Sunday, February 24, 2013

Breaking: Ketchum Bigfoot DNA Paper Cites Famous April Fools Literature (Update: More bad references)


Ok everyone. There's a little section in Ketchum's paper that currently citing a great scientific literature written by Milinkovitch M. C., Caccone A. & G. Amato. Ketchum's paper cites a molecular phylogenetic analyses that was done back in 1994 that sequenced 737 morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates -- proving the existence of the yeti. The sequenced yeti 12S rRNA fragment data can be found here.


Ketchum referenced the Milinkovitch paper as "circumstantial evidence of Sasquatch across the modern world for centuries" and their data is "incontrovertible proof of their existence".

There's only one problem with the paper she cited. It's a damn April Fool's joke from 2004. Apparently, the paper is well-known to many students and it is often brought up as one of the best known April Fool's jokes in research literature. The Universite De Geneve wrote an article titled, "The Yeti DNA sequenced" stating that the paper was obviously an attempt at humor:

"The study reported in this article represents scientifically rigorous assessment of conflict between the published morphological characters and newly obtained molecular characters for species of questionable validity. More significantly, however, this study indicates that evolutionary biologists need to retain sense of humor in their efforts to reconstruct phylogenetic relationships."

Don't believe us? Go read about it for yourself: http://www.lanevol.org/LANE/yeti.html

Here's a link to the paper: http://www.lanevol.org/LANE/yeti_files/yeti_1st_April_MPE_2004.pdf


[Update] Apparently, there's more bad references to other hoax/joke pieces mentioned in Ketchum's article:

6. Coltman, D and Davis, C. Molecular cryptozoology meets the Sasquatch. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 21:60–61. (2006)
9. Lozier, J D, Aniello, P and Hickerson, M J. Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modeling. Journal of Biogeography 36:1623–1627. (2009)

[Thanks to everyone for the heads up.]

128 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. The last we hear from Ketchum, you mean.

      Delete
    2. Only a dick would defile first with a last. At least use a Rush out of respect.

      Delete

    3. The last nail has just dropped into place, I call for a senate enquiry, stat.

      Delete
    4. You have made a mockery of this hallowed institution of respected honor with your "last' comment. Good day, sir.

      Delete
    5. I got a chuckle out of this quote.


      "justin Smeja is identified in the Acknowledgements, as having collected sample(s?), but his name does not appear on that table #4 that lists all the samples. Its almost like they tried to scrub reference of him from the paper, use another sample to cover over his, but apparently was unable to figure out how to use the search feature of MS Word to assure his name was completely removed!"

      Delete
    6. I agree. Shawn needs to repost this so someone can say first! We have traditions here! There is a coward among us and he must be found out and removed from this glorious blog!

      Delete
    7. SHAWN IS A BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Sunday, February 24, 2013 at 6:34:00 PM PST

      I HAVEN'T READ THE DR.KETCHUM PAPER TO SEE IF THIS IS TRUE AND LIE'S HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED HERE BEFORE. HOW CAN I VERIFY THIS INFO WITHOUT THE ORIGINAL PAPER TO READ MYSELF. BEING YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE READ IT AND POSTED THIS WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO SAY ABOUT THE REST OF THE PAPER. TO ME YOU PERPETRATE A FRUAD YOURSELF AND MAKE SHIT UP. GIVE US THE 411 ON DR.KETCHUM'S PAPER. IF YOU CAN EVEN READ THAT GOOD!

      Delete
    8. ^Butthurt Melba worshiper^

      Has a Melba shrine in his bedroom.

      Delete

    9. I know, I know, I am just another anony but I do have an abstract of the paper and it is true, it is there in black and white.

      Delete
    10. She humiliated everyone for the money. She never cared about discovery from the beginning. I have never felt so betrayed in my life.

      Delete
    11. Wow! Watch out we have a believer 6:34 losing their shit! Going over the edge because the fantasy is caving in. If you want to read the paper go buy it!

      Delete

    12. I am not sure why I am doing this but what the hell here are some responses to the joke paper :

      ✓Dear Michel. Thanks very much for this. When you finally find positive genetic evidence for the yeti, please consider Nature! We have a strong record in cryptozoology: see for example Anon., ‘Naming the Loch Ness monster’, Nature 258, 466-468 (1975). All best. H. Henry Gee (Editor at Nature, London, UK)
      ✓Dear Dr Milinkovitch. It is with a very great pleasure that I have read your enlightening study in MPEV (Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensivemorphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates) although slightly disturbed by the results you obtained. I am presently finishing my PhD on phylogenetic relationship of yetis, sasquatches and the likes using stool DNA. I have also developed microsatellites for this group. My results (soon to be published) clustered the yeti with a residual group of primates: The Flammishs. Therefore, I am exhilaratingly happy to have the pleasure to submit to you my application for a post-doc in your lab. We could also collaborate on my review: "How to get famous in Science when you didn't make it with magic bacterias or by hiring the prettiest blond PhD student in the world". Congratulations ! Hope to hear from you again ! Séb. Sébastien Regnaut (Dpt Ecologie et Evolution, Université de Lausane)
      ✓Hallo guys! I read your hilarious paper !! A lot of fun ! I told my wife your conclusions and she told me that if you really want to understand what convergence means you should study some of my hair.............I didn't get it........... ciao. Gabriele. Gabriele Gentile (University Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy)
      ✓I loved your Yetti paper! A true masterpiece! Why can't more people have a sense of humor in science? Allan Lemmon (Univ. Texas, USA)
      ✓Michel, I read with great interest your recent and fascinating report on the Yeti! Clearly a cautionary tale for all evolutionary biologists who are quick to assert relationships based upon dubious and convergent characteristics. It actually is very timely, as I wanted to ask you about a collaborative venture. As you are well aware, there is a very strange mammal in the high plains of Wyoming that is small with long ears and legs, a short tail, and hops around. It also has antlers. It is called a jackalope. There has been much debate as to whether it is more closely allied with the jack-rabbits or the antelope. You interested in putting this controversy to rest? :-) Dean.
      P.S. Seriously, I did enjoy the paper, and it is good to see that not all scientists have lost their sense of humor! I hope all is well for you. Dean C. Adams (Iowa State University, USA)

      Delete
    13. Shawn is making crap up now . If you silly enough to believe this anti-Ketchum stuff then you're just plain stupid.

      Delete
    14. Shawn is making it up? Lol. You my friend have egg all down your face.

      Delete
    15. Searching the PDF of the paper from the link provided on this blog a few days ago, I find this reference:

      5. Milinkovitch, M C, Caccone, A and Amato, G. Molecular phylogenetic analyses 737 indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates.

      I can only think that Ketchum intended the entire study and follow up releases (video etc.) to be an April Fools joke to be announced April 1, a hoax.

      I doubt she unknowningly referenced this paper; I think, if she did reference it in the original paper, it's a hint to readers that the entire thing is an April Fools joke.

      But I have seen only this second hand version of the paper via the link provided here the other day. This version doesn't contain any illustrations or images.

      I don't know if the $30 download version has this April Fools reference.

      If so, it's hard to believe five years was spent on an April Fools joke.

      Of course whether Ketchum is for real or not has no bearing on whether or not Sasquatch is real. Whatever Ketchum does, if a joke, doesn't have any effect on what really is or isn't out there.

      Delete
    16. The original makes no reference! Their is BS versions out there.

      Delete

    17. Unfortunately it is not the only "tongue in cheek" paper that is cited :

      http://www.qc.cuny.edu/Academics/Degrees/DMNS/Faculty%20Documents/Hickerson2.pdf

      Delete
    18. Its her first paper, so you have to expect things like this. She will improve. The next paper, which proves that dogmen are hybrids of crack whores and trust fund fraternity pledges wasted on grain alcohol, is flawless. Turns out they are a type of people...

      Delete
    19. This reference is totally bullshit! Shawn are you grasping at straws to discount Melba? Have a field day sceptics and magic monkey freak because this is as dumb as your horse braiding crap and bagel nonsense! This site sucks! And yes I'm Mad Bro!

      Delete
    20. The horse braiding crap was varified by Melba wasn't it? Isn't the blueberry bagel listed in the study too?

      Delete
    21. It's the last straw for BE/TT now resorting to this crap because they're nothing but fakers, every day on this blog is proof they're bias government agents most likely they knew Ketchum craked this mystery long ago they're fevershly trying every trick to ridicule her to no use of course because DNA doesn't lie which is why the have to keep the smearing going. Mainstream science is one big fake machine a tool to protect the ordinary citizen.

      Delete
  2. If she is willing to cite an April Fools Day joke and lie about a bear sample being from a Homo sapiens subspecies, then she was obviously willing to lie about the true origin of the samples.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly! She is obviously no professional and really anything else she says is just a joke

      Delete

    2. I get the feeling this was more sloppy research did she research this or did she have researchers, either way it demonstrates a gross lack of diligence for whom the bell tolls.

      Delete
    3. Shawn,
      I know many people are upset with your findings regarding this article, but I for one commend you on a job well done!

      This woman is a FRAUD!

      Shawn,you are one of many who have helped to expose her BS for what it truly is. Many are upset, and in denial because she has lied to them, and ripped them off, however, deep, deep, down I would hope that they come to their senses and realize this!
      WAKE UP PEOPLE!
      She is playing you (her remaining supporters) for fools!

      I was a supporter a few days ago... BUT NO MORE I SAY!

      SHE DEFILES THE GROUND SHE WALKS ON!!!!!!

      Delete
    4. Beat it agenda trolls we know the denying liars are you haunting this blog with your inane 24/7 patroling that nobody but you read anyway, every sane person saw through your game from the get go.

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. Nadia Moore yes, whoever the fuck she is.

      Delete
  4. Well, that should be the final nail in the coffin for Ketchum's credibility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and it better be! Bring on Dr. Sykes!

      Delete

    2. Do not trust to hope as hope as forsaken these lands.

      Delete

    3. Actually I am not a skeptard but when the flood comes you can only swim against the current so long, I tried I really did.

      Delete
    4. What Jay you naive sucker you think Sykes is gonna find your magic ape for you? He won't for the simple fact bigfoot's not an ape now go pray to your unholy god Saint Jeffrey again.

      Delete
  5. She is a great American scientist and a revolutionary!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'A sort of enormous monkey with a head like a coconut.'

      Delete
    2. Her monkey friends will rip your face off, be careful what you say.

      Delete
  6. Take pride in your double wide.

    ReplyDelete
  7. BFF wiil still try to find a way to put lipstick on this pig.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No way. They're throwing in the towel.

      Unless...maybe sasquatch is a centaur?

      Delete
    2. ^^or a really big leprechaun.

      Delete
    3. Or a big fat basement-dwelling skeptard about to break out and make it to the trailer park, if he can.

      Go skeptard, go!

      Delete
    4. You know at some point Mr. Skeptard guy, unless you've got a dead Bigfoot at home you're gonna have to admit defeat :) You've got no empirical evidence whatsoever so who is the real tard?

      Delete
  8. Can you footers stop making it so easy for us to make fun of you, its getting boring now

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The footers put all of their eggs in one gifting basket...so to speak.

      Delete
    2. Can you sceptards stop making it so easy for the footers to scoff at you, by claiming you are backpeddling in circles on your invisible bicycles while at the same time claiming there is no bigfoot full stop?

      No? Oh, okay, go right ahead then! It's fun!

      Delete
    3. You are a complete moron and if I had an invisible bicycle I'd shove it up your ass

      Delete
    4. ^ Skeptard enjoying a night out for cheap crow in the back alleys of Deny City.

      Delete
  9. Oh Mulder I can hear your crying
    You're so scared and all alone.

    Melba's paper's headed for the gallows
    and you don't have very long.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm sure Mulder has a very clear and concise explanation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The words clear and concise are something Mulder aspires to.

      So far he has failed and is stuck at the tatertunes level.

      Delete
    2. Nope he's won each and every time over you squatch deniers.

      Delete
  11. Seems the credit for blowing the whistle belongs to the Jrefers.

    http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/02/ketchum-uses-april-fools-paper-as-reference/

    ReplyDelete
  12. We still have thousands of eyewitness reports and lots of prints so suck it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are a type of person.

      Delete
    2. Thousands of eye witness reports mean squat as for footcastings what do they really prove? That someone can make big looking foot prints quite easily! Body, tissue, limbs or live specimen or it ain't real!

      Delete
    3. 10 foot/800 pound apes can be hard to find. Especially when they are magical.

      Delete
    4. If by magical you mean figment of your imagination, yes you are correct

      Delete
    5. Yes those hoaxers are expert at carving dermal ridges in their phony feet. You guessed it! Oh yes, they spend six months per foot, no lie!

      Did you ride your invisible bicycle today, 7:11? Gosh you seem just awful bright, awful bright.

      Oooh.

      Tard on, baby, tard on.

      Delete
    6. You have no evidence at all it exists and no PGF doesn't count and neither does your plaster cast feet. I've not got PGFitis either before you start with that crap, we're the tards but you're incapable of out debating us so you just make the same trolly believer comments post after post. You look like a moron to everyone believers and non-believers.

      Delete
    7. ^ who's side is this guy on? I have no freakin idea?

      Delete
    8. why would he be on this blog? because he's believes in bigfoot

      Delete
    9. Thats right we do And I have some and The Patterson Film to me is the BEST and ONLY BEST video evidence along with the Prints that Jeff Meldrum has analyzed and the film being studied by Bill Munns and I believe there studies and there points, they believe its real and SO DO I. ( Ceo & founder of the E.C.B.R.O. ) on Facebook and at www.ecbrorganization.com

      Delete
  13. The obsessed JREF buttplugs are going bonkers over this story. They're even calling Sykes a heretic for lending his expertise to the study just in case he claims to find Bigfoot DNA. When he finds nothing they'll call him a hero. Intellectual dishonesty at it's finest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you keep posting this over and over and what's with this constant JREF hate? Didn't you get enough hugs as a child?

      Delete
    2. I don't know 7:24 but the problem with the skeptards is that they were fawned over and told they were "gifted" since about age eight.

      That creates a kind of Frankenstein's Monster of a child who grows up expecting all to serve him or her, and when they don't, massive upset, tantrums, attacks, and insults start to fly.

      I don't think little skeptards should be told they are gifted, especially when they usually aren't.

      Delete
    3. And you are gifted at what? Trolling? You're not even good at that and no one even finds you amusing.

      Delete
    4. Sykes may find primate dna in samples from the Himalayas. All hell will break loose. Imagine if yetis exist and are eventually discovered but bigfoots do not. Whoa. "There are no such things as bigfoots, you gullible bleever". "How can you claim that when yet'is exist and the straight was frozen over, skeptard".
      We would never get anywhere,forever and ever!! On second thought, that may be the case already...

      Delete
    5. "Imagine if" I squeeze enough. Pixie dust out of a Pixies ass, I would be able to fly around the world!! "Imagine if" I find the end of a rainbow, I would be rich beyond belief! Just "Imagine IF"

      Delete
    6. Just one of these beings proven real anywhere in the world and it's all over for the skeptards, it already is of course, with the Ketchum study proving it they're just slow to digest the reality it hasn't quite sunken in yet.

      Delete
  14. Who the hell is in that picture is what I would like to know!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It appears to be the Dalai Lama checking out some ridiculous yeti exhibit at a freak show museum.

      Delete
  15. Would Ketchum and her followers prefer their Crow roasted or boiled?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm up for some skinned, roasted, flayed, boiled skeptard. Mmmm I'm hungry. Yum.

      Tard on, baby, tard on.

      Delete
    2. No I wasn't, but now, are you sure you would like to know, "bro"?

      Delete
    3. Obviously the government knew her results were good and would be released, so they had to create a blog like this to ridicule it. The secret intelligence imbeciles commenting here are payed to it's their new life for as long as it'll last, no ordinary person spend this much time writing the same shit over and over unless for an agenda.

      Delete

  16. http://www.lanevol.org/LANE/yeti_files/yeti_1st_April_MPE_2004.pdf

    The study reported here represents a scientifically rigorous
    assessment of conflict between the published morphological characters
    and newly obtained molecular characters for a species of questionable
    validity. More significantly, however, this study indicates that evolutionary
    biologists need to retain a sense of humor in their efforts to
    reconstruct phylogenetic relationships. Happy April Fool s Day!

    Think about who it is April Fools for.
    Its a Joke ON Evolutionary Biologists

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I knew there would be another side. Thank you.

      Delete
    2. It's a joke FOR evolutionary biologists. So Cathiee what's with all that Second Life porn stuff that you do?

      Delete
    3. Thank you Cathy. I am not ashamed to admit I've been crying since that cad Mr.Smeja launched that treacherous attack on Dr. Ketchum. Do you have carnal relations with sensitive gentlemen..,?

      Delete
    4. Well all her second life porn seems to be girl on girl so maybe you might be outta luck there friend! Lol

      Delete
  17. Granted she put a reference to a bogus paper. But where does it says the paper specifically say the 'bogus' paper is "incontrovertible proof of their existence" OR "circumstantial evidence of Sasquatch across the modern world for centuries". It's only mentioned the introduction of the paper, which you can read for yourselves, below. Again not trying to negate the fact she referenced a a april fools joke, and there are things Melba does which I don't agree with. however let's not make stuff up which make ourselves look like fools as well.

    90 The above commonly reported traits, as well as other scientific evidence lending credence to the
    91 existence of Sasquatch, have been thoroughly researched and documented in both books and in
    92 peer reviewed manuscripts.4-13 Although there have been thousands of sightings, footprint casts
    93 and other circumstantial evidence of Sasquatch across the modern world for centuries,
    94 incontrovertible proof of their existence has been elusive. The failure to present a deceased
    95 individual or skeletal remains has exacerbated scientific skepticism towards the circumstantial
    96 evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just put up the same. Did not realize you had too. At least someone else caught it.

      Delete
    2. Well done gentlemen! Turn about is fair play and we will not let those scoundrels sully this monumental breakthrough. Let us celebrate with a hearty meal and circle jerk to a photograph of the good doctor. Shall we...

      Delete
    3. 92 peer reviewed manuscripts.


      Wrong, untrue, no peer-review papers of BFs anywhere. Not even hers.

      Delete
  18. you can't make a silk purse out this sow's ear

    ReplyDelete
  19. She'll be dating Lance Armstrong soon.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Talk about taking things out of context. Here is the section above and below the "quote" posted here.


    "These putative hominins are reported to walk bipedally in a linear manner that is distinct from
    humans (Figure 2). Eyewitnesses report that the Sasquatch are 8 to 12 feet in height, are covered
    in hair with arms longer than those of modern humans and possess sloped anterior craniums with
    short, thick cervical regions reminiscent of Neanderthals. Eyewitness accounts also describe an
    opposable thumb with hands and feet that are large in comparison to body size.

    The above commonly reported traits, as well as other scientific evidence lending credence to the
    existence of Sasquatch, have been thoroughly researched and documented in both books and in
    peer reviewed manuscripts.4-13 Although there have been thousands of sightings, footprint casts
    and other circumstantial evidence of Sasquatch across the modern world for centuries,
    incontrovertible proof of their existence has been elusive. The failure to present a deceased
    individual or skeletal remains has exacerbated scientific skepticism towards the circumstantial
    evidence."

    No where in the paper does she make any claim that the April fools joke is legit. She just references it like the Epic of Gilgamesh and Daniel Boone. Since the joke discusses the appearance of yeti etc, she is supporting the claims of size etc. She even specifically says "incontrovertibal proof has been elusive". She uses no data from that joke to support her data that I could find.

    It is obvious now that this blog has turned into total crap. Instead of letting the data get tested and either rejected or accepted it goes out of the way to kiss the asses of skeptics knowing that they have run out most of the believers and account for 90% of the hits on the blog. Flavor of the month and who ever gets the most clicks gets bowed to. So when or if the paper gets accepted or the Skyes study supports bigfoot, will you put out stuff to satisfy the believers? Problem is most of us have left. So instead of trying to be nonbiased and letting the blog live forever, you have effectively killed it with slow poison. BFE blogspot will be dead by end of the year. What a farce. And I truly feel bad as this was once a great site for debating bigfoot where we had free reign on both sides.

    And it is extremely hypocritical to trash someone charging for a paper when you post crap only to generate hits. Especially when almost every paper charges for copies. Most way more than this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Big Jim you speak the truth! This site is looking for money and they know skeptics post 20 to 1 on this site. Most Footers read and avoid the conflict. It's become a tabloid or like Fox news. Taking fiction and passing it off as truth. There is good reason that serious Footers like Randels and Jevning don't comment on here but rather idiots like Rictor and Lindsay!

      Delete
    2. At some point Big Jim you've got to think that the study sounds a little flawed at best. Come on the reason why there's so much about this paper is because everyone's been waiting for it for a long time and it's ended up being a farce at best and at worst possibly a way to defraud Wally and the Bigfoot crowd. She's full of it Big Jim and her not realising her data is a serious moot point because then the jig is up and the long con ends. I think a lot of people saw this coming and what Smeja said the other day just reinforced it and that wasn't something he made up now to discredit her but he all but said it last year when Curtino did independent testing. The woman is toxic and will join the big list of fakes and phoneys.

      Delete
    3. ^ drinking the kool aid.

      Delete
    4. Oh wow. I got a shout out. Hey Lindsay, we fucking rule! Party on Wayne!

      Delete
    5. Yeah you two can play hide the sausage! ^

      Delete
    6. More bad language by Rictor! Kids read this site you Moron!

      Delete
    7. Whew! Thanks BigJim! I'm back on the Melba bandwagon now.

      Although that seems to change every 12 hours

      Delete
    8. Did you ever think that making any references to these papers by Melba could be mocking all of you footers? The paper that Shawn's article is about was an April Fools and according to Doubtful News it even has a horse reference (Melba was apparently involved somehow maybe getting cups of coffee or whatever in mapping the horse genome) not only that but the horse comment is a quote from the famous explorer Capt. Haddock, from Tintin :)

      Delete
    9. Big Jim, I wish that you hadn't wasted all of your apologist passion on Melba. There are much better researchers to whom you should devote such efforts. Because you are dedicated to the cause quite fervently, it saddens me that your often persuasive arguments have been severely undermined by this growing disaster. I understand the difficulty in being forced to admit to a gross error, but sometimes that course is preferable to one that will result in the complete loss of credibility.

      Delete
    10. Jim,
      The mere fact that she cites Milinkovitch et al's paper as a serious study is bad enough. If, as you suggest, she's citing to it to support claims in re: Bigfoot's physical characteristics, that's even worse. Moreover, this isn't the only such joke she cites.

      Delete
    11. 92 peer reviewed manuscripts.

      she cites to the fake papers to support this statement, which is untrue.

      Delete
    12. Actually, Sharon Hill posted this first...go to her blog http://wp.me/p21oZP-5Gz

      Delete
    13. Wow are you desperate? She clearly lists the papers as "researching and documenting evidence leading credance to bigfoot". She doesn't even mention that the studies found the so-called bigfoot hairs were actually horse and bison hair. (the science behind the papers are real, its just the way they were written was tongue-in-cheek).

      Delete
    14. @11:14, I really hope you're joking, but that 92 is a line number, not the number of manuscripts. Notice how there's a 91 right above it and a 93 right below it?

      Delete
    15. 8:40 nailed it and its so plane as day after Smejas recording and what we've seen here. I was one who wondered why Cutino seemed to have it in for Ketchum and was going against the OP line. Based on her paper, smejas video which was very convincing... Though im not convinced he shot bigfoots... The crazy switching samples claim, i understand where those guys were coming from now. Kudos to Cutino & Hugins for the testing and most of all transparency.

      Delete
  21. The reference is total crap. Shawn is spreading shit and sceptics eat this stuff up like candy!

    ReplyDelete
  22. An update to the Doubtful News blog now states that she cited three papers that were written in jest.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "currently citing a great scientific literature"

    What does that exactly mean Shawn?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I've seen bigfoot riding a donkey ...there might be something more to this?
    Archaic humans (probably) did more than just braid horse mane.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Are the numerous references in the paper to sasquatch being able to emit mental energy blasts also a joke? I am curious what Dr. Ketchum has to say about bigfoot's mind powers. I have heard that Dr. Ketchum and Robyn Lynn Forrestpeople regularly interact with these creatures. Indeed, Dr. Ketchum purports to be in some sort of telepathic communion with the creatures.

    Has this aspect of the sasquatch research literature been discussed in detail anywhere? As someone of an armchair telekinetic myself, I am quite curious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your question is valid and it should be asked when she lectures on her work.... atleast that is what normal reseachers/scientist do, isn't it????? I'm sure she would be happy to entertain a real lecture at one of the prestine universities she sites in her paper!!

      Delete