The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

Interesting. Maybe someone, ahem, who knows about the Olympic project could get his take and opinion on this shaking out? If it's a flat out hoax video, one would assume he would not be welcome in a genuine Bigfoot project. Maybe he is a member here and we just don't know it?

Dennis Pfhol is indeed a member of the Olympic Project. He no longer works with Adrian as far as I know. The Erickson Project / Kentucky Project has nothing at all to do with the Olympic Project. Dennis is a friend of mine and I have much trust in him. As a matter of fact I think he's one of the very best researchers in the Bigfoot world, that's why I asked him to join. I don't see him much due to the fact that he lives in a different state, although we are planning to do some research this summer. I honestly don't know if he has any info about when Adrian plans on releasing the rest of the footage.

DR

[Guest]

It happens every time. Bigfoot follows the bagel.

[Guest]

Come on does anybody really think in this million dollar business, this all has become, that those people are in anyway interested what "the BF community" thinks? Its about science (that practically nobody here or on the blogs have any clue about) and getting back the money! (That they deserve) Just because someone doesnt like the short Matilda video surely doesnt make anybody releasing the moneyshot for free. And as Matilda seems to be the only BF in the study that has footage taken off, they have to take what they get. They must not include the PGF or anything else not connected to the samples.

Finally if Matilda does look like a Wooky? Would anybody seriously release that in such a controversal way, including it in this study, the way it was published? Can you imagine the headlines? And it would only take minutes until it would get robbed and posted all over the web, just to satisfy the egos of some subculture publicity whores.

And by the way, somewhere I heard or red that melba Ketchum said that they have good PICTURES, that may be published with Interviews being given! But as her very bad PR now backfires, nobody wants to interview her, as it seems.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Data

[southernyahoo]

nijohn says.........

Big jumps by camera = digital zoom-in. If you're that close physically, it wouldn't jump as much.

It appears to me that the small twig limbs in the fore ground are out of focus, indicating close proximity. The pan back and forth supports that too.

[Guest]

The folks over at Genbank have had two days to deny their criteria for upload. Has anybody seen a denial from their camp? Any indication that the skeptical side is pushing them to make a statement?

[Guest njjohn]

SY - The closer twigs are just on a different plane than the subject. Here's the original photo (inbetween the two overlays). I'd guess the distance to be about 15ft. based on the size of the subject. The blurred twigs just mean they weren't what the camera was focused on. At a great distance you'd see the twigs and subject both be in focus. The other thing to notice if you look at the photograph, the knee is about a foot away from the tree on the other side and the body lies outstretched from there. The head is probably at least 4-5 feet away from the tree. The video is cropped, so you don't get the full perspective of the scene.

[Guest]

As a word of advice to people who claim to have evidence, or video/pictures in the future....Don't generate so much hype that the actual product is viewed as a major let down. It gets old hearing the disclaimer that people with bad evidence always throw out there...'I would release it to everyone, but skeptics will claim it is a hoax', or something to that effect. It's a laughable statement, and yeah, usually people will call a hoax exaclty as they see it...A hoax! If somebody has something of substance, do you know how you'll be able to tell? It's pretty easy...It will look REAL! I put zero faith in Erickson's footage. When there are mysterious circumstances to anything, it's usually for a pretty good reason. People don't sit on anything that is worthwhile, especially proof of the most mythological beast of all-time. If you had minutes of real video of a Sasquatch, producers would be beating your door down to get to it. You don't have to 'sell' anything. And unfortunately, proponents want to shield these people from unfair criticism regarding their financial circumstances, but sorry, those circumstances are valid and lead to motive, whether people like it, or not. If people want to keep bringing up real-life case law situations, in regards to the DNA study, and equate them to Ketchums work, then those same people need to understand how investigations work in their totality. Motive is determined many different ways, but in the end, financial situations are usually a good indicator to motive. Erickson can easily release some still shots of the face, or a couple of seconds of video, and if it is that good, it will not hurt his ability to sell anything, it will do quite the opposite. It will generate 'warranted' hype, as opposed to the 'believe what I say, or I am taking my ball and going home' mentality. Every single one of these self-proclaimed figure heads in BF research deserve every bit of criticism that they receive, IMO.

As far as MK is concerned, it is REALLY hard to defend her anymore. I feel sorry for Derek, SY, and everybody else who submitted samples. I'm not saying that there isn't a shred of evidence in there, because I know nothing about DNA, but for her to hoard everything, and promise so many things, it seems as if it is a major let down. Over-promising and under-delivering is a big pet peeve of mine. She was the head of her guerilla marketing campaign, and in the end, she is at fault for every one of the short-comings of her paper.

Do we actually have proof that she ever even submitted her paper to an actual journal? She keeps claiming so many things, but there's a pretty simple solution to it all....Be transparent, and prove everything that you say. It's a pretty 'novel' concept. Her cryptic posts, her PR people, her financial situation, etc, all pointed to this outcome, unfortunately. There may be some valid data in there somewhere, but in the end, it will be up to other scientists to prove it, apparently. I'm still mystified that she put pics of stick structures, and horse braids in her paper. Does she have proof that a BF actually did this? As far as I know, BF's making these structures are still just a theory. She can't even take her ball, and go home, because she dropped it.

[southernyahoo]

And then Dr. Meldrum weighed in:

Yeah, with this

"I'm certainly not ruling out the possibility that there was a conspiracy of sorts, or a concerted effort to not give this a fair shake, given the controversial matter," said Idaho State University anthropologist Jeff Meldrum, a leading academic and recognized scientific authority on Bigfoot.

Then this

Meldrum said he doesn't think any credible scientific journal would shy away from the topic simply because of its controversial nature.

Is this a contradiction, or is he attempting to draw a distinction between journals and peer review?

[Guest]

nijohn says.........

It appears to me that the small twig limbs in the fore ground are out of focus, indicating close proximity. The pan back and forth supports that too.

The camera is very close. Proof is the relation of the movement of the foreground (limbs) in relation to the background (subject). Due to the short pull to focus there isnt much distance between the two either. Add the slight sideways movement (handheld) and its obvious. The speed of the zoom isnt out of the ordinary for pro cameras, just watch gold rush or similar and you will find such zoom speeds over and over again. I would estimate the distance to target at 9 to 15 feet. Over ten years of camerawork give me convidence.

[Guest spurfoot]

The uploading of human sequences to GenBank is restricted by subject permission only in the case where the subject is individually identifiable. A consensus sequence is not individually indentifiable.

[gigantor]

Is this a contradiction, or is he attempting to draw a distinction between journals and peer review?

It's called "hedging your bets"... no matter what happens, you can point at one of your statements and be correct.

[Guest]

The uploading of human sequences to GenBank is restricted by subject permission only in the case where the subject is individually identifiable. A consensus sequence is not individually indentifiable.

The statement on their homepage and the submission page I visited seems to suggest that Genbank doesn't collect consent papers anyways. It seems to indicate that they assume the submitter has that handled and in order. Am I interpreting that correctly? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/

[southernyahoo]

If somebody has something of substance, do you know how you'll be able to tell? It's pretty easy...It will look REAL!

The problem is, few people know what really real looks like, in contrast to a man in a suit, or clever hoaxing, even at close range. I think one has to be there in person to know it's real and proof. I'm witholding judgement of the matilda video until more of it is released.

On the matter of the paper, I'd say it is more like a straight facts report of her findings, written in a style to be more digestable to the public laymen rather than the thick and dry science type science paper that is dense with citations to support every point in the analysis. I would like to see one like that, but would likely work better with fewer samples. In the end, it is the repeatable data that has to stand and hold the conclusions. I'm not convinced she's wrong on that.

[Guest]

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?

The answer to that is as old as that picture above with the carrot. And no, the carrot doesn't represent a hoax.

[Guest]

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.

Maybe she thought Erickson would be locked and loaded his film and it would drop immediately when her paper did. That always seemed like it was going to be their plan. She probably should've check that with him. If no release was imminent, then she probably should've yanked that clip.