Ketchum Study Will Not Be Published In A "Cryptozoology Journal Of Any Type" [Bigfoot DNA]


This morning, Loren Coleman reported that Dr. Karl P.N. Shuker recently announced a new peer-reviewed publication called "Journal of Cryptozoology".

According to Coleman:

"Since the journal is planned to be a scientific one devoted to a specific subdiscipline of zoology, i.e. cryptozoology, it must adhere to the same structure and procedures that scientific journals devoted to mainstream subdisciplines of zoology adhere to, which involves submitted papers being assessed by academically-qualified zoologists with specialized knowledge in that particular subdiscipline."

After Coleman's report, you can probably imagine the questions that were sent to Dr. Melba Ketchum regarding her Bigfoot DNA paper slated for publication in an undisclosed journal. Dr. Ketchum's entire study will be 4 years in the making in March. The paper was written in 2011.

On her public Facebook page today, she decides to post an update probably to prevent any rumors from starting about her paper being published in a cryptozoolgy journal:

Fact: This paper has not and will not go to a cryptozoology "journal" of any type. Stringent, skeptical review is necessary for the success of this paper, thus the length of time it is taking to get this out. It would have been out a long time ago if we would have chosen to send it to some obscure journal or some type of crypto journal but I prefer the more difficult path because it makes the paper credible to the scientific community.

- Dr. Melba Ketchum

Comments

  1. Malarky, no credible journal has the restrictions she claims. This is all hype to remove gullible Bigfooters from their dollars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for caring so much, do you also donate your charity?

      Delete
    2. Your as dumb as a dildo !
      Yes they do have restrictions and
      what in the hell does the study have to do with someone parting with money? this study did not receive one cent from the public in any way, nor does it effect any other blog,forum,museums etc...,
      they would have been up and running study or not.

      Delete
    3. Blah, blah, blah. Why deny if she is not telling the truth. Eventually, lies catch up to the person.

      If Ketchum is reaping the monetary benefits from "gullible" bigfoot fools, why continue to create more and more evidence to prove herself a liar by creating new lies. (Unless she is telling the truth and you are simply making off the wall speculations.)

      Delete
  2. A small meta side note: The whole workings of the spread of information regarding this matter fascinates me, especially since nobody's like me have a role to play. I see on a certain message board speculation that the paper might be reviewed in the Crytpo journal, post a quick question for clarification to Dr. Ketchum's facebook page, get the response from Sally who then makes a more official response, which then gets linked to back on the same sites from which the rumors began. All of this happens so quickly. I'm glad Dr. Ketchum and crew are trying to stay ahead of the rumor mill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you. Most of the people on this blog post horse crap w/o any real thought about what they are saying. It seems as if these fools have one agenda: Attempt to attack the credibility of anything bigfoot or sasquatch related.

      In the end, they are the ones who look like foolish children who need to go outside more.

      Delete
    2. Your 2nd sentence summed it up, as of today, there is no physical evidence that proves the existence of Bigfoot. Thats not an attack but the honest truth.

      Every piece of evidence, story, escapade, rumor, etc. has always ended the same. Sorry but thats the real evidence and soon this shall pass as well. After the books and documentaries etc are reaped from it. Do you realize the monetary amount that the PGF film brings per use? $10,000 dollars.
      Big bucks in this sharade and many a gulliable person that will pay to see it.

      Delete
  3. Nick, Sally has provided evidence for her claims about Journal procedure, can you back up yours, or do you just prefer to lob it out there and see who believes it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What evidence? her words? I happen to have several friends who are published scientists.None of them were ever restricted in the discussion of their data in public symposiums, lectures nor in the publically reported quarterly activity reports for the Universities they work for. They were free to say at what Journal their paper was in peer review at. They were also free to discuss the issue in which their paper would be published after they were approved.

      None of these things have happened in regards to this paper. It's all been secrecy and little leaks of information. It's a big scam. Nothing else makes any sense. Peer reviewed Journal publishing isn't some big secret Cabal where scientists run elaborate schemes to publish work. It's a place where people get their findings approved by other scientists and then put out there officially for the world to see. The only secrets that exist is that the submitting scientist doesn't know who the referees peer reviewing their paper are.

      Think I'm wrong? Call up any respected peer reviewed journal, or go read their submissio requirements on their page.

      Delete
    2. We don't really care what your scientific friends say, Nick. This is historic Bigfoot news, so automatically I'd expect it to be treated slightly differently given its huge importance. Who ultimately cares anyway, what's important is the end result of which you know nothing except guesswork.

