The Ketchum Report

[TimB]

As are these...

Tim B.

[Guest]

Moneymaker claims to have inside information about the study. From Cryptomundo:

Heard from a reliable source connected with an article reviewer for Nature (a major science journal published in the UK) that the Ketchum paper was handed back (i.e. not *rejected*) for several reasons.

One of the reasons: The paper “does not contain a testable hypothesisâ€.

Not that the paper writers forgot to include something … It’s apparently more an issue of what is, and what is not, “testable†… and it’s a very technical matter that may not be resolved any time soon …

Supposedly that’s just one problem with the paper … There are more: The writers were very obviously “not zoologists†but they needed to be for a paper like this.

There is an undeniable silver-lining to this situation though: The paper was submitted to a major scientific journal and was under serious review by several top shelf scientists around the world. Hence, many elites of the scientific world are having serious discussions about the bigfoot/sasquatch topic for the very first time. Those elites are considering the issue of DNA trace evidence (from hair, blood, skin, etc.) sufficing as solid evidence to establish the existence of the species.

I do believe a wheel has been set in motion that was not in motion before. There’s a growing awareness among scientists that there is private funding available for a top-shelf, A-team effort to prove the existence of the species through DNA evidence. Thus, if Ketchum can’t produce a publishable journal paper about her own work, for whatever reason, there will be some highly qualified scientists who will be willing to jump in at this stage. IMO that was the threshold that needed to be crossed.

- Matt Moneymaker

FWIW

Edited December 4, 2011 by rwridley

[Guest]

BTW - There should be a Moneymaker emoticon.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Relax MM ~ you can't have all the spot light, too much and you will get burned.

[Guest]

The idea that there is no testable hypothesis of a human "bf" has been a contention of mine for quite awhile. The issue is how do you verify "human dna" is from a bf. I pull of my friend's toenail, take to a lab and say can you test this bf fingernail that comes back. The results "bf is a human" It is the classic circular logic conundrum. The dna study proves nothing unless the source can be verified as coming from a bf.

Edited December 4, 2011 by bigfootnis

[bipedalist]

As disappointed as I am that it was handed back, it makes me wonder why someone of the caliber of John Mioczynski was not involved along with a few others.

Not that redemption is not forthcoming, but based on the critique of MM if what was said third-hand has a grain of truth to it, I am convinced a paper will come out one way or another; hopefully it will be peer-reviewed.

If not perhaps some of the criticisms (if there were some by Nature) can be incorporated into

another productive scientific publication....with or without the peer review.

I tend to agree with Moneymaker about the sign post that has been reached with this effort.

(dang Cryptomundo redundancy feed )

[Guest]

I may be wrong, but I get the sense that MM is talking about the initial submission of the paper. We heard reports/rumors that Nature had accepted the submission, but passed on publishing it. I'm under the impression that the paper was tweaked and reworked with Nature's comments in mind and is under consideration with another journal. Does anyone know if that's the case or not?

[bipedalist]

Guess the language of handed-back vs. rejected vs. revised is lost in the third-hand. If Nature passed on it or Ketchum team pulled it and took it elswhere and it is re-worked now for a specific journal I guess it's all moot.

[southernyahoo]

Moneymaker claims to have inside information about the study. From Cryptomundo:

FWIW

Interesting RWR, I've read some comments on the BFRO forum where it seemed MM was casting doubt on this study.

[bipedalist]

Is that called hedging your bets? Or, changing your mind?

Guess I'll just call it a fine sentiment that I tend to agree with in terms of potential to impact the field no matter the publication.

[Guest parnassus]

As disappointed as I am that it was handed back, it makes me wonder why someone of the caliber of John Mioczynski was not involved along with a few others.

Not that redemption is not forthcoming, but based on the critique of MM if what was said third-hand has a grain of truth to it, I am convinced a paper will come out one way or another; hopefully it will be peer-reviewed.

If not perhaps some of the criticisms (if there were some by Nature) can be incorporated into

another productive scientific publication....with or without the peer review.

I tend to agree with Moneymaker about the sign post that has been reached with this effort.

(dang Cryptomundo redundancy feed )

re the "zoologist," I would refer you to Ketchum's interviews and what we have been led to believe about her personality, for clues about her "self assurance."

As I have mentioned, it will undoubtedly be published somewhere, no matter what its value.

The only thing I believe you can be certain of, based on that MM post, is that there is nothing earth-shattering in it...definitely not some sort of hybrid, "one third of the way to a chimpanzee.." etc. (Are you there, Richard?) if there was that kind of DNA result, the paper could be written in crayon without a zoologist and still there is no way an editor lets it get away without at least a conditional acceptance.

Edited December 4, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest slimwitless]

I may be wrong, but I get the sense that MM is talking about the initial submission of the paper. We heard reports/rumors that Nature had accepted the submission, but passed on publishing it. I'm under the impression that the paper was tweaked and reworked with Nature's comments in mind and is under consideration with another journal. Does anyone know if that's the case or not?

Someone on this forum suggested the paper was rejected once and that the second journal was likely to publish. There have been many rumors about requested changes at the behest of reviewers (even recently). Some of these rumors I haven't seen publicly. I have to think MM is talking about the first journal here.

I wonder if Parn's "hint" that the paper could only be at one journal at a time meant he knew it was turned down by Nature (not that he knew where it was currently being considered).

Edited to add: MM has to be talking about the initial submission (if he knows what he's talking about) since Ketchum has already indicated the paper isn't at Nature.

Edited December 4, 2011 by slimwitless

[Guest parnassus]

I don't know. Both of these guys are human.

I hope you understand why this sort of stuff is irrelevant and silly when comparing populations.

As are these...

Tim B.

Tim, I hope you understand why this sort of stuff is irrelevant and silly when comparing populations.

p.

Edited December 4, 2011 by parnassus

[southernyahoo]

It is perfectly relevant to the perception that BF DNA has to show that bigfoot is big.

[Guest parnassus]

It is perfectly relevant to the perception that BF DNA has to show that bigfoot is big.

no.

in the first place, DNA doesn't have to do anything.

in the second place, perception is not fact or truth.

in the third place, height is multifactorial and we can't look at DNA and determine height.

But most obviously, the tall man posted by Tim has a condition called acromegaly, not genetic gigantism.

Edited December 4, 2011 by parnassus