Matt Moneymaker on Dr. Melba Ketchum: "The paper was submitted to a major scientific journal and was under serious review by several top shelf scientists around the world." [Bigfoot DNA Study]
 |
| "There’s a growing awareness among scientists that there is private funding available for a top-shelf, A-team effort to prove the existence of the species through DNA evidence." - Matt Moneymaker |
President of the BFRO, Matt Moneymaker apparently has connections in the scientific community. In a comment left on Cryptomundo.com regarding Dr. Melba Ketchum's latest DNA Update, he reveals through a "reliable source connected with an article reviewer for Nature" some important information about Dr. Ketchum's paper. Because of Dr. Ketchum's work, Moneymaker believes the "wheel has been set in motion that was not in motion before."
Read below from Matt Moneymaker via Cryptomundo.
Heard from a reliable source connected with an article reviewer for Nature (a major science journal published in the UK) that the Ketchum paper was handed back (i.e. not *rejected*) for several reasons.
One of the reasons: The paper “does not contain a testable hypothesis”.
Not that the paper writers forgot to include something … It’s apparently more an issue of what is, and what is not, “testable” … and it’s a very technical matter that may not be resolved any time soon …
Supposedly that’s just one problem with the paper … There are more: The writers were very obviously “not zoologists” but they needed to be for a paper like this.
There is an undeniable silver-lining to this situation though: The paper was submitted to a major scientific journal and was under serious review by several top shelf scientists around the world. Hence, many elites of the scientific world are having serious discussions about the bigfoot/sasquatch topic for the very first time. Those elites are considering the issue of DNA trace evidence (from hair, blood, skin, etc.) sufficing as solid evidence to establish the existence of the species.
I do believe a wheel has been set in motion that was not in motion before. There’s a growing awareness among scientists that there is private funding available for a top-shelf, A-team effort to prove the existence of the species through DNA evidence. Thus, if Ketchum can’t produce a publishable journal paper about her own work, for whatever reason, there will be some highly qualified scientists who will be willing to jump in at this stage. IMO that was the threshold that needed to be crossed.
- Matt Moneymaker
Related:
Gosh, I wonder who Matt Moneymaker feels is good enough to form an "A-team" worthy of private funding?
ReplyDeleteI agree that, as soon as there is something impressive that might ignite the research community, BF becomes a commodity; even for researchers wanting backing. Imagine the first zoo to house a BF? Imagine the twisted hunters who take to the woods thinking that the closest intelligent thing to a human they can hunt is out there amongst the trees. Imagine Wolf Blitzer baffling at how to discuss a subject he would have once chuckled at while reporting and now has to put on a serious face? The cascading effect of all of this mind-boggling and each state will be faced with the very real decision of how to parcel preserves to allow them to continue to have a habitat. I'm curious as hell just how much BF is like us--obviously upright and intelligent and able to hide, but I'm even more interested in how humans handle the new reality. You know those movies where zombies attack? It's not about the zombies--it's about how the humans handle it, i.e. The Walking Dead. That's the real drama.
ReplyDeleteWow! Moneymaker giving credit and not to himself! Mark this one down.
ReplyDeleteCould he be comfortable enough now to allow a little thunder stealing?
Scott McMan
Ghosttheory.com
I'm terrified of what humans will do once bigfoots are proven. They should NEVER be put in a zoo.
ReplyDeleteI agree, it is terrifying to think of what's to come for BFs. I hope not hunted to extinction
ReplyDeleteThis is yet another way to stall while we wait for "proof". There will be no end to this.
ReplyDeleteWill the scientists who read this paper stand up and say, "Yes, there might be something to it"? Who are they and when will we hear from them? WILL we hear from them?
Hmmm no testable hypothesis....not performed by trained zoologists...? wonder if these are the standards of Nature magazine or science publishing as a whole? My understanding is one need not be a scientist in the field they are publishing in or even hold a degree at all of any type as long as the methodology is sound? (Correct me if I'm wrong please).
ReplyDeleteWhen I look at published papers I come across scores of articles that are simply descriptive of a new find (say a new species, fossil etc) but contain no hypothesis per se or argue a new theory.
So I am a little leery about Matts reasons for the paper being sent back (ie not rejected) BUT then again I am just commenting on a bigfoot thread on hearsay of hearsay.
Much funner than doing my chemistry work anyhow...
Maybe its what there trying to prove?
ReplyDeleteMaybe the scientist are leary because they only have blood and hair samples, with a finger nail. The only footage and pics are from a plethora (always wanted to use that word hehe)of amateurs and hoaxers.
Maybe they have found something new or unexplainable, but who wants to say its "sasquatch", with-out scientific habitat examination.
Ketchum has already indicated the paper is not at Nature. She has also indicated the paper is currently in peer review. This means MM is talking about a previous journal submission and not the current state of affairs.
ReplyDeleteYou might not like Matts personality, but you can't question his knowlage and connections in the bigfoot world. This man has been at it for over 20 years. He should be given a little credit. Maybe just a morsal. Ha
ReplyDeleteAs many of the above commenters have stated. Who gives a shit about more excuses and reasons why its gonna take a little longer. I don't want to hear another word about any of this until "here's the proof they've been recognized". All the arguing between everyone that all this has started isn't helping anyone.
ReplyDeleteTypical Moneymaker. Big mouth and knows nothing of what he speaks. Zoologists aren't necessary when you're dealing with men. This is just the typical circle jerk by research organizations and the blogs that support that theology. Moneymaker is not even in the loop and he needs to mind his own wood knocking.
ReplyDeleteGood people do the right thing.
ReplyDeleteThis whole story smells of bigfoot scat from top to bottom. I will put money on it that if (that's a mighty big if) and when these DNA study results are made public, the results will be "inconclusive."
ReplyDeleteBeer-man wrote that this man has been at it for over 20 years. Yeah, he's been at it alright. If he was serious about actually finding (proving) bigfoot, he wouldn't go about it in the way that he does. He's an entertainer pure and simple, making money by playing on the interest in bigfoot.
ReplyDeleteSomeone please capture or kill one! Please!
ReplyDeleteIf anyone here, of any background, wishes to submit a paper on any topic to my ass, you may then trumpet that it is under the serious review of a top shelf ass.
ReplyDeleteLet's see if I got this right based on what I'm reading.
ReplyDeleteThey rejected the paper on technicalities,but they saw something they liked.
Thanks for doing all the leg work and risking your neck so us scientists can now feel comfortable about sending 'qualified' people to finish the work and receive the accolades.
Oh,can you help us with that,thanks doll.
It all sounds very cutthroat,but put in politically correct niceties.
Kind of made me barf in my mouth a bit.
Zoologists?Does that imply that Bigfoot is a primate and not close to humans,or is it a cautionary measure?
This whole thing just raises more questions than answers.
He is commented on the original submission attempt to Nature. It has been submitted to another journal and has been accepted. Old news.
ReplyDeleteGotta be a "Squatch"! Should I say that again? "Squatch". Do I sound cool saying that? "Squatchity Sqouchity Squatcharoo".
ReplyDeleteI saw a broken stick in my backyard last night. Had to be a "Squatch"!
20 years, Pfft!
Matt Moneymaker is a GOD! If it weren't for him we would not have the BFRO! Giove him your respect! KNEEL!
ReplyDelete"Reliable sources" are mostly figments of someones imagination and attempts to assign a totally unwarranted status to a work of fiction? He either knows what he says is true or not. If it is true then all is good. If it is false and claims it is true, he is a liar. If it is false and he doesn't know it is false, he needs a mental assesment. Only three options - take your pick. Based on his own actions and words, MM's credibility rating is zero and he will be hoisted by his jealousy.
ReplyDeleteRobert
The peer review process is supposed to be a challenge. A good reviewer is one that finds the faults and helps the author make the case as strongly as possible, without being obstructionist. (Pity the climate scientists never learned those rules.) A paper typically gets a few requests for clarification or for a scaling back of conclusions. That's all good stuff.
ReplyDeletemelba ketchum is clueless...
ReplyDeletethey dont know what they are doing and as best I can tell are just spinning the tires..
what a joke..
U all are full of hot air, bla, bla, bla. None of the comment's here are useful. Some of ya think you know it all. Bullshitters and liars!!
ReplyDeleteI sometimes think Moneymaker tries to discredit anyone or anything that is a step ahead of him. He wants to be the guy to bring the first of everything Bigfoot...so I do believe he had agenda with some of his comments.
ReplyDeleteMoneymaker could not find me in the woods with all those screams and beating on trees' He needs get back in the dark chasing owl calls and claiming there baby bigfoot screams.
ReplyDeleteGreat delivery. Solid arguments. Keep up the great work.
ReplyDeleteMy blog post; password Unlocker
Awesome blog! Do you have any tips for aspiring writers?
ReplyDeleteI'm planning to start my own website soon but I'm a little lost on everything.
Would you recommend starting with a free platform like Wordpress or go for a paid
option? There are so many choices out there that I'm completely overwhelmed .. Any recommendations? Thank you!
Feel free to surf to my homepage; cheat engine castleville
Attractive section of content. I just stumbled upon your web site and in accession capital to assert that I get
ReplyDeletein fact enjoyed account your blog posts. Any way I'll be subscribing to your feeds and even I achievement you access consistently quickly.
my page :: castle ville bot
A motivating discussion is definitely worth comment.
ReplyDeleteI think that you need to write more on this subject
matter, it may not be a taboo subject but typically people do not discuss such topics.
To the next! Cheers!!
Here is my web page :: how to hack a twitter account