      Delete
    3. HAHAHAHAHA!!! (we don't care about science unless it's pseudo bigfoot science). Good luck with that. Would you like to buy a map to the Bigfoot's homes too? $19.95!

      Delete
    4. Nick, why are you still here? Buzz off, dude. Your scepticism doesn't bother me, but Ur close-minded comments DO. Go troll somewhere else, please.

      Delete
    5. Why is speculation a bad thing. Nick, I don't understand the peer review process at all. Interesting to hear an opposing view on here, I appreciate it. I don't know if this will actually be, any more than anyone else, but I wish something would actually happen so we knew one way or the other. John

      Delete
    6. You are right. Sally "copied and pasted" specific rules that must be adhered to during the peer review process. One problem with this: Fools like this "Nick" guy can't keep their attention long enough to read the posts. They want to blab on about things that have been addressed, covered, re-addressed, etc. etc. a million times.

      How do people like Dr. J. Meldrum, Ketchum, and others put up with these simpletons?

      Delete
    7. Nobody Trolls... like Nick does... nobody's losing money but he... says you are... Nobody Trolls, half as good as Nick... Nicky you're the troll.

      Delete
  4. By this you call it methodolatry when the most stringent, skeptical ... You approvingly call it evidence- based skepticism .

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nick, so what if the people involved want to recoup some of the costs they've incurred? Doesn't a lot of science work that way? Would Dr Ketchum put her reputation at stake to make money for the financial backers of the study? Wait until the paper comes out before running your mouth off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes she would, because she's hoping to make gobs of cash off of this deal. Not to mention her normal job doesn't involve writing scientific papers so she has nothing to lose. Her lab will probably still get work regardless of what she comes up with.

      Here's the thing, if it smells like a hoax, and walks like a hoax, it's probably a hoax.

      Delete
    2. Nick, I have read your comments and many are spot on, and thanks for retaining civility. I am a Bigfoot witness.
      I agree with your comment her career is not on the line.
      Spot on, unlike academics or industry scientists for a larger corporation, she runs a private vet practice.
      She bombs no big deal, in fact some clients may lke that, most won't even know.
      I also agree with your comments on the peer-review process. But, I do hold out hope a Journal has given differring specific instructions in this case, otherwise, anything else and it will erode her image at the least and credibility at most.
      Your opinions are as valid and as welcome as any thoughtful ones here. The trolls? Not so much!

      Delete
    3. Nick. Are you on a check or something? Welfare maybe? Government handout? Seriously. I do not mean this any a sarcastic way. Why would you, me, or anyone fault someone for wanting to get paid for hard work? This is America, right? I do realize that we are quickly moving toward a socialized government where everyone expects to do nothing and let the government take care of them, but come on.

      Why is it so wrong for anyone who has put a ton of time and effort into this project to expect/hope to benefit financially from this?

      When I work, I expect to get paid. Regardless of what project I am working on. My understanding is that people approached Ketchum about this work, she didn't go begging to them to do it for free. Why now should anyone expect her not to be reimbursed in some way?

      Delete
  6. Nick, if she is hoaxing, would this not completely end her career? We all saw what happened to the two idiots in Georgia, one lost his job (Law Enforcement), essentially his career. Why would anyone that has dedicated as much time to a craft as Ketchum through her schooling and building a reputation throw it all away in a blatant hoax. What's more fishy, her throwing her career away for a hoax, or some faceless idiot on a forum claiming to have numerous friends that are scientists?

    ReplyDelete
  7. You can make a personal attack on me all you want. But the truth is the truth. You doubt me? Call Nature and ask them what their secrecy requirements are! Problem solved.

    It may not be a hoax on her part... That's potentially true as well, but if her data comes up as homo sapien sapien then she has nothing to sell.Polymorphism difference could be as simple as a person not recorded in genbank.... But it could also be an orchestrated hoax all designed to make everybody money off of the gullible Footer crowd.

    Evidence her dna lab would go under if this turns out to be lousy science?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nick, I have no reason to doubt your scientist friends could say whatever they want and I'm not trying to start a fight. My sister works in a lab (not DNA, sorry) and has been extremely excited about some research she is involved in. Really promising stuff, she says. For the past two years, she has been unable to tell us what she is working on... she would love to! Perhaps the secrecy is being upheld at another level and not the journal. Or perhapse the journal can impose whatever embargoes they see fit, on a paper by paper basis. Just sayin'...
      David from the PAC/NW

      Delete
    2. All I'm saying is it seems unusual. Not to mention that if you look at Bigfootery's history of promises and results.... It doesn't look good.

      Nobody would be happier than I if it all turned out to be on the level and true. Pardon me If I'm not holding my breath.

      Delete
    3. Dr Ketchums work is probably the best chance that sasquatch has ever had of being accepted. The ground has been well prepared by such as Dr meldrew and any reasonable person ought to hold fire and give her work a welcome and hearty support.
      Clearly Dr ketchum is the right person with a most appropriate background in the right place.
      The persona of sasquatch is a highly exciting idea historicaly embedded as it is it in legend. Difficult for some to even entertain the idea and fearful of an earthquake shaking up their personal paridigm involving as it does man and apparently mans near relatives or even the same species. The hoaxer the joker and the cynical sceptic appear and indulge in incontinent criticisms not based on science or reason but on desperation.
      Time to look forward to Dr ketchum drawing back the veil!

      Delete
    4. @ Nick B
      If there is no secrecy, why do they have a press embargo ? It has to do with the fact that this is a big discovery, and it is not uncommon to be treated in the manner that we are seeing.

      Delete
    5. Please post Dr. Ketchum's CV and publication listing to justify "Dr ketchum is the right person with the most appropriate background in the right place". She is a DVM, not a research scientist. Look up what a Moody Scholar is; it's a high school scholarship. Her credentials are anything but substantial in cutting edge DNA analysis.

      Delete
    6. True. You are throwing out so many theories. Your natural skepticism leads to all of these theories. For every negative theory, there the positives. Ex: What happens if a new species is discovered. What happens if this new species is closely related to man but not quite the same, etc. etc. etc.

      For every negative idea you come up with, someone can refute it with a positive idea. But, that is all that they are, opinions, paranoia, ideas.

      You be sad, let the bigfooters be happy for awhile. Maybe soon you can reverse roles with them if this study ends the way you hope.

      Delete
  8. LINDSAY ITS FEB 29TH...TIMES UP!!!...WHERES THE STUDY YOU TOLD US WAS COMING AT THE END OF FEBRUARY? WHERE IS IT?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you go ask Dr. Ketchum that question? After all, that was her prediction.

      Delete
    2. Lindsay is a journalist/reporter, not the scientist involved with the DNA study. I will bet the bank that he will be the person to disclose the results of the study and the day it will come out prior.

      He has been spot on so far. (Give or take a few minor things.) NO one else has even been in the ballpark with Lindsay's insider information.

      Delete
    3. You're a moron if you believe that anon @ 8:24. Robby's caught in another lie and of course blames someone else. Sociopath.

      Delete
  9. I don't understand the hate on Nick. He is just being skeptical about this paper, as am I. This thing has been in peer review for awhile now, and I think its for selective science conclusions. I honestly think that she made some of the evidence go in her favor so she can make this come out in her favor so she can recoup some of the investors money. I don't think this should be a big surprise.
    Bigfoots Broski

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thanx mang!

      The truth is bleevers buy into anything. This is why footery has gotten away with so much hokum for so long. If people were critical in their thinking more often it would help run off all the con men ,hucksters and snake oil salesmen from footin and maybe get some legitimate scientific interest.

      Delete
    2. I second that, his comments are all issue driven. The Moody Scholar tag after her name in her bio may refer to a high school scholarship (I don't know, but Nick is not the first to make that comment). If so that would be a red flag to me, not many PhD's or those with illustrious credentials have room in their bio to note highschool honors.
      Also, he notes it may not be an intentional hoax, but misguided, or collapsed, who knows? As for secrecy, yes of course, but just fess up to it for the real reasons if commercial or whatever, to rely on published "poloicies" and give Nature as an example is again pushing the credibility.. If the Journal said so in just this case, then say so.
      Too opaque, too cloudy.
      Nick is probably more sane than ay of us in his objective questioning.
      It shouldn't hurt if it holds no water, and will be forgotten, but it leaves me wondering tonight. That is the hate I guess toward the comments.

      Delete
    3. That simply means that she is a very intelligent person who is PMSing. (You know; an egghead who stays in a bad mood.)

