Thursday, December 6, 2012

Breaking: Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA Paper Has Been REJECTED


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

At 3AM PST this morning, Igor Burtsev, the Russian scientist who originally leaked the Bigfoot DNA results posted this shocking message informing the public that Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA paper has been rejected and that it will now be sent to a Russian review journal instead:

Yes, the paper of Dr Ketchum is under reviewing. And it is worth to be published. Just the situation now remindes me the war between North and South in the beginning of USA history... There are a lot of her supporters as well as a lot of her opponents and even some enemies...

The problem is that some people absolutize the science. Unfortunately science now is too conservative. One third of the population of the USA believes in BFs existing, but academic science even does not want to recognize the problem of their existing or not, just rejecting to dicuss this question. In such a condition this subject is under discussion of the broad public. We can't wait decades when scientists start to study this problem, forest people need to be protect now, not after half a sentury, when science wakes up.

Re the paper: the reviewed journals in the US refused to publish the paper. That is why Dr Ketchum has sent it to me to arrange publishing in any Russian reviewd journal. And I showed to our genetisits and understood that it was a serious work. I gave it up to the journal, now it's under reviewing.

Anyway, I informed public about the results of the study. The public waited for this info for more than a year, a lot of rumors were spreading around. And the public has the right to know it nevertheless "science" says about it.

- Igor Burtsev

304 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Maybe Ketchum should have left the mtDNA hybrid argument for later, and just proposed it's similar to human but not identical. Would that have been the better path? I'm disappointed for all of us here that we'll not get to see the science behind it, any time soon. At the time she and Paulides started their project I don't think Sykes would have taken on study. There wasn't any big names in genetics that would according to Paulides. I expect to hear Paulides on Coast to Coast real soon to sort out the rumors. Hope Sykes is on schedule.

      Delete
    2. Our data is amazing and beautiful.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. For footers, it's great for us reasonable people.

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. No, you are the first to say second. Not bad kid. We think you have a future in this sport.

      Delete
  4. Things may turn out better this way... Figures though... I've been saying for a while now that "science is a limitation and not a progression."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. science is the rational framework that allows us to test ideas and build upon them. nothing more and nothing less.

      if you've ever experimented with a way to do something, or thought about how something might work and came up with a test to figure if you were right or not - you did science. that's progression. it's baked into your brain dude. the scientific community is perhaps what you think of as a limitation. they are slow to accept and want lots of repeatable evidence before they step out and trust new hypothesis, that break old, established ones.

      Delete
  5. Is there really any surprise, any one who put faith in this. Well this the eggs on your face!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If really so, what's changed? The species is still there isn't it so not only does the search go on, but I smell a major continued cover up here. Burtsev's absolutely correct, we cannot have this subject go on in ridiculed obscurity so evidently the good thing we'll take from this new situation is an even more aggressive investigation into what exactly this species is. The mainstream acience status quo club won again, and probably by severe cheating I suspect simply because they're in power and have the means to make it happen, however too many people know the species is in fact there for this to end unresolved.

      Delete
    2. The species is still there isn't it

      Until you or somebody proves this, then 'NO'

      Delete
    3. So you're saying the species' not there physically until proven so by science even though it must be in order to be discovered? LOL

      Delete
  6. Replies
    1. She may have been rejected once or twice,but that happens. This post can be an over reaction to word that a journal rejected her. She is the only one who knows where she submitted and what the reviewers said; that information is never made public. Professors get rejected all the time, and try again with another journal. They don't talk about the rejections in public, nor can the public find out by contacting the journal.

      Delete
    2. Ub sound science is unsound Science, unless you go with the Journal of hair braiding. LOL

      Delete
    3. Damn Ed,you're really stupid.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous: "This is not the first or second time....it's the 5th time" she has been rejected.

      Delete
    5. @ed's Mama

      Actually I have been right all a long . I know it's hard to admit but you know it's true.

      Go back to the hair braiding class at the home.

      Delete
    6. Now Ed,I will not let you talk to me like that anymore!Wait till your daddy gets home.It's going to be on like a Donkey Kong.

      P.S.- No more milk and cookies for you when your on the computer trolling from the basement.

      Delete
    7. @Ed Mama

      Still can't admit your wrong sound like your constipation is getting in the way of your.O2 flow. Isn't it time for your chemo meds!

      Delete
  7. So, the major question that lingers in my hollow head is, "How will this effect that Oxford University research study?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It won't affect it at all, except maybe to clear the way. The sooner the Ketchum debacle is forgotten the better.

      Delete
    2. It won’t in the slightest! Upon completion the result will be presented and all specimens will be from known animals, and that will be the end of the Scientifics community involvement.

      Unless somebody can come up with three or four bodies, future attempts to solicit support or studies from other academic bodies and you will be presented / referred to Sykes study: case closed.

      Delete
  8. The paper doesn't matter either way, you need a body to prove they exist. Someone needs to go hunt one down and not like Smeja's story. Shoot, kill, and bring the body back. This Bigfoot nonsense is always going in circles, gets old real quick. I thought she HD video of Bigfoot, she better release that right away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude, there is never going to be someone "bringing in a bigfoot body" that is real. It will ALWAYS be a hoax for profit, or a prank. There is no real animal, only the myth. Sure, its a cool myth! We love it! But a myth it is. Sometimes I think bleevers never learn.

      Delete
    2. Well, you can go away now then can't you. If this study's over it, and I want to hear that from Ketchum's own mouth first, won't mean anything to neither witnesses or the forest beings will it. Sometimes I think cynics never learn and forget they live in the biggest liar state in the socalled free world, America the Police State, as long as these liars are in charge and the rest of us just act and live like zombies under their thumb we'll all be screwed over. Round these elected fakers up against a wall.

      Delete
  9. Get a grip Igor, a debate between crypto hobbyists is not comparable to a long and bloody civil war. We understand that you are butt hurt, but please put down the crack pipe.

    ReplyDelete
  10. A shame, but can't say I'm surprised if it's true (seriously, it's hard to figure out who are reliable sources for all this info).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More covering up what did you expect. Those lobbies against this discovery go from mainstream science to the government and they may have taken another scalp, but for how long. Now we're simply back to the original question in all of this aren't we, and that is what the hell is this species, is it that important to keep a secret? Apparently so, therefore naturally the question beckons if there's more to it than merely a simple primate hominin or if we're really dealing with an alien species whose reality's crucial enough for still covering up.

      Delete
    2. I saw a Bigfoot drinking a piña colada at Area 51, his hair was perfect.

      Delete
    3. I saw that too! But I saw him getting an anal probe from an alien and then they gave him the drink!

      Delete
    4. An alien probing Bigfoot's tater hole with some high tech gizmo lookin for DNA! This is gettin crazy! I love science...

      Delete
  11. Wait for the bleevers to cry how science is bad, and russian journals rule. (if they will even publish it) garbage in = garbage out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course. Should you even be here by the way, being a dick?

      Delete
  12. ABSOLUTELLY no surprise at all.
    If there is a slightest chance (guts, independence, whatever) for a notable journal to publish such a paper, regardless of how sound its "science" is, it just HAS TO BE a paper from Sykes or the likes – a top, government funded, career-wise mainstream science servant - launching either a debunking effort with 20 selected samples of bear, fox, skunk, man, etc, or a BF-positive result tailored to be just a bit more than "unknown", securing plenty future step-by-step studies and maintaining the monopoly over very gradually and selectively revealed truth.
    Hope Ketchum gets published in Russia soon. Sooner than the Sykes, whose name itself I see as another obstacle for Ketchum since he announced his BF research, and whose study and its particularly swift progress I see as almost a proof that he started it in the first place BECAUSE of the Ketchum study. My gosh has science became religion!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a huge difference between Sykes and Ketchum. Ketchum is a a bleever that claims to have witnessed multiple bigfoots, and scammed Hersom out of a lot of cash. Shes a cat vet! Not some world renown scientist, and questionably sane.


      Sykes on the other hand CALLED OUT the cryptozoologist, and asked for their best samples to test. He said put up or shut up! Sykes will not be publishing bigfoot DNA. He will be publishing the rather boring results of samples that were sent in. There is no animal to give the DNA, and Ketchum tried to call modern human DNA sasquatch. DEAL WITH IT!

      Delete
    2. "CALLED OUT" is a guarantee of what exactly?

