Guy Edwards: Bigfoot DNA Peer Review Results are In


Guy Edwards has collected an extensive list of peer-review excitement from various scientists regarding Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA paper. Since the news broke out about her study on Sunday, Ph.Ds such as Professor Tyler A. Kokjohn of Microbiology at Midwestern University and Dr. Mary Mangan of OpenHelix.com are extremely intrigued and excited about news of the paper:

Dr. Mangan writes:

It was irresistible. I had to read the release, and all I could think about was finding the Sasquatch Genome Browser. It eludes me right now.

Oh, I can’t wait to see this paper. For a laugh I searched PubMed to see what kind of Bigfoot data there is already, and to my surprise he’s in there. Of course, the paper is about the psychology of monster hunters. And also about the tension between “amateur naturalists and professional scientists”.

Check out the rest of the quotes from numerous scientists on his blog at BigfootLunchClub.com.

Comments

  1. i see this article used picture 1 of 2

    ReplyDelete
  2. Replies
    1. Oh how nice it is to know the trolls' nonsense has all been in vain for them they could yap and very little else, shameful embarrassing times ahead for you boys your friends know who you are!! [:-o

      Delete
    2. i have had my plate of crow ready for years now... never had to eat it though!

      Delete
  3. I don't get it. Oh well, back to looneytoons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your wife said that last night. BUT, she did get it! :))

      Delete
  4. I wonder whether this supposed Dr. Mangan is equally intrigued by the possibility of "angel DNA" and horse manes being braided by bigfoot?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you were a scientist you'd be interested in the paper, so would I otherwise wouldn't be on this site! Hell whether I believe or not would be an interesting read!

      Delete
    2. True that...can't wait to see it and the erickson project

      Delete
    3. Hey Coco!

      How does that shiny gleaming Golden Idiot Award look on your mantlepiece?

      Congratulations again on your stupendous idiocy!

      We all wish you well in you bright future as a top idiot!

      Delete
    4. Do you think the Erickson Project will ever be released?

      Delete
    5. Hi back Jimmy Joe! Thanks for the acknowledgement.

      And congrats to you for your new job as Dr. Peach Melba's publicist. I never thought she would be able to replace Sally, but I was obviously horribly wrong (as usual). Keep up the fantastic work!

      Delete
    6. Jesus. Let it go already. You don't like the results so you bash the messenger. We get it.

      Delete
  5. Peer review results are NOT in. This is just preliminary reaction from some scientists to the press release by Dr. Ketchum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Morons do not understand the difference.

      Delete
    2. Yes i was thinking that was really fast.
      Does peer review mean the paper is published, or must it be peer revised before being published?

      Delete
    3. It means the latter: the reviewers reject or accept(and ask for revisions) on behalf of the editors. After its published if people read it and comment on it, that is just plain old academic activity or engagement. Not sure if there is a better phrase for it. It seems some people are calling that peer review, but that is not what it really means.

      Delete
  6. And also about the tension between “amateur naturalists and professional scientists”.

    Say's it all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scientific papers are written zero'd in on methodology and facts. Excess wording or tangents are simply not allowed. If this paper has anything to do with the above statement, then this is further evidence of a big hoax and little legitimacy. IMO.

      -Lepomis

      Delete
    2. Anon 12:44, self-taught amateurs can do good decent work. There's nothing wrong with that.

      Amateur in this sense doesn't equate to primer level or beginner; it means not professional, which means not paid for holding a certain position such as archaeologist.

      Not professional in this sense doesn't equate to unprofessional; it means what I just said, not formerly earning a salary for a certain position. It doesn't mean you can't do good solid work as an amateur.

      90% of astronomical discoveries are made by amateurs with backyard telescopes, not by professionals at observatories.

      All sorts of amateurs can make great discoveries and record decent, clear data.

      Delete
    3. shit, that was totally lost on you wasn't it?

      Okay, I'll stick to cock jokes which you will understand.

      Delete
  7. Peer-review does not mean criticism and analysis after publication. That is called, "reading the damn thing and commenting". Peer-review means editors of journals have outside experts decide if the articles should be published or not.

    ReplyDelete

  8. Looks like a little premeditated headline grabbing, tabloid tricks to get a potential readers attention. come on people this is so unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Please check out my blog! I'm new and just starting out, so I don't have many posts! Just check it out and see if you like it, Thanks!

    My blog: http://1bigfootbeliever.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am not so sure this is premeditated.. As I have said before, the press release implied that she passed it already and that the paper was literally being published at that time. But I do wish this would be clarified once and for all

    "Full details of the study will be presented in the near future when the study manuscript publishes."

    Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/943177#ixzz2DK6dphsS

    That last statement from the journalist of the press release pretty much states that the peer review was over and that it IS being published. This also may be the reason why Dr.Igor Bertchev felt that it was safe to release info about it and when Ketchum responded to that, she said:

    "It is unfortunate that the partial summary of our data was released in this manner, however, I will be making a formal response in the next few days. Even though Igor Burtsev released this, it was not Dr. Burtsev's fault. - Dr. Melba Ketchum" It was as if he felt it was safe because he knew it had passed.

    either way, some definitive cerification would be nice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Journalists don't write press releases. Melba or her paid(?) replacement for Sally wrote that.

      Delete
    2. I've come to the conclusion that people who write more than a few words on this blog are wankas.

      Delete
  11. certification???? WTF??? lol sorry, I meant confirmation lol I wish we could edit :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your a Rush fan,right Tzieth?

      Delete
    2. Nope I am a straight male lol. I could never stand Rush. I was into hardcore Metal or country. If I ever felt the need to listen to a chick band of that era, I would at least listen to a talented one such as Journey.

      Delete
    3. Ah well...toeach his own,but I like the Journey comment

      Delete
    4. People love or hate Rush...Iron Maiden Paul Dianno years...good heavy stuff

      Delete
    5. ^"Killers" is the best album even though Dickenson is a much better singer then Dianno. Saw that tour( they opened up for Priest who were touring under "British steel") at the Paladium on 14th street in NYC. I was totally fucked up and the music was awesome. Goodtimes, goodtimes..

      Delete
    6. dudes into christian rock.

      Delete
    7. true about Dickenson but murders in the rue morgue was one heavy tune

      Delete
    8. As a not straight male i can say i hate pop, Dance, R&B and likes the Metal with some good old Alternative and some rock on the side..

      Delete
    9. You know old Bruce Dickenson is an expert fencer (with swords not making fences) and has a pilot's licence

      Delete
    10. POP? Man, I don't care how gay you are, no one should be THAT gay lol. Modern pop is killing music, that stuff isn't even music anymore.. there is no more talent. True R&B yes, but most of it is no different from Hip-Hop. Even modern rock is beginning to suck except for a few exceptions such as 3DG.

      Now I know what Bob Seiger meant by "I miss that old time'n Rock-N-Roll" Every band used to have it's own style and the songs had their own feel or soul. CCR, Lynard Skynard, Fleetwood Mac, Journey, Quiot Riot, Ratt, Dokken, Slayer, Metallica, G-n-R, Type O-Negative, REO Speedwaggon, Airsupply, Tool, Korn... They were all different but mood appropriate and talented. Now everything sounds like everything else with lyrics a two-year-old could write :(

      Delete
    11. you really like that journey,thats twice tonight

      Delete
    12. ratt was very cool,like an early aerosmith

      Delete
    13. starz,angel,michael schenker,scorpions,rainbow with dio?

      Delete
    14. Yes I admit it lol I like Journey lol. But to me, Rush sounded like someone took a bunch of Mid-Eval Minstrels and put them in a rock band but hey, compared to Stix, they rocked lol.

      Ratt was one of my all time favorites. That band was severely underrated. Only Metallica and the Beatles tops them on my list. And of course everyone had those artists they secretly liked but didn't want their friends to find out...

      Delete
    15. True about no more new talent in music, Tzieth. It's like good songwriting skipped a generation or two, they got lazy wtf happened there, and now we're missing those links in the chain so to speak. It died sometime in the late 80s early 90s, and so we're essentially treated to lamer than ever before record company disco regardless of genre really or every fool and amateur for him/herself now.

      Delete
    16. there were a lot of flash in the pan bands in the eighties

      Delete
  12. member of JREF emailed Igor Burtsev and asked "Is Ketchum's paper going to be published in a Russian Journal?"

    to which he replied:
    'Yes, it will be appearing in a Russian Journal and also available online"

    So, according to Burtsev anyway, the paper failed to pass peer review (if it was every truly submitted) by an American Journal, and is now going to that bastion of scientific reliability; Russia!