      Delete
  10. I've had enough of Nick the know-it-all. You referenced "Nature?" Fine. Here is the policy at http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/confidentiality.html Note what I highlighted in all caps. In case you can't understand the the key points, I've explained them in lower case in parentheses:
    Confidentiality
    Nature journals keep CONFIDENTIAL ALL DETAILS ABOUT A SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT AND DO NOT COMMENT TO ANY OUTSIDE ORGANIZATION ABOUT MANUSCRIPTS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE JOURNALS WHILE THEY ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION OR IF THEY ARE REJECTED. The journal editors MAY comment publicly on PUBLISHED material, but their comments are restricted to the content itself and their evaluation of it.

    AFTER A MANUSCRIPT IS SUBMITTED, CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE NATURE JOURNAL, REFEREES’ REPORTS AND OTHER CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL, WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBMISSION IS EVENTUALLY PUBLISHED, MUST NOT BE POSTED ON ANY WEBSITE OR OTHERWISE PUBLICISED WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION FROM THE EDITORS. (Correspondence includes process and publication date notifications - duh.) The editors themselves are not allowed to discuss manuscripts with third parties or to reveal information about correspondence and other interactions with authors and referees. Referees of manuscripts submitted to Nature journals undertake in advance to maintain confidentiality of manuscripts and any associated supplementary data.

    Pre-publicity
    Our policy on the posting of particular versions of the manuscript is as follows:
    1. You are WELCOME (author’s CHOICE) to post pre-submission versions or the original submitted version of the manuscript on a personal blog, a collaborative wiki or a preprint server at any time BUT NOT SUBSEQUENT PRE-ACCEPT VERSIONS THAT EVOLVE DUE TO THE EDITORIAL PROCESS.
    2. THE ACCEPTED VERSION OF THE MANUSCRIPT, following the review process, MAY ONLY BE POSTED 6 MONTHS AFTER THE PAPER IS PUBLISHED in a Nature journal. A publication reference and URL to the published version on the journal website must be provided on the first page of the postprint.

    3. THE PUBLISHED VERSION — copyedited and in Nature journal format — MAY NOT BE POSTED ON ANY WEBSITE OR PREPRINT SERVER.

    NATURE JOURNAL AUTHORS MUST NOT DISCUSS CONTRIBUTIONS WITH THE MEDIA (INCLUDING OTHER SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS) UNTIL THE PUBLICATION DATE; ADVERTISING THE CONTENTS OF ANY CONTRIBUTION TO THE MEDIA MAY LEAD TO REJECTION. The only exception is in the week before publication, during which contributions may be discussed with the media if authors and their representatives (institutions, funders) clearly indicate to journalists that their CONTENTS MUST NOT BE PUBLICIZED UNTIL THE JOURNAL’S PRESS EMBARGO HAS ELAPSED. Authors will be informed of embargo dates and timings after acceptance for publication of their articles.

    Presentation and discussion of material submitted to a Nature journal at scientific meetings is encouraged, but authors MUST INDICATE THAT THEIR WORK IS SUBJECT TO PRESS EMBARGO AND DELCLINE TO DISCUSS IT WITH MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA. Authors are FREE (again, the author’s CHOICE) free to publish abstracts in conference proceedings and to distribute preprints of submitted or 'in press' papers to professional colleagues, BUT NOT TO THE MEDIA.

    Occasionally, journalists and editors hear about work at talks given at scientific meetings and mention this work in meeting reports or editorials in their journals. IN THESE CASES, A NATURE JOURNAL WILL ASSESS THE EXTENT TO WHICH AUTHORS HAVE SOLICITED THIS INTEREST OR COOPERATED WITH JOURNALISTS. IF, IN THE JUDGEMENT OF THE EDITORS, THE JOURNAL’S EMBARGO POLICY HAS BEEN BROKEN, THE SUBMITTED PAPER MAY BE REJECTED, EVEN IF IT IS TECHNICALLY, “IN PRESS.”

    (This means if you talk too much and it gets out, your paper is rejected. Journals can also issue gag orders on particularly important papers. I guess your "friends'" papers didn't qualify. Oh yeah, and social media, like this blog IS NEWS MEDIA. So, if you want your paper published, you keep your trap shut.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You stole fizzy lifting drinks! You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir!

      Delete
    2. I believe it says right there in black and white that discussion among scientific peers is ENCOURAGED .It also says that it can be published in abstract form. Yet she hasn't appeared to have done that ? Nowhere does it describe secrecy at this level. You call me a know it all because you probably have an 8th grade education. This proves my position is correct. You can't make a press release , you can't go on TV and discuss your paper. But you can damn sure talk about it.

