Bigfoot Evidence: It's Not About The Bloggers...

Editor's Note: This is a guest post by Mike A.

 a Sasquatch enthusiast and a member of the Facebook group, Team Tazer Bigfoot.

Bigfoot Evidence: It's not about the bloggers, it's about what went wrong with the Ketchum study

 

 

 

So, the Ketchum Study...it seems destined that this is going to turn into yet another culture war within the squatching community, so be it.

 

 

 

First the facts: The paper is claimed to have been submitted to peer review within the US, and was rejected. It is allegedly now seeking peer review in Russia. If these "facts" are not true then the Ketchum camp should step out and clarify where things are without all the skullduggery that has recently occurred. The simple fact is many a rumor has been thrown into the mix of late and the onus is on them to clear up any falsifications, it is after all, THEIR paper, THEIR study.....

 

Click Here

 

This was also a recent topic on Cryptomundo which sought to see the reason why Igor Burtsev had prematurely leaked the story of the study and then decided to re-submit it for publication in Russia.

 

The CFZ's posting on this resulted in the following message posted yesterday:

 

http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2012/12/dr-ketchums-bigfoot-dna-rejected-by.html

Bigfoot News | Bigfoot Lunch Club: Dr. Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA Rejected by Scientific Peers

And This was my reply, still waving the same red flag,

Dale Drinnon There is a consistant problem about Melba Ketchum's study that is never addressed, and whenever I try to bring it up I get called a troublemaker. I cannot say if this is actually in the paper or not because I have not seen the paper. But the public announcements I have seen always seem to say that the nuclear DNA was analysed to determine what was going on in the male side of the inheritance. Only that is stated wrong, the nuclear DNA contains materials from BOTH parents-half from either one. I keep trying to get some sort of admission or denial about this but I never get a direct statement. Last time I tried bringing it up I was told "That's all speculative": it is NOT speculative it is basic heredity and basic to DNA science, and saying that it IS speculative shows a genuine ignorance of the topic.

Which drew this reply:

Jeffrey Teagle You are correct Dale.....I stopped talking to people about the study here too. Why do people defend this lady; I have NO idea?