Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA Allegedly Passed Peer Review, But No One's Buying It


So, last night, Dr. Melba Ketchum's alleged peer reviewed paper was "leaked". According to a leaked email, the paper was accepted for "publication with revisions" in January 2013. This morning, after discovering that the reviews were leaked, Ketchum was pissed. She posted this on Facebook:

"I am so upset that the reviews got leaked. That means I was once again betrayed by an insider. On the up side, I feel a huge relief about it. Now I don't have to sit on this horrible secret anymore. The world now knows how unethically the scientific has behaved. It also knows that we DID pass peer review and with reviews that came from geneticists that work with whole genomes. At least that is what I was told." - Dr. Melba Ketchum

After a few hours of coming to terms with the leaked information, she followed up with this statement:

"Bottom line, Sasquatch exists. Scientifically proven and passed by peer review by other scientists."

For some, the "leak" may have been contrived. Steven Streufert, a very wise Bigfooter isn't buying any of it. He made the following comments on Facebook:

"Pretty clearly she leaked it, since she created the journal and made up the reviewers, don't you think?"

"And the stuff from NATURE... my friend tells me they would NEVER leak that kind of thing, not with their reputation and ethical standard. Clearly this came from the Ketchum camp. More fiction."

A blogger named Scott Carpenter was all giddy when he recieved the leaked peer review letter and claimed that Ketchum's paper did indeed pass peer review. His celebration ended rather quickly when a commenter posted this response:

"Scott, please. You are obviously not familiar with the peer review process. "Accept with revisions" means it did NOT pass. It means the revision has to address the points by the reviewers so that it can be accepted. After correction, addition, the review starts all over again. The outcome could still be "Nope, not like this". Besides, this information was out there in December last year already.

Source: I have published in journals myself. "

A screenshot of the leaked email is below, highlighted: "ACCEPTED for publication with revisions"


180 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. first to say melba toast....yes

      Delete
    2. She did not submit what she posted on line to Nature..If she did, they tossed it in the trash without comment:

      1.1 Articles

      Articles are original reports whose conclusions represent a substantial advance in understanding of an important problem and have immediate, far-reaching implications. They do not normally exceed 5 pages of Nature and have no more than 50 references. (One page of undiluted text is about 1,300 words.)

      Articles have a summary, separate from the main text, of up to 150 words, which does not have references, and does not contain numbers, abbreviations, acronyms or measurements unless essential. It is aimed at readers outside the discipline. This summary contains a paragraph (2-3 sentences) of basic-level introduction to the field; a brief account of the background and rationale of the work; a statement of the main conclusions (introduced by the phrase 'Here we show' or its equivalent); and finally, 2-3 sentences putting the main findings into general context so it is clear how the results described in the paper have moved the field forwards.

      Articles are typically 3,000 words of text, beginning with up to 500 words of referenced text expanding on the background to the work (some overlap with the summary is acceptable), before proceeding to a concise, focused account of the findings, ending with one or two short paragraphs of discussion.

      The text may contain a few short subheadings (not more than six in total) of no more than 40 characters each (less than one line of text in length).

      Articles typically have 5 or 6 display items (figures or tables).

      Delete
    3. Here is the link...

      http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/gta/#a1.1

      Delete
    4. Maybe there is another "nature". but this is the one that came on google....

      Delete
    5. There is only one "Nature" and one of the panelists who reviewed her work discussed in an online radio show just how awful the paper was. His name is Dr. Darren Naish.

      Delete
    6. Thanks, I was pretty sure of that but her paper was well over the 5 pages in the guidelines above, so I thought maybe there was some obscure sister publication...

      Delete
    7. WHY IS THIS EVEN UP FOR DEBATE AGAIN SORRY ALL CAPS GUY BUT THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING I HAVEN'T EVEN CAME UP WITH A SWEAR WORD FOR IT YET

      Delete
    8. hmmm...maybe WONDERFUCKICULOUS..

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. Shawn I must say this is one of the funniest articles I have ever read on this blog.
      Damn, you are getting good.

      Delete
  2. Im with stref, She leaked it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Scott C is a fjcking nut-bar if you've seen his other posts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was cool, until the whole dogman with the 'entity' riding bareback. Far out man, far out.

      Delete
    2. He is a nutbag. He is reading the words....but the meaning of them has not reached through to his brain yet.

      Delete
    3. Aw come on he's smart enough to provide a 'DNA for Dummies" explanation on his web site to help people understand the Ketchum study. Of course this is the same man who turns random blobs from his bushwalking videos into Sasquatch and Dogman faces by the judicious application of cropping, enhancing, blurring, extrapolating, etc, etc... From blob to 'proof' in 54 simple steps! Funny how all his sas faces look completely different though.

      Delete
  4. science just doesn't want to deal with the repocutions of them being WRONG!---- AGAIN!

    Church of SCIENCE!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Learn to spell "repercussions". Moron.

      Delete
    2. Wonderfuckiculous...Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were RIGHT when they pictured a day anyone can type stupid shit on a computer...I assume your not a LINUX man...

      Delete
  5. It is interesting to note some information posted on Facebook last night:

    According to the research by Jim R. McClanahan on his blog post at http://historum.com/blogs/ghostexorcist/1380-melba-ketchum-s-bigfoot-dna-study-questionable-ethics-creating-journal.html and Scott Carpenter on his blog at http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-ketchum-dna-study-for-dummies.html#comment-form, the following timeline has been documented:

    1. Someone created an online page for the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology on Scholastica (JAMEZ) on January 4, 2013. See the screen capture at http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/5421/sfirstjournalwebshotwit.png and look where the red arrow is pointing.

    2. Someone tried to create a Wikipedia article on JAMEZ on January 5, 2013. See the screen capture at http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/6498/jamezwikipediaarticlewi.png and look where the red arrow is pointing.

    3. Dr. Ketchum HERSELF registered JAMEZ on Zoobank on January 9, 2013. See a screen capture at http://www.bigfootbuzz.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/JournalReg.jpg and the registration information in the box highlighted.

    4. Dr. Ketchum told David Paulides that JAMEZ accepted her paper the SAME DAY - January 9, 2013, according to what Scott Carpenter posted on his blog.

    5. Dr. Ketchum told David Paulides on Jan. 10 that JAMEZ has retracted its acceptance, according to an e-mail from Paulides, posted on Scott Carpenter’s blog.

    This indicates that Dr. Ketchum registered this "journal" a full day BEFORE it chickened out of running her paper. Her story has been that she didn't "buy" the journal until AFTER it said it wouldn't run her paper. How could she register a Web site BEFORE she "bought" the "journal?"

    I wonder what explanation the Ketchumites will generate for this interesting revelation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How DARE you crush footing dreams, you sonuvabitch.

      Delete
    2. Joe just got Fucking smoked.

      Delete
    3. ^^^
      what are you talking about joe won the war with honcho. he run away

      Delete
    4. If you are still supporting Ketchum and her pseudoscience after all that has been released and discussed regarding her self published paper and bought journal then you clearly have no business living.

      Delete
    5. Oh no you didn't! How can you even suggest that?

      And did you see Joe getting his hiny caned? Classic!

      Delete
    6. Funny Honcho not here today. Yesterday he put up a link and it was him flashing his balls- no joke. Bet that has something to do with his absence. Maybe Shawna didnt appreciate it LOL!

      Delete
    7. Sorry shawn, I mean shawn not a girls name lol!

      Delete
    8. Really? That sounds like enough to get your IP blocked...Nice farewell trolling, though..lol..

      Delete
    9. Or I was busy all day and didn't have time to come here to bust the lack of lifetime scientific having bigfooters.

      That and letting PJ fester in his own excrement for a while only makes him running around look even more hilarious.

      PS - Not only do I have you kids all worked up, I showed you my balls and gave you my city and where I was going to be at a specific time. That's what makes PJ running around calling for my head even more hilarious.

      You people want to talk about my balls and how I'm supposedly 5' 250lbs? I'll take a picture proving you wrong and add my dropnuts just for good measure. Judging by the views on the image, a bunch of you have now seen my balls.

      Not only do you lack scientific evidence of an unknown hominin running around the woods in North America in the modern world, you've seen my nether regions.

      CUP O' COFFEE, YEAH, CUUUPP O' COFFEEE!

      NO MORE QUESTIONS!

      Delete
    10. Seriously my balls always reak. I try to wash them well with soap, and I even put deodorant on them but they always reak. They stink to the point where people notice it. Im in college, and sometimes when I walk by, people cover their noses. They even go to the extent of sitting away from me. One person even commented, saying I smell, like a dead body. When in reality my balls naturally smell bad. It has affect my sex, and social life. I dont have an STD or anything, or an infection, they just naturally smell bad. Should I go to the doctor? I'm embarrassed to schedule an appointment with the Doc, saying my balls stink, I do not even think they will take me seriously. What can I do please help world

      Delete
    11. I stand corrected: posting a link to your balls is NOT enough to get your IP blocked....

