Leaderboard

Two posts after one forum member posted a review of the Ketchum paper by a Princeton University geneticist, another forum member writes " there's nothing definitive either way from any known qualified scientist ". If a Princeton University geneticist doesn't qualify as a "known qualified scientist", who does?

I never said that there was anything supernormal for bigfoot. Please re-read my post. Not really. Which is exactly why I advocate not throwing out data simply because it makes us uncomfortable or contradicts our worldview.

I have mentioned before that Kruglyak appears to be the only unbiased (outside bigfootery) qualified and credentialed person, to date, to wade in with his opinion. But without all of the data being released, his opinion is not as informed as some might want to lead us to believe.

Right down to her extra commas, edited names, and claims that a certain Dr. named, turned out to be a minister (does anyone know how many people might have the same name)? Lots of finger pointing, but no due diligence........all of it not really science. BTW, how can one declare a scientific fact of findings without having seen the total report? You said 3! Where's the other evidence supporting your claim? Anything written by the editors proclaiming the refusal? And in supporting the critics, your scientific credentials are????? As has been said multiple times, the extra comma didn't show up until weeks after the fact. Sarah Bollinger was removed from the original version of the paper where she was listed as a co-author. She was a DNA Diagnostics employee. Removing a name from a published paper requires at the very least a citation noting what was edited and why. It's in the ethical guidelines of every profession and journal out there. Except DeNovo. But that's just one mistake in a long list of mistakes and contradictions of statements. There are 34 Rayford Wallaces in the United States. Only 7 are Doctors. Only 1 works with what was formally bigfootstudy.com and who's original owner John Phillips (who goes by #59) worked with Dr. Ketchum on setting up the foundation. He of course left after he realized everyone had setup themselves with $90k a year positions. http://www.bigfootst...pic,1465.0.html Dr. Rayford Wallace only edited the paper though, so having a scientific degree isn't important. It's just a piece of the puzzle. If the truth points out that someone isn't being completely honest, that's not reputation bashing. It's showing that the person isn't being completely honest. That's it. No, this was still when people thought more was going to be released later. Before Dr. Ketchum said everything needed to prove what the paper stated was included. More data is irrelevant. The full study of the genomes would take years, and would just delve deeper into what the paternal species nuDNA withheld. But she jumped to the Peru samples instead. ******* And I love the "agenda" talk. I was going to do simple interviews every few weeks to get the blog active again. It wasn't until I started asking questions that the rabbit hole opened. Trust me, I wish I could reveal right now what I have. It would definitely clear some things up for most. For me it leaves more, albeit different questions.