The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest DWA]

When I see a person being dishonest, whether it's a monetary fraud or just academic dishonesty, you're **** right I call into question their character.

If more people in this community would use common use when it comes to this sort of thing you would all keep from getting taken for a ride so often. Your bringing up Dyer is a great example:

"I know he's pulled a hoax exactly like this 47 other times in the past, but maybe---just maybe---he's got the real thing this time. I'll hold off judgement until I see more."

People! Stop enabling these hoaxers and scammers with your well-intentioned credulity!

In the main, bigfoot skeptics are credulous. They have swallowed, hook line and sinker, a slew of untested assumptions against copious evidence that is actually passing tests applied by top-drawer scientists.

If only the true believers on the other side didn't keep making them look smart.

It's pretty easy to identify a sideshow in this field. [Hint: with few exceptions they get the most views and posts by far.] My approach to them is not "I'll reserve judgment until I see more."

It's "you're still a quack. If you deliver the goods, great. But I'm not waiting around for it. My bet's already in."

(shoot, were I actually betting money I might be rich now!)

Edited February 26, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

In the main, bigfoot believers are credulous. They have swallowed, hook line and sinker, a slew of untested assumptions about supposed evidence that has rarely passed peer review.

Fixed for you.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Contradicted by the facts. Somebody needs to do more homework. Come on now.

"Peer review" is a laughable concept when the peers can't rouse themselves to look at the evidence (see GreenQuote below).

Edited February 26, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

"Peer review" is a laughable concept when the peers can't rouse themselves to look at the evidence (see GreenQuote below).

The proponents are the ones who should write a technical paper on why something is evidence for bigfoot and submit it. Its easy to make suspicious claims in popular books and webpages. Edited February 26, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest]

If what she said is accurate Texas A&M saw the Unknown. We should all be trying to help each other and support each other.

If you don't like someones work then just focus on your own right?

I see this again, a capital letter with "Unknown"...and the second time on this thread in two days...so I do think many who follow this believe that MK's hybrid theory really points to "otherwordly" causes? Such as the recent LMH interview that points to alien DNA manipulation.....and also why there is resistance by supporters to conventional evolution/science views of hybridization (and where is that original male line?) and those criticisms... It seems the paper is more about the theory of origination than showing they exist at all? If you are in the know, please give me a yeah or nay on this growing perception of the "divide" here that seems to go beyond just MK and her personality/conclusions (or Wally's money).

Theagenes.. I do agree honesty is critical, especially for those in positions of power, knowledge, responsibility...and it is no secret I felt that boundary was crossed when the Sierra Kills remained apparently unreported and that genome still not in GenBank.....given the combination of continued hunting (race for the prize) and her belief they are a type of human made revealing that as quickly and responsibly as possible her responsibility...and no amount of complaining by me changed that....what has followed here recently is for me personally a death knell of sorts...in that I do not trust a Global Foundation effort run by MK..and that bothers me... as that to me is the future..how do we handle "knowing." We aren't very impressive are we?

To those who think we need to shout out every hoaxer/liar....ooohhh...really? Shout out to who? Here? Then what? It's a mess ..and the idea that we must police some rather nasty characters I do not accept..... If there were an actual governing body, or a Society, with ethics rules and consequences (no endorsement from the Society?), reporting hoaxers (or just stupid? wrong evidence?) with some assurance that objectivity and discretion were used in handling the complaint might solve that problem.... might make a difference ..but as far as I can tell - in Bigfootery...the person turning in the hoaxer (again to who? the internet?) becomes as smeared as the one they are trying to expose....it sucks folks..and we are seeing it here...is it really one group with interest in Wally's money dissing another? Or is this true exposure of a bad actor?..Or both?

I am a point now i don't think there is anything anyone "should" do as a researcher, except don't intentionally lie or cause harm to others.(same thing we leaned in preschool)...and that leaves a lot of room, room for most of us....so..oh well....frustrated today...

and I see the page rolled over, so this question will be lost...lol...oh Bigfootery my lament!

Edited February 26, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest DWA]

The proponents are the ones who should write a technical paper on why something is evidence for bigfoot and submit it. Its easy to make suspicious claims in popular books and webpages.

Actually, technical papers have been submitted, the purpose for which was to spark technical discussion of the evidence at scientific forums. They weren't accepted.

It is a known - and stated, more than once, in so many words - position of the mainstream on this topic that they won't review evidence until there is proof.

So much for peer review.

[Guest]

Actually, technical papers have been submitted, the purpose for which was to spark technical discussion of the evidence at scientific forums. They weren't accepted.

Because that weren't of good quality. Apparently bigfoot papers should be given special privilege over other papers that are rejected.

[Guest]

I have no idea what the "unknown" is.

Could it be the ancient alien theory Sure if you believe that theory. I think its an interesting theory.

I agree that she should not have tried to come up with the origin of the creature. I think that is more constructive argument. She should have just said that we have an unknown ndna we are not sure where it is from but its not identified But we get human on the mtdna so we suggest Genebank list this Unknown combination as a Sasquatch.

I get behind this complaint on the paper.

Edited February 26, 2013 by CathMcmillan

[Guest DWA]

Because that weren't of good quality. Apparently bigfoot papers should be given special privilege over other papers that are rejected.

And your assessment is based, exactly, on what?

I can tell you what the rejections were based on: no assessment of the paper. Basically: we don't do bigfoot here.

(Read GreenQuote below.)

[Guest]

@Cath

thanks, and the capital on the unknown just emphasis...but it does appear some kind of ancient alien..or "angel" theory that Lindsay first reported does come from MK...and does crop up.....in posts....so, yeah...it seems she reached too far on many ideas in this paper...and just doing the DNA and reporting those results...a better choice..

but unless this comes out fully, this underlying premise if that is the case, the believers in that theory will continue to accept her data/paper...and just think bland ole prejudiced science got it wrong rejecting her work (too big to accept?)...

A review of her work is needed and wonder if that is really going to happen now....

Edited February 26, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

the believers in that theory will continue to accept her data/paper

I believe her paper the data. But i also believe we need to do more and more research.

Do i feel she should have not made people pay for it. Sure. But then many journals are pay Journal

I also hope she is having other people review the Data.

I can throw away her conclusions but if the data is good and other labs get the same "unkown" in the nda then we can start hypothesizing where that "unkown" came from.

I think some of the belief revolves around some of the stories of it. Remember Matt Moneymaker on Team Tazer late night talked about Eye glow and Infra sound. So where did this develop. So if this is that "unkown" what is the unkown that can do this. right?

[indiefoot]

is it really one group with interest in Wally's money dissing another?

Hmmm...... Fella like Wally can with all good intentions, upset a lot of apple carts.

[Guest]

I believe her paper the data. But i also believe we need to do more and more research.

Do i feel she should have not made people pay for it. Sure. But then many journals are pay Journal

I also hope she is having other people review the Data.

I can throw away her conclusions but if the data is good and other labs get the same "unkown" in the nda then we can start hypothesizing where that "unkown" came from.

I think some of the belief revolves around some of the stories of it. Remember Matt Moneymaker on Team Tazer late night talked about Eye glow and Infra sound. So where did this develop. So if this is that "unkown" what is the unkown that can do this. right?

Apparently two respected Journals did review this work and it failed (or was it two runs thru one Journal)

Normally another review wouldn't be need, except she has claimed it passed peer-review, is ground breaking

But, her 'pass" is from an on-line journal she claims to have bought when it too balked at printing her controversial work.

She is claiming she passed peer review in a very unorthodox fashion.

To me it doesn't look like she passed a peer investigation of her methods and analysis, or that her work meets each discipline's standard, even if the conclusions are remarkable. And no co-author is coming forward, in fact seem almost unaware of the entire scope of her project. It may be just the hybrid conclusion nixed it and the data remain OK as you say...but

She stated on the Linda Howe interview two days ago she has proven her claims and does so throughout her interviews ...really strong statements with little room for normal scientific uncertainty. She is also initiating a fund to collect protection monies -

For this reason I do feel an "official after the fact" review of her work needs to happen, a clear statement yeah or nay from those qualified to do so and willing to do so....the upload to GenBank still has to happen....I fear it won't, or that reviewers won't come forward.

Charging for the paper isn't really an issue for me. I.don't know her contract with Wally or anyone..and paying for an article is typical. However, in the genome projects and Open Access -all the first genome papers are free online as part of that cooperative genome effort...b/s it is so complicated..and requires many minds. That does come through in her effort, it seems to have been tightly held by her and a few (?) rather than collaborative with geneticists (although she claims they wouldn't listen..did she call Sykes?).

I get the impression here it is not a "remarkable" conclusion only, but her methods and analysis incrementally that are the problem...the bits of data/DNA and how she handled that are in question and derided by those who seem to understand ...I am not trying to absorb the technology of lab testing and analysis...but it looks like the opportunities to misstep are many and it also appears she kept a very tight rein on who was involved at the decision points,...what processes to pursue etc.....

I am a witness to eyeshine/eyeglow that I do associate with Bigfoot which makes me wonder what genetics might contribute to a tapetum lucidum. And those kinds of things will show up in DNA if we look in the right places..or not (and we find I and many others just don't know what we witnessed, etc)...The larger idea of alien manipulation (or even Nazi...right, there are those believers?) of DNA doesn't seem like one that can be shown with our knowledge of genetics..and the molecular clock, etc....and I don't expect anyone to prove that theory anytime soon .........except...humm...maybe a study that shows that there is no known male progenitor line in a history that arose recently...right? So, there you go......as long as she can claim legitimacy this theory will survive and even though she can't claim legitimacy as far as I can tell, she is!

What is the status of those who came forward to do a review or upload to GenBank????

ah well.. I don't want to be too negative because the thing is..Bigfoots are real and I don''t know who/what they are and want to trust someone to tell me..

Edited February 26, 2013 by apehuman

[Martin]

............

Apparently two respected Journals did review this work and it failed (or was it two runs thru one Journal)

.........

Did anyone document this?

Can I find it somewhere other that Melba or Robyn Forestpeople press releases?

At this point I personally cant believe anything that they say after the deception in birthing DeNovo Journal.

If it is documented by a thrid party then maybe.

[Guest Theagenes]

A tell-all Sally Ramey interview sure would be interesting right about now.