      Delete
    12. Honcho? I have breaking news for you and your moustache !!!

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    15. Mike, are you going to cough up the 2+ grand to have your DNA evidence tested in depth?

      As much footprints, blobsquatches, gifting bowls, etc. that you ever have the anecdotal evidence just won't cut it.

      Delete
    16. ..lol..6:02 you are one sick puppy...

      Delete
    17. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    18. 2+ grand is a small price to pay to potentially have your name written down in history. but then again trolls like you would call the evidence contaminated and corrupted if it came back positive as unknown human ape DNA

      Delete
    19. Why would I ever split the costs with you? I'm not the one trying to prove it's existence, that's your job..

      Delete
    20. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    21. mike honcho
      this could be your chance to real answers and real proof that they dont exist unless you are scared that is will backfire and every thing you believed in goes down the drain

      Delete
    22. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    23. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    24. Again, the assumption that I don't want bigfoot to exist. I don't think you understand that we would GLADLY except bigfoot if and only if there is conclusive scientific evidence. Keyword being conclusive scientific evidence... not anecdotal evidence, not hearsay, not blurry pictures, not stories, not 'just take my word for it.', real scientific evidence.

      If you can ever can provide that, I'd gladly except it until then there is nothing to show the existence of a super intelligent, highly elusive, infrasound capable, cloaking mindspeak 8ft 900lb unknown hominin walking the woods of North America.

      Delete
    25. Mr. Honcho.

      You do realize young children come to this blog right?
      Or were you hoping maybe some kid somewhere would see something such as "your balls". This is how some sex offenders operate from what I've heard.

      If that link is still up I suggest it gets removed.

      Delete
    26. No, young children don't come to this blog. Welcome to the internet. You're an even sicker person for suggesting pedophilia, you deranged bastard.

      Second, it's not against the TOS for me to post a link to imgur, no one forced anyone to copy and past the link into their address bar just because I showed a picture of myself. In fact, that's probably why the hyperlink option isn't available so someone HAS to copy and paste the link the address bar.

      3, I suggest you find some scientific evidence to show all of these wild claims and accusations, otherwise at this moment there is nothing to show the creature roaming the wilds of North America.

      Oh, you shot one? Where's it at? If I ever shot one, assuming they do exist, the last fucking thing I'd do is hold out for money. I'd call the news, I'd let the world know....not bury it for obscure reasons of vanity, fame, religion, or money.

      Delete
    27. i never said you did not want bigfoot to exist but what i am saying is.
      your claims on why bigfoot isn't in existence are as it stands at this point in time a figure of your imagination. but research can and if bigfoot don't exist will prove your claims.
      i am skeptical on bigfoots existence but want to get proved wrong

      Delete
    28. Also, Brookreson said that someone is deleting his posts...this again is false. When Shawn or whomever deletes a post, it completely disappears all together, it doesn't say 'This comment was removed by the author.'

      You know how I know?

      Shawn's deleted many of my posts.

      Delete
    29. Mike. You really don't want to bet against me. Do you?

      Delete
    30. Cause nobody needs to know what's comin. I have given you a chance at the cats pajamas and you refused. A first look? So. I deleted the content. Because Honcho. You are a Ham N Egger. And you didn't deserve it. I am the David Bowie of bigfooting. And i will release when Shawn Lou Reed Evidence is ready.

      Delete
    31. Joes afraid of Americans......Joes afraid of the world

      Delete
    32. Put down the bottle and take a siesta, Mike, you're drunk.

      Delete
    33. Honcho. I offered to split my DNA costs to set you free. Do I firighten you that much. Do you want to see a bigfoot. A real one. Do you??

      Delete
    34. Look man. I haven't had a drink. I'm dumping my content in one week because I may loose our bet. Are you calling me drunk because I offered to split the costs of DNA. No. I just thought after all your shit about really wanting to know the truth you might be interested. Now I know you're not.

      Delete
    35. And yes Honcho. I typed loose for....,,sarcasm. Deep beneath it all you're a footer man. Everyone can see it. If Shawn wants it, and Joe can work it out the contents his on one week. And unlike this Ketchum saga. I know where there are real creatures in Texas. 7 days Honcho. Grab your ankles. M

      Delete
    36. I'm sure you have the goods, Mike, but unless you actually have a body (why haven't you called everyone in the world if so?) or you've coughed up the money to test your DNA evidence then your blobsquatches, castings, pictures, etc. are just that.