      Your first paragraph is a clear example of bias: you believe you're discrediting somebody who's trying to prove the existence of BF by saying the claims to have seen them. You believe so because you are absolutely convinced they don't exist. It has nothing to do with elementary reason, let alone science. Similarly, a guy once said he has the proof that the Earth is spherical, and they laughed at him saying he can not be right because he's crazy, because the Earth is not round.

      A "cat vet" and "questionably sane" are also poor arguments.

      Yelling "DEAL WITH IT!" at others will not help you deal with it.

      Delete
    3. Oh dear the Randifoots are back. Sykes probably won't prove a damn thing, not because there's no species which too many of us know there in fact is, but he's mainstream science so basically it's much better to trust an independent group like Ketchum's rather than trust the already established system like Sykes. So yes hopes were high for her study and it's not dead yet, so let's see what happens as her samples always seemed a lot more interesting and convincing sounding than Sykes'.
      If the Ketchum camp's been naive it's been in trusting the traditional scientific routes they went with because they had to, all each and every one undoubtedly infiltrated by the right people so to speak and deeply intend on no changes.

      Delete
  13. Replies
    1. Stage 5 government cover-up.

      Delete
    2. Though meant as an unfunny joke sadly anon 4:39's right.

      Delete
    3. "Though meant as an unfunny joke sadly anon 4:39's right"

      Unfunny? Really?

      It is PHUNNY,not Unfunny.

      At the start of Melbas research everyone was on the band wagon.
      It's been five years people!!

      Oh,she has the 'Sword in the Stone'.
      But when she started to 'Claim' all these Bigfeet braiding her horses' manes and frolicking with a family of five Bigfeets it was the nail in the coffin.

      Honestly,if it did happen to her she should of kept it to herself.
      The only way to show that Bigfoot exists is a live specimen or sadly,'One in the box'.

      Myself,I'm in the realm of Skeptic/Believer.
      In other words don't put all your eggs in a basket.

      That means in my opinion,that a body,be it a live one or one in a box is the only way this will be resolved.

      I just want an answer,one way or the other.
      I'm tired of all these games.

      Big Dad.

      Oh,taterhole.;-)


      Delete
    4. You missed out HD footage, purported mental rape and more....

      Delete
  14. Well i guess there you have it.. Not surprised either. Hope russian journal publishes, otherwise we may need to publish in klingon

    Please Santa, all we want for xmas is Sykes report, and world peace, of course :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Matt Moneymaker was right. Maybe he not so stupid after all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There's a tater in the hole"!!!!

      Delete
    2. Lol..but there is nowhere for the tater hole to be.

      Delete
    3. Matt's as wrong as he's always been but for now his lying show can go on, the big fake that he is.

      Delete
  16. I would arrange for the folks at the U.S. journals to see one or a body.

    ReplyDelete
  17. TO THE SKEPTICS:

    This does not dis-prove the existence or non-existence of sasquatch as a "real species."

    This is only news of the Ketchum study being discredited due to "some unknown methods the science world expected but didn't receive."

    The results of this study are stated as "without sound science." Therefore, no witness, researcher nor investigator has been discredited. Only the lead scientist is to blame...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TO THE BLEEVERS:

      None of you have any real evidence of bigfoot. If you did, it would've been shown to be authentic. See Sykes results for confirmation of this.

      Bigfoot myth is taking a beating in 2012. Can't wait for 2013. Death of a legend?!?! haha

      Delete
    2. People had evidence; however, lost it to an incompetent scientist named Melba Ketchum... Believers aren't taking a beating. Not from skeptics anyways. We are all learning a great lesson from this though...

      I'm sure nobody will be sending their samples to a fucking "Cat vet!"

      Delete
    3. simple solution as Bigfoots are so abundent, just go gather more! BUT after Sykes releases the final blow I doubt anybody would look at it freely ever again! Leaving footers to pay for future DNA tests.

      Delete
    4. The government cover-up blasts on and now we're only left with more questions than the riches this study if released in the US would've revealed to its people rightly deserving to know.

      The conspirators have not done themselves any favors by stopping this, at least stopping it in the US, they've only made new trouble for themselves and raised further questions as to the nature of this species' true origin.

      Why the resistance, there's evidently a whole lot more to this than a mere new primate that would only enrich the world's history and fill in the blanks still left unanswered instead they went ahead and created new problems.

      Delete
    5. ^^^ Wow that just put a tear in my eye. I hope Melba's borrows from your moving explanation when she presents her Stage 5 (and final) Excuse.

      Delete
  18. Replies
    1. He's not a limey, but a cunt!

      Delete
    2. EWWW,a limey cunt.Well,maybe it could enhance the flavor.

      Delete
  19. The BBB is a scam.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/business-bureau-best-ratings-money-buy/story?id=12123843

    I AM NOT A KETCHUM DEFENDER!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Her F score is derived from complaints against her, not pulled out of thin air. Is the Cat Fanciers' Association a scam too? Get their opinion of Melba and her work.

      Delete
  20. I called it going to Russia and for publishing. For just 59.99 you can get your peer review and fit another 9.99 get it published in a back water journal.

    ReplyDelete
  21. So are you dumb retarded bleevers gonna eat crow then? Bunch of delusional Looney toons.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Silly Ketchum all she has to do is make her findings public along with all this hd footage she has and if it's any good it will start the ball rolling for real scientists. But no instead we get a retarded circus show, hints, teasers, smoke and mirrors, blurry stick structures and horse hair braiding.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I vote we call.her Krazy Ketchum from now on, who is with me?

    ReplyDelete
  24. The age of peer-review journals is over anyway. Peer review can be done in the public forum now, with worldwide, instant publication and review. The journals kept a monopoly when there were few researchers and poor communication methods. Now those days are over. Other fields of study are already moving in this direction. I say to Ketchum - "Put it out there." The data will stand or fall on its own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True that, and solid advice.

      Delete
    2. Not true. Vetting is desirable, and people care about the quality of the journals they publish in. However, the most important thing is whether or not people read an article. Most are seen by a dozen or so people interested in the usually very specific,or esoteric, problem. If many scientists read her report then it does not matter if it appeared in a peer review journal or not.
      The media is interested in this, so I think people will give it a look and she just put the damn thing out.

      Delete
    3. @Anon 5:24 - yes, vetting is important. But that can happen in the public domain. After all, experts are part of the public, too. I know there is a push to do this public review in climate science and humanities. Humanities because of the cost and highly subjective review process. Climate Science because the editorial boards are stacked with 'believers' who block skeptic papers on principle.

      Delete
    4. 6:23 I agree, and if people read it and comment on the paper it won't matter how it was released. Thanks.

      Delete
    5. People are as usual prematurely judging this - it's the land of the impatient after all - but the paper's not been rejected.

      Delete
  25. The US science community open to anything that doesn't fit into their neat little mold of what's real and what's not real? .... oh, your kidding.

    The US scientific community has also been known to blacklist scientists that bring fourth anomalous findings.... like human made 'modern' looking tools imbedded underneath 2 miles of coal .... human bones mixed with dinosaur bones..... if it doesn't fit neatly into the darwinian mold, your a crack pot according to them .... i call bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Proof of scientists getting 'blacklisted' for finding human tools among dinosaur bones please?

      Delete
    2. Not exactly dinosaur bones, but...Virginia Steen-McIntyre? Just don't mention the outrageously false rebuttal.

      Delete
    3. It's definitely been community bullshit, tendershoots. The political and religious forces against this discovery are still hell bent on keeping it away from public knowledge, I just hope Ketchum and Paulides will stay focused and continue the battle because that's truly what this is now.
      A battle for the truth that won't end until the day the world sees proof of Sasquatch-like species, anywhere around the world it just takes one to basically prove them all real. Scheming skeptics, I'd not cancel that crow take-out order just yet this is far from over which it'd not even been anyway with a US journal publication.
      This was always only the beginning of the species study with their scientific proof, there's lots more to do next.

      Delete
    4. I think it was because her sampling population and methodology was called into question

      Delete
  26. My only concern is the protection of these creatures. Don't really care about anything else with this subject

    Mid Michigan calling

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since nobody ever cought one I'd say they protect themselves pretty well.

      Delete
    2. Shrinking habitat is the largest issue . Especially the US.

      Delete
  27. People treat bleevers like loons, and some of them may be. But what's more looney is how the existence of bigfoot seems to actually bother some people. Almost like the fact that something could exist out there, that they cannot come to terms with. To the point where they want to prove it so wrong they come here everyday and drop the same comments, looking like complete retards themselves. I bet you the majority of people who come here and talk shit are the same people refreshing the page to see if Melba's peer review had been accepted, in hopes of it coming to fruition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. Most skeptics including me would love it if it were true but the reality is there is zero evidence.

      Delete
    2. Most of the people calling themselves "skeptics" are just outright non-believers. Not saying you, just saying there's an unnecessary mob mentality, and it contributes to the garbage that litters the comment boxes. In the same regard, bleevers do it aswell.

      Delete
    3. Spot on anon 5:02, exactly what it is sadly even the BE themselves maybe even for the most part them.

      Delete
  28. Be like a duck. Calm on the surface, but always paddling like the dickens underneath.

    ReplyDelete
  29. To whoever suggested Ketchum's real motive with her press release last week was to put her name in the news prior to the release of the Sykes' study... I salute you. Good call.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Replies
    1. Aw, don't be sad little footers, you can still believe in your monkey monster man.

      Delete
  31. excuse me??!! why did she say they expect publication in the next few weeks???...were they informed by the journal or not??? did they release the press news WITHOUT any communication with the jounal????
    oh god, I can not believe how stupid and unprofessional ketchum et al are!!!!!!!!!!! incredible!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Let´s wait for the offical news...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They did say a few weeks yes, and since we've not heard anything official from their camp yet maybe it's still on.

      Delete
    2. Let´s wait for the official lies...
      FIFY

      Delete
  32. Not surprised by this as Dr.Ketchum did things ass backward not to mention her constantly shooting herself in the foot with some of the things she has said.
    I was happy to hear about the Sykes study when it was announced. there was just to much unprofessional behavior with this woman.
    For now I will go on not believing but knowing they are real and knowing it will be proven in the not to distant future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes the fakers will fall in the end and the truth will out because some of us actually know these squatches exist, so I can't read this news any other way than an ongoing coverup for whatever purpose.

      Delete
  33. Igor said that US journals refused to publish it. That's not the same as being rejected, obviously. The Coalition for blah blah blah must know this, so it seems odd that they posted such a bold declaration based on Igor's comment. Something smells fishy. I wouldn't take anything they're doing seriously anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The cold war is still on going. Them vodka guzzerlers are still out to screw us 'mericans!

      Delete
    2. American journal is child's comic book next to vastly superior Russian. I spit on weak USA scientist!

      Delete
  34. What is it exactly that science limits and mindless belief progresses?

    ReplyDelete
  35. but one thing is rather strange: why was the paper not rejected at the time it was submitted? why did it took them over one year of reviewing to find out that it is not valid science??
    No excuse for Ketchum`s completely unprofessional behaviour, but I really would like to know...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because it wasn't submitted a year ago. The cat vet created so many layers of bullshit that she thought people would start bleeving. And they did.

      Delete
    2. Clearly it has not been rejected.

      Delete
    3. Has not! NANANA BOOBOO!!!

      Delete
    4. There's a tater in the hole!!!

      Delete
    5. Definitely not rejected, or I'd heard from Igor and I haven't.

      Delete
  36. all the samples are contaminated duh!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Steven Strufart is so smart. The smartest person in Bigfooting and without him I would not know what to think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's a damn faker. Had it been rejected the haters would be even more joyous.

      Delete
  38. Because it's not about valid or not valid science, but about concern.
    First it's been delayed by clarification and editing requests by reviewers, than delayed again, than delayed again, and again, and when there was nothing more for reviewers to ask, it was rejected under the holy objective exactness of "interpretation" clause from the cannon of modern science.
    And all was just a service to Sykes and Oxford - to the power, the status quo, the order of things.
    It does not have to be an orchestrated conspiracy. Here in Serbia, prior to one of the elections during the Milosevic rule, a guy in the street was asked by the opposition leader why wont he vote for him, what's the problem, and the guy replied "I'll vote for you as soon as you become the president".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Serbia is a country on its own.
      And in a small country, you can see more easily how stuff works, as in a small town.

      Delete
    2. answer the fucking question.

      Delete
    3. "answer the fucking question."
      WTF?

      If I am from Serbia, which is a country, how can I be from Russia, too? Now that would be a hybrid, wouldn't it?

      Dumbass Americans.

      Delete
    4. Smile Serb! You've been trolled! :)

      Delete
    5. Smile Serb! You've been trolled! :)

      Bastard, you got there first.

