Monday, December 3, 2012

Has Dr. Melba Ketchum Sabotaged Her Own Study?


Editor’s Note: Nadia Moore has a degree in Zoology from U.C. Davis and currently works in Biotechnology. She has been a lifelong Bigfoot enthusiast, with her first personal experiences taking place in the Trinity Mountains of Northern California where she lived on a remote ranch during high school. She also a contributor to the After Hours show with Team Tazer.

Questions for those who have suspended their critical thinking abilities in order to believe and support whatever Dr. Ketchum states, without any corroborating evidence:

Why has Dr. Ketchum herself been claiming since at least fall of 2011 that she can't talk about her data or results "before" the publication, on the explicit stipulation of the Scientific Journal itself, but now, suddenly, she can? Why has that changed? Just because Igor Burtsev made a purportedly unsolicited announcement himself?

Has she been rejected outright from one or more of the Journals originally involved, as we know her paper was sent back for revision, at least once, over a year ago? Is she now going to try to publish the data herself without any peer review or other credentialed members of the scientific community in concurrence with her interpretation?

If Dr. Ketchum does actually have legitimate and qualified "co-authors", and not just corroborative third party testing from other labs who are not taking part in the actual analysis and interpretation process, then why are they not also appearing publicly in statements to back up what she is saying? Why are they allowing the whole project and their reputations to be jeopardized by the completely unprofessional way this has been handled over the last 9 days, and especially the association of others now acting as her spokespeople who have been previously discredited by both the Scientific and Bigfoot Communities.

And why is it that the results she is now claiming to be the outcome of her study, basically are the same thing that her copyright was filed for in 2010, before she had even tested many of the samples? And especially before the Sierra Site event even happened or she received the sample from Justin Smeja, which she has now stated is the centerpiece on which her study is based?

Those who have not asked themselves these questions or don’t want to think about their implications have been hurling many insults and accusations at those of us who have. Accusations of “jealousy”, “participation in Government cover-ups”, and the fact that we want whatever the Sasquatch turn out to be, to be classified as “Apes” not “Humans”. I will address these arguments one at a time:

I don’t know anyone who is jealous of what Dr. Ketchum has been subjected to over the last several years. She has now had 2 years to complete her peer review process, and the fact that other studies have announced they will have data publicized by the end of this year leads one to believe this is simply a bid to get her name into the media first. I am not part of any DNA study going on, and while I have worked in DNA sequencing and analysis in the past, specifically in a project involving the extraction of virally induced mouse tumor DNA, I now work in Immunology and Cellular Biology, not Genetics. I have no personal reason for “jealousy”, in fact as a member of the Bigfoot Research Community as well as the Scientific Community, I am pulling for someone, anyone, to come forth with legitimate data that can prove, or at least help us step into mainstream scientific consideration toward proof of, the existence of Sasquatch. But unfortunately I have observed way too many red flags emerging in the way this particular study has been handled over the last 2 years, especially the far from scientific or objective personal beliefs that have been leaked and publicly spoken of by those involved. Beliefs that have most probably led to an attempt to make the data fit the personal expectations of those involved, instead of the analysis simply reflecting unbiased fact.

The fact that we are here, in a public forum, freely talking about Bigfoot at all would tend to discredit the idea that the Government is sweeping this all under the rug and suppressing the truth. I am a personal friend with several people, State and Federal Government employees, who are unabashedly public in their belief in, and study of Bigfoot. I am not going to delve into the psychology of those who insist that conspiracies are responsible for their personal beliefs not being substantiated by real science, or why their pseudo-science is dismissed by those looking for real evidence, as that would be a whole other area of research, but let me just say that I have worked in both Academia and the Private Biotechnology Industries over the last 21 years and I have never felt the need to cover up my interest in Bigfoot, or encountered any attempt at silencing me or discrediting my scientific qualifications because of my belief.

And now to the perpetually false dichotomy of the Ape versus Human argument. Science works to classify and understand things. The currently used Classification System, based on DNA sequencing and analysis by the way, consists of “Kingdom”, “Phylum”, “Order”, “Family”, “Genus”, and Species”. Species are genetically distinct, from other species, inter-breeding populations. There can be sub-species, which are distinct populations with some genetic and morphological differences, but which are still genetically close enough to inter-breed. The further up the ladder of classification you go, the more inclusive the groups are, but the farther apart, genetically/Evolutionarily speaking, the individual member species become from one another, but the closer to their common ancestor they move towards. The Scientific Community classifies human beings as (Genus) Homo (Species) sapien. Homo sapiens are members of the Animal Kingdom (Animalia), we are animals, the word animal is not an insult, it simply means we are not members of one of the other 5 Kingdoms: Plantae (Plants); Fungi (Fungus); Protista (Eukaryotic Microorganisms); Archaea (Prokaryotes that differ from Bacteria); and Bacteria (Prokaryotic Microorganisms). Homo Sapiens are classified thusly:

Kingdom: Animalia (see above)
Phylum: Chordata (posses a notochord)
Sub-Phylum: Vertabrata (posses a spine)
Class: Mammalia (warm blooded amniotes)
Order: Primates (prosimians and simians)
Family: Hominidae (great apes)
Tribe: Hominini (Homo, and other members of the human clade after the split from the
tribe Panini (chimpanzees))
Genus: Homo (genus of great apes that includes modern humans and species closely
related to them (currently all other known members are extinct))
Species: sapiens (only currently known living members of the Genus Homo)

So as you can see by the current scientific classification we are great apes, along with Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Orangutans. So even if the Sasquatch genetic determination does reveal them to be our closest living relatives, and even more excitingly, another living member of the Genus Homo, they will still be, along with us, animals and apes.