      Delete
    3. Someone has poor reading comprehension skills... Most of their policy states that THEY will keep your information private, not that you necessarily have to.

      Delete
    4. Nick,

      Unless you are one of her scientific peers, (NOT) then the information cannot be discussed with you, me, or anyone out there in la-la land. That is unless you want to violate the "black and white" words listed here.

      Delete
    5. Thank you for posting this!! I hope the naysayers will take note.

      Delete
  11. Sooooooo anyone seen any Bigfoot evidence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sooooooo, are you an expert in the field closely related to this study? Thought not. This could be why we "average joes" coach potatos aren't getting called by Meldrum or Ketchum to ask our advice about all things sasquatch evidence related.

      Your not special. Gotta wait just like everyone else.

      Delete
  12. how can change the evidence ? Dna is like the math of science,either it's right or it's wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have no idea what you're talking about. This isn't a case of paternity testing. Understanding the evolutionary relationship among haplotypes often involves very complex statistical modelling. Molecular phylogeny is very rarely clear-cut; it only works that way for a narrow zone of divergence between the rampant problems of incomplete lineage sorting and homoplasy. In other words, generating some sequence data isn't the difficult part of this at all. However, it is the only part of the process that I would expect a DVM with a pet diagnostics business to have any experience in.

      Delete
  13. Nick is A jealous fool, he can't stand to see someone succeed, What a dousher, scumbag,
    I'll bet he is the first one to try to start rumors when the study is published.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. jealous fool eh? I'm a critical thinker. Not a blind believer in malarky. Present me with one piece of irrefutable empirical evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. Yeah, I'm still waiting.

      perhaps this paper will be that evidence,I doubt it, but it could be. However, if,as has been stated by Paulides, the evidence is modern human DNA, well...It's hokum. If it turns out to be unknown primate, that'll be something. But "prove" Bigfoot this paper cannot do. Unless there are bones or a body associated with it we haven't been told of yet.

      Delete
    2. DNA essentially is a body you fool, thus, it'll be proven.

      Delete
    3. DNA is the mathematics of biology. It is purely objective. THIS is why the study is potentially groundbreaking. How the media and the scientific field will run with it is up in the air....

      Delete
  14. Nick, please take your place in the corner next to Robert Lindsay. J.D.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh it makes you so angry to be proven wrong doesn't it? lmao Yer widdle bigfoot is probably a myth and you will have to focus your said widdle life on something else....blow me

      Delete
    2. Who have you proven wrong? Hey I knew nothing about this process. So I researched it. I found the same thing that was posted to you. And instead of taking the honorable approach and simply gracefully backing out of the argument you are now trying to find all the loopholes in it.

      You are not being a critical thinker here Nick. You are being a religious skeptic. Meaning as any religious zealot would close the door on all possibility except what they believe, you are doing the same thing here.

      Okay so what if she CAN disclose certain things? Why on earth would she? Since I was on this scientific journal site, I took your argument and the other arguments to mind. So I searched for other published material to see what it was like in the past. Maybe I simply was not looking in the right place, but were is the review for the atomic bomb? I couldn't find it.

      Do I think money is involved? Oh Hell yes I do!!! But not Your money. Why would she need it? If this turns out to be the find of the century she will make more money from royalties alone than any scam artist could.

      If you were in her shoes would you not do the same?

      Delete
    3. No offense Tzieth but Googling "scientific journal peer review" isn't very helpful in providing insight into the actual process. Mainly because peer review itself isn't a regulated discipline, and each journal has its own review parameters.

      As far as "review for the atomic bomb" I'm not exactly sure what point you're making. The atomic bomb was a top-secret military project, not a research paper.

      Dr. Ketchum is a veterinary doctor, not a research scientist. Perhaps that's why she's behaving so strangely regarding her paper, I don't know.

      Either way, its important to keep in mind that in terms of discovering new species, its usual physical specimens or fossils that lead to scientific acceptance, not a DNA analysis.

      Delete
    4. The only problem with your research is you where trying to find information on MILITARY RESEARCH. Your not going to find any papers explaining the atom bomb from back then. Hell I had a great uncle who was part of the project and he was sworn to secrecy even to his family for nearly 20 years after it happened. The thing people don't realize is that it was a completely different world back then. But Nick isn't asking questions that shouldn't be being brought up by others. He's simply reading in black and white what is stated and is pointing out that they aren't trying to get the findings out as they should be to get more people interested in it. But then again all of this BULLSHIT debating is rendered moot because it has already been stated by Ketchum that it was most definetly NOT SENT TO NATURE.

      Delete
  15. Nick is not completely incorrect . It does not state anywhere that preliminary data cannot be discussed, nor does it state that divulging where in the process a manuscript may be is against the rules. The level of secrecy concerning whether this paper has even been submitted to ANY journal is greater than most classified information , and it does beg the question as to whether this paper has even been submitted at all . There is certainly no reason to believe that it has ever been submitted or will ever be submitted to Nature so the rules of that journal are in many ways irrelevant anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "AFTER A MANUSCRIPT IS SUBMITTED, CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE NATURE JOURNAL, REFEREES’ REPORTS AND OTHER CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL, WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBMISSION IS EVENTUALLY PUBLISHED, MUST NOT BE POSTED ON ANY WEBSITE OR OTHERWISE PUBLICISED WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION FROM THE EDITORS."

      ummm say again? Is this not a Website?

      And we ARE NOT her peers

      And what really made me laugh was you saying

      "There is certainly no reason to believe that it has ever been submitted or will ever be submitted to Nature so the rules of that journal are in many ways irrelevant anyway."

      Based on what??? lol There is no reason to believe she didn't submit it.

      "The level of secrecy concerning whether this paper has even been submitted to ANY journal is greater than most classified information "

      Really? It ran out but I had a level 4 security clearance. "Classified" is right before "Top Secret" If what you say is the case, you would not be arguing this, and I would not be arguing this because we would not have this topic to argue about.. We would not know. But maybe you missed this part?

      "Nature journals keep CONFIDENTIAL ALL DETAILS ABOUT A SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT AND DO NOT COMMENT TO ANY OUTSIDE ORGANIZATION ABOUT MANUSCRIPTS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE JOURNALS WHILE THEY ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION OR IF THEY ARE REJECTED."

      So weather or not it was accepted or rejected it is kept confidential. You would not know either way.

      Delete
  16. Just wanted to say that I agree with Nick B on all points regarding the peer review process.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just wanted to say Nick B is an Asshole

    ReplyDelete
  18. A vet doctor?. That explains it. She is afraid some person with more knowledge is going to steal her work(wonder who she has hired to interpret the data).I still wonder why she was picked in the first place. Her credentials now leave a lot more doubt in my mind. Hope, this does work out though, but it looks worse every passing moment.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "456Feb 29, 2012 08:42 PM
    No offense Tzieth but Googling "scientific journal peer review" isn't very helpful in providing insight into the actual process. Mainly because peer review itself isn't a regulated discipline, and each journal has its own review parameters.

    As far as "review for the atomic bomb" I'm not exactly sure what point you're making. The atomic bomb was a top-secret military project, not a research paper.

    Dr. Ketchum is a veterinary doctor, not a research scientist. Perhaps that's why she's behaving so strangely regarding her paper, I don't know.

    Either way, its important to keep in mind that in terms of discovering new species, its usual physical specimens or fossils that lead to scientific acceptance, not a DNA analysis."

    Yes you have a point. And I will honestly say I know nothing of Scientific journals. I went to a sight that told you how to submit one and gave the different categories.

    But though I think we have the fossils, what do you do if science rejects them? It takes special and rare circumstances to even leave fossils.

    But what of the things that left no fossils at all? Chimpanzees, Mountain Gorillas, Giant Squid? How were these upgraded from Myth to Fact? At least DNA proves something is there. We sequenced everything known right?

    DNA is a new science and to me it seems more reliable than fossil records. When i was in elementary school in the late 70's to mid 80's we were taught about dinosaurs. One of those no longer exists lol "Brontosaurus"

    And what about the confirmed "New species" we have found in the last 10 years? Are they truely "new" just because we found no fossils? Yet here they are. We have specimens.

    This brings me to my point and your point also.. they are actually one and the same... We do not know what is going on here. If she has DNA from not just hair but actual flesh, then she must have acquired the specimen as well.

    I do not believe that a chunk of meat was given to a lab and the rest was just simply thrown away.

    If you are a skeptic like Nick, that is fine and it is your right. If you are a believer, then that is also fine. But I think it is unhealthy to follow either view without weighing the pro's and cons.

    To say "This woman is full of **** she is trying to take your money!!! There is nothing secret about doing this or that!" Then when you see there are rules of confidentiality in place. The first thing said is "But they are optional"

    I do not see why this woman would put her rep on the line. If this turns out to all be a bunch of B/S she would be ruined. So I look at it like this:

    You have the find of the century and you KNOW it is the find of the century. What do you do? First thing I would do is lawyer up. I am not going to get screwed out of this. So while there may be the option to disclose according to the journal, there may be legal obligations to this as well.

    With that said; I would not have said a word of this to anyone. Not even about consideration to submit it.

    There is nothing wrong with taking a skeptical approach to this. But to do so in the way it was done was wrong. Nick started off strong. He gave his reasons as to why he did not believe it. But then he went on to justify those reasons by attacking Dr. Ketchum's secrecy with possible motives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. And just so you know where I'm coming from, I think it would be great bigfoot exists, but I don't think we'll get any closer to a discovery is we allow frauds and con artists to pollute the discussion.

      Delete
  20. Where do you get off belittling a doctorate degree? And what about her years of experience as a forensic scientist? You think she's stupid? Can YOU do her job?

    The rules above here give scientists a choice about discussing their paper. WHY would ANYONE want to discuss it with people like YOU? Just so you can try to poke holes at the data when I guarantee you don't have the doctorate-level education to understand it. Heck, you can't even understand the rules - did you not see the point in parens after this statement:

    AFTER A MANUSCRIPT IS SUBMITTED, CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE NATURE JOURNAL, REFEREES’ REPORTS AND OTHER CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL, WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBMISSION IS EVENTUALLY PUBLISHED, MUST NOT BE POSTED ON ANY WEBSITE OR OTHERWISE PUBLICISED WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION FROM THE EDITORS. (Correspondence includes process and publication date notifications - duh.)

    "Correspondence includes process and publication date notifications - duh." Sounds like a gag order to me!!!

    It makes me feel BETTER about Dr. Ketchum that she IS playing her cards close to the vest. You people are just soooooooooo very jealous that 1) YOU didn't drag in a body and get the fame, 2) a WOMAN is succeeding where YOU did NOT, and 3) You have NO CLUE about how this works.

    But you know what? YOUR opinions, skepticism and nay-saying DON'T MATTER because this is out of your control and it's going to play out WITHOUT YOU. THAT is what's REALLY eating away at you and making you lash out at this poor woman who's just trying to get the job done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've often thought that a big reason why Dr. Ketchum has received such harsh criticism from the male-dominated bigfoot community is that she is a WOMAN. I repeatedly see incredibly sexist comments about women posted on these sites and I'm pretty sure it drives some slightly mad that a woman is the force behind this groundbreaking study. Well I have one thing to say to that: Goooooooooooo, Sister!!!!!

      Delete
    2. No one is belittling her education or career choice. She's a highly educated professional in the field of veterinary medicine. That doesn't mean she's an expert research scientist. Bill Gates is a genius software developer, but that doesn't make him a great astronaut.

      You keep citing Nature's policies... Please.provide your source that Nature is indeed the journal she's submitted her paper to. Otherwise we don't know what journal she's submiited to, thus its meaningless to simply pick one at random and use their policies as a reason for her odd behavior.

      Delete
  21. One of the things that frustrates me about this field is how skeptics have the amazing ability to dismiss all information, evidence and proof that runs counter to their opinions, beliefs or preconceived notions ... or which might bruise their egos when proven wrong.

    And in classic BF community fashion, we have here skeptics who are in complete denial that the rules of publication, clearly stated above, completely disprove their snide and uninformed assertions. Instead of manning up and admitting you're wrong, you change the argument. Do you think we are dumb enough not to notice this tactic? It didn't work in grade school and it doesn't work as an adult.

    The rules support what the Ketchum camp has been saying - get over it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not a skeptic... And yes this sort of blind and close-minded, fervor of skepticism also agitates me as well. However I can't really blame them either for thinking the way they think.

      The last great "unprecedented Bigfoot Discovery" was that body in the freezer that Tom Biscardi promoted. And how did that turn out? It was a rubber ape suit stuffed with rotting meat and chicken bones.

      Though I agree with you that it is unfair that Dr.Ketchum be attacked like this, you have to also take a look at how many of these so called "Ground Breaking Discovery'S" have played out in the past. Every Tom Biscardi and Todd Standing out there creates another of these hard-core skeptics.

      Delete
    2. Those "rules of publication" pasted above are for one journal: Nature. To date I haven't heard Dr. Ketchum or her publicist state that Nature is indeed the journal they submitted the paper to. I could Google search for ten journals that have very different rules of publication, but that wouldn't be very helpful considering we don't know which journal she submitted the paper to.

      I'm not sure exactly what "evidence" and "proof" we're dismissing here. We have claims from a veterinarian from Texas that she's received various tissue and hair samples from alleged bigfoot creatures, and that she's completed a DNA analysis of them and has prepared and submitted a paper regarding the results. That's not evidence of anything.

      I could claim that I've received tissue samples of leprechauns and that I've had the DNA analyzed and that I've submitted a paper to a journal. Until I provide evidence to back up this claim, it's just that: a claim. Not evidence, certainly not proof.

      Delete
  22. Bottom line is this; IGNORE Nick. He obviously craves attention, so don't give him ANY. The BLOBSQUATCH has spoken! So let it be written, so let it be DONE!

    ReplyDelete
  23. The disturbing thing about all of this is how THE WORLD has been brain washed into believing someone just because they have a doctorate in front of their name, no questions asked. I'm not saying anything about her credibility or any other doctor but just remember that even doctors are people just like the rest of us and yes they to can be liars, assholes, shady, and scum of the earth. Just because they have a Dr. in front of their name doesn't make them infallible. Stop drinking societies kool aid and think for yourselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brain washing goes both ways. But give the woman the benefit of the doubt first. That title in front of her name also means she has more to lose if this is a hoax. This is more than being tared and feathered, this would mean career suicide.

      Delete
    2. It wouldn't mean career suicide, people forget about things rather quickly. I'm wasn't bashing her or her motives I was simply stating that people are blinded by the fact that doctors are people to and they make mistakes like the rest of us. Just look at the numbers on medical malpractice and other mistakes that are made. Look at Dr. kavorkian he was a Dr and was in the habit of killing people for money. Just puttin it out there that they aren't unquestionable just because they're DOCTORS.

      Delete
    3. "Career suicide"?? You honestly think that people in Timpson Texas who need DNA analysis services will care about, or even know about, this bigfoot DNA project? Only hardcore bigfoot enthusiasts know about it. If it's a hoax, it will be covered on bigfoot blogs, and it might possibly get 30 second's worth of attention by mainstream media outlets.

      Delete
    4. It's all over her facebook.. They would know.

      Delete
    5. Professionals seeking DNA analysis browse the Facebook profiles of the analysts providing the services? That's odd.

      Either way, the same argument could have been made (and probably was) for all other hoaxers in the past. Rick Dyer, why would he hoax having a bigfoot corpse? He's a police officer, his whole career is at stake, surely he wouldn't lie. Please.

      We can speculate on Dr Ketchum's intentions with the paper, but what we know (based on her statements), she's posturing herself very similarly to other hoaxers in the past.

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

      Delete
    7. You have a solid point on that one. I am sure Biscardi was behind it though and probably offered the guy a lot of money. Some Police Departments do not require a CJ degree as long as you served in the military.

      But to get a Doctorate and throw it away? That seems less likely to me.

      But in regards to Dr Ketchum's posturing, there is a lot of stuff getting mixed up thanks to Lendsay... This sight gives chronological order of everything Ketchum has said and done.

      http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/melba-ketchum-Bigfoot-DNA-study_2011.php

      a lot of that is her own words. paraphrase after paraphrase is leading to disinformation.

      (The deleted comment is this one, but I put the link to this site by mistake lol)

      Delete
  24. Question?

    Isn't Ketchum the only one to have made any money so far on this project? Dragging this out would continue to keep the money coming in, wouldn't it? I'm still up in the air about this project, but I still have hope.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Damn right old Nicky there's a troll, he's just as scared right now as the rest of them naysayers that never thought it could be true. Funny how they pretend to be oh so scientific yet they're all angrily up in arms about possibly the greatest scientific discovery of all time. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  26. so 4yrs ago someone gave her some flesh and she still can write about it? i can get a swab test in 24hrs.

    her credibility must be int he trash can, if someone does have a body and they are hording it for themselves their idiots..and greedy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not four years ago, just under two... Here this will explain a lot. This is the idiot in his own words http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l0GZ7K6Ih0&feature=related

      Delete
  27. I really suspect that debunkers and deniers have a relation with FBI.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm sorry, i reacted to the negative comments like a child. But, it is true that i suspect some visitors of this blog. Whenever a new info about the Ketchum Project comes out, negative comments are increasing. My mind says there is something fishy about it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia