The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest TwilightZone]

I think Melba's end game is about profit. I can't imagine how much she could have made on this, but I think she wants to position herself for the long haul as a go-to Bigfoot expert in order to collect appearance fees and the like. I don't know how much the TV shows pay, but I assume it's a decent check. I don't think she really believes she's proven a new species and never intended the paper to withstand rigorous scrutiny from real scientists anyway... just people who will accept pseudoscience and conspiracy theories as fact.

I imagine Dr. Meldrum supplements his income quite nicely with all the Bigfoot stuff he's into. Except Meldrum is a real scientist with credentials and would never be involved in a hoax, IMO. In fact, he is quick to point out the hoaxes, so I don't begrudge his taking a profit the "honest" way from this phenomenon which is admittedly very entertaining.

All of this is just my opinion, of course. Sykes will probably be the final word on Bigfoot for me, at least as a flesh and blood creature, so I'm just waiting on that.

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

I respect your right to not listen to, accept, or even outright ignore the opinions of those who downloaded this paper (for 30 bucks) and gave their own opinion based on their knowledge and expertise from within this community and outside of it.

But, it is also my right to listen to them as well as Melba, and make up my own mind.

Question for anyone.. Has Melba's CV ever been posted for public inspection? Anyone ever seen it - or can someone point me to it online?

So those "in-the-know" are not real people with inside knowledge you were referring to specifically, but rather some generic "they" who share your views on Ketchum and her study. A handful of bloggers/bigfooters without their own Sasquatch samples and studies, but with their own agenda perhaps?

J Sasq

Please find us one credible geneticist who supports Melbas conclusions.

I challenge you.

Once the full set of data is released, you might just get an answer to that. Why be so quick to rush to judgement when it's premature to do so at this time? What's the rush to have Ketchum proven so wrong, and to want to do so so badly?

None of us has a choice other than to see how this plays out.

@ treadstone,

Is it wrong to question her science? Should we take her findings on faith? If I look at her science and find it seriously lacking with conclusions not based on evidence, should I stay quiet? I hear some of the comments are not focussed on the science, but then her own methods and handling of this whole affair are far from any scientific norm. And this brings into question her motives for it all. Just my thoughts too.

For what it's worth, I commend you, and SY (and others too), for sticking to the science of it all, and not sinking into the gossip permeating this forum. The conversations with you and SY are extremely informative for those like me, with a severely limited knowledge of DNA, etc. I would say that her methods are fair game too. But when it gets into her handling of her website, financing, foundation, motives, etc., well that isn't relevant to the science and methodologies specifically related to this study.

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

You keep asking variations of this question. People keep answering it. If you read back through the thread and catch up, perhaps people won't have to keep repeating themselves.

I've never asked that question before. It was specifically in response to a posting by Melissa. I was just wondering whether she had any concrete proof of her statement. As of this writing, she did not.

It's really your camp that keeps repeating themselves by slamming the study, and saying that others have too, but as of yet no one with the proper credentials has had access to the data, so how could anyone validly conclude the study did not prove what it set out to prove?

Understand this, let it sink in real good: nobody has had access to all of the data, outside of the Ketchum group.

So tell me one more time, who exactly has proven that Ketchum's study is wrong? Whose name is it that you and your colleagues keep telling me? Don't even bother answering because you'd be wrong if you supplied a any name.

[Guest]

Again Sasq.....

New Rules (or common sense)

1) IF YOU MAKE A CLAIM YOU MUST PROVIDE ALL DATA THAT BACKS UP THAT CLAIM.

2) IF THE DATA THAT BACKS UP YOUR CLAIM IS NOT PROVIDED YOUR CLAIM SHALL BE CONSIDERED FALSE

3) IF ALL DATA IS EVENTUALLY PROVIDED THE CLAIM CAN BE RE-EVALUATED. UNTIL SUCH TIME THE CLAIM SHALL BE CONSIDERED FALSE

[Guest]

I've never asked that question before. It was specifically in response to a posting by Melissa. I was just wondering whether she had any concrete proof of her statement. As of this writing, she did not.

It's really your camp that keeps repeating themselves by slamming the study, and saying that others have too, but as of yet no one with the proper credentials has had access to the data, so how could anyone validly conclude the study did not prove what it set out to prove?

Understand this, let it sink in real good: nobody has had access to all of the data, outside of the Ketchum group.

So tell me one more time, who exactly has proven that Ketchum's study is wrong? Whose name is it that you and your colleagues keep telling me? Don't even bother answering because you'd be wrong if you supplied a any name.

Hey, don't jump on my case. I'm just making an observation that you keep asking variations of the same question and people keep answering.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

nobody has had access to all of the data, outside of the Ketchum group.

Is this data supposed to be some kind of proof? Have you see this data to know it's not junk data? What has Ketchum herself said about it? If she said this is proof and we are not releasing it, then are we just going to take her word for it and use it as some kind of last resort in our belief system?

[Guest]

Scientific norm is changed all the time, history has proved this. It just takes time to adjust to it. Mankind, science scholars of that era, thought for absolute certainty that the earth was flat. Does anyone called into Seven Hawking's findings as "marlarkly", he himself proved himself wrong.

...it would be my hope, that MK does as she says, and announces the findings of the others...as to whether she was wrong or not. This is not me agreeing one way or the other that her science findings....even as suspected in her approach to it.....are correct or not.

I respectfully disagree that the scientific norm is changed all the time. There are rare paradigm shifts, as you have eluded to. But for the most part science makes minutely incremental shifts. What Dr. Ketchum proposes is anything but incremental! And unfortunately, the data SHE HAS PRESENTED, which should be complete if it is being presented as a scientific article (which she is claiming), does not support her conclusion. The three genomes presented as BF have very limited relationship to each other. It would be more convincing if she said she had three new species. My 30+ years of scientific training does not suggest paradigm shift, but rather, for lack of a better word, sloppy science. I too welcome her evaluation of the science from qualified scientists, which I will critique with great enthusiasm. So again, we wait!

[Oonjerah]

Did she prove Bigfoot to herself and to no one else? Well ... she saw Bigfoot in person,

so she didn't really have to prove anything.

I refer back to slappy's comment, post #1325:

"there is a phrase in science that i believe applies to ketchum's work: 'not even wrong'"

If I give Ketchum's paper any slack, any credence, shame on me!

The Paper was published; the Waiting is Over.

Fraud, incompetent, or just blithely irresponsible as she skips ahead to her next project?

Bigfoot doesn't take cheap bait. Neither will I.

[Guest]

Perhaps Melba did indeed have some BF samples that she simply, completely, and utterly botched?

You would really think that out of 111 samples there had to be at least a few that were Bigfoot.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Perhaps one or two were Bigfoot, but if she misinterpreted most of them, then there is a chance that she misinterpreted the ones that are Bigfoot as well.

[Guest]

I respectfully disagree that the scientific norm is changed all the time. There are rare paradigm shifts, as you have eluded to. But for the most part science makes minutely incremental shifts. What Dr. Ketchum proposes is anything but incremental! And unfortunately, the data SHE HAS PRESENTED, which should be complete if it is being presented as a scientific article (which she is claiming), does not support her conclusion. The three genomes presented as BF have very limited relationship to each other. It would be more convincing if she said she had three new species. My 30+ years of scientific training does not suggest paradigm shift, but rather, for lack of a better word, sloppy science. I too welcome her evaluation of the science from qualified scientists, which I will critique with great enthusiasm. So again, we wait!

I understand your disagreement, respectfully as described. I apologies if my statement came across as being in the realm of a paradigm shift, as I had not really envisioned the prospect of it. I agree that generally science makes small steps in new directions, in small increments. As to what MK beliefs on the matter of her findings, I'm not educated in the DNA field to make any type of notes worthy of reading. I rely on those who have the education, and field work under their belt to try and understand the process of it. It's when we get away from the science of it, and start going down the road away from the science and into the matter of motives.....it doesn't (IMO) benefit the scientific study of the creature.

Lets say MK puts her pants on "left" leg first,. But the rest of the scientific community puts their pants on "right: leg first.....and has done so for ages upon ages. Does that make MK "left" leg pattern wrong.....no, just different. Until the entire paper is released, none, is doing nothing but guessing.......not so much the science.....but her motives....and that is gossip. The Bigfoot community doesn't need to go down that road. Stick to the science, and give a little of leeway to her methods. We all might be surprised.

Edited March 19, 2013 by treadstone

[Guest]

Understand this, let it sink in real good: nobody has had access to all of the data, outside of the Ketchum group.

One question I asked and never received a reply to was this (if I missed it I apologize)---- how many scientific journals out there find it acceptable to (admittedly) only publish a small percentage of the proof they have - of the work they claim to have done? Is that standard? Example - am I allowed to publish a paper - and publicly proclaim to be withholding the data which actually proves my claim? I highly doubt it - at least that's NOT how I hope science works.

We are not talking about the discovery of a new kind of plastic here we are talking about the acceptance of a living breathing life form on this planet. One that has never been recognized or even considered by the scientific community - and there is withholding of the science?

I haven't seen it, but if she actually has testified as an expert witness, it would probably be somewhere in the docket.

Well, you would be right about that. Did you find any cases she testified in as an "Expert Witness"?

[Guest]

Until the entire paper is released

I am sorry, but the paper was released (there was no indication that it was a partial paper), and I did pay $30 for it. Maybe I am due a partial refund? Good science does not release partial papers - if fact I have never had an experience where relevant data was withheld.

There may be more data, not released, but then why not put together a complete paper to allow someone to actually benefit from it. MKs release of this partial paper IS a problem. It is on her if the scientific community is making light of this manuscript - she apparently did not take it seriously herself.

There is no excuse in blatantly releasing a partial study and making grand conclusions, not supported by the published data, and presenting it as a scientific paper. No pass on this one.

[Guest]

One question I asked and never received a reply to was this (if I missed it I apologize)---- how many scientific journals out there find it acceptable to (admittedly) only publish a small percentage of the proof they have - of the work they claim to have done? Is that standard? Example - am I allowed to publish a paper - and publicly proclaim to be withholding the data which actually proves my claim? I highly doubt it - at least that's NOT how I hope science works.

We are not talking about the discovery of a new kind of plastic here we are talking about the acceptance of a living breathing life form on this planet. One that has never been recognized or even considered by the scientific community - and there is withholding of the science?

Well, you would be right about that. Did you find any cases she testified in as an "Expert Witness"?

I came across some when her credibility was being (still is) called in to question. it will take some mental thinking of where I came across the evidence of her testimony. When I read it, it satisfied me on her reliability as a scientist in the field of DNA evidence.

I am sorry, but the paper was released (there was no indication that it was a partial paper), and I did pay $30 for it. Maybe I am due a partial refund? Good science does not release partial papers - if fact I have never had an experience where relevant data was withheld.

There may be more data, not released, but then why not put together a complete paper to allow someone to actually benefit from it. MKs release of this partial paper IS a problem. It is on her if the scientific community is making light of this manuscript - she apparently did not take it seriously herself.

There is no excuse in blatantly releasing a partial study and making grand conclusions, not supported by the published data, and presenting it as a scientific paper. No pass on this one.

My bad, I was referring to the (complete) data that everyone has been talking about....I just use the term paper as to me, the data is on the paper.

[Guest]

Treadstone said:

Until the entire paper is released

Question (if you know). Do you know if those who paid 30 bucks for the first paper will have access to the updated paper free of any additional charges?

I know this is not your issue Treadstone, but I am just curious if you know the answer to this. Thanks.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Melissa