      The last two films depicting a squatch that were worth anything is Patty and Freeman's footage. Now, Freeman was a known hoaxer on many different levels so that all but eliminates his film, not too mention it's only a few frames of actual footage of the subject but it's also grainy and shakey. "Oh! There he goes!" - Paul Freeman

      Well, Patty is patty and quite frankly no one from either side can conclusively prove jack squat about it. Bill Munns or not, still not conclusive. Until you actually prove the species, Patty is moot.

      Delete
    37. To the commenter above who has the issue with his testicles and anus region having a ghastly odor to them; yet you are embarrassed to call the doctor and tell them that your balls and crack smell. Here is a solution: Simply call the doctor and report that you are having testicular problems. When asked for specifics, inform the nurse/receptionist that your nether-region is painful and that the testicles and testicular bag are swollen. I realize this is misleading but when you actually see the doctor you can tell the doctor that the swelling and pain have subsided but you are a man of your word and you never miss a scheduled appointment. The Doctor will immediately notice the stench rising up from your crotch area and he/she will inquire about the putrid odor. You can then reveal to the doctor that your problem has been with you for an entire lifetime and you had learned to live with the shame. Hopefully the doctor will help you like I was helped.

      I too had putrid balls, sack and anus stink that soaps, deodorants, sprays, cologne, repeated washings would not correct, I concocted the above story to get an appointment with a specialist who did in fact rid me of my horrid stench.

      Life couldn't be better now.

      Delete
    38. Mike the Drooper you're truly retarded, end of story. Take you bullshit somewhere else, on Bigfoot you're clueless anyway.

      Delete
  6. Replies
    1. Where the skeptard clowns are employed.

      Congratulations.

      Delete
    2. got monkey^?

      thought not you delusional moron.

      get over the fact you got banned from JREF and get on with your life.

      JREF schooled you and when you raged they banned you. It happens. You got severely pwned by logic and reason and your complete lack of a monkey meant your days on JREF were numbered.

      The best argument you deluded footers have is got monkey suit?

      jesus fucking christ what a failed argument that is.

      how about a fucking bigfoot. just one will do. just the one. thanks. oh wait. you don't have one? and no evidence of one ever? anywhere? oh wow so err what exactly supports your argument apart from wishful thinking?

      you got conned by roger patterson, get over it, all of you

      Patterson conned you and continues to con you because he knew how badly people wanted to believe in this myth.

      Film a trainwreck suit in an open creek named BLUFF (yes BLUFF fucking creek talk about clue in the fucking title) and these gullible footers will believe it. He didn't even have to put much effort in, the obvious suit flaws are ridiculous, certainly not a living breathing animal.

      Every single announcement, team, quest, project, study, group, or anything at all to do without bigfoot has resulted in yep you guessed it: FUCK ALL.

      A wise man once said youll get nothing and like it. Nothing you continue to get, and like it you continue to do.

      Ketchum smoked the lot of you and made a nice tidy profit, good for her.

      "Forest People" in north America, give me a fucking break.

      Delete
    3. TEACHING LITTLE 4 19 THE DAILY LESSONTuesday, September 17, 2013 at 4:38:00 PM PDT

      Got donkey 4:19 you utter drooling parasitical fool?

      The nearest looking glass will show you that you do. The royal ass will be staring back at you with the usual blank empty expression.

      Congratulations.

      Get a grip, Christ.

      Delete
    4. Not seeing much of an argument just desperate ad hom attacks^

      Delete
    5. Ha! 4:38 (the raging hysterical butthurt footer) got completely pwned.

      The trolls control him.

      Delete
    6. Circus indeed...The funny thing is the actual buffoonery of footery by far surpasses the buffoonery around here meant to mock it...

      Delete
    7. Where, oh where is this famous "monkey suit" so often quoted by the naysayers. So many of you believe, yet not one of you can produce it. At least we "footers" have fuzzy videos, audio recordings, plaster casts, eyewitness accounts of our delusions. Your camp has zero, zilch, nada, nothing. So, on circumstantial evidence alone I'd say that us footers are less hoodwinked than the monkey suit believers.

      Delete
    8. 4:19 doesn't fool anybody, you can always tell when a skeptard isn't really a skeptic but only acting it. Have you never heard of Hire a Troll? These trolling dudes of course are hired to be here, as no normal person would spend a mere second on something reputedly mythical if they didn't either believe it's real or know it. Take your pick the trolls know, bottom line. Just like Ketchum knows that's why they're here these threads always have the most traffic.

      Delete
  7. This topic of paper, published, peer review, and the complete idiotic process of scientific publishing is all garbage. The whole thing is bought and paid for, including the results, by whomever tends to benefit most and is the top party at the time. Politics rears it's ugly head in all things public and private here and all over the globe now. As a fence rider on things without proof or until proven, I must admit, you better just go with your own gut until the fiasco looses steam and the parties in power change enough to be trusted(IF EVER). I spend a lot of time in the field, maybe Sasquatch will introduce himself to me someday. What a joke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Personally knowing scientists who serve on review panels, I can tell you that your initial statements are incorrect. However, the powers-that-be DO control federal research funding, which thus impacts the research efforts of scientists in the fields they choose to support or not support. They don't impact the peer-review process - they impact the research before it gets to that point. Ketchum's claim that "science" didn't want her paper to publish is poppycock.

      Delete
    2. The media reflects the opinion of ownership. The opinions reflected are never based on just the facts, the monetary pluses and minuses are the most important litmus test used these days. Get used to it. We live in a world that allows the few privileged powerful people at the top to decide what as well as when we peons are to be in the know. WHO KILLED KENNEDY?, AREA 51 and the ROSWELL INCIDENT, WHAT REALLY HAPPENED? Will we ever be allowed to find out? Bigfoot and mysteries of great proportion are deemed to powerful for we of lesser learning and IQ. Hell Building 7 free fell right in front of our eyes and we don't have the facts(believable) yet. Sasquatch? just a drop in the bucket of what we are not given the whole story about.

      Delete
    3. Personally being involved with data collecting, checking and research, as well as fact compilation and submission, that statement is spot on. Never believe for a moment that scientist base their conclusions solely on facts presented. Certainly never believe that they are accepted if the science is good. Global warming is still discussed as if it's a hypothesis, yes among some scientist. See who's footing the bill for their research before you readily accept their conclusions. Find those without affiliation and you might be shocked at the answers you receive. I heard the same climatic scientist, hell the whole team, answer the same question three different ways. They worked for three different facilities funded by three different corps. Just because the science is good doesn't guarantee acceptance by peers either, ask Mr Galileo and countless others who stepped out first with a wild notion and good science.

      Delete
  8. I don't like 'Ketchumites'. Can you use 'Melboners' instead?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I too am not a Melva, Melba or whatever fan, but I am less inclined to be swayed by the peer review scientist conclusions. I've worked with them and have seen how they search out certain data while ignoring other. Until you get a notoriously honest panel, one who has a track record and no affiliation, to take the data and sift out the real facts, the truth will be just someones own bought and paid for opinion with a corporate stamp of approval. Sorry, we are all free to have and speak our opinions, but we must not try to change the facts. I wish I had them, or knew where to look.

      Delete
    2. Is the name Melba related to the name Mabel ?

      Delete
  9. Truffle shuffle guy is one of the most credible voices in the bigfoot world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who is the truffle shuffle guy?

      Delete
    2. Thanks Sir, I'm not familiar with this site. I have always been interested in the mysteries of our world, but not up to date on all the players yet. What happened with the fellow that claimed to have shot one in TX? Do you know about that report? Thanks for your help and insight.(NEWBEE)

      Delete
    3. That guy made me sign an NDA to get my Platinum Level Cryptozoology degree so I can't comment on him.

      Delete
    4. Fozzie smokes a lot of footers with his derailing. Good work.

      Delete
    5. I am off the rails on a crazy train, and that is a fact.

      Delete
    6. the only logical thing to do on a bigfoot blog is to derail the subject matter as it is complete nonsense

      Delete
    7. When it comes to the subject of bigfoot, All you need to know is "you'll get nothing and like it".

      Learn to laugh or you will lose your mind.

      Delete
    8. Well Rick Dyer is a very prominent and accomplished Bigfoot researcher. He was known to study under the great procurer of evidence Tom Biscardi in the High-Yield Bigfoot Investment Opportunity of '08. In said long con, researchers in the Georgia foothills made off with a scamboogery for the ages. After swearing off the research life he appeared again in San Antonio TX with prominent documentary producers Minnow Flimflams. They researched up a dead dog, a bunch of well meaning homeless people, scant evidence and a murdered bigfoot that was promptly whisked away to a Las Vegas suburb. Of course, where else would a researcher take the much sought after evidence of an 800 lb ribs lovin monkey faced man? Multiple pigeons were taken in off Facebook as marks, as referenced by Fozzie above, the highest profile stoolie reached platinum level and an FBI investigation was rumored to have ensued. An endless parade of researchers with names like "Muskie" and "MK Davis" were brought in to cool the marks with their insightful stylings and trippings of the hoax fantastic. Nowadays Rick has again sworn to procure the body, thus trimming any new hapless marks that might wander off the street into the Bigfoot Research Commune.

