Monday, December 5, 2011

Robert Lindsay Vs Matt Moneymaker


Robert Lindsay correct on Nature rumors. We stated previously that Ketchum’s paper was at the journal Nature. Granted, our sources inside the Ketchum camp are very sketchy, and the information coming from them is hard to figure out. Ketchum then issued a statement on her Facebook page saying that the paper was not at Nature. We received a lot of criticism for being wrong about the scoop. However, we were not wrong.
The paper was first submitted to Nature, but it was returned to her by them after some time due to several concerns. We get this from Matt Moneymaker. Ketchum then submitted to another journal, and it looks like this submission will be successful. So we were correct in a sense. At one time at least, the paper was submitted to Nature, was tentatively accepted, was under peer review there, and finally was “handed back,” which is the terminology used.


Many of our critics are pointing out that when I initially release findings, they are widely attacked as inaccurate, but after a while, a lot of what I say turns out to be true.
Matt Moneymaker’s statement on the Nature affair is here:
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’s hypercompetitive nature has always made me sick. If you go to his forums, there has long been a ban, yes a ban of all things, on reporting on the results of the Ketchum and Erickson Projects, two of the biggest projects in the game for a long time now. Any threads on the topic were immediately locked, followed by snide remarks that Ketchum and Erickson had been promising people results for years with nothing to show for it.
Clearly, Matt is jealous. He’s another Bigfoot kook out to beat everyone else to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow at all costs. Ketchum and Erickson send his jealousy meter stratospheric.
Now that it looks like Ketchum may finally publish and publish well, he seems to be hitching his wagon tentatively to the Ketchum train for the ride. Opportunistically? Well, of course. We are seeing a lot of other folks in the game hitching their wagons to Ketchum’s cattle train for some time now. This is one reason we have been attacked so seriously here, because we are seen as having the objective of somehow derailing her project. Of course it’s not true, but tell that to the nuts!
Matt does manage to get in a dig at Ketchum here. The main gist of the report was that Ketchum’s submission to Nature failed. That’s why he reported on Ketchum in the first place. She lost! Get it? Then he softens this dig by reporting that it’s good for the field after all. So Matt gets to have it both ways. He gets to dig at Ketchum for failing her submission, and at the same time he hitches to the train in case she succeeds after all.
[Via Robert Lindsay Blog]

TCH - Matt Moneymaker has a reputation of being pretty competitive and Robert Lindsay have a way of  rubbing people the wrong way. This could be the grudge match of a lifetime. We here at TCH respect both men, while we don't always agree with either of them sometimes, they both have some good things they do and for that we do respect them. I can see this creating a battle of words between these two..should be fun. Get the popcorn!


Have you had a close encounter or witnessed something unusual?
Send us an Email


 
Help Support The Crypto Hunters

Now you can get our blog on your Kindle!


0 comments:

Post a Comment

The Crypto Crew - Submit Sighting - TCC Team
Interactive Sightings Map
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...