Several people have theorized over the last year that Dr. Ketchum would not manage to navigate the peer review process, and would then resort to self-publishing, after which she would embark on some sort of a money making campaign based around her assertion that they are “humans” and that her organization is the only one qualified to mediate on their behalf. Since it is now believed that her company has been bankrupted, and we know that her funding by Wally Hersom ended in the last 6-12 months, this may be the reason she has chosen this highly unorthodox and non-scientific route to publicizing her claims. If she does self-publish, she would need to include the raw data from the genomes she has sequenced, as well as a “Materials and Methods” section detailing the exact procedures, equipment and reagents she used in order for other professionals to then be able to substantiate her claims. If this happens at least the data will then be accessible to other qualified academics for analysis and the whole legitimate scientific community can then weigh in upon a consensus interpretation. It is my sincere hope that the world may still be able to benefit from all the years of work, time, and money that went into this study, and that the hopes of the whole community of witnesses, and especially those who in good faith submitted their samples can be vindicated. I hope this will help lead, along with the works of Dr. Sykes and the other independent DNA studies currently taking place, to the answers we are all looking for regarding how these creatures fit into the Animal Kingdom along with us. But I can guarantee that the future scientific interpretation of this data by others will not include the terms or phrases: angels, nephilim, or constitutional rights.

Nadia Moore
M.S. Avian Sciences, U.C. Davis 1997
B.S. Zoology, U. C. Davis 1994

171 comments:

  1. http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phylogeny/taxonomy/humans-arent-apes-2012.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the link I posted "Chimpanzees are apes. Gorillas are apes, as are bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons. We routinely differentiate the "great apes" from the "lesser apes", where the latter are gibbons and siamangs. Humans are not apes. Humans are hominoids, and all hominoids are anthropoids. So are Old World monkeys like baboons and New World monkeys like marmosets. All of us anthropoids. But humans aren't monkeys"

      This according to John Hawks whose academic position is Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin—Madison. Right now, I'm Associate Chair of Anthropology, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Faculty Fellow, and an associate member of both the Department of Zoology and the J. F. Crow Institute for the Study of Evolution.

      Anyway I may no longer consider calling myself an ape because it sounds like I have been wrong...

      Delete
    2. The above is ONE professors novel interpretation but it is NOT the consensus of the scientific community at this time. He may have a basis for his belief, but until it is vetted and accepted by the scientific community as a whole it does not represent the current status of our species.

      This is an excellent example of how the scientific process works however. A new hypothesis is set forth by a group or individual and if there is enough corroborating evidence it will eventually become accepted fact. The above is at this point however just conjecture.

      Delete
    3. Here is a fact: Bigfoot is fake as hell, which means Ketchum, Smeja, et al are all liars. Thats the science right there, easy too.

      Delete
    4. And you know this how, douche?

      Delete
    5. When Ketchum can say that the paper has been accepted and that she has reviewed galley proofs, the paper is probably 2-4 weeks from publication. We haven't seen the words "accepted" or "galley proofs," only "peer review." This suggests that the paper has bounced and not yet landed. She may be at her last stop before self-publishing.

      Beyond that this little piece is just another ad hominem dressed in rumor, inuendo and assumptions.

      BS = bullshit, MS = more shit, PhD = piled higher and deeper

      Delete
    6. I agree with 4:37

      How can a 9 foot primate (or human depending who you ask) live in North America avoiding detection with a 100% track record, seemingly so intelligent that the only time they show up is when someone doesnt have a camera.

      Incredible!

      And lets not even start the discussion on how this species is supposed to survive on the food sources available.

      Nonsense im afraid.

      Delete
    7. I wanted to comment, but since you feel I don't have critical thinking skills I decided against it. Certain you wouldn't recognize such.

      Delete
    8. All....remember that the reason the bigfoot dna always (before the Ketchum study) came back as human mtDNA. One anon poster here stated the reason the peer review too so long was the debate on the mtDNA being human or some type of parallel developement. IF the nuDNA shows unknown primate, and the arguement is about the origins of the mtDNA, then I would think the journal would still publish, even if Ketchum spilled a few beans first. It's too big a story, if the nuDNA proves the existence of an unknown hominid. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot. by not publishing. I don't know Ketchum's real motivitaion nor strategy, except by what she's said. I think it was unnecessary to respond to Igor's leak though. Would a journal really reject the paper and science behind it over a protocol issue? I haven't a clue. I think they'd be silly too. And was it a violation that would doom the journal were they to go ahead and publish? I think most would give them a pass, given how controversial the bigfoot subject is. It would be highly controversial whether Ketchum made a protocol violation or not. That part won't go away. If the science is good, especially on the nuDNA, they'd try to make it work I would think. But, I don't really know, I'm just excited.

      Delete
    9. The search Nadia Moore may return explicit adult content and has been filtered by your Bing SafeSearch settings.
      Your current Bing SafeSearch setting filters out results that might return adult content. To view those results as well, change your SafeSearch setting.

      Delete
    10. It's a lot easier to hide in America than most people think, we tend to put ourselves in a similar rural situation when thinking about that and imagine how hard it'd be for one self yet we're all different and the wilderness is indeed wide and deep. Food, why, they practically live in a giant kitchen so that's no issue. For a species that's never known anything else it's no big deal when they have the cunning and body size perfect for it, might not be perfect for us but it sure is for them. The main problem is our mind's limit to understand how this really is even though we've all seen them by now (the few genuine clips), maybe the will to as well isn't really there either so skepticism gets the better of us time and again. After all, most people are naturally skeptical in much a higher number than those really in the know.

      Delete
    11. James, if the nDNA actually was from an unknown primate, then yes, any journal would love to have that article. If the nDNA was contaminated or they didn't properly eliminate potential species, then no journal is going to publish that article. My bet is on the latter. We know Melba used her own primers, and that alone would set off red flags for any journal where she submitted the article. Add in the fact that she's apparently skewing the data to fit her beliefs, and it's going to be hard to find a reputable publication to take the article.

      Delete
    12. i believe in angels...CLOCKWORK ANGELS...RUSH BABY!!!

      Delete
    13. NADIA, GIVE IT UP ALREADY!!! ENUFF WITH ALL THE HATING ON KETCHUM!!

      Delete
    14. @3:06....I'm going to have to go with Caz on this (see below). Ketchum's interpretation of what the data shows is not skewed, but now supported by mtDNA evidence by another genetics study that shows that Ketchum is/was correct on mtDNA movement on this most closely related haplotype moving from Mediterranean area to far eastern siberia and then to North America. Just like bigfoot did. Also Melba's primers, techniques, and equipment were apparently not an issue at all with the peer review panel. I bet the journal will be willing to go ahead with approval and this will be published very soon. How fortuitous for this corroborating study to be published just when it is needed. That can't be a coincidence.

      Delete
    15. I quit reading this article after the first sentence when the author stated that those who "supported" and having no critical thinking skills, blah, blah, blah. Hey, I get it. The problem I have with you and those like you is that I could care less about eveyones opinion. That is all that it is. IF the paper exists, I am curious to see what it says. I have enough "critical UNBIASED" thinking skills to know that I can in know way make a judgement on information I have never seen, examined, etc. Neither can you. It is interesting. I am intrigued. End of story. I will wait and see. If nothing comes of it. Oh well. I didn't lose any sleep.

      Delete
    16. Sounds to me like most so called experts in there field they dont like to be wrong.im on the fence either way but open minded.if it turns out that melba ketchum is right will you retract your statement.and accept the sceince.that answer is no.there will be more denial and flaws. So close your eyes and go back to sleep

      Delete
  2. Too summarize, she is lying to make some money.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent article Nadia, lets wait and see. These are certainly exciting times.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nicely put Nadia. Now batten down the hatches for the Creationist storm...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not just the creationalists it's the Sasquatch fanatics too

      Delete
    2. I recently added a cyclops to my park.

      Delete
  5. Bigfoot don't exist so this is exactly the kind of Looney toon circus show you would expect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...and here you are, wasting your time, posting your mouthbreather opinion that no one cares about,concerning a subject you don't even believe in. Good job, give yourself a pat on the back

      Delete
    2. ^ Do not....... get it right, Footy.

      Delete
    3. 3:18: Timmy? Semi-literate friend of Timmy? How much did that post earn you, three dollars? What are they paying nowadays?

      Delete
    4. Think OP is right-"dogs(plural) do not exist"..yeah, he is correct.. if bigfoot is plural for bigfoot. You know, like "fish" I guess.

      Delete
    5. CLOCKWORK ANGELS exists,get the album,its already passed peer review

      Delete
  6. A new hypothesis is that there is no paper. Why should there be? The intent of the project was to bilk Ericsson. He went broke so they found another. Untill they are smacked on the hand like children reaching for a cookie jar, this wil be a perpetual study. As long as a they can mine a vein, they will.

    Those whom attached their wagons to this star as hoaxets as well. When you become an advocate, you are part of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Retreat back into the jungle, please.

      Delete
  7. Regarding the classification of the Human species. It sounds and this is just my opinion a matter of semantics. Yes Homo Sapiens is (to the best of out current knowledge) the current pinnacle of our branch.

    But are we so removed from our relatives that we deserve special classification though? One can argue both sides of that case effectively with the current data available.

    One has to look really hard once the alleged obvious differentials are stripped away to differentiate Hominids from Bonobos and other genetic cousins of our species.

    What is the one defining difference between Hominids Apes, and Monkeys? Is it compassion, I refer to a case in Uganda where a young boy 4 years old was cared for by a troop of Vervet monkeys for 3 years in the wild.

    The Vervets were obviously not acting on instinct alone. As the boy accounts that they actually did the unthinkable for a Vervet which is to leave the safety of the trees coming to the ground at night to sleep beside him.

    Is it communication, is it abstract thought using imagery to convey an idea? The argument could be made by examining the documented research and case examination that there is in fact little differentiating us from our cousins other than our affinity to change our environs to suit our need.

    One can even argue whether or not that is ultimately a successful long term strategy in regards to the longevity of a species. I'm just playing devils advocate when I state that potentially we may have actually primed ourselves as a species for disaster.

    As for Bigfoot if the data is deemed factual and confirmed. It would prove conclusively that not only are we not alone on our branch, but that we are not the new kid on the block anymore. And although we may or may not be as intelligent as our cousins. It may ultimately prove that the long term survival of a species is not defined by our definition of success or intelligence.





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to laugh at those deliberately making a big deal out of explaining why we're all animals, yes we know this already thank you very much, but it is things like speech and intelligence that makes us this socalled human while we give other other names for the other great apes beside ourselves. Gorilla, chimp and so forth where we bear the name human or human ape if you will, same thing these squatches are.

      Delete
    2. Obviously, we are primates, apes, animals. The things that makes us different, is that we are are totally different species. It had nothing to do with compassion, we have a different dna sequence. As for the monkey boy of uganda it is a great story, but monkeys are not the only species of animal to show compassion, dolphins have people from drowning, and legend of people being raised by wolves or other animals have existed for millennia. Compassion is instinctual.

      Delete
    3. I once had a guinea pig that was very caring and compassionate. He was totally selfless and always had the best interests of the other pets in mind. He would even let the rabbits eat before even thinking about taking a bite. One day, he was just walking around the house, minding his own business when suddenly, my terrier swoops in and grabs the little guy in it's mouth. He shook little Toby (that was his name) in his mouth until the life was all gone from him. I miss that little fella.

      Delete
  8. Sadly, I think the author is absolutely right. I can subscribe to almost all of her views. What a mess!You just have to look at the most simple of all her arguments: why was there any reason for Ketchum to release the press news?Just because an unknown
    "scientist" in Russia wrote a statement on facebook? There is no logic behind it. My only hope is: would Ketchum really ruin her career (and life) by acting soo unprofessionally???
    Let`s see...
    Joerg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's every logic behind it Joerg, she had to respond now Igor did what he did. Believe it or not but things are moving along as they should now, everything's on the way.

      Delete
    2. Why did she have to respond to Burtsev? Was he getting any coverage outside of Bigfoot world?

      Delete
    3. She said in a recent radio interview that Burtsev had submitted samples and that he got excited about the results and spilled the beans. My interpretation: she sees Burtsev as a colleague and collaborator and she was caught between trying to keep a lid on things and managing her colleague.

      I give her credit for submitting to the peer review process, but in the end there would be nothing wrong with self-publishing, if she would make her data available for review.

      Delete
    4. Self publishing? What a dumbass.

      Delete
    5. What are Burtsev's credentials to work on this project or be a co-author? He's a doctoral candidate, but in history, not the hard sciences.

      If he's the type of co-author Melba is working with, the paper is deader than Jovan Belcher.

      Delete
  9. Matt Moneymaker was right all along.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More likely than not...

      Delete
    2. No he most certainly was not, a big childlike fool yes definitely.

      Delete
    3. he's a big teevee star

      Delete
  10. All humans are Homosexuals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All humans are Homos, that's for sure.

      I strongly disagree that Homo Erectus went extinct. I was in San Fransisco recently, and there were Homo Erectuses walking all over that city!

      Delete
  11. Well said. What is the deal with this soap opera???
    Whatever your opinion on the existence of Bigfoot, this Ketchum business is an embarrassing mess. Don't buy her book!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why do "scientists" take one mans rumors as fact?

    ReplyDelete

  13. All I see here is more speculation so until the next turn of events I will take this as the usual background noise.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have heard from someone who was involved with the peer review of her paper about a year or so ago. They said the paper was rejected outright for claims of nephilim and other such nonsense.

    The DNA was just Human with contamination and the Ketchum wildly misinterpretted the contamination as "non human".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. is that "someone" by any chance R. Lindsay?

      Delete
    2. Of course it was rejected for containing that stuff. It's what she believes. She's written the paper based on her personal beliefs that they are human. Pretty funny that her results just happen to echo her personal beliefs.

      How convenient.

      Maybe this is why she uses a media representative that can barely write. Needs a believer to rep her out.

      Delete
    3. Idiot, she's written it because it's the truth as the DNA tests have shown and proven it to be.

      Delete
    4. She didn't have an interest in this subject before the study apparently so no it's not her personal opinion it's the scientific facts.

      Delete
    5. Wrong. She developed her own primers which show the DNA to be what she wants it to.

      It is those primers which will be her downfall.

      Get ready folks. I've already seen her final report. It's amazing alright. More amazing than you can possibly imagine. It's going to get torn to shreds.

      Delete
    6. 10:19 is correct. Have not seen the final report, but rolling her own primers will cast serious doubt on any findings of a new species or unusual mutations.

      Delete
    7. You're both incorrect you'll see eventually that you were, regardless of the public handling of this (or lack hereof) they simply have the real deal. It's ready.

      Delete
    8. CLOCKWORK ANGELS..its real,REAL GREAT,RUSH BABY!!

      Delete
    9. sorry but melbas angel tie in is too good to pass up,besides it is great and you can hear it now

      Delete
    10. I certainly never said the paper was rejected for Nephilim references.

      Delete
    11. Stranger Danger! Stranger Danger!

      Delete
  15. My anthropology teacher said, there's no such thing as bigfoot. She said, "all those people that are looking for bigfoot, are looking for a buck, nothing more nothing less." Now, stop wasting time with "bigfoot", as they don't exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you had a very wise teacher

      Delete
    2. Thanks for that piece of info. Now I can finally get on with my life.

      Delete
    3. She did say though, (my teacher) if they did exist, it would have to be "Gigantopithecus', as the size reported is hugh.around 600 pounds at least. As big as that, it would spend most of its time eating (berries and roots, eatable leafs etc..) a mature one would have no Predators ...but man.

      And..if you want to look for them..follow the berries. They would know and go to berry bushes (with their young in tow,also) set up your game camera's in known areas where they've been sighted (and where berry bushes are) if they exist..that's how well find them.

      Delete
    4. I nailed your teacher, she's a lying whore don't listen to her. Bigfoots are real!!!

      Delete
    5. Definitely real yes but not Gigantopithecus, the damn apers will have to look elsehwere for their magic ape now, in fact I highly doubt any of these reported beings from anywhere around the world are apes.
      Even the Indonesian version, know some disagree but I think will turn out to be a small man and thus eventually classified human as well based on their intelligence.
      In Bigfoot's case, most witnesses feel they saw some kind of human not some kind of wild animal and this also matches how we've come to know them in behavior from the few authentic pieces of footage we know of, not to mention the famous speech recordings leaving little doubt for the more honestly researching person.

      Delete
    6. We are all apes and so is Bigfoot if it exists you idiot

      Delete
    7. Nobody's saying that we're not you nutcase, but they're an intelligent species much like we are hence the classification human.

      Delete
    8. they love to listen to Rush,that proves they're smart.I think my dogs like Rush also,but the little one isn't that smart

      Delete
  16. bigfootz aint realzzz suckersssssssss

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How much do you get for each one of these, Timmy & Co, three dollars?

      Delete
  17. This is going to drag on for years god only knows what will happen with the Ketchum study and the Sykes study will show something different.
    A year from now people will still be arguing over what study was right.
    What you need is a body.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong on both, if he finds anything good it'll show what her study did because that's what the species has to be and evidently is, a body we won't need to begin with instead let's establish they're there then see them next.

      Delete
  18. "Questions for those who have suspended their critical thinking abilities in order to believe and support whatever Dr. Ketchum states, without any corroborating evidence:"

    The critical thinking ability of most of these bleevers atrophied from lack of use a long time ago. Just read the comments under every entry on this blog. Every blurry video of something on 2 legs traipsing through the woods is Bigfoot until someone "proves" otherwise. Of course, no proof otherwise will ever be satisfactory because they're like religious zealots who see Jesus in a piece of toast. They have already celebrated the *announcement* that this *alleged* report *may* be forthcoming as definitive proof that Bigfoot exists and that the skeptics are "eating crow" now. As if. Your well thought out discussion points will be better received and understood by a wall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How much were you paid for this post, Timmy et al? Five bucks or so?

      Delete
    2. Nuh uh, Bigfoots are real. I know they are really real because I saw one with my own eyes, from about 100 yards away. He had his back to me and didn't move at all, while I observed him, but I know it was him.

      Delete
    3. Anon 6:29 is pretty much spot on when it comes to the big time Sasquatch and Ketchum fundamentalists, rational is a curse word to these people said it before they're like the Bigfoot Teaparty

      Delete
    4. A lot of them probably are people who see Jesus in toast. The overlap between creationists and cryptozoologists is quite scary and should give anyone pause.

      These folks aren't in it to increase knowledge. They are in it to prove Young Earth theory, and if they have to forge, fake, and hoax their way to Heaven, that's what they will do.

      Delete
    5. You're so crazy you can't even see it's your denial of this that qualifies you the religious fanatic.

      Delete
    6. who is paying money for bigfoot denial posts?i need a copy of snakes and arrows

      Delete
    7. I've seen Bigfoot on a piece of toast.

      Delete
    8. Denial of what anon 3:57?

      Delete
  19. Matt Moneymaker... HAH!! are you kidding? all this guy has done is take people for $300 a head on "Expeditions" which never find anything, smoke dope,and get into fights with his co workers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THERE'S SOMETHING ON THE HILL!

      Delete
    2. That sounds awesome! For only $300? Is it all you can drink?

      Delete
    3. Doesn't he pay a flunkie to go out in the woods to respond to his calls and tree knocks, so that the poor boobs (who shelled out $300) think that they got something for their money?

      Delete
  20. Brilliant - sabotage her study and then say she sabotaged it herself. Perfect kill. Overkill. Overly stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, that's how she escapes without ever releasing a paper. She's a fraud

      Delete
    2. You're just jealous, Mattys.

      Delete
  21. Rex Ryan here...I've been following this Melba gal and picked up that these creatures may be human versus ape. Well that's something that really gets me excited if they're human and the name means what I think it means, "Bigfoot?" They have big feet right? Don't leave me hanging. Team's doing lousy and I need some escape. Now tell me sonething more about this Matilda hottie..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you pry your QB's head out of your lineman's tater hole yet?

      Delete
  22. Ketchum's hypothesis got a big boost today. http://www.genetics.org/content/192/3/1065.full This article shows that some Mediterraneans are related to Native Americans and eastern Siberians. This is the haplotype connection that Ketchum mentions. But she had no way to account for it. These researchers do.

    I am the anonymous poster (mentioned above) who has a friend of a friend involved in Ketchum's peer review. I heard that the objections were not about contamination or sequencing methodology or PCR or any other lab procedure. The peer review problems were entirely due to INTERPRETATION of data, not generation of data.

    Caz

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abstract here: http://www.genetics.org/content/192/3/1065.abstract
      And a popular science PR take: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121130151606.htm

      C

      Delete
    2. Please clarify - interpretation in terms of mentioning nephilim and angels as DNA source, or mentioning "Nephilim" and "angels" as descriptive, loosely related cultural associations (as in "God particle", which bothers nobody), or interpretations of a hybrid in general? Was her interpretation legit, just not in the academic cannon, or was it just wild?

      Delete
    3. My friend did not go into that much detail, and his source (the reviewer) did not want to be unprofessional and spill confidential info. He just said that in genetics (as in any data mining endeavor), there is a danger to over analyze and find patterns where none really exist. The mtDNA haplotype is 'similar' to a Mediterranean haplotype. But not exact. That could mean the haplotypes are related, but could also mean the similarities are spurious. It is just a co-incidence that they are the same. (e.g. Bats and birds have wings, but as a result of parallel evolution.) This is where the peer review got bogged down. But today's paper in Genetics gives a path whereby the Mediterranean DNA could find its way to Siberia.

      Delete
    4. Also, let's not forget to add that there's no mention of any angel DNA in the Ketchum study anywhere. Period. It's as serious as anything gets, there's nothing supernatural going on but it's not surprising the cynics would cling on to a misunderstanding.

      Delete
    5. Thanks for the info Caz. Question that bubbles up immediately....is the journal peer review panel arguing the mtDNA is not human and is uniquely bigfoot? If the haplotypes are related or coincidental parallel evolution, would this interpretive analysis have to be agreed to by all before publishment, or could they just agree that it's not possible to determine at this time one way or the other. Could any minute changes have happened after and due to breeding with humans, in the short 15,000 years since it happened? Is the 15k year mark agreed to by all?

      Delete
    6. Nice of you to clear up the supernatural issue.
      Now, back to the paper. So, it is about patterns. That's what I thought. And was afraid of...
      Bat and bird wings are convergent evolution, not chance/coincidence. So she found a similarity that she interprets as kin, but the reviewers felt it must be just a chance? With haplotypes?
      Dont you think...just a sec.

      You ARE the REVIEWER, arent you? No "mention" of angel and supernatural, RIGHT?

      Don't you think that where a pattern can be seen that does not exist, there also can be a pattern not visible to everybody? Isn't that (seeing paterns where nobody does) exactly what discoveries are all about? Science? Progress of science? Isn't saying "this pattern doesnt really exist" exactly what the majorioty said quite a while ago when a guy tried to explain the movements of planets, as oposed to stars?

      So, the data is sound, science all good, but... it's about patterns. I translate it as: it's a supression. "We dont SEE it the way you do." Is that what peer review should be about? If her conclusion are not WILD, it's a supression, isn't it?

      Sinkroo

      Delete
    7. Bigfoot blew his nose, on the window of my truck and I harvested some of his boogers. Would this sample be worthy for DNA testing, even if they're not bloody boogers?

      Delete

    8. I got the feeling from what Ketchum and Paulides have said that the science was pretty watertight so it does not surprise me that the problem lies with the interpretation of the data.

      I guess there has to be an end hypothesis for there to be a paper but I would have been content with just the data at least then this sage could move forward.

      Delete
    9. "she found a similarity that she interprets as kin, but the reviewers felt it must be just a chance" -- Yes, something like that. (I only have info from ONE reviewer.)

      "would this interpretive analysis have to be agreed to by all before publishing, or could they just agree that it's not possible to determine at this time one way or the other." -- No, the reviewers do not need to agree. They just hold Ketchum up to a conclusion supported by the evidence.

      "Could any minute changes have happened after and due to breeding with humans, in the short 15,000 years since it happened? Is the 15k year mark agreed to by all?" -- Yes, some variation will occur after hybridization. This is the argument that Ketchum uses to compare the BF haplotype to the human. They are not an exact match, so perhaps mutations occurred after mating. The 15k year number is the back-calculation to account for these DNA differences, using a 'mutation clock' that is rather contentious among geneticists.

      Alternatively, the female originator may have had several haplotype 'cousins' of which, only one survives to the modern day. Or the patterns only seem related, but are really not at all. There are dozens and dozens of human haplotypes. If you compare a big enough number of short sequences, you will find DNA that seems similar among unrelated species. It is just an artifact of the data.

      My friend's friend could not imagine Mediterraneans in Siberia, and so claimed the conclusion was not supported by corroborating knowledge, but after today's paper, it is more plausible.

      Caz

      Delete
    10. Caz,
      What journal was it submitted to?

      Delete
    11. Thank you.
      You know too much detail for a "friend's friend", but ok, for all we know, you may be a member of a gang of top geneticists.

      Thanks a lot. Finally some info that seems sane, real, relevant and even promising - giving back hope we're not all mad here.

      Sinkroo

      Delete
    12. I do not know the journal. As for how I know so much....I am in the bio sciences myself, and know enough genetics to be literate. But I am not an insider, and not a researching geneticist. I am definitely NOT one of the reviewers myself.
      Caz

      Delete
    13. Well, I'm and insider and when this thing is released, it will blow everyone's mind. I know, it sounds crazy, but it's true. It will be the discovery of a lifetime and this wonderful intelligent woman will be famous for it.

