo journal? Is it a reputable journal? Looks like an online only thing.

[SoCalCoug]

What is this DeNovo journal? Is it a reputable journal? Looks like an online only thing.

Don't know. I expect that over the next few weeks we'll see people who are more familiar with the reputability of scientific journals will thoroughly debate the reputability of Denovo. It looks like its intended audience is primarily scientists and researchers.

[SoCalCoug]

The journal is kind of sketchy - some speculation that she self-published, since this "DeNovo" journal is brand new.

What will really be interesting is whether the photos and videos she's long promised would be concurrently published are as clear as she says they are.

[woot]

Near as I can tell, this bigfoot paper, if published, would be the journal's 2nd publication. The first is a large-type 4-page grapevinian word salad http://media.wix.com/ugd//c93a08_3f7...39d1474972.pdf that seems to have been posted last week.

Shocking.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Near as I can tell, this bigfoot paper, if published, would be the journal's 2nd publication. The first is a large-type 4-page grapevinian word salad http://media.wix.com/ugd//c93a08_3f7...39d1474972.pdf that seems to have been posted last week.

Shocking.

lol. I have been searching for a while and I can't find any links to it. The citation index is non-existent. Open access and they will take papers on any topic!

Remember when BYU prof Stephen Jones was going to publish his groundbreaking 9/11 paper? He got it accepted for publication in a similarly obscure journal of classic Marxist thought. BYU told him to go easy with press conferences etc until he got it published in a legit journal (and that one didn't count). So he negotiated an early retirement and started his own journal of 9/11 studies. And surprise! his paper was accepted to the journal.

[SoCalCoug]

Yeah, when there was all the secrecy about where it would be published, many were speculating it would end up being open access.

I guess her paper's going to have to stand on its own merits. It'll be interesting, not the least because she has asserted there will be accompanying high definition photos, with video(s) being released concurrently.

I'm hearing that the more respected Sykes study is coming up with similar results. I suppose the interpretation will be the key.

[CardiacCoug]

SoCal this thread is a joke, right? Kind of like the Ed Hochuli thread?

[Lost Student]

SoCal this thread is a joke, right? Kind of like the Ed Hochuli thread?

I think if the EdHoc thread were a joke, it would've ended a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time ago.

[SoCalCoug]

SoCal this thread is a joke, right? Kind of like the Ed Hochuli thread?

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/2/prweb10427105.htm

[SoCalCoug]

Dr. Ketchum's facebook explanation of how the publication of the paper came about:

It has been a long and tedious battle to prove that Sasquatch exists. We have had the proof for nearly 5 years but building enough data to convince mainstream science has taken a lot of time. Trying to publish has taken almost two years. It seems mainstream science just can’t seem to tolerate something controversial, especially from a group of primarily forensic scientists and not “famous academians” aligned with large universities, even though most of our sequencing and analysis was performed at just such facilities.
We encountered the worst scientific bias in the peer review process in recent history. I am calling it the “Galileo Effect”. Several journals wouldn’t even read our manuscript when we sent them a pre-submission inquiry. Another one leaked our peer reviews. We were even mocked by one reviewer in his peer review. We did finally pass peer review with a relatively new journal. It took a fresh outlook on the part of the editors and their careful selection of reviewers with knowledge of next generation whole genome sequencing in order to pass. I have no idea who the reviewers were though I have the reviews. That was kept confidential as is the way journals handle peer reviews. That was only part of the delay and problems associated with publication though. After this journal agreed to publish the manuscript, their legal counsel advised them not to publish a manuscript on such a controversial subject as it would destroy the editors’ reputations (as it has already done to mine). I have documentation on all of this drama. So, rather than spend another five years just trying to find a journal to publish and hoping that decent, open minded reviewers would be chosen, we acquired the rights to this journal and renamed it so we would not lose the passing peer reviews that are expected by the public and the scientific community. Denovo, the new journal is aimed at offering not only more choices and better service to scientists wanting to submit a manuscript, but also reviewers and editors that will be fair, unlike the treatment we have received. We furthermore have adhered to all of the standards set here in the link below, especially since the entire review and agreement to publish was done at the previous journal:
http://publicationethics.org/case/ed...or-own-journal

[Jeff Lebowski]

Wait! So they took over control of the journal in order to get their paper published in a "peer-reviewed" venue?

[SoCalCoug]

Wait! So they took over control of the journal in order to get their paper published in a "peer-reviewed" venue?

This surprises you?

At least now it's out there for people to view it on its merits.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This surprises you?

At least now it's out there for people to view it on its merits.

Not at all. It is basically the same thing that Stephen Jones did. But please don't kid yourself that this is a peer-reviewed publication.