The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Bonehead74]

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?

Get back to us when that happens.

(And as long as we're speculating about future events, I find the idea highly dubious that Dr Sykes' findings will match those of Melba Ketchum.)

[Guest]

@cath

LOL as to you last question, the answer would be for that person..probably not objective...but I don't confuse a person with "science."

And you are right, the bias against Bigfoot is strong, and why so many Bigfooters are upset...this was supposed to be science, traditional science...so "overdone" to prove...as poster above notes we were teased with cryptic glorious FaceBook posts for years...of amazing and beautiful data....

and it doesn't sound like it is amazing or beautiful to science (or six graduate students just feeling their oats..only 1% of US citizens holds a PhD and the number in hard sciences even less...heady stuff for young uns.....they will get knocked down a peg or two in just a few years..)

if I can take the many tens of minds that seem to be able to evaluate it and who want BFs to be proven, and their chorus of laughter.... (or tears!?), I would say focusing on the flavor of the protests is a waste of your time....the content should be the focus.

and unsubstantiated papers with huge claims (few can evaluate for accuracy), apparently like Ketchum's, add to the pile of bad Bigfoot science....and make that bias at the onset...even tougher...as far as I can tell this so far has been typical Bigfootery to the world..?

p.s. if you are really into supporting MK Cath...stop posting, it just gives those who have already said their piece a million times (me too!) another excuse to repeat themselves...!!!

wondered how close that old stat on percent with PhD's was (I am in BFF after all!) and pulled this from net:

According to US 2000 Census, 1,754,331 of population over 25 years of age have a doctoral degree (PhD, EdD, etc). This is under one percent of population (0.96) in this age group. Including people with professional degrees who are normally referred to with Dr title like physicians, dentists, etc (MD, DDS, etc) 5,373,866 (2.95%) of US population over 25 carry doctor title.

link: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_QTP20&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-redoLog=false

Edited February 28, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

Dr. Ketchum is a past three-term Chairperson of the International Society for Animal Genetics Equine Genetics Standing Committee. She has also been Dog Map Chairperson and a Committee member on the Dog and Cat Parentage Committee. She is a former Treasurer for AFDAA, The Association of DNA Analysts and Administrators. She aided in the analysis of the DNA sequences from the World Trade Center Disaster.

I will have to go back when we were doing a book about the Trade Center for a Client they did list all the Labs involved in that and I believe I will have to confirm she was part of that list.

Now I will agree that she shouldn't have been making these certain leaps in her paper .

But to say she is only a vet is not accurate.

[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?

Bingo!

Garbage paper aside, it's about the subject. I also have to make reference to the paper I posted where bias was demonstrated from the outset and where it is those in a junior position who review. If you are just starting your career and a bigfoot paper lands on your desk, you're going to have a great time taking it to the break room for a snick-o-rama fest with your colleagues.

All I would like to see is for science to at least try to take the subject seriously. They don't. It was that way before the paper. And now it is a 1000 times worse because of it.

[Guest]

Dr. Ketchum is a past three-term Chairperson of the International Society for Animal Genetics Equine Genetics Standing Committee. She has also been Dog Map Chairperson and a Committee member on the Dog and Cat Parentage Committee. She is a former Treasurer for AFDAA, The Association of DNA Analysts and Administrators. She aided in the analysis of the DNA sequences from the World Trade Center Disaster.

I will have to go back when we were doing a book about the Trade Center for a Client they did list all the Labs involved in that and I believe I will have to confirm she was part of that list.

Now I will agree that she shouldn't have been making these certain leaps in her paper .

But to say she is only a vet is not accurate.

that would be a positive thing to do...bring it back here!

[Guest]

I will be interested in what you find out CathMcMillan, because I have seen it said someone else looked into Melba's work with the World Trade Center disaster - and they could not find her company listed..

But - those credentials you list - I am not sure they qualify Melba to run or interpret human genome sequences. Melba is a Vet - I am not sure I would take that away from her.

But, she is not a geneticist..

Cornelius said:

All I would like to see is for science to at least try to take the subject seriously. They don't. It was that way before the paper. And now it is a 1000 times worse because of it.

I must say, in large part I agree with your statement. But, I don't blame established science for not taking Bigfoot seriously.. We as researchers have not provided them with a good enough reason to take it seriously to this point. And you're right - Melba's paper certainly did not help anything.

JMO

[Guest]

@Melissa,

I agree she shouldn't have jumped to the conclusions she presented. I agree she was pushing the "Human-Like" Bigfoot. Which is cool if that is what she believes.

Question:

Could she have presented the paper with out a conclusion of what she believes it is? Would that have been acceptable?

I will wait to see what her "Other Scientists" come up with and Sykes.

My own Bias I believe Bigfoot is more "Human" like than "Gorilla Ape Like"

[Guest]

CathMcMillan said:

Question:

Could she have presented the paper with out a conclusion of what she believes it is? Would that have been acceptable?

I will wait to see what her "Other Scientists" come up with and Sykes.

I have no problem that she came to a conclusion in her paper.. BUT - I know she already felt that way, long before her paper published... Her paper seems to mirror her own thoughts (she left out some things thank god) but I have to wonder if she made the results fit what she already thought she knew.. I don't know. I'm not in her head - nor do I want to be.

[Bonehead74]

@Melissa,

I agree she shouldn't have jumped to the conclusions she presented. I agree she was pushing the "Human-Like" Bigfoot. Which is cool if that is what she believes.

Question:

Could she have presented the paper with out a conclusion of what she believes it is? Would that have been acceptable?

I will wait to see what her "Other Scientists" come up with and Sykes.

My own Bias I believe Bigfoot is more "Human" like than "Gorilla Ape Like"

Ketchum shouldn't be "pushing" anything. If she (and you) desires scientific recognition of bigfoot, then belief has to bearing. Science recognizes objective, repeatable, observable facts. Interpretation must be supported by these same facts, and divorced from any presuppositions. This is where MK's study is found wanting.

[Guest]

Wait?

Since when does science not PUSH an objective on anything?

Isn't a Hypothesis a idea you desire to Prove. So you will do steps to Prove or Disprove the Hypothesis. Isn't that Pushing?

I see it in all these Peer Review Journals we do for clients in medical and science they are pushing there Idea.

Edited February 28, 2013 by CathMcmillan

[Guest]

Cath,

Melba's "pushing" an idea goes beyond what you are discussing. She is forming organizations and talking about, Constitutional Rights, long before her paper was even released. I would call her more of an advocate for one particular theory - than an objective scientist looking into this mystery.

[Guest]

I create a Hypothesis that we evolve from Apes.

Well then I collect the data that backs up my claim then when I create the paper I push my Data to back my claim that we evolved from apes.

Other researches will try to replicate and or disprove my findings.

But I am Pushing my Hypothesis.

Cath,

Melba's "pushing" an idea goes beyond what you are discussing. She is forming organizations and talking about, Constitutional Rights, long before her paper was even released. I would call her more of an advocate for one particular theory - than an objective scientist looking into this mystery.

I understand that. But I didn't make the blanket statement that science doesn't Push things.

And sorry Science will and can push things based of the Hypothesis. Yes she jumped the GUN so to speak on this instead of waiting for more verification I am not denying any of that.

I am even agreeing with you on it.

[Guest]

I don't know. I'm not in her head - nor do I want to be.

I am the kind of person that wonders what people think inside their head/heart.. that curiosity drove a lot of my field work with BFs...I trusted early I would not prove alone (and this great DNA effort was underway with dozens of contributors) they exist, but I did want to know what they thought...how they felt... (see 1. below for expansion of this sidebar )

and i can't help wondering what is going on inside of Ketchum's head and as a human I do feel empathy and worry...(until I see a defiant/strong FB post) how this will impact her internal life (even if she brought it on herself..).....recent studies indicate we are adept at manufacturing our happiness, that denial is a tool we use and has an important role in our survival, and choice or lack of affects our happiness (see 2012 Ted Talks conference ..youtubes or google)..

I am very interested in who Ketchum really is, and can see why film makers find BFers interesting subjects....it does seem quixotic

Her interviews are convincing that she believes her work...kind of.....knowing all the details of these underlying issues makes that also appear suspect to me......humm....I don't know.. her responses are out of my personal reaction frame of reference, I have not tried to so persuade the world! ... if she has any intent to cover any wrong doing..all bets are off, I cannot interpret that behavior and don't have facts really (a small growing list though...the response on the joke paper citation, still no GenBank upload, no previous editor 'pass' letter and this SK sample debate) ...so, I do wish she were more open, forthright, and willing to engage directly with her critics.

sidebar 1. the easiest way to interpret that BF behavioral data is through what we already know about apes and humans....(hence the penname apehuman..they seem both in the colloquial sense) Anthropomorphism is thrown around a lot...- usually to minimize or diss another's alternative view if they see human behavior in their field data. There are real biases that can creep in observational work or experimental design....but we have also found ignoring human-like qualities in species was an error too..in strict application as it turns out most of our qualities arise in other species. So what? lol nothing..it's just i went out thinking 'ape' b/c of Meldrum, Krantz, BFRO, Green etc....but bought Robert Morgan's Observers Field Guide and applied it...and the data to me leaned more human than ape...lol whatever that is...b/c humans are wonderful rock throwing, shouting, tree climbing beings....not the thread to continue here....but the thing is..as the data kept coming it also seemed they weren't human....so? I don't know what they are..lol sorry for diversion!

Edited February 28, 2013 by apehuman

[Bonehead74]

Wait?

Since when does science not PUSH an objective on anything?

Isn't a Hypothesis a idea you desire to Prove. So you will do steps to Prove or Disprove the Hypothesis. Isn't that Pushing?

I see it in all these Peer Review Journals we do for clients in medical and science they are pushing there Idea.

Learning some truth about a phenomenon is the objective, not having your hypothesis validated.

I create a Hypothesis that we evolve from Apes.

Well then I collect the data that backs up my claim then when I create the paper I push my Data to back my claim that we evolved from apes.

Other researches will try to replicate and or disprove my findings.

But I am Pushing my Hypothesis.

Hypothesis = educated guess, not a dogmatic belief (or affirmation) and an associated ideology presupposed.

Apples and kumquats.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Bonehead74

[Guest]

Cath said,

But I didn't make the blanket statement that science doesn't Push things.

I don't remember accusing you of saying that. I don't remember saying that either. Yes, scientists do make Hypotheses. But, what they don't do (as a rule) is get into the position of advocacy. Which is what Melba has done. Those are two different things.

I often think Science and the Law are more similar than some even recognize. Both fields focus on facts. Not what we think or feel - but what can be proven. You can hypothesize all you want, but if you don't have the facts to back it up - well..

Also what Bonehead said.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Melissa