      Delete
    6. Serbia,Russia.Same ding dang thang.
      I love me some Americans!!
      Russia no good.

      Delete
  39. Well -- I'm out. Been following this story for two years now and this clinches it.

    And it turns out that Melba definitely has been lying all along. I read with my own eyes her facebook post where she said it was passed peer review and waiting to publish. Out and out lie.

    Hopefully Sykes will have some luck with his samples.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He will, I've sent him a wonderful recipe for a sample stew.

      Delete
    2. Hey Sykes, it's embarrasing for such a scientist to engage in comments here.

      Delete
    3. I surely is, now fuck you taterhole.

      Delete
  40. What the hell is up with all these people's names??? Ketchem? As in, "Don't worry. I'll Ketchem." Sykes? "Does Bigfoot exist? SYKES" or how bout the king of all unfortunate bigfoot researcher names: Matt MONEYMAKER. I met a baker named Cookie once. It's something like that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't forget Merchant...what is he selling?

      Delete
    2. He's selling your mom for $5 an hour worth of taterholing.

      Delete
    3. Good one, but actually I enjoy his vids...just jokin around with OP here. Now people that don't like SWP can take a shot. ; p

      Delete
  41. Why is this nutty Russian "scientist" acting as the social media spokesperson for the study? The guy was living with a Tennessee family that believed they had Sasquatch at family picnics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because Ketchums people are all nutty. Everyone of them.

      Delete
    2. You want crazy? Try the French, Ooh la la!!

      Delete
    3. Yea,but Janice has some nice hairy titties.
      Any Russian loves hairy titties!

      Delete
  42. But one thing seems strange to me: a paper can just be "rejected" when it submitted to a publisher/journal…in the reviewing process itself the reviewers can just demand a lot of changes to the paper and therefore cause the delay of the publication date. but in the end a paper, that has entered the reviewing stage, cannot be rejected completely!! So something is strange about this news after a second reading…
    Best, Joerg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wasnt. Shawn used it as a headline grab, which is what pretty much any media publication will do. Unfortunately, people are going to see the word REJECTED, and comment without reading the rest.

      Delete
    2. Your close. The reviewers will accept it or reject it. They would not ask for changes and then reject it....

      Delete
    3. ....should be you are close...duh...sorry..

      Delete
  43. It was mentioned in the thread earlier, but everyone should read up on Hueyatlaco. Scientist found human bones in Mexico dating back AT LEAST 200,000 years ago. Nothing was found wrong with these findings, and no one has been able to disprove them because well, they are legit.

    However, those who found them struggled to get their paper published, and even stoll, these findings are rejected and ignored by the scientific community as a whole because it meant they were wrong about Human evolution, and they didnt want to have to redo and re lopk at everything.

    Just remember, a degree after your name doesnt make you God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, that's what the testing showed. The most recent testing says that the artifacts at Heuyatlaco are a minimum of 80,000 yrs old - a lot longer before the Americas were supposedly inhabited.

      The most recent studies were carried out by Sam VanLandingham - both papers were peer reviewed and published in respected scientific journals. So much for your grand scientific conspiracy.

      If the science is good and testable then the journals will publish it.

      Delete
    2. aaaaaaand they are still ignored and not talked about. Why do you think no one knows about them? Why is it stated all the time that the first people to come to North America came around 10-20k years ago?

      Mark, if you read what I said properly, you would see that I mentionednthese findings were published, but are ignored and brushed away by the scientific community. No conspiracy, just facts.
      Stop being skeptical about something to the point of wanting to cause am arguement.

      Delete
    3. No they have been talked about - Google Van Landingham's report - loads of discussion.

      One archaeological site in the Americas compared to hundreds of similar sites which show the migration of the first nations people from north to south in the 10 - 20k yrs bracket? Sure the Heuyatlaco site points to something incredible, but you'd have to find many more similar sites to establish that humans fully inhabited the Americas 80 - 200k yrs ago. How does this theory support your notion of creationism / ID , in fact?

      Either way, Ketchum's paper has been rejected because of bad science not because scientists can't admit they're wrong.

      Delete
    4. Notion of creationism???? Lol im not one of those believers,Im all for evolution. im just saying that it was/is an important discovery that doesnt get as much attention as it should, because it implies quite a bit. Sorry for the miscommunication!

