Internet Bigfooting: Was Ketchum even trying to do this right?

I continue to be amazed by the stubborn way the hard-cores in bigfooting cling to the idea that their initial decision, regardless of any scientific results, that whatever they want to be of bigfoot origin.


New Ketchum Paper Issues Revealed

A member of the JREF forum spotted a serious problem in the Ketchum paper this week. One of the references is to a well known April Fools day joke by LANE. From there investigations of since revealed a number of suspect papers cited in the Ketchum paper. You can view a full list on Doubtful News, who broke the story.

Ketchum responded (via Facebook, because that’s where all reputable scientists respond to questions to their work) claiming that the references were demanded by reviewers and that she “had  not felt had any place in our manuscript and were not included originally“. I say this, Ketchum: If the references had no place in your paper and were related only to “so-called folklore”, then why were they not presented in the paper as such, and referenced in the text of the paper as “other scientific evidence lending credence to the existence of Sasquatch“?

I’m with idoubtit that Ketchum likely believes in her work, and is not maliciously perpetrating a hoax. But this does not change the fact that, even if she has proof, she’s rushed her paper to publish in a journal with no credibility, and with little to know scientific review, or even review of her paper on her part. This is why reputable journals wouldn’t publish. This is why the scientific publishing review process exists!



Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.