      Delete
    14. I've also heard that the ugly rumors surrounding Ketchum (horse mane braiding bigfoot, Ketchum being raped by a bigfoot, Ketchum's DNA lab in bankruptcy and receiving a grade of F from the BBB, and DNA samples being taken from blueberry bagels) are part of an immoral smear campgaign orchestrated by parties who are determined to stop this groundbreaking study from being accepted.

      Delete
    15. There's hope in the world. It shows even in blog comments.

      Delete

    16. This is interesting, so the sticking point revolves around interpretation of the mtDNA but you do not metion the novel nuDNA so presumably they are happy with the interpretation of that result, is that correct Caz ?

      Delete
    17. My last comment....My very good friend said the reviewer's last word was that "the paper would not be the end of arguing. Only the beginning." Third hand, but there's the quote.
      That's all for now. I will post again if my friend reveals something new, but I suspect he will not. That's all the reviewer would say to my friend, and that's a testament to his integrity.
      Caz

      Delete
    18. I can only guess that MM and BFRO feel their show will be threatened by Ketchum and the Erickson film footage, which will also go public shortly after the published study. That makes "Finding Bigfoot" kind of old news and uninteresting, when compared to quality on-going real footage. But if they can knock down the study, they can knock down the footage as a hoax for profit scam. What else could it be? If it's just a Ketchum study, they can still be the leaders of the great hunt. The worst part is when they've got their infrared gear on, and they're noisily tromping and hollering about like the four stooges. Rene' also instantly becomes irrelevant with her "I don't believe it" lines. I can see where they're fearful for their continued incomes. They don't have any new tactics. They're looking for gold, and their investors are ready to invest in something a little more promising.

      Delete

    19. Ok caz, thanks for the posts you have made, I look forward to any new information you may post but hope the paper gets published sooner rather then later so you do not have to.

      Delete
    20. What is it with some of the posters on here, it's going to blow our minds? Haven't we already heard the gist of it? I love how people think the Finding Bigfoot days are over and who do you think Animal Planet will turn to when the results of any of these studies are published?

      Delete
    21. @Bellerophon - (I guess I was writing while you were, so did not see your post until later.) -The entire conversation with my friend was brief, as was his conversation with the reviewer. We did not get into details. He did not have them to share.
      Caz

      Delete
    22. Caz, can you find out the journal? Because what I'm hearing from my sources is that this is a classic case of GIGO. The data is complete crap, and so is Melba's interpretation. At this point, they're saying that the paper is not salvageable. Massive issues with the provenance and quality of samples, horrible quality control in the lab, methodology that makes no sense for this sort of project, and a complete lack of adherence to established protocols.

      Delete
    23. I just talked to my source who told me that he/she personally knows your source and can confirm that your source was planted into Melba's select inner circle of colleagues by a group represented by the FBI, CIA, Interpol, NSC, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Vatican, the Business Roundtable, the Bilderberg Group, the Priory of Scion, the Chinese Politburo, and BigfootEvidence.com. Nothing that your source says is at credible.
      Caz

      Delete
    24. Oh Caz, you're such a card. LOL

      Delete
    25. The Illuminati are staying out of this? And the Reptilian brotherhood, too? This is huge.

      Delete

    26. I have had explicit instructions from the Temple of Ultimate Knowledge, also known as ToUK to state categorically and without reservation that : "All things are known to us and we are keepers of that knowledge the answers to all of the most important questions in the universe are our charges and we treasure them as if they were our own children, so it is with great remorse that we must state as of this moment in time we have not one frickin clue as to the contents of the Ketchum study"

      May you go forth on this Earth with your path illuminated by the wisdom of ToUK.

      Delete
    27. So it seems Ketchum was sticking to her interpretation of the mtDNA data, and now has supporting evidence that she may be right. Good for her. Now I'm really, really excited. That was the last hurdle, if Caz's info is correct.
      Cousin Fuzzy....welcome to the family.

      Delete
    28. Hey, James and others, just to clarify...journals typically don't have "peer review panels." Reviewers tend to be busy people who do this out of professional courtesy. Journal editors tend to solicit experts in the field to conduct these reviews. Reviews are performed independently; reviewers usually don't know who the other 1 or 2 reviewers are. So, they can't discuss it or influence one another. They provide written critiques back to the editor who then communicates them to the author. Authors can attempt to rework the paper or rebut the comments. Editors can choose to ignore recommendations/critiques and they do. It's all really up to the editor.

      It's not inconceivable that the editor might call up Sykes and ask him to submit his report. If they really want to lock this up, they could time the publication of both papers in the same issue. This kind of coordination happens a lot.

      Delete

    29. "Well, I'm and insider and when this thing is released, it will blow everyone's mind. I know, it sounds crazy, but it's true. It will be the discovery of a lifetime and this wonderful intelligent woman will be famous for it."

      Thanks for your post Melba.

      Delete
  23. Yes... Yes she has sabatoged her study, her credentials and career...I'm sure a zoo somewhere might need a good vet so maybe not her income.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grab another burger Matt and shut up already.

      Delete
  24. Focus on the Ketchum study as "the only hope" is no longer necessary or preferred. I'd send DNA material to Sykes at Oxford at this point. Eventually other universities will come on board and pre-funded, pure academics will get involved. Melba has mishandled this one beyond repair.