      Delete
    9. He didn't swear off research only to reappear in San Antonio. He kept committing one hoax after the other.
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/07/footage-that-brought-rick-dyers-to-his.html

      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JIWEnHPaHlc/T69kTX4ObNI/AAAAAAAAxT0/iWOT-M4JIho/s1600/rdbf2.png

      He even said he could do a hoax that would "fool the world" but wouldn't because of his "investors".

      Delete
    10. I believe he's an A++ researcher by today's standards of science and reason in Amerika. See faked global warming data and reasons we go to war.

      Delete
  10. WOW some of you people are way to intelligent to be debating this farce.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There are two aspects to this whole game - the science and the hoopla. There is much chatter about the publishing and who did what to whom with what. That is a load of cobblers frankly. The Ketchum paper had a raft of contributors whose reputations, and those of the institutions they worked for, are on the line. I have yet to see one critique that deals with her methodology and that of those others that did the different and many analyses for the project which shows how there were obvious flaws. There is much talk about "what might have been wrong" but no one has yet come out and said they have actually checked her physical material and explained scientificall how any of her contributors got it wrong. So, until that is done all other comments are just so much hot air because they are opinions and not based on fact. Most of what I read from the detractors is along the lines of "it could not be, therefore it can't be" nonsense. That is not science; it is drivel. So before we see more people paint themselves into a corner lets wait to see some comments by those qualified to do so and who have actually done follow up DNA analysis of her physical evidence. There is support for her work from some quarters but the jury is still out on independent verification or refuttal of her results. Until we see that, the chatter is just a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is very very little raw data even shown in her paper, it's mostly the results. People with PHD's for 20-30 years can't follow half of her paper because of such little actual scientific data actually in it. It's just another case of 'take my word for it.'

      Delete
    2. Actually this is a load of franks cobblered up.

      Delete
    3. Sorry every reference to another lab associate denied working with the woman in any way and I showed her paper with college backgrounds in DNA and all have said all she has is a paper full of speculation with no proof of any DNA of an unknown hominid novel or otherwise so you need a new arguement

      Delete
    4. And we have requested in writing for her DNA marker results with no response followed by many calls

      Delete
    5. And I was a staunch supporter till the very end she released that bullshit she called a paper ask any of these guys

      Delete
    6. I actually felt bad snow walker prime told us she was a full of shit hoaxer and I still backed her leading to me feeling like an asshole

      Delete
    7. Why do these jerk offs keep claiming that her work hasn't actually been checked argued? basically what this poster, and many others say is, there is nothing except her own speculations based on her own evidence to debate. And she won't supply any rebubtals or facts to debate. What freaking paper? She made alot of us look like assholes for following her bullshit.

      Delete
    8. Beyond me man that's why I usually talk nonsense the only thing we got from someone who isn't a known hoaxer of late was daisy in a box and that was a crap fest and only made me wonder for 9 hrs or so till they went oh we aren't releasing any pics bullshit who wouldn't if they had an actual Bigfoot

      Delete
    9. Yapp, more Malba's like eaten refryed bullshit and asking for seconds. I'm not hungry anymore, please Scott, new menue please please.

      Delete
    10. She won't release any of her physical evidence for anyone to analyze. When someone did analyze what was left of a sample (bear) that she wasn't able to get all of, she cries "fraud".

      Delete
    11. Yes..It is ridiculous. People who believe bigfoot exists and wanted her to succeed showed her self-published web post to outside experts..Not ONE person has said "Wow, I showed it to a geneticist and they said she is on to something! They want her to speak at the college!"
      It has been blown-off/ignored and what you see now is what you will always see: The thing being bounced around the inside of our bubble while the world moves on...lol...

      Delete
    12. If I had the million dollar body I'd pass out pics like that shit was goin out of style

      Delete
    13. Yapp, that fat turd gobbler was actually believable till I saw his retarded looking face and heard his ignorant CIA line of shalack attack. Put them all in a freaking box and mail them to North Korea or Cuba

      Delete
    14. I heard one reference of her by name in a tv show and Rogan just mentioned her study with no name but other than that yeah we are the only ones even keeping her name alive lol I feel like a fukin chump just arguing against her shit project

      Delete
    15. If you had a pic that actually showed without a doubt,Sasquatch, you'd break your freaking neck to get that shit out there. What the fuck would you wait for? someone else to get another shot? it's all bullshit stacked head high.

      Delete
    16. Any person that opens with "I'm going to release the real proof at a later date" should be banished forever, and branded as a frigging liar from the bowels of hell.

      Delete
    17. I thought that was the agreed upon consensus till I read this bullshit headline lol

      Delete
    18. I am the stand in for Footers and joe guy!! So bring it on!! I am kind of smart!! Or not real dumb!!So lets dance mother fuckers!! "SHIT, here comes the baby sitter and she going to tell to go back to the attic..Maybe tomorrow!!??

      2-b-continued....<:( 2- morrow

      Delete
    19. Look on the bright side skunk at least they're not chaining you up in the basement no more and I'm not downing footers just ketchums paper man lol regardless of anyone's comment you know I believe this beast is out there somewhere

      Delete
    20. skunk has allies watch out for skunk

      Delete
    21. I'm one of them I'm not understanding the point

      Delete
    22. 5:33 is just mja posting anonymously and it's awesome. he can't even put 5 english words together in the proper order.

      Delete
    23. prove im mja your allshit idiot

      Delete
    24. Bandini the Babblin' Bandit.

      Delete
  12. "but no one has yet come out and said they have actually checked her physical material and explained scientificall how any of her contributors got it wrong"

    BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ WRONG!

    They've been doing that since day one. Those in the field were left scratching their heads and suggesting that she should sell shoes insted.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mulder, on 17 Sept 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

    Show me the science that proves that BF does not exist. There IS plenty of science (evidence-based at that) that shows they DO exist.

    Pony up something better or go home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ponies are pretty.

      Sharon Hill is still hot.

      Delete
    2. No, no, no! Dude, it doesn't work that way. How can you possibly have evidence that something doesn't exist?

      Delete
  14. drew and dmaker fuckin smoked munns

    ReplyDelete
  15. Show me the evidence that PJ isn't a cop.

    Fuckin knew he was a narc from day one!

    Police Joe the fuckin cop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. where the fuck did that come from

      Delete
    2. That's one fuked up torrets tick callin people cops lol

      Delete
    3. He's a pig. Don't trust him.

      Delete
    4. The mental illness exhibited on this site is getting pretty scary.

      Delete
  16. Only a Ketchumite would keep repeating this nonsense that no one has critiqued her methods. Yes, they have and this is an example making rounds on FB: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/an-honest-attempt-to-understand-the-bigfoot-genome-and-the-woman-who-created-it/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. there are two major types of idiots that keep the Bigfoot issue in the trash can of interesting mysteries. Those fools running around like little wild inbreds, whooping and sqwalling at the moon. Tree thumping idiots making friends and money off those who can't find anything fit to watch on the toob. the second is those want to be scientist/naturalist, that couldn't find and identify a COCK roach in the sewers of NY city. Yapp we got us a real team of Peter Griffins and Dale Gribbles, Friggin cartoon characters from the imaginations of assholes with nothing to do. Wow, whats the next clue Shaggy? Scooby Dooby Doo.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, its mostly a freak show and a circus but if something compelling turns up(though I think it is a longshot) the pros will be on it like flies on shit...Tinfoil wearing UFO loons don't deter observational astronomers from going to work...

      Delete
    3. That was a very poor article actually and not particularly intellectualy honest. I am on neither side in this debate but would like to see just the science discussed. There is a way to settle the science but no one seems interested to do what has to be done, which is to REPEAT her analysis independently and either prove the Ketchum findings right or wrong. I could not care less about the waffle being spruiked by those unqualified to comment. Ketchum handled the PR abominably and somewhere along the way the science was politicised by a rush to publish or be damned. Science has not been served well in the process. Please don't insult everyones intelligence by saying her paper has been properly refuted, because everything I have read that claims to be that turns out to be just sloppy commentary with no DNA analysis to back it up. It needs to be resolved. A thousand uninformed voices shouting "fraud" doesn't make it so. Reductio ad absurdum is the flavour of the year on this topic. Time it was resolved properly.

      Delete
    4. How can it be resolved properly when she won't release the data, as she would have been required to if she pubbed in a real journal?

      Delete
    5. Those inside science stopped it the paper is good they know that, it's the subject of bigfoot that prevents the proof from hitting the street.

      Delete
  17. Someone needs to grudge fuck Ketchum while repeating the phrase, "bigfoot does not exist"!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We can put her on finding Bigfoot for the episode bobo snaps and rapes everyone lol

      Delete
    2. Hell no, put her on the one where Renea snaps and rapes everyone. Now thats good TV folks. Bobo and MM have to watch and knock their wood while she works on Mad Melba, Hell yea, that will bring out the yokalls for damn sure.

      Delete
    3. Sounds like something they'll do when ratings drop..We all be like "Man, you see FB last night where Ranae strapped one on and did Melba..They really jumped the shark...."

      Delete
    4. Is there something funny about someone calling people yokels and spelling it yokalls? Or is ti just me?

      Delete
    5. Yeah and renae was wearing the jack links squatch suit while doin it it was AWESOME!!! Lol

      Delete
    6. Now that would be the only payperview ever worth 50 bucks

      Delete
    7. The trolls here know bigfoots do exist that's why they troll in the first place, the species itself doesn't scare them it's the origin of it that does hence this vile opposition.

      Delete
  18. My next scientific paper will titled 'Adipose Tissue and Deposits of Fat and Bullshit Between the Ears of Bill Munns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BM has the same intellectual gaze as Mike Tyson. What a mind, what a body, what a Donkey, sorry man..

      Delete
  19. Is 'Hot Granny Fannys' an accepted biological journal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it is along with jugs of the Serengeti

      Delete
    2. Pills and Moonshine, it's not just for breakfast anymore. Right Melba"

      Delete
    3. To Bill Munns, yes it is a very scientific journal. Hot Granny Fannys is the kind of science Bill Munns wants to see.

      Delete
    4. Yes...It is peer reviewed by a board certified chiropractor...

      Delete
    5. Back Door Sluts is an accepted journal...

      Delete
  20. Melba's science is just like her pussy, sloppy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone named Mike knows all about that.

      Delete



  21. Melba,



    It's been well over two months since I submitted my first manuscript to you for consideration for publication in DeNovo. This was done in good faith, with high hopes of acceptance. The long time lapse without communication leads me to believe that you do not intend to publish it or the second publication which is near two months out. So be it. It would have been nice to hear this from you. Your standards of professionalism in this area are way below those I am used to dealing with in serious academic scientific circles. It is not acceptable to delay publication of results you disagree with while you scurry around to CYA.



    PLEASE WITHDRAW MY TWO MANUSCRIPTS FROM CONSIDERATION FOR PUBLICATION IN DENOVO. If I have my way they will soon be in press in an open access real journal.



    Best wishes in attempting to prove the existence of sasquatch. Sorry, your first effort was unsuccessful.



    Attached is the list of 29 species of fish, including the common names, which you claimed had significant homology to one of your nuDNA sequences (you didn't specify which) and which you claimed were primates (your Supplementary Figure 5). Did you even bother to translate the Latin names to common names?



    Haskell Hart, PhD



    PS It's a bear, a human, and a dog: S26, S31 and S140, respectively. Believe it and MOVE ON.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In b4 PJ cites 17 crackpot's resume to refute Dr. Hart.

      Delete
  22. http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/2013/09/dna-study-response-to-false-claim.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ Grade A Looney Tunes.....

      Delete
    2. No one is ever going to take you seriously again Joe, as long as you continue to support the "crazy cat vet"

      Let it go. Get over it and move on.......back to your crazy blobsquatches and pareidolia

      Delete
    3. Wrong dumpster dude. Melba solved this mystery and authorities didn't like it, that's how it is. They don't want to go through lecturing forest rangers and others all over again, easier to deny its existence than rewrite history and science books.

      Delete
    4. ^ Ya, OKAY. It's a big conspiracy. You people are so warped.

      Delete
    5. ^ Ya, OKAY. It's a big conspiracy. You people are so warped.

      Delete
  23. The blogger at "Over the Line Smokey" has exposed the entire, sordid ordeal re: the fake journal. Sounds like it was SORTA fake, but a cluster F, nonetheless.

    http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/texas-dna-specialist-writes-that-sasquatch-is-a-modern-human-being/

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well, so much for the so-called journal. Maybe Joe B. will think twice now.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Melba is being sued by people that invested money in her project. She took their money and hoaxed the paper. The truth will be out soon.

    ReplyDelete