Posted by: Guy Edwards on February 25th, 2013
The Melba Ketchum Paper is being reviewed, what do other academics think?
“…if it was me who held solid evidence of a new species and a remarkable pattern of origin, I would be breaking down the doors of any mainstream scientists I thought might be able to verify my data. I would want that Nobel prize far more than another appearance on Coast-to-Coast AM.” — Dr Tyler A. Kokjohn, Professor of Microbiology at Midwestern University
You may remember Dr. Kokjohn from the Bigfoot Lunch Club post, “First Bigfoot DNA “Peer Review” Results are In– But, Not as Expected” Although we felt Melba Ketchum’s paper was an echo of what was already leaked, we wondered if a more academic eye would find points of interest. So we asked our friend Tyler A. Kokjohn, Ph.D., Professor of Microbiology at Midwestern University what he thought.
Among multiple insights Dr. Kokjohn did offer these four questions.
- What happened to the original founder species?
- The Hybrids are abundant, yet the founder species is extinct?
- How could a hypothetical species so close to modern humans to interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring not share homology to the same entities in their extended family?
- Where did the sequences not in GenBank originate?
We sent these questions to Dr. Melba Ketchum, but she did not respond. The biggest contention is Dr. Kokjohn’s suggestion, “The authors will have to grant reviewers the ability to view the sequences and run their own analyses at some point.”
You can read Dr. Kokjohn’s full response to Melba Ketchum’s paper at Bigfoot Lunch Club
Psychology reduces to biology, all biology to chemistry, chemistry to physics, and finally physics to mathematical logic.