      Delete
    5. Also, not saying Ketchums report is perfect, for all we know there could be multiple reasons it wasnt acceptes (bad science), one reason (not writtem properly), or, dare we say, reluctulance by science. Just saying, their could always be two sides to the spectrum.

      Sorry bout the little spelling errors, Galaxy S2 has the worst keypad in existence. Cant type on my comp cause comments are showing up. Anyone know why lmao?
      Matt V

      Delete
    6. I told you he was a limey cunt.

      Delete
    7. Matt V,you can't see the comment section at all or you just can't comment?

      Delete
    8. Na cant see the comments at all. Like this with other blogs too.
      Matt V

      Delete
  44. HA HA!

    The hilarious thing is that now, the true believers will further dig in their heels and rail even further against science and rational, critical thought! With a side dish of conspiracy, too!

    And I know that my cynical take on her poorly-advised and child-like press release was correct. She threw some bullshit on the wall for the bigfoot believers to chew on for years to come.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, she did comment publicly so there is probably more to it then that. Probably will be a website and/or a publication in a Russian journal. Who really knows outside her immediate circle?

      Delete
  45. What was actually rejected?? The wording?? The findings?? The results?? If samples do exist then they should be sent to a lab with no knowledge of the contents other than Flesh/Hair type unknown. What will those results bring. The lab would have no preconcieved ideas as to what the samples are so the slate would be clean and the results not predetermined. Dont be too fast to knock Russian science, They were making huge strides in science when they were still communists, They had a population of subjects to do what ever they wanted to in the name of science and medical progress.

    ReplyDelete
  46. In Soviet Russia, bigfoot study you!

    ReplyDelete
  47. At the end of the day what did she gain by doing this?? Popularity?? Huge amounts of money?? What was her reason for taking on this study? Does this mean that were never any real samples?? Print the paper on the internet and see what happens, Self publishing works.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What was her reason for taking on this study? "

      She's crazier than a shit house rat, perhaps?

      Oh, and eat crow, Paulides. LOL. This news makes your laughable interview on Coast 2 Coast the other night even more fantastically retarded!

      Delete
  48. I don't think anyone is surprised by this. She told me to my face this past summer that the paper was merely three weeks away from publication. That was a bold lie right there. I gave her a chance, but the dishonesty was too much. I hope this all just fades away and somebody will bring forth a body, I know I am looking. In all this madness, I turn up the RUSH, and nothing matters for the moment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damn dude,you sure do know a lot of people in a the Bigfoot world.Must be because they love Rush.
      Is that why?

      Delete
  49. She should release it to the general public and let the graduates of The University of Google have a stab at it

    ReplyDelete
  50. Time for a dead specimen. Until then, see ya.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, wait, come back. Bigfoot is really real I tell ya, I seeneem.

      Delete
  51. Oh dear, this must be very embarrassing for the footers. Quick, find the nearest hole and crawl into it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would that be a 'Taterhole' by chance?

      Delete
  52. and so it remains same shit different day!

    I am going to put my faith in SWP and BILL to get this shit done already for god sakes man.... Someone with solid intelligence please get a body in a box or cage or whatever means you can and let us all be done with this high school he said she said crap. It get very old and does nothing to help the cause :)

    On that note HAPPY HOLIDAY'S

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And HAPPY HOLIDAY'S to you too Lisa.

      Big Dad.

      Delete
    2. you don't like sex do you?

      Delete
  53. Melba, If you read this crappy blog take note.
    Just put your stuff on the web. Science has its head up its ass on this issue. Like the right wing idiots say, "Kill them all, and let God sort them out."

    PUT IT ON THE WEB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Thanks for the update. I hope that people will now break their NDA's so we can learn a little more about the process that was followed.

    Also, I still question Igor's agenda a bit as no one has yet to mention what journal rejected it............if it has been rejected we should be able to know who rejected and their reasons? yes/no?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hush little footers, don't say a word,
    Melba's gonna shit you a big fat turd.

    ReplyDelete
  56. If I am not Mistaken, The Knower called this ages ago.. Saying something to the effect of the stufy being dead in the water, and will only be published as a run of the mill article on a crypto-site.

    Still waiting for The Knowers prediction on the PGF suit expose to come through, although he's been correct on evrything else.

    ReplyDelete