    Regroup, realign and lets keep moving forward. Way too many eggs in one basket here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You act as though Sykes is going to prove Bigfeets exist. Heh heh haaaaahaaaaaaaaaa!!

      Delete
    2. Rex here again. So this fella Sykes likes feet too? I haven't seen him on my blogs. I should have know the connections since we in America shameful use the would soccer, and he's across the pond where that have it right calling it football. I can't tell you how much I enjoy anything with feet or foot in it.

      Delete
    3. Rex, you make no sense, whatsoever...you're a dumbass.

      Delete
  25. Dr. Ketchum resuts are as follows.

    Genus: Homo
    Species: sexual
    seriously, the whole thing stinks. Bigfoot is real Dr. Ketchum's results are not. Paulides, monkeymaker and others are losers too. Also the dude who thinks he's a tracker is full of it. this whole thing sounds like ''who shot JR.''. something stinks in Denmark.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Arla here - Melba was with me today, at the Bigfoot birthing station. She helped me deliver a 25 pound bouncing Babyfoot. It was a joyous occasion and we both cried. It won't be long before she has her own Bigfoot midwife license.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've heard that Bigfoot mothers keep their babies in a marsupial type pouch, is this true?
      It makes perfect sense since we never see the baby Bigfoots.

      Delete
    2. I've heard the reason why they smell bad is because they can't get wet, they also don't like bright lights it can kill them and never ever feed after midnight

      Delete
  27. melba will not make a dime until publish by a peer review journal, witch probably already past and is just
    waiting for the journal to publish it.
    there are many published articles to review
    it takes a while go through the publication phase.
    on the other end of this is moneymaker and his ape camp, He will lose so much money over this that he is trying to throw a monkey in the wrench to save his
    own vanity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And you know all this how? Melba could be making money from all kinds of places off this like tv deals, magazines, books and maybe a Lifetime movie of the week with her and her clan of Bigfoot? As for Moneymaker I don't see how he stands to loose anything they still need to find Bigfoot right? Another idiot making big claims with nothing to back it up

      Delete
  28. MM claims they are apes but by his own testimony
    they are as smart if not smarter than humans.
    he constantly contradicts himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He would still be correct, humans are apes, that is what Nadia is saying.

      Delete
    2. Hell I know people that are dumber than my dog, a lot of them post on here

      Delete
    3. Apes are smarter than some humans.

      Delete
    4. The point Nadia and other cleverpants are making is silly because no one's arguing we're not an ape or primate species ourselves, the debate is over what we'll eventually call these big guys as a label. The Matts and Fasanos of this world think they're animals (yeah we're as well technically) but it's all down to how smart the species is, if there's speech (as there is) do you think the Matts and Fasanos of this world will get very far holding on to their outdated and then disproven nonhuman favorite? Don't think so.

      Delete
  29. I like the monkey mans, they scare me and that's fun. Not as fun as a spooky haunted house, but fun still.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you like monkey mans pee pee??

      Delete
  30. Why would a reputable scientist comment on circumstances about the premature release of the abstract of an abstract without waiting to read the final paper. If you knew anything about a certain Russian scientist you would know he is a few cents short of the a dollar, especially after that recent conga line debacle, and I can see why she may have had no choice but to put the record straight. Unfortunate but what you have to do when dealing with idiots who can't keep their mouths shut.

    Anyone making comments on what is in Ketchum's paper before they have read it is simply as dumb as cat shit. The paper will stand or fall on what is in it. I have no idea what your issue is with Ketchum, Shawn, but your constant snide attacks are pretty pathetic and speak more about you than her. Intelligent people have not suspended judgement about her work because we have not seen it in detail and are not stupid enough to mouth of without seeing all the facts. Put a sock in it and wait to see the paper. Then I guess you might have to apologise, if you have the balls that is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks,so you've seen it? Massive huh!

      Delete
    2. So without even seeing it you are hinting its all true showing yourself to be the hypocritical shithead you say you despise.aha

      Delete

    3. It's true I have a massive cock.

      Delete
  31. Another two cents worth....

    And another 'expert' nails his/her colours to the mast. Welcome to agenda central.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Article is right on the money. You Go Nads!!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Is it just me or have you noticed you never see Melba Ketchum and Rick Dyer together at the same time...holy Superman Clark Kent,RUSH RULES

    ReplyDelete
  34. Let me tell you about the time I FUCKED an Ape............

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dr. Ketchum has been totally duped by the Russians.
    There is no "Center for Hominology" in Moscow. Igor Burtsev has no doctorate of any kind in USA or Russia. He's nobody but a con -man who duped Ketchum to get results so they could get Russian government acceptance and recognition. Ask Meldrum or Bindernagel about the phoney tracks planted in the Siberian cave at the Russian Conference last year.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I dоn't even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was good. I don't κnoω
    who уou aгe but сertainly yοu're going to a famous blogger if you are not already ;) Cheers!

    My site :: Same Day Payday Loans

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ӏt's appropriate time to make some plans for the future and it's
    time tο be hapρy. I have rеad this post and іf
    I could I want to ѕuggeѕt you few intеresting things or tіpѕ.
    Maybе yοu can wгite nеxt
    aгticles rеfеrring to thiѕ aгtіcle.
    I dеsіrе to read еven
    more things аbout it!

    Also visit my wеblog; New Bingo Sites

    ReplyDelete