Guest Admin Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Please continue your discussion of the Ketchum Report and associated information here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I don't know if this has been posted yet... http://phys.org/news/2013-02-bigfoot-genome-sequenced-skeptics.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 ^ Melissa, that article seems to summarize it well. Thanks for posting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TwilightZone Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Erickson had one video that was submitted to him reviewed by Bill Munns. Munns analyzed it and came to the conclusion that it used a mask. Erickson then decided not to use this video. It is not related to the footage he and his team have taken, and not related to the footage of Matilda. Fair enough, and thanks for the info. So the story of this particular sleeping Matilda video as I understand it from various posters here: This was shot by the Erickson team and is up to 6 minutes long. At the end it shows the Bigfoot waking up and the face can be seen. Melba Ketchum was only licensed to release a few seconds of it. What I can't get past is her statements that people won't believe video anyway, but then she releases something like this as part of her evidence. Of course there is blow-back when the "evidence" is so paltry. I know that is getting beaten like a dead horse but I believe it is very significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Twilight Zone said: This was shot by the Erickson team and is up to 6 minutes long. At the end it shows the Bigfoot waking up and the face can be seen. Melba Ketchum was only licensed to release a few seconds of it. What I find interesting is this --- this video "The Erickson Project" (as stated above) is 6 minutes long and has video of the face of - whatever this is - and Melba decides to license a few seconds.... AND either she chooses the worst part - or this is the part she paid for knowing their was better footage ------ and both Ketchum and Erickson knew this would be part of a scientific journal !!!! Did either one of them take two seconds to stop and think, "Hey, if this video is supposed to help support the findings of, Dr. Melba Ketchum, maybe she should use the best part of the video possible." Instead - she pays for the worst part - adds it to her paper - then wonders why the scientific community won't take her and her paper seriously. Good night Irene. You don't have to be a DNA scientist to spot some of the mack truck sized problems... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) @ Drew Watching the video, the camera is close to the subject, look at how slight movements of the camera make big jumps in the frame. It is less than 10 feet, 4 feet was a guess. Has anyone seen any of the peer-reviews? Why wouldn't Dr. Ketchum post the peer reviews to lend credence to her claim that the paper was peer reviewed? Treadstone, watch this video. It debunks it perfectly, and supports the idea that it is close to the camera. I've seen the video, without the commentary that was provided with your posted video. I've taken a few videos over the years, same with still pictures. Based on my experience, what is shown from my perspective is a telephoto shot. I based this on that if it is in fact under 10 feet per your suggestion. The image would briefly "blur" before coming back into focus. I've had this "blur" effect happen to me many a time.....and it gets my dandruff up when it happens, as the shot I was wanting is now lost. Next subject. What is so important about publishing (so it can be viewed) the peer reviews? MK has said over and over again that the paper was peer reviewed. You either belief her or you don't. Having access to the peer review is not going to make you either more or against the existence of BF. It's not even going to give more credence to the character of MK....as you so seemly have a huge mistrust for. Edited February 19, 2013 by treadstone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Isn't it strange that people with 6 minutes of convincing footage of an unknown North American primate are resorting to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted February 19, 2013 Admin Share Posted February 19, 2013 She may not be able to release anymore video than what was included. One of the members here states they spoke with Erickson and he is apparently waiting for a source of funding prior to releasing what he has: http://bigfootforums...880#entry704884 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TwilightZone Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Well put, Melissa! Generally speaking, it smacks of hoax to me whenever someone claims they have something amazing but they're not gonna show it. Why tell us you have it, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I'd like to see a panel convened of scientists from both sides of this issue in which an open discussion can take place. Right now a lot of people are sniping from the shadows and dismissing data out of hand. It's actually an extension of the old skeptics' razor argument. Old: All witness reports are false because no such thing as a near human cryptid exists. New: All DNA samples are contaminated because there is no such thing as a near human cryptid that can interbreed with and share DNA with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) That's fine Masterbarber - but don't you think there is probably better footage - maybe of it walking away? Both Ketchum and Erickson knew this would be part of her "scientific paper" - and yet this is the part they choose? Erickson is the owner of the footage - but he had to know how important it would be to add the best portion of the footage - this is science after all. Yet - this is what he decided upon.. This makes me wonder how seriously even Melba took her own work - and paper. I am not a DNA scientist publishing a paper - but I will tell you what - if I were in her shoes and that portion of video was my only option - I would have opted out and not licensed a bit of that film. It's hard to imagine what she thought she would gain from that. I have seen better video on YouTube. Seriously... LOL. Edited to add: Thank you Twilight Zone.. I gotta admit though - after hearing Melba bash the "armchair scientists", I will admit it really yanks my chain to see this footage as part of her paper.... Maybe she should have consulted some of the "armchair scientists" before she published her paper - I know of two on this site alone that could have been very helpful to her. Edited February 19, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted February 19, 2013 Admin Share Posted February 19, 2013 I would hope there is better footage but as another member pointed out, if there was-Erickson should have no shortage of funding opportunites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Twilight Zone said: What I find interesting is this --- this video "The Erickson Project" (as stated above) is 6 minutes long and has video of the face of - whatever this is - and Melba decides to license a few seconds.... AND either she chooses the worst part - or this is the part she paid for knowing their was better footage ------ and both Ketchum and Erickson knew this would be part of a scientific journal !!!! Did either one of them take two seconds to stop and think, "Hey, if this video is supposed to help support the findings of, Dr. Melba Ketchum, maybe she should use the best part of the video possible." Instead - she pays for the worst part - adds it to her paper - then wonders why the scientific community won't take her and her paper seriously. Good night Irene. You don't have to be a DNA scientist to spot some of the mack truck sized problems... More and more I think this kind of disfunction is due to proprietary attitudes and money. So many people are trying to control ownership, access, and distribution of evidence or data that they consider theirs and to have monetary value. I don't think there's any hoax involved, I simply believe that there are folks who can't play well together to achieve a mutally beneficial outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) I would hope there is better footage but as another member pointed out, if there was-Erickson should have no shortage of funding opportunites. Here is a question - why is Erickson looking for funding to release this footage? He could have - in Melba's paper. Done, and done. Unless it is just about the financial rewards he thinks are on the horizon. He has been talking about this footage since 2006 (that is the earliest I heard about it) - yet he still hasn't released it? What is his hold up? Why is the financial portion holding him back? He could do what Melba did - create a site, put the video on it - and force people to pay to view the film.... Is he waiting for Hollywood to get on board? Edited to add: Did Erickson license this bad part - in the hopes that someone would see it and offer up the finances to fund whatever it is he is doing?? Is that the end game here? Erickson had to know the portion he licensed to Melba was not the part that would convince science of anything (this isn't his first rodeo).. Edited February 19, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 More and more I think this kind of disfunction is due to proprietary attitudes and money. So many people are trying to control ownership, access, and distribution of evidence or data that they consider theirs and to have monetary value. I don't think there's any hoax involved, I simply believe that there are folks who can't play well together to achieve a mutally beneficial outcome. I think you hit it! IMO, much of the data, images, etc is being held back, to be released in future papers. This is commonly done in science. What is uncommon is the author of the paper is also the owner of the journal, and taking in $30 a pop. These days when you publish you sign a document that you have no competing financial interests. Clearly MK does have a financial interest! So slowly releasing the information for financial gain... well we have an answer there. Make the articles free (she can, as it is her journal!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts