Robert Lindsay: Dr. Melba Ketchum Bigfoot DNA paper is good


Blogger Robert Lindsay has read Dr. Melba Ketchum's entire 63 page Bigfoot DNA paper. Lindsay isn't a geneticist, but he has done a great job at breaking things down for the Layman. Although it may appear that Ketchum has completely botched the paper, Lindsay believes the attacks are uncalled-for and everyone should take a closer look, and see that Ketchum may be onto something, and she may in fact, be the 'sacrificial lamb' for proving the existence of Bigfoot. "Our pain is her pain. Our torture is her torture. She took our pain and made it hers so we wouldn't have to suffer it too," writes Lindsay.
Lindsay wrote the the following piece on his blog:
Is Ketchum the What does he think? He says it's good, and from the sound of it, he believes

I have now read a bootleg copy of the 63 page paper. At the same time, I obtained a number of supplementary charts, graphs and whatnot that go along with the paper.

The paper is good. I like it a lot. I thought she did an excellent job on it. It is also very well written. The conclusions are as we discussed earlier on this blog. The MtDNA is human, and the NuDNA is some sort of a subhuman hominid.

Particularly interesting were the extreme measures taken to guard against contamination of the DNA with human DNA by handlers and other animal DNA. There was no DNA from any other known animals present in any of the samples. None of the samples had any human DNA contamination that would explain the results. The samples were very, very pure DNA, purer than one usually gets from humans.

The MtDNA results, while human, were odd, with some SNP’s and other variations not present in any known human samples. The NuDNA samples were very odd, with a combination of human and subhuman DNA of a very novel type. Many NuDNA genes had SNP’s far in excess of the known human standard. Further, the NuDNA codes far away from any known humans on this Earth. In distance from humans, it is further away than Neandertal and even from Denisovans. This implies a split in the NuDNA line of possibly up to 1 million years ago.

The NuDNA results look nothing at all like what one would get from human contamination. The paper goes to great lengths to rule that out and explain the reasoning behind it. Nor are the NuDNA results what one would expect based on contamination with known animals. The paper also explains that very well.

Nor were the samples degraded. Degraded DNA has a particular appearance to it that this DNA lacked. Ketchum utilized a degraded human DNA control to test her sequences against it.

One geneticist said that the results look like what you might get if the sequences failed to amplify well. Ketchum explains in the paper that she had a great deal of difficulty getting the sequences to amplify with many failures to amplify, partial amplifications and whatnot. This is because the primers she was using were designed for humans. She had to utilize next generation, very modern and cutting edge sequencing methods to get this very interesting DNA to amplify at all. Whether the results can be explained by “failure to amplify well” is not something I am capable of commenting on.

Another geneticist said that the odd results including the bizarre mixture of single and double strand DNA (apparently not seen in any other known species) can be explained by artifacts of the testing process. I am not competent to comment on that. Apparently this very odd looking DNA (when observed under electron microscope) is what people were talking about when they said that the DNA was from aliens or angels or was “not of this Earth.” Wally Hersom and David Paulides have been very big on this explanation. Surely, this bizarre DNA is very odd, but Bigfoots are very odd creatures. It’s certainly possible that they might have a novel DNA structure.

Other attacks on the paper is much sillier. Most center around the notion that Bigfoots are apes and therefore they could not breed with humans. But Ketchum’s paper states emphatically that Bigfoots are not apes. They are hominids, probably Homo Heidelbergensis. Obviously another hominid could have bred with humans.

Another compliant is that Melba has not uploaded her sequences to GenBank yet. But apparently she is waiting to do just that.

I do not feel that this paper is a failure at all. What is occurring is what I predicted would occur. The scientific community refuses to accept the existence of this very real species, and they refuse to accept this DNA evidence for that reason. I have been predicating for a long time now that science would not accept the DNA evidence no matter how good it was.

Is it possible that Melba botched the paper and screwed up her proof of Bigfoot? We all know that she had real Bigfoot samples she was dealing with in the study, so all that remained was for her to successfully isolate the DNA and then prove that it was from Bigfoots and not something else. I feel that she did this, but I am not a geneticist. But perhaps she did botch it. I don’t have the expertise to make that determination.

Much has been made of the fact that Melba published in her own journal. However, she did say that it passed peer review in a journal called the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology. However, Melba stated that the journal’s attorneys said that if they published the paper, it would destroy the journal’s reputation, so they said they would not publish it. Melba responded by purchasing the journal and renaming it DeNovo Journal.

Melba describes in detail her tribulations at the altar of modern science. Many journals refused to even so much as look at her paper. Others leaked the names of her peer reviewers and did all sorts of unethical things. This is what Melba has been putting up with for 16 months now at the hands of the “scientific community.” They simply flat out refuse to believe that her findings are true, so they won’t even read or pass via review her paper no matter how valid her findings are.

Given these circumstances and the fact that she did finally pass review at an obscure journals, Melba was right and proper to purchase the journal named above when even it refused to publish her findings despite passing them via review. She did the right thing. The findings are correct, Bigfoots exist, and Melba has proven it in my opinion. This information had to get out to the public, and she persevered and did the right thing.

I think the community should all get behind Melba right now, whatever her moral failings. She has been up there on the cross suffering for all of us, for our entire community, for 16 months now, while the legions of science poked her with their lances and jeered at her. She did it for us. She suffered for all of us. All of the pain we all suffer from skeptics – she took all of our pain and bundled it up for us into one giant mass and took it up there with her on the cross of Bigfootery, where she been slowly dying, being tortured to death, for over a year now. Our pain is her pain. Our torture is her torture. She took our pain and made it hers so we wouldn’t have to suffer it too.

This whole episode has been very hard on Melba. You can see it in her face and hear it in her voice. She says if she had to do it over again, she wouldn’t do it. But she did it. She took it on the chin for us all, falling on the grenade so we might live. And how many of us have her back? Basically none of us.
[via Robert Lindsay]

Comments

  1. Replies
    1. I think she should add him as her new press person along with Paulides.

      Delete
    2. Didn't bother reading it and I can tell you for a fact the paper is nonsense. I can also tell you that bigfoot does not exist. That's not an opinion folks that 100% fact.

      Shame on you if you bought the paper.

      Delete
    3. Ah! A breakthrough! Where did you get your 100% fact? Let's spread the word of your iron-clad proof!

      Delete
    4. Yes! Melba's paper was a let-down because she made definitive claims without backing it up with verifiable science.
      But Annony's got proof of his claim for us, right? He wouldn't say that just based on opinion...

      Delete
    5. Lindsay also has this breaking news on his post!

      "Amazing story that is just breaking right now. Smeja is the man who shot and killed two Bigfoots in the Sierra Nevadas of California in 2010. A source has informed me that Melba asked Smeja to tamper with his sample after she realized that she was not going to get anyone of it. She had been bothering him for all of his sample for some time.

      No one knows why she wanted all of the sample, but the folks around Smeja thought she wanted it so that no one would be able to replicate her results. When Justin refused to hand over the remains of what he had, Melba told him over the phone to tamper with the sample. Several people were in the room when she said that, and they all heard her make that statement.

      It’s not known why she wanted Justin to mess with his sample or how she wanted him to tamper with it. One theory was that by tampering with it, it would make the sample, possibly not from a Bigfoot, appear to come from a Bigfoot. But that does not seem to be possible. How do you tamper with a piece of bear meat to make it look like it came from a Bigfoot?"

      Delete
    6. What a surprise get all the evidence so no one can contradict you, Smeja hinted at something like this last year when he and Curtino did they're own study. She is playing you all for suckers.

      Delete
    7. Reading Lindsay's writing is like reading an 8th grade term paper destined for a failing grade. God, it's painful. The grammatical errors are egregious, the mixed metaphors hysterical. I wasn't aware grenades existed in Jesus' time; nor that he ever threw himself upon one for ours sins. Complete facepalm.

      Delete

    8. I like a man who can mix his metaphors with impunity it's so funny.

      Delete
    9. Here is more of his bullshit on "Matilda."

      "Matilda is an adolescent female Bigfoot that was part of the Erickson Project. She, her mother and her father were residing in the woods near a property on Mann Road in Crittenden, Kentucky. She was filmed as part of the study, and in addition, blood and tissue from her fingers was obtained and tested as part of the DNA paper. This was obtained by super-gluing glass shards to a paper plate and then putting food on it. Matilda went for the food and cut the tips of her fingers on the glass. Amazing she still came back around for more pancakes after that.

      Later in the study, Matilda become pregnant and then had a little baby Bigfoot. It’s not known who the Mack Daddy was who knocked her up, but it was probably not her father as it is hypothesized that Bigfoots have an incest taboo. Probably the presence of a curvaceous, hormonal, nubile, boy-crazed teenage Bigfoot hottie in the woods attracted some Bigfoot gangsta G who homed in on the hairy teen sexpot and knocked her up.

      The 18 second video is only part of a longer 6 minute video. At the end of the video, Matilda wakes up.

      There is indeed another video of Matilda walking towards the camera. Matilda has small, “perky,” uplifted breasts that are typical for adolescent female Bigfoots. As you can tell from the Patterson footage, as Bigfoot chicks age, they get a serious case of the sags. Fans of 1970′s porn will be happy to see Matilda, as unlike most young women these days, she refuses to shave even in the slightest.

      In the video, the wary and wily feral teen then spots the camerawoman. Upon spotting the human, the defiant teen Bigfoot snarls and growls at the camera, then turns and walks away. When she growls, the hairy hottie reveals black gums and two long fanged incisors. I knew teenage girls were snotty little brats, but this is taking things to a new low. That beats Mean Girls by far!"

      Delete
    10. Robert Lindsay makes me want to take a shower with bleach and a wire brush.

      Delete
    11. I am going to wait until some real geneticist's review the paper. I dont want to hear from "often wrong" Lindsay or Ketchum's hand picked people goofballls

      Delete
    12. Stranger danger! Stranger danger!

      Delete
    13. How many of you think that Lindsay knows how to review a DNA paper?

      Delete
    14. I am waiting for the HAND PICKED by Ketchum science team to give an honest and independent review.

      Delete
    15. UTTERLY IDIOTIC SKEPTARD AT 6 00Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 9:02:00 AM PST

      Anon 6:00:

      Speaking of egregious grammatical errors:

      "I wasn't aware grenades existed in Jesus' time; nor that he ever threw himself upon one for ours sins. Complete facepalm."

      Congratulations skeptard: Your pasage there contains one misuse of the semicolon, one misspelling, and one incomplete sentence (you have another incomplete sentence earlier in your comment).

      You have four mistakes in one short comment attacking the quality of another's writing. That's a good one.

      Skeptard, if you are going to dish it out, by God you are going to take it.

      Next time make sure your critique of another's writing doesn't contain the same mistakes as the writing you are attacking.

      That's a typical hypocritical skeptard. An expert in hypocrisy, trying to have his/her cake and eat it too, and a spoiled brat who was told as a child he/she was "gifted".

      Tard on, skeptard, tard on.

      Delete
    16. UTTERLY IDIOTIC SKEPTARD AT 6 00Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 9:04:00 AM PST

      Make that "passage", and two misspellings, five mistakes.

      Delete
    17. I dont have a lot of time today: I bought and read the paper and will respect Melba not to discuss it specifically....but her paper was rejected because her science and standards are not typical research...they are forensically derived. There is a difference and you gullible fools will see when sykes or Disotell guts her findings

      Delete
  2. Hey Raging Skeptard guy, you've got Lindsay on your side. Congratulations!

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's a little strange that on the one hand Lindsay says it's a good paper, but on the other can't address some of the criticisms because he is not a geneticist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He is full of bullshit. His blog is for creative writing, and has no inside information. I can't believe there are still statements made by him posted to this blog.

      Delete
    2. But listening to and supporting that drooling maniac SWP instead is okay? Lindsay's been right before and he's right again here, like him or not, but that's just typical for this socalled community they don't like those really in the know because it threatens the fantastic aspects of this subject and jeopardizes the whole imaginary search. Once it's solved it's all over for most of the foot clowns and they fear that.

      Delete
    3. Just more evidence that he is not the genius that he claims to be.

      Delete
  4. Let's just shoot one and put all the b.s. to rest... Good grief.... Anybody got a .50 caliber rifle?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Idiot, it's already been done numerous times nothing good comes of it because people will either try to exploid it or hide it.

      Delete
    2. yeah right!...thats why we haven't obtained a body by now.

      Delete
    3. Funny how the commenter above lobs the insult "idiot", then spells exploit wrong. Typical of this site and the uneducated jackasses who post here. Shawn, you must be so proud of the readership you've managed to attract.

      Delete
    4. Shawn doesn't care, he probably won't even see it, he aims for the web hits.

      Delete
    5. Club it. Club and club it again and again until it lies shapeless and lifeless, a bloody mess.

      Delete
  5. How do we prove their existence when video is no good, film is no good, pictures are no good, now DNA is no good.... I'm sorry but the skeptics won... I hate them

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nah, all you listed there is good and can be excellent proof like the DNA's been in this case. Real problem is three-fold though: mass media, authorities and mainstream science all in cahoots against it fighting it like mad rabbits.

      Delete
    2. This blog is perfect for skeptics. It is their one-stop shopping for Bigfoot Bullshit. Who do they post as the two big experts on bigfoot genetics? A creative writer and a lab tech.

      Delete
    3. How do people think they can understand genetics when they aren't even bright enough to Google the word "skeptic"?

      Delete
    4. Actually, no one can tell if the DNA is any good in this case - Melba has refused to upload the DNA to Genbank, which would allow scientists all over the world to examine it and determine if it's legit or hoax.

      Delete
  6. In the movie "Predator" why wasn't Billy's death shown? There was only a scream off camera. At least when Apollo Creed was killed, the audience saw his arm get severed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously,the fight seen between the Predator and Billy was so horrific,so damn brutal,and shocking in its primal blood lust,the producers understood that showing such a thing,to some people,may induce shock,or an extreme rage that endangers other movie goers. Lol

      Delete
    2. I love the bit when Carl Weathers gets shot and loses his arm! He screams shooting off his MP5 and the camera pans round him and you can see his real arm (the one that's supposed to be shot off) behind his back! Classic! Pity about the terrible Aliens vs Predator movies way to ruin two franchises.

      Delete
    3. Remember, if it bleeds you can kill it.

      Delete
    4. Club it like a baby seal! Club it like a baby squatch!

      Delete
  7. Well RL isn't going to give up on it just yet, is he? He's become a big name in the BF community off the back of the study so he's going to ride the Ketchum wave for as long as possible. It gives him something to do I guess...

    I love the fact that Ketchum has admitted she didn't have any "top level" scientists on her paper and that she lied about it being on GenBank! Who needs credibility anyway?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where and when she "admitted" and "lied", Mark?

      Delete
    2. Nowhere, it's just Limey Marky lying again because Ketchum's proven something he doesn't like the results of.

      Delete
    3. UK ftw.

      USA = overweight McDonalds addicts

      Delete
    4. Sounds like a mcjelousy issue. Lmao

      Delete
    5. An admission in the fact that she doesn't regard the scientists she authored with as "top".

      I'll quote the study "...sequences were not able to be uploaded to a GenBank® because of their lack of taxon according to GenBank personnel". This is wrong. Untrue. So, this is a made up excuse (a lie) or she is so ill-informed that she didn't know what she was doing.

      Thanks for resorting to racist remarks btw. She's proven nothing. That's proven!

      Delete
    6. You scorched St. Melba's wings, Mark! Well done.

      Delete
    7. There's an interesting piece on this from a blog at Miami University called Researchgate can't post the link on my IPhone tho :(

      Delete
    8. You limey fancy lad,eat your brain and kidney eel pie and shut your piehole.The science of the colonies is mighty,kiss your queens arse

      Delete

    9. Ah, there's nothing like a bit of pseudo brit rhetoric for insulting someone with although someone's gonna have to teach you real brit for those special occasions.

      Delete
    10. I was thinking of a Glasgow kiss...

      I think anon 5:35 is referring to this - http://www.researchgate.net/post/Melba_Ketchums_Bigfoot_DNA_study--the_ethics_of_skipping_peer-review_for_monetary_gain

      I think generally the paper hasn't been completely discredited by scientists. They've actually been fairly gracious and open minded (irony?) Timmer even leaves his conclusion open ended, pending further results.

      Delete
    11. It's hard to believe that a project which has been five years in the making is this slap-dash botchwork of lies which some here claim. It's pretty silly to march in lock-step with mainstream science because of an inability see outside the box.

      Ketchum published the paper as she said she would, despite many saying she never would. Based on that, the further testing of her results by other scientists should occur.

      Really, why attack it now, especially if you haven't read it? Why not hold off until the other stages of the process are complete?

      Delete
    12. I was indeed Mark but just couldn't post the link so cheers! Glasgow kiss lol Well it was rumferlife hopefully he'd be too numb from the booze to feel it! At least they didn't mock our dentistry like they normally do....

      Delete
    13. I'm Irish,we're more fucked up than the Brits,but not by much

      Delete
  8. Robert, there is nothing wrong with asking questions. Melba's camp do not like being asked the hard questions. They have always took it as an attack. We will continue to ask the hard questions until we get honest answers.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Somebody shoot a bigfoot AND present the body already. That is the only way they will be proven.

    ReplyDelete
  10. He read a bootleg copy... nothing like killing credibility in sentence #1. "So I read a stolen paper because I care". Didn't have to lie, could have just not mentioned it was stolen and you didn't care enough to pay for your own. Why read past the first sentence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right. Because Melba should own Bigfoot.

      Delete
    2. Information wants to be free. Lindsey is a despicable human being, but I applaud him in this instance. If Ketchum's discovery is as momentous as she claims, she should not be hiding it behind a pay wall.

      Delete
  11. This just in...Breaking News: You'll Get Nothing and Like it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not even false claims or exagerated tales of misinformation?Sir may I have another?

      Delete
  12. For more civil discussion on the topic, please see yesterday's discussion on the Forum. Oh, wait...that seems to be falling apart too. Not sure why, but a lot of Women are really getting Pissed about this whole thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Because this discussion is not really science. It more properly falls under the category of "Womyn's Mysteries".

      Delete
    2. Can't we all just pretend that a Man conducted this study so everyone can be equally pissed? Also, maybe lower the price to $29.99

      Delete
  13. The bigfooting business model is as follows: there's a sucker born every minute.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Skeptard's Credo is as follows:

      AVOID & DISMISS

      DISMISS & AVOID

      Inject large does of denial.

      Bingo! The Skeptard.

      Delete
  14. Squatch U Talkin Bout, Willis?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ask Joe Black for the moneyshot he promised upon release of the paper,tell him its needed

      Delete
    2. Rumfer I follow Joe Black/Scott Carpenter's blog. I don't recall him stating he had a 'money shot' that he was withholding? I have emailed him a few times and found him to be eager to help, and forthright. I enjoy his videos, and think he has had some interesting image captures. NOW... When he starts talking about the "dogman" I lose interest pretty darned quick.

      Delete

    3. Dogman rocks and when he quits his smoking habit he will be in great shape for the upcoming event we just need to get this bigfoot thing out the way first.

      Delete
    4. He said he was waiting for thos paper to come out,go back to when he was posting thpse face shots,he said it in the comments

      Delete
    5. Not drunk yet,using tablet

      Delete
  15. I hope the kids who read this blog think Melba Ketchum gives birth to every Bigfoot in existence

    ReplyDelete
  16. Another bullseye for Robert "Sniper" Lindsay!

    ReplyDelete
  17. One of my friends knows a pathological liar. He was very convincing. But then he just gave one amazing story too many.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Robert Is Right on .The bigfoot community is only to blame ...they all want the fame for themselves and to heck with bigfoor .Its me, me, me in the bigfoot world .They all just cut off thier nose despite thier face and it is a true shame .and that includes Meldrum and moneymaker .they spent thier life trying to prove bigfoot exist and now it is them that blew it not ketcheum .what shame and greed this has come ..Iknow bigfoot is real that is all that matters.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Robert Lindsey - anti-semitic looney tune

    Melba Ketchum - veterinary looney tune

    Erickson - Hollywood hoaxer looney tune

    David Paulides - law enforcement looney tune

    Bigfoot DNA project - funded, managed, released by pure looney tunes

    analysis - hoax, pure crap
    if it walks like a hoax, talks like a hoax, looks like a hoax...well......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. if it walks like a hoax, talks like a hoax, looks like a hoax...well......it's the real deal.

      Thought I would fill in the blank for you there.

      Delete
    2. You have to give Lindsay the hoax Metal of Honor. Look how he gets published on this site every time.

      Delete
    3. And who's the loony that it takes to know all the other loonies

      Delete
    4. Its al a hokes. Everting iz a hokes. Ther aint no siens in it at al. Jus a big fat hokes. Ya gots ta hav siens an use a sientifik methud if yuz gona proov it.

      Its a big hokes.

      Delete
    5. Enoch ya! Chock tock tock chock chick chick chock ya! Emkay Davees! Enoch. Enoch ya!

      Delete
  20. Isn't Lindsay the one who threw the most lethal punches Dr. Ketchum's way?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Homo heidelbergensis:
    According to Lee R. Berger of the University of Witwatersrand, numerous fossil bones indicate some populations of Heidelbergensis were "giants" routinely over 2.13 m (7 ft) tall and inhabited South Africa between 500,000 and 300,000 years ago.[5]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And your point? There are a couple suspects in the fossil record that could substitute for a BF. The problem is there is no proof and also no proof in this paper to substantiate any of the conjecture.

      Delete
    2. FB/FB says Africa is a no no,they are wise bigfootologists who support Rick Dyer,I'm sure that will turn out well for them

      Delete
  22. If I were to release a video which was an authentic sasquatch...would you still doubt anyway?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course they would, they are skeptards, i would bet most can't believe in anything they can't see!

      Delete
  23. Shawn,

    Could you convince a good geneticist at a good university to take a look at the paper and write an article for your blog?

    63 pages is not that long. A qualified person could get through it in a couple hours. They would then write as to the validity of her techniques, and point out the strong and weak points of the paper.

    They would not have to attest as to the existence of bigfoot, but just whether or not the science displayed in the paper holds water. The geneticist could protect his or her reputation by saying they are not vetting the existence of the species as he/she was not involved in sample collection or analysis, nor would he/she be able to comment on replicability, but merely draw conclusions about the science presented in the 63 pages. This way we would at least know if the paper is self is plausible or gobbledygook, a first step.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I warned all we would be stuck between the dueling experts. No matter what you do, there will be an unholy furor over this paper, with experts arguing for perhaps decades to come unless more evidence comes to light in the meantime.

      If as you say a uni geneticist writes an article on the methods in the paper, ten more will write articles which will be at odds with the others' conclusions. It will just go on. You have to read it yourself, and be an autodidact on the topic, if you want to get anywhere and away from invested opinions.

      Delete
    2. go eat a sausage mulder

      science is not out to "get you"

      dumbass.

      Delete
    3. Mulder the experts are only on one side of this argument. The Kitty vet is alone on the other side.

      Delete
  24. Too funny Robert. Is it fun, swaying opinions willy nilly? Can't change the facts though, too bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert's obsession is to shape public opinion by any means necessary, including lying about having insider info.

      Delete
  25. BILLY!!!! COME ON LETS GO!!!!! GET TO THE CHOPPAH!!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Translation of much of the argument here:

    Skeptic: Bigfoot does not exist.

    BF enthusiast: Yes, he does.

    Skeptic: Does not.

    BF enthusiast: Does too.

    Skeptic: Does not. Big dummy.

    BF enthusiast: Does too, doo doo head.

    Both: (hands over ears) LALALALALALALLALALA!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it's more like this.

      Skeptic: This paper does not prove Bigfoot's existence because the paper was not peer-reviewed, the conclusions and analysis contradict established theory and evolutionary science or are in many cases nonsensical, and Ketchum has refused to put her data on Genbank for other scientists to examine and verify.

      BF enthusiast: It's a conspiracy.

      Skeptic: No, it's how science works. The data needs to be made available so it can be verified by other scientists who will look to see if there are problems.

      BF Enthusiast: But they won't do anything with it. They don't want Bigfoot to be real.

      Skeptic: They are apathetic as to Bigfoot's existence. In fact, if a well-done study proved Bigfoot's existence, it would be a huge scientific breakthrough. First-tier journals would be fighting to publish the results because it would be a major scientific discovery. This isn't that study.

      Believer: It's a conspiracy.

      Skeptic: *Walks away from computer, slams head against desk*

      Delete
    2. Like this you mean.

      Skeptic: I havent read the paper but I know its not true. Anyway its not scientific n stuff.

      Other: But its passed peer review, preliminary reports support some of the findings. Lets have an open mind at this point and wait to hear what experts say.

      Skeptic: But its posted in some new journal with ladybugs on the website. And she charges thirty bucks for the paper! Thats like sooo unethical.

      Other: Actually its standard process to charge for new papers in scientific journals, besides she has put a lot of her own money into this, why isnt she entitled to charge for her own intellectual process. Again lets keep an open mind and wait to see what comes of this.

      Skeptic: But shes a kitty vet *smirk* and shes a blonde *smirk* and shes from Texas! *rolls eyes*

      Other: Well you can shoot the messenger but lets see you shoot the science.

      Delete
  27. Oops, is that "does to"...whatever, the point is apparent.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Has Ketchum actually furthered scientific understanding or not? Is her paper even useful to science?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only as an example of what not to do. I imagine this will be laughed at at evolutionary biology conferences for years to come.

      Delete
  29. Exactly what kind of "good geneticist at a good university" is going to take Shawn seriously? Come on, you read this blog and know the bullshit that's posted on here daily. Not exactly a good way to introduce yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Lindsay says that Ketchum "did say that it passed peer review in a journal called the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology". Google finds no evidence of any such journal existing before Ketchum apparently created it in January. Did Ketchum lie about her paper passing peer review in a real journal?

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  32. whats wrong, coundnt lindsay afford to pay the 30 bucks? he had to get a bootleg copy? he seems to have a hard time respecting the rights of other authors and little things like copyrights. did he put a copyright symbol with his name on the ketchum report too? you better richard, just put it on as a placeholder to "protect it". anyone who has ever read lindsays blatherings knows he doesnt know anything , esp anything about something complex as a genetics paper. so his commentary? not worth the virtual paper its not written on.

    ReplyDelete
  33. sorry his name is robert, just proves how forgettable he is

    ReplyDelete
  34. reading lindsays puerile and overheated misogynistic wet dream is disgusting.
    blogs like this, and postings like lindsays, here presented as an expert, do a disservice to anyone investigating the unknown, the improbable or the impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

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