The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

Do not confuse Scientific scepticism with regard to bigfoot, with Scientific scepticism with regard to a bad bad paper.

Many of the scientists I communicate with read the paper, the criticism is not with the idea of Bigfoot, but with the paper's conclusions and processes.

We can see what the criticisms were from the real journal, and see if she addressed them in her final copy.

If she did not, and went ahead and published in her own journal, simply to avoid revising her paper to the liking of the peer review, then you really can't say the paper was 'peer reviewed' can you?

If you listen to the C2C broadcast Sunday night, she address the revisions (criticisms) that were requested.....She did them, and they still rejected out of hand the paper.

[Guest]

If you listen to the C2C broadcast Sunday night, she address the revisions (criticisms) that were requested.....She did them, and they still rejected out of hand the paper.

This is what she claims. We have no reason to believe it is true. If this is the revised addition, I would hate to see the early drafts. If she left in the stick structures and the horse braids, is there any doubt that the angel DNA claims are true, and who knows what other nonsense. This paper had zero chance of ever passing any peer review.

[Guest]

If you listen to the C2C broadcast Sunday night, she address the revisions (criticisms) that were requested.....She did them, and they still rejected out of hand the paper.

Unfortunately, we do not know if she addressed the reviewer's criticism to the reviewer's satisfaction. Unless she releases the correspondence between herself and the editor, we will never know. I will give her the benefit of the doubt that she responded and revised the manuscript, but it was likely inadequate to the editor.

[Guest Jack Wild]

She may not be able to release anymore video than what was included. One of the members here states they spoke with Erickson and he is apparently waiting for a source of funding prior to releasing what he has:

http://bigfootforums...880#entry704884

I'm struggling with the money issue. Meet with reps of Nat Geo, Discovery or any one of a number of media outlets or corporations, and if Erickson has the quality footage he claims he can get his investment dollars and still have a very sound proprietary position.

If Matilda is supposed to whet our appetite wow, what a disappointment. I think Matilda looks like a giant brown poodle in need of a good grooming. Nonetheless, if you do believe you see a sasquatch in that HD video clip, then I have a handsome young "bigfoot" for sale. He's good with kids and will fetch:)

[Guest]

@Derek, thanks for clarifying about Pfohl.

[Guest spurfoot]

The files provided in the Ketchum paper are not nearly long enough to contain the complete genome. The longest I could find was only 5 Mb or so. For a 2.8 Gb genome that is wrong. Also, the files are not in FASTA format as claimed. I tried to load them into the NIH "Workbench" program and it would not take them.

Perhaps Melba has some explanation. Since she doesn't respond to emails, I have no choice but to post this here.

[steenburg]

Personally this topic has gone on so long all of these questions and issues are coming up for the third and forth time now. one big circle as earlier posts are now long forgotten. Remember this film footage of Erickson's was shown to John Green in a private viewing at his home and John was not impressed with what he saw. Also in the case of the Erickson project, many of the people he was relying on as contributors in the early going were exposed for hoaxing and other shenanigans over time. Erick I be leave had the best of intentions but he did a very poor job checking out the credibility of those he was working with, Standing. Brisson, Etc, etc. He was at the Green summit in Harrison in April 2011, proclaiming the year of the Sasquatch! Well its now 2013 and the long awaited documentary seems to be staled indefinitely. Now this is only my opinion having only spoke to the man face to face once. But I think when the truth about certain people was reveled to him it took a lot out of his earlier enthusiasm for the whole thing. He was no different then many others in this field. Hoping that a big break through is around the corner so bad that common sense takes a leave of absence. Only to come back and slap you in the face. Resulting in the wind being taken from your sails so to speak. Just my opinion. I really hope I am wrong but I doubt it.

Thomas Steenburg

[gigantor]

For Premium members... there is a whole thread on the BFF 1.0 archive about the Erickson project/video. It's interesting because the info/rumors were fresh at the time. They do have more info than what we are hearing now.

[Guest]

She may not be able to release anymore video than what was included. One of the members here states they spoke with Erickson and he is apparently waiting for a source of funding prior to releasing what he has:

http://bigfootforums...880#entry704884

youtube is