    Seriously folks, her data is bad. Every major journal would be all over this if her methods were reproduceable, her data verifiable and her conclusions sound. It appears , that the science was lacking. So all of the journals either shot her down, or she never submitted to them.

    Seriously, if you discovered a new animal do you think you would only be able to release this amazing information via a 57th rate journal in Russia?

    as I said, a Journal like NATURE or SCIENCE or wtvr, would have leapt at the chance to publish these findings if they were legit. They could see a 10-20X increase in sales for that month, and money trumps everything (well except bad science when journal reputations are on the line)

    I've also heard this will be a "white paper' release and not a peer reviewed release.

    But don't sweat it, we have a legit DNA expert standing by and he can't wait to get a look at her data.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaa take THAT footers!!!

      Delete
    2. Attn: anon 2:52:

      I've never seen a more naive post in my life.

      List of epically naive statements:

      1. Every major journal would be all over this

      2. Seriously, if you discovered a new animal do you think you would only be able to release this amazing information via a 57th rate journal in Russia?

      3. as I said, a Journal like NATURE or SCIENCE or wtvr, would have leapt at the chance to publish these findings

      Again, I have to teach you, yet again. With the implications re evolution and mainstream science, NO MAJOR JOURNAL WOULD BE ALL OVER THIS.

      NATURE or SCIENCE journals would never leap at any such chance. Again, the implications, which could force universities to rewrite curriculums, have massive implications for Christians and other groups, leviathan implication for governments, embarrass countless careers, textbook authors, publishers, you name it.

      Yes you're right about money, but we are talking about much bigger money and power than any journal has. We are talking about the power of universities and governments and the Vatican and more. NATURE or SCIENCE can't compete with that. We're talking about trillions of dollars in damage here, not hundreds of thousands or millions.

      You have to understand that almost anything sasquatch will be rejected by anything mainstream, be it university or journal or goverment, even if the science in the study is perfect.

      It's pathetically naive to think that because it's not published in NATURE, the science must be bad. That's ridiculous. It's not published in NATURE because NATURE wouldn't touch the subject for the political and relgiion reasons I mentioned, and there is your big big big money and power.

      But you never listen. You just keep repeating the same naive line you are spoonfed by what's considered the mainstream. You'll never get anywhere by simply parroting what you are told.

      Delete
    3. Seriously WTF???? Why would this great revelation have an impact that would supposedly cause all this damage? I think you are blowing all of this so outta proportion it's untrue, it doesn't really change anything it does not challenge religion any where near as much as Darwin's evolutionary theory did and all the major religions are still here. If it is true it just means all the bleevers were correct and there could be a new branch to the human tree which would need investigating immediately. If anything universities and colleges would welcome the news as they'll have some new to study! They'd be a mad rush of academics desperate to go Squatching in an effort to be the first to study it! They discovered a new spiecies of monkey a month or two ago and the world didn't change none what's another primate ( we are apes after all) discovery gonna change no matter how close to us they are? You are right that you shouldn't believe all the crap you're spoon fed and if we were talking bout governments, news outlets owned and controlled by far right billionaires or anything any of the major world religions preach then I would agree that it shouldn't just be swallowed down as the truth. Bigfoot is a mystery but it isn't as earth shattering as a lot of people think it just means people who have had experiences will get validation they ain't nuts and another new addition to the endangered spiecies list.

      Delete
    4. It's not going to be published because the whole thing wasn't handled in a professional manner, and Ketchum set up a facebook page where she posted about "stick structures" and a bigfoot family that visited her. Talking about all this before the species is even proved to exist made her look like a crackpot, and no respectable journal is going to touch it.

      Delete
    5. Yep, if the source isn't credible people won't touch it, if it was Dick Ryder who'd been behind the study no one on here would be backing it cos of his shitty rep

      Delete
    6. Isn't that entirely raciest, to claim Russian scientists and journals have no credibility?

      Delete
    7. And you guys are forgetting that the source already has a ground-breaking peer reviewed publication with equine DNA. What is on her facebook is her own opinion and who knows, could be fact, she was after all making a documentary in conjunction with this study. If she has video evidence of them braiding her horses hair, then that seals it. If she does not, she can claim that this was to throw people off. Most of this "She is psycho" crap came from Lindsay's mouth and most of it turned out to be pure fabrication.

      As for what Darwinism did to religion, do you have any idea what this will do to Darwinism? Religion can handle this as it justifies certain things in the Bible, but it is going to devastate evolution. It is going to take that tree and tie it's branches in a knot. What evolved and what hybridized? Again, text books will have to be rewritten and TOE will have to be revamped or simply thrown out as it should have been long ago http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

      Delete
    8. It says in the press release that she participated in mapping the equine genome, she participated means she played a part in it along with many other people no doubt not completed the study on her own! Do we know what she did? Maybe just tested a few samples of horse DNA or what? I'm sorry but the crazy talk maybe her opinion but it makes her sound irrational and not some one that you would take seriously. If Sykes acted as nutty as Ketchum is supposed to I doubt he'd have a job, hell believing in angels would probably loose all credibility he has smoking his peers

      Delete
    9. That's among his peers unless he enjoys a good smoke of course

      Delete
    10. And I still don't know why it would devestate evolutionary theory

      Delete
    11. There is nothing in Ketchum's press release that contradicts evolution.

      Delete
    12. I've come to the conclusion that people who write more than a few words on this blog are wankas.

      Delete
    13. Ketchum's camp undoubtedly has the DNA goods and will prove it but this news is all up against the already established well whole establishment really of society. Every science or history book they use in schools and other educational institutions becomes obsolete, as Paulides put it it'll all be relegated to stone age entertainment of yesteryears.
      It's probably a literally priceless endeavor in a time of financial crisis and worldwide religious turmoil, hey that's a thought right there, what if the money crisis happened as a conspiracy because they knew this new nature reveal was coming and thus fought so hard against through haters? Where do all these trolls suddenly come from, any sane and serious person would be thrilled at this discovery yet here we have countless idiots trolling against it? You consider that, Ketchum & co. are right but the dark forces are still fighting it hopefully in vain.

      Delete
    14. Assuming that Bigfoot exists, why would that render every science or history textbook obsolete? Did Bigfoot play a part in the Napoleonic Wars?

      Delete
    15. No he won WWII for us! There's a conspiracy and dark forces out there so no one knows what a sacrifice these beautiful creatures made during WWII they made excellent spies parachuting deep behind enemy lines into the forests of Europe. There mission to breathe heavily around enemy troops and remain unseen or just at the edge of their peripheral vision to freak them out and of course there is the wood knocking and strange vocalisations. All this resulted in terrified German troops unable to fight and starving as the Bigfoots had crept into their camps at night stealing their rations. The big sacrifice was that the Foots knew they were never to return to their homeland as this was a top secret one way mission. Some Russian people claim to see them still in their forests making what life they can in their new cold harsh Siberian home. It's a tragedy that these magnificent beasts made such a sacrifice fighting to ensure our freedom and all we can do is say they don't even exist. It's sickening and as long as religion and science work together in harmony these dark forces will never let you find out the truth about the mighty Squatch. Those who know will keep the legend of the 4:20 Airbourne or the "Patties" alive and well.

      Delete
  13. Chubby was on her back with her legs open and box out, I was on my knees fingering her with my arm going like someones trying to start the outboard on a speedboat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Has this suddenly become Penthouse forum?

      Delete
  14. It is unfortunate nobody thinks our data is beautiful and groundbreaking except some wacky Russian

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because it isn't beautiful, ground breaking or anything that is legitimate, sorry

      Delete
  15. What I'm into sexually is leather. When I say leather I mean older woman like Ketchum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, I thought about having sex with an older woman like Ketchum but was scared incase she died on me, and I don't know if I could trust myself to stop.

      Delete
    2. What's it matter she wouldn't know just make sure you're done before she gets cold

      Delete
    3. What? and leave evidence behind? Fook that or in this case, NOT.

      Delete
    4. Hope you weren't riding bareback there cowboy you don't know what Squatch STDs she could have!

      Delete
  16. nothing has been published. Let me repeat this in language even a bigfoot believer can understand "IT HASN'T BEEN PUBLISHED YET"

    nothing has been published but a press release

    until such time as an actual peer reviewed journal entry has appeared, you are hyping a hoax.

    You are reporting on what people think of a PRESS RELEASE. NOT THE ACTUAL PAPER WHICH DOES NOT EXIST.

    ReplyDelete
  17. That thing in the lab coat is Bigfoot, Gus.

    ReplyDelete
  18. When even the osteopaths are mocking you, it's time to throw in the towel, Melba.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story