Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
That is interesting. It's the best evidence I have seen that Ketchum actually submitted her manuscript to Nature and that they actually sent it out for review!

I cannot tell if Ketchum's response to the 4 referees' comments is a complete representation of their comments, but I can tell this (assuming this document is really what it purports to be):

1) Nature, the premiere scientific publication for a potential discovery like this, took Ketchum seriously and actually allowed her manuscript to go through the peer-review process. That's huge. Actually getting your manuscript considered for review is a big deal because most submitted manuscripts get returned without review - they never make it through the first panel of editors. This should be an enormous kick in the gut for every woo-slinging bigfooter who whines that "science won't consider the evidence". BOOM. DONE. We are completely DONE with that conspiracy, Ivory-tower crap. Please never forget this fact in your dealings with such people.

2) Read the actual referees' comments (again, assuming that's what these are). These people are quite open to this paper and the idea of describing the new taxon based on genetic analysis of putative tissue samples. Their primary beef is that Ketchum & Co. didn't know what the heck they were doing and misinterpreted the results they obtained. There was no "there is no bigfoot so this is poppycock"; these people really evaluated that paper.

From referee #1: "I would definitely like to see this paper 'salvaged', but it would need a thorough revision and re-organisation. I wish the authors the best of luck in their continuing efforts."

Yep, that sure sounds like a classic Ivory-tower blow-off to me!
 
How would you verify that the reviews are authentic and complete? This is Bigfootery after all.
 
Last edited:
WP, IF they are authentic, I strongly suspect that they are incomplete. That said, they read as if they are authentic. At the very least, whoever wrote them seems to know something about peer review and can basically string together coherent sentences so that rules out most bigfooters.

In my subjective opinion, those are excerpts of real reviews submitted by real referees who reviewed a real manuscript that Ketchum submitted to Nature. That's all I've got.
 
"I would definitely like to see this paper salvaged..."

Why would a scientist start out saying that in a peer review? The paper is obviously about Bigfoot. It seems more folksy than professional scientist.
 
This is the telling comment, ouch ouch ouch.
The terminology used throughout this manuscript, and the conclusions the authors reach, seem inappropriate in view of the evidence. Indeed, the title tells us that evidence for a 'new species' is presented, yet the authors actually end up naming a new 'subspecies'. I am definitely of the opinion that the naming of a new taxon seems inappropriate at this stage (it is likely to be about as accepted as Meldrum's suggested ichnotaxonomic name _Anthropoidipes ameriborealis_), and I would also add that the chosen name ('_Homo sapiens feralis_') is odd and highly problematic (use google to see what I mean). It is stated throughout the ms that the animal is of hybrid origin. If this is so, it is highly debatable as to whether or not taxonomic novelty is warranted.
Click to expand...

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1DwV...n3Bkoi_3nnFDtR7-eDUkx-HOP-NjMYbG8M/edit?pli=1
 
Last edited:
"It's highly debatable if this would be a taxonomic novelty." IOW a cross between a human and a monster bipedal ape thing isn't even worth mentioning. It's a common enough thing to imagine.

Just strikes me as odd things for Nature peer reviewers to say about a Bigfoot Exists paper. Oh and the reviewer gets in a Meldrum slam too?
 
Last edited:
I've finished reading through the reviewer's comments to the paper. None of the comments are based on the standard trope that scientists won't accept anything out of the ordinary. In fact, the claim that the paper proves Bigfoot is taken in stride, and the the paper is reviewed based on the evidence contained therein. Unfortunately for Dr. Ketchum, the reviewers did not find the necessary evidence.

Here are some of their comments that sum up the paper:

First the data does not make logical sense.
Click to expand...

PCR based methods and methods used for SNP detection by the authors are known to be highly unreliable when applied to minor amounts of degraded DNA
Click to expand...

At no point do the authors provide adequate evidence to support their outrageous claims. The paper suffers from a myriad of faults,
Click to expand...

There is a minimum of statistical analysis.
Click to expand...
 
William Parcher said:
"I would definitely like to see this paper salvaged..."

Why would a scientist start out saying that in a peer review? The paper is obviously about Bigfoot. It seems more folksy than professional scientist.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure s/he started out with that statement, but I have both read from referees, and written myself in reviews, similar sentiments.

As I know you appreciate, experienced and accomplished scientists can be naive and ignorant skeptics. I'm here every day, robbing myself of a bit of the former so that I can avoid being the latter.
 
It does read as if it's authentic. It points out the issues with Dr. Ketchum's paper in a scientific and unbiased manner, which I doubt Ketchum would ever do with her own paper. I could be wrong though.
 
William Parcher said:
Do the Nature editors read Cryptomundo?
Click to expand...
Yes, but only on Mondays @ 4:21 PST. The rest of their time is spent on a data intensive anonymous submittal codenamed "How Good Can Porn Get?"

OntarioSquatch said:
It does read as if it's authentic. It points out the issues with Dr. Ketchum's paper in a scientific and unbiased manner, which I doubt Ketchum would ever do with her own paper. I could be wrong though.
Click to expand...
Still can't quite commit to the Ketchum's a Quack theory huh? Because everything about DNA science isn't known and thus none of it is? I mean, if Nature's scientist 'editors' still aren't enough.
 
MikeG said:
I've read OS' post through 3 times now, and it looks to me that "Ketchum is a quack" is PRECISELY what he is saying.

Mike
Click to expand...
Well...Mike, spokesperson (apparently) for the deluded downtrodden, my reference was to the last 5 words of his post, "I could be wrong though." I should have emboldened them. :eye-poppi

Anyway, going by your logic, he says "Ketchum's a quack. Or not." In reality he says "Ketchum might be a quack. Or not." Whatever the case, he's not saying 'precisely' what you think. I stand by the not quite committed remark.

Got any other astute non observations?
 
I was saying I doubt Ketchum would point out the issues with her own paper in an attempt to fabricate a peer review, but maybe she did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom