The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

You know it's juicy entertainment when popcorn guy comes out.

So I have been sorta tuned out this week on Ketchum, been on the Matilda thread mostly. I will summarize what I know, somebody give me more details if I missed anything.

Paper is bad, PR is worse. Full of errors, and now it even has an April Fools Joke paper referenced. EP can't back her up with video because it's a hoax also. Labs and experts have looked at her work, and now even the science that she "nailed" is bad. Not only bad, but Bigfoot is a raccoon? And Smeja discloses a phone call that she is an outright crook and liar, and she did claim to have been raped by a squatch. That sum it up? Catch me up!

Oh, btw, it's Manbearpig.

[Guest]

*oh, and I did see she will be featured on C2C tonight also. 2/28-12. Linda Moulton Howe is the guest and did an interview with Melba that will air.

[Guest]

Yeah, Hoosier, that pretty much sums it up. I hadn't heard about her extra-curricular Squatchy activities, though. Hmmmm. They must mind-speak in an Al Greenesque voice.

[Guest]

@ apehuman: the video with the biologist glee club. I watched it past the intros to the first few opening lines where the entire subject was glibly and gleefully ridiculed and the study was completely mischaracterized.

That's your mainstream science right there. They are completely close-minded and are utterly ignorant of the details on the subject. They have all have been taught to ridicule it from the outset. They are the products of the education and media they've been exposed to.

We live in a time where the group mock and snickering is in vogue. Let's that for humanity's sake that this faaaaaaad passes.

I like popcorn guy.

Well ridicule is powerful...whether Roman graffitti, an old English political wood cut, or New Media YouTubes... but it generally doesn't get too far unless there is some truth underlying the ridicule....and in this case I think there is enough to ridicule it might be hard to choose what to focus on... was it the topic Bigfoot or the study that was ridiculed...they were all over this I agree..as have many with apparent knowledge to do so...and much more respectfully (here for example) which seems to be brushed aside by those with a mind this is groundbreaking science.

I really don't get the polarization of traditional science to Ketchum's work.. if she can't fit her views in scientific method and get some agreement from scientists it isn't science..(.oh no, not looking for a semantics debate...but get real..).there is no one science mind or institution... The excuses, or really, accusations, that science is out to prevent this study and scientists so close minded they couldn't publish it even though it's sound science reeks ... a Big BF stink really.

Now, when or if the scientific world endorses (peer review published is that bar) this ground breaking work I'll come back here and say..those creepy Grad Students...they haven't a clue....and are so arrogant, ridiculous, and mean. Which Anna does note, but she also notes...they say what we need to hear.

Edited February 28, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

You mean you didn't know this community has competing hypotheses about what bigfoot is and that the prokill no kill debate has raged for as long as the PGF has existed at least?

So long as it is not proven human, people can cling to the "bigfoot is animal theory" and call for a body. Perhaps bigfoot is a Manimal, in which case neither is entirely accurate, and bigfoot would be entirely unacceptable to any prevailing scientific theory as an extant breeding population of primates. Anything that would stand on the fence "would" get shot down literally, metaphoricly and philosophicly in spite of it's reality.

And that is (I think) one of the big problems with Melba's paper.. Please see the bolded section. Melba wanted her work to be taken seriously within the scientific community - she was trying to establish Bigfoot as a legitimate species.

Question - How many out there DID NOT know Melba would end this paper with "Bigfoot is human" ?? I seen it coming a very long time ago - at least a year. She allowed herself to be pulled into the "fray" so to speak, when she should have been maintaining some objectivity and distance. I don't see Dr. Sykes posting on any bigfoot message boards or proclaiming Bigfoot is human - or even something he has proven with his testing. As far as I know, his results still remain unknown (if he has achieved any results) by the large majority of this community - if not the entire community.

Melba did not have a dog in this fight - on any level - and I wish she would have kept it that way. Because her "work" appears to model her own personal opinions.

[Guest]

Gawd I couldn't believe I sat and watched their whole things...

It was Bash Bigfoot bash paper etc...

First: I think if you are going to review a specific paper on Bigfoot. Even if you don't believe in Bigfoot you need to come with an Open Mind about it.

This group did not do this.

I am curious lets take these Grad Students as an example. Eventually they will be in positions to peer review Possibly.

They have the Belief Bigfoot isn't real. So do you think this group would have accepted any paper on Bigfoot?

Melba did not have a dog in this fight - on any level - and I wish she would have kept it that way. Because her "work" appears to model her own personal opinions.

This so many Pluses.

If she stuck with the DNA not try to come to a conclusion of what she felt it was. She could have done that in another paper.

You come out with well the testing we have done has found some "Unkown" in the dna on the male side. The Mtdna shows Human in our samples. We are not sure what this creature maybe but we need to do more research.

I bet she could have got that in Genebank as an Unkown-(which we will call bigfoot) then other people could test theirs to it and see if they get the same hits.

Edited February 28, 2013 by CathMcmillan

[Guest]

Melba did not have a dog in this fight - on any level - and I wish she would have kept it that way.

I think you are referring to the ape vs. human conclusion/camps as the "dog in the fight"...a pre-existing bias? Maybe, but if anyone has a "dog" in this endeavor now, it's Melba...

Edited February 28, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest TwilightZone]

It is true - and it is really taking up a lot of my thoughts lately.. what I wonder is - for how many people - was this paper and its outcome the final straw??

Not for me... But I think the Sykes report will be a watershed moment in my ability to entertain the idea there could be a real beast out there. I never believed the Ketchum report would prove anything and once all the red flags started popping up like thermometers in the carcass of some charred turkey, I mainly watched out of interest to see how it would play out. 

I reached a conclusion when she started talking about habituation that her report would not be written for scientists or people of a skeptical slant.  This is the lady who released blurry photos of sticks, for crying out loud! No, her so-called report was written for the true blue members of her fan club who will believe her no matter what: people who accept video of breathing carpets as proof, people who don't care if she references April Fools papers... 

As for me, time to turn toward Sykes and see what his results are. At the very least I trust he will not be purchasing fake journals and getting up to any monkey business. Or panda business. Or racoonery of any kind...

[Guest]

I bet she could have got that in Genebank as an Unkown-(which we will call bigfoot) then other people could test theirs to it and see if they get the same hits.

I thought so too, and was astonished the samples from the Sierra Kills were not handled that way in a timely fashion.(say two years ago) Had they been Justin would have an answer, the other submitters free of the controversy (and time push), and all those genetics minds able to contribute to this Global mystery....yeah, seems like something that should have happened..and we are still waiting on...

@Melissa - I agree, Sykes will determine this for me even though I know BFs are out there....but, if he says they aren't..well...I'll disappear.. i don't need other's to know this although it seems like everyone should.. but, a person can live well without knowing the truth about BFs and I don't want to ruin that for the many...lol.

Edited February 28, 2013 by apehuman

[southernyahoo]

Any of us that had contact with Wally could have asked him to fund what Melba asked him to fund. Answers would have been forthcoming MUCH faster, and with less obfuscation, and a lower price tag. (PS, assuming you meant "trepidation" - otherwise I'm mis-understanding your post.)

Could you elaborate on what Melba asked him to fund that you would agree to?

Yes, I meant Trepidation.

I'm thinking if there is truth in this report that a male progenitor is in the mix and is Novel it will show up in the amelogenin locus and the Y chromosome would be particularly novel The X would be recombined with human and novel sequences. If she got that right, then it might have lead down the wrong path in dealing with other samples and whole nuDNA sequences.

I think this article probably addresses the issues directly and amelogenin would hold all the information one would need to either crush Melba's paper or validate it.

http://library-resources.cqu.edu.au/JFS/PDF/vol_40/iss_4/JFS404950641.pdf

[Guest]

Apehuman said:

I think you are referring to the ape vs. human conclusion/camps as the "dog in the fight"...a pre-existing bias?

Yep. I will be shocked if someone says she either did not have a bias - or they didn't know she had a bias..

Maybe, but if anyone has a "dog" in this endeavor now, it's Melba...

Oh - you have that one right. She had completely tied herself to the "bigfoot is human" theory. But, she was doing that long before her paper published. What, was it last year, there was the information leak - and Melba gave a statement that Bigfoot should have "Constitutional Rights"? Yeah - she absolutely had a bias - and it started a very long time ago - I just don't think many noticed.. Melba was starting a "Forest People Protection Society" or something like that.. Even though her work was not finished..

TwilightZone said:

This is the lady who released blurry photos of sticks, for crying out loud! No, her so-called report was written for the true blue members of her fan club who will believe her no matter what: people who accept video of breathing carpets as proof, people who don't care if she references April Fools papers...

50 Bucks says - you won't see anything like this from Sykes. It has always been my understanding Scientists were to remain - neutral or objective. I am sure if asked Melba would probably say - she only got involved in field work - because she wanted to see Bigfoot for herself. Well, she should have stayed in her lab - working on the samples she was sent.... But, that's just my opinion.

Melba's results or failure (thus far) has nothing to do with the "bigfoot is an "ape" community. It has to do with the work she published. If her science was as "beautiful" as she said it would be ---- we would be adding Brother bigfoot - to our secret santa list for next christmas. This is on her - not anyone else.

I'm still waiting for someone to point to the part in her paper that actually proves Bigfoot is human..

[Bonehead74]

They have the Belief Bigfoot isn't real.

Barring a personal sighting, why should they believe bigfoot are real (or not)? Belief is the enemy here. It influences our interpretation of the available data through confirmation bias and encourages us to champion evidence that supports our presuppositions(beliefs) while downplaying that which is contradictory.

In this case, MK touted her study as "beautiful" and "elegant", and it was claimed by many supporters to be the final, slam-dunk, open & shut PROOF of bigfoot's existence that we have been waiting for for decades. It clearly is none of those things. Irrefutability trumps skeptical scorn, but unfortunately this DNA study is not close to being irrefutable. The only thing it has done (so far) is give the BF community something new to argue over. My only, small hope is that all of her data is released so that other experts (believers and non-believers, and if we're lucky, some with no opinion either way) can parse and study it for concrete genetic evidence that bigfoot exist.

[Guest]

CathMcMillan said:

I am curious lets take these Grad Students as an example. Eventually they will be in positions to peer review Possibly.

They have the Belief Bigfoot isn't real. So do you think this group would have accepted any paper on Bigfoot?

Honestly, I think those Grad Students and the Scientific community would have accepted Melba's work and results - had she done the work properly. I, personally, don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory that "science will always deny the existence .. We just haven't provided anything that made them change their opinion. Yeah, these Grad Students were a bit snarky and yeah it was unnecessary - but they were no better or worse than the people within our own community. They said nothing I haven't heard discussed right here..

Science is all about looking for the next BIG discovery.. They don't care what it is - as long as they can prove it.

[Guest]

I was referring to the "group" of "scientists" who reviewed the paper. The spent more time bashing on the whole concept of bigfoot before even getting into the paper.

So in my opinion they were already set out to not believe the claim made in the paper regardless of science.

I have seen people post that if Sykes comes back and says BF is real or that his findings match Melba's that they will write him off as a wacko as well. Explain how that is objective science?

[Guest]

CathMcMillan said:

I was referring to the "group" of "scientists" who reviewed the paper. The spent more time bashing on the whole concept of bigfoot before even getting into the paper.

So was I. But, if Melba had not given them the ammunition - they could not have used it. They are laughing because nothing about that paper made them think for one second - that any of the information could be legit.. Quite honestly - there has been the same amount of laughter here about the work she produced. Melba was not - and is not - a geneticist (last I knew she was a vet). Maybe she should have had one on her team - and had him/her write this paper.

If the proof was in the paper - they could laugh all they want - but proof is proof. They would have to eventually stop laughing and get to work. I'm honestly surprised any of them took the time to read any of it. That just proves my point that true scientists are always looking for the next great discovery - regardless of what it is.