Posted by: Craig Woolheater on December 4th, 2011
Matt Moneymaker posted the following here at Cryptomundo as a comment on the post: Melba Ketchum: Sasquatch DNA Project Update.
I felt that what Matt has to say about the subject was significant enough to warrant a separate post.
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 hypothesis”.
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