A number of folks haveinjected themselves into this story, so it is my turn. Firstly,having the paper rejected is no surprise as there are no peers exceptin regards to DNA work. It is also quite reasonable at this stagefor the DNA work to be challenged.
What will be interestingare the objections raised. Since the work was apparently done to ahigh standard, it may simply be too difficult to raise that standard. In the meantime we are flying blind'.
However there is a realproblem here. The work required two separate hypothesis:
1 A unknown hominidexists. ie. Bigfoot
2 That Bigfoot is a humanhominid hybrid producing a genome with a human mitochondrial nucleus.
Alternatively, we aredealing with contamination even if it has been assiduously avoided bya lab experienced in just that.
Without reading thepaper, I am comfortable that not only was the lab work top notch, butthat the correspondent labs met similar standards.
Much more validating isthat we discovered both unknown hominid DNA and that Bigfoot is ahybrid. This resolves a number of issues that were rising with theaccumulation of data. This is extremely important because humancharacteristics were been exhibited not found in other divergentprimates while archeology supports a old linage. Hybridizationeliminates this issue and allows a number of major reports to beoutright validated as plausible.
In the meantime we nowhave a check genome to test new data against.
Statements From Igor Burtsev Regarding Rejection of Ketchum'sPaper By U.S. Peer Review Journals
THURSDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2012
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/12/statements-from-igor-burtsev-regarding.html?spref=fb
Update from Bigfoot Evidence:
STATEMENTS FROM IGOR BURTSEV REGARDINGREJECTION OF KETCHUM'S PAPER BY U.S. PEER REVIEW JOURNALS
Thursday, December 6,2012
Russian scientist,Igor Burtsev is currently making his rounds on Facebook doinghis best to address the rejection of Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNApaper by U.S. peer review journals. Burtsev claims that hehas Ketchum's paper in his possession (yes, it's real after all) andit consists of "50 pages of the main text, a lot of pics,graphs, and supplements". "It is more than enough tounderstand her study," he says.
He compares the Ketchumsituation to the war between the North and the South. He believes theproblem is a "SOCIAL one, and less - SCIENTIFIC one":
SUBSEQUENTSTATEMENT by Igor Burtsev:
I didn't supposepeople, that you are so much seek of the publication in a reviewedjournal. I though that more important is the result of study. And Iinformed the public about it in short.
But as you are soseek in scientific publication, I talked only about my side, I meantthe publication in Russia. Yes, the process of reviewing here isgoing, but not so quick as desired. Yes, I submitted the paper to aRussian journal. And the process of reviewing here started while thejournal to which Dr Ketchum sent the paper, had not yet reflected theinterest to publish it.
But Dr. Ketchumsubmitted the paper to the journal on your side again. And now theyadmitted it for reviewing. Thus, now a kind of competition arose:which journal is ready to publish it earlier and ensures her, thatone will publish it. And another one will be asked to stop theprocess.
I explained such astate with publication in FB before, a couple of days ago. I thoughtthat you know. But I see, some reporters wish to dramatize the state,and just a little correcting my words, pass some disinformation tomake people exited.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder