The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest thermalman]

Every time a new discovery is found not to fit the current evolutional chain thinking, is it disregarded because it doesn't make sense? Theories are always evolving to incorporate the new evidence provided, even though its thought not to make sense at the time.

Edited April 15, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

New species are added to evolutionary understanding all the time - new dinos are a prime example, but cladistics places them in logical places on phylogenic trees. There are rules for how species are organized into the trees. These rules DO accommodate new species because EVERYTHING is related to SOMETHING else. You don't just stick something any 'ol place on a tree, novel or not - there WILL be a logical place to put it. If her data doesn't support her tree, she probably should have just left it out of the paper.

[Guest]

out of plusses

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

A new discovery that doesn't fit what is established should still make sense. It happens often in the science world. There's a difference between scientists rejecting something because it doesn't make sense and because they aren't open to the idea.

This isn't the 1500's. I remember that Dr. Ketchum immediately used the Galileo excuse when her paper first came out. Galileo was persecuted because people weren't open to the idea of science. I think Ketchum supporters need to realize that scientists themselves don't have some sort bias against her paper. It failed on its own merits.

Edited April 15, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest thermalman]

@OS "There's a difference between scientists rejecting something because it doesn't make sense and because they aren't open to the idea".

Case in point. When the platypus was first discovered, it made no sense at all, and they weren't open to the idea of a real animal, but eventually it was accepted and slotted in. The same could be said for any novel find.

Edited April 15, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

The platypus was discovered LONG before phylogenic trees were developed, so that's not a good example. The phylogenic trees were designed to incorporate EVERYTHING, because again, EVERYTHING is related to SOMETHING.

[Guest thermalman]

And lest we forget, evolution and the phylogenic tree is based solely on theory. Therefore, like an unfinished puzzle, pieces can be added to accommodate the new or novel discoveries as the tree continues to grow.

Edited April 15, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

Totally. You can just slot those new species right in.

Bam! A new species named Novelicious Ludicrousia.

[Guest]

If only it were true. There's a whole lot of pseudoscience that creeps into "science".

[Guest thermalman]

And vice versa, corn.

[Guest Tyler H]

I've seen no proof of anything anyone has claimed on either side. Not about the paper, not about history of Ketchum's deceitful past, nothing. It's all based on rumors of conversations that can't be proven. Nothing's resolved, nothing's proven, it's opinion either way. No matter how you chart it, it still all bad science until something's proven.

No Tim, our claims are that the tried and true rules of established science disprove her claims. That is not bad science. You can claim that not enough PhD's have made this claim to meet your threshold if you like, but you can't claim that that is bad science. Her claim has never stood, there is no burden of proof to knowck down something that has never stood. The fundamentals of genetics have kept it from standing. The burden is on her and her bad science.

The coelacanth contradicted the evolutional tree. And basic fundamentals of the evolutional theory.

No it didn't, it contradicted what the scientists had thought was extinct.

It most certainly does not contradict the rules of genetics.

Just because our misinformed species assumed (momentarily) that an animal is extinct doesn't have any bearing on where that animal falls in the evolutionary continuum. That's like saying that since humans didn't initially understand that the Earth revolved around the sun, the sun must not fit in a working celestial model because we didn't understand it fully at the time!

Science is CONSTANTLY updating and correcting itself. That is a strength, and not a weakness.

I agree. That's why it makes sense that a novel find can fit anywhere on the tree that the evidence says it should, NOT where we "think" it should or shouldn't. To claim that it doesn't fit where it should, is shallow minded and not how science should be progressing.

We aren't talking about evotionary trees here as the main propblem, the problem is the GENETICS.

You can't take something with a ridiculously low homology to ourselves (less than a chicken) and say that it mated with a full human, and now the resultant hybrid species if fully human. That doesn't just contradict evolutionary theory - it contradicts common sense, and contradicts the FUNDAMENTALS of genetics. Not the nuanced, detailed stuff that you or I might have trouble following - the BASIC FUNDAMENTALS.

Bam! A new species named Novelicious Ludicrousia.

Now that right there, that was funny!

A girl after my own heart - critical thinker, into Sasquatch, and funny!

Edited April 15, 2013 by Tyler H
to remove personal and religious allusions

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

Oh and the the rest of your comments were just gibberish so I didn't waste time responding

So in other words, you have no interest in asking Ketchum the questions that only she has the answers to. You are funny.

Ketchum has your answers. You know she has your answers. Yet you won't ask her the questions. It's strange that common sense is gibberish to you.

[Guest]

Gibberish? IMO, some of your posts are the epitome of gibberish. I have no idea what you just said, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

I am beginning to see where Steven Streufert is right about a cult forming around the study. The signs are all there ...

The complete devotion to a central figure

Banning of anyone who questions that figure or the core beliefs

Refusal to acknowledge information contrary to the core beliefs

Refusal to listen to experts who challenge those beliefs

Dismissal of the experts' credentials/knowledge

Belittling of those who do not follow the beliefs

Nonsensical and warped "logic" used in lame arguments against the beliefs

Shifting of arguments to avoid admitting they are wrong

Telling members not to listen to anyone but the leader (per Troy Hudson in one of the secret Facebook groups)

Bad-mouthing former members in an attempt to keep others from listening to the former members

Leader has small close circle that is highly protective; access to leader is denied or leader is unavailable

Leader does not respond to questions/criticisms or provides answers that do not hold water

Critics referred to as enemies, liars, evil or out to get the leader out of jealousy or other nonsensical reason

Excuses are made for the leader's faults, which members illogically see as irrelevant

Members do not believe the leader must adhere to the same rules as everyone else - leader is somehow above the rules

An exclusive claim to be the only ones with the "truth"

An us v. them mentality - everyone is out to get them or the leader

Attacks on individuals who challenge the beliefs or the leader

I think Streufert has nailed it.

NOT that I am saying that Ketchum intended this outcome. But this is how some folks are viewing the actions and unquestioning devotion of her supporters, and we don't see her discouraging it. Some are predicting, as Tyler has mentioned here recently, that even if Ketchum herself admitted that her findings were not supported by her data, that some of her followers would believe she was coerced into that admission.

And as Bart has said, we may find ourselves arguing about this for years, as more people are "indoctrinated."

What is so sad is that the Ketchum study started out hailed as finally getting real science involved. And instead, it has thumbed its nose at all things scientific because it failed. Instead of admitting failure and going back to the drawing board, like real scientists normally do, Ketchum has, intentionally or not, nurtured this cult-like belief system.

IMO, people who are supporting her REALLY need to take a big step back and THINK about what they are doing and defending.

Edited April 16, 2013 by chelefoot
To remove referenes to religous subjects

[Guest]

^seems to me this picture emerged in late 2010 or even 2011, but then still a darling of Future Promise was defended with vigor from the many who signed NDAs (it seemed all of Bigfootery, and if you weren't "in" you were belly aching or out to get her...)

Many who now can see it, defended the behaviors then, some have come forward changed, others ignoring their role. I am thinking of DR right now...and the OP position over time...and their new prominence and silence on this drama....

I think the problems (if you also see the above as the case) emanate from MK, maybe with the aid of some early BFer paranoia, but it continued and thrived under her tutelage...and it's here to stay apparently....

There is a group out there for everybody..even in BFdom .... if what she or they are doing is irrelevant in the end to the serious conventional science inquiry, well then it is, and seems to be right now.

I really think most have moved on, and without the community obliterating her opinions they will attract some....one or two google searches and walla you have found proof and a protection group!

Does the BF community need to wipe her off the face of BF research?...ha! maybe, depends on just what the truth is, one of the reasons I keep coming back..just in case something exonerates her behaviors, or study... and it just ain't happening.

But, I am also aware that many have been caught red handed hoaxing and/or embarrassing the effort..whatever...and when BF news comes up...so do their names as sources of valid info in mainstream media (no matter what BFers know about the situation)..... the formula seems to be...say what you want, stick to it, keep doing it, and walla... you can generate cult BF blog news forever...and eventually that turns into it's own kind of credibility...in this case the martyr....

So, either take this thing out...all the way...(how would you do that?). Or, ignore it....? What route to correct any harm, and for who?

I don't care much anymore...it doesn't rise to the crowd I want to attend to this problem...just another BFer's claims really....and I was never in...so no loss there...and the BF world drama continues...

p.s. I think the formula was developed by Matt Moneymaker building BFRO?

Edited April 15, 2013 by apehuman

[southernyahoo]

SY, It was definitely a roller coaster. They had trouble getting any DNA, (that made it interesting) then they got bear (that made us deflate), then they got a second contributor (that excited us) then they said it was human (that had potential to excite us). Then, based on the mtDNA, they estimated there was more "human" there than bear! Suddenly, it seemed that the human may have been the primary contributor as opposed to the secondary!

Then they tested for nuclear, and the nuclear amounts reversed the original potential for "human" contribution to be more than the bear contribution.(that deflated us again). Then they tested Justin's swab against the human component, and matched them. That was about the nail in the coffin for Trent, but we still awaited the DNA Soln results to compare. When DNASolns got the same, and got it for nuclear to complement the mtDNA match that Trent got... well, it seemed to be al over but the crying.

Throughout all of this, I constantly challenged and question each result that Trent came up with that did NOT support our hopes of "unknown primate" - Bart wanted us to stay neutral, but I was more like "hey, I'm an advocate, they are the scientists - I need to push them, and they can prove me wrong - I can't change the science."

I have over 200 emails between myself and them, throughout the 7-8 mos.

Believe me, by the end of it, I'm sure they hoped to never hear from me again. But I felt it was necessary to be able to come back to the community, and confidently say that I did not doubt their conclusions. I know I lost face a bit with them - I likely looked desperate to refute what they felt was irrefutable. But I think I made the right decisions - otherwise I would not have been able to say all the things I have said here, with the confidence that I have had."

Thanks Tyler, I would have been doing the same thing in your position being a paying customer for the results. I think you can see why some of us submitters to this study still feel like our samples are still prospectively from bigfoot regardless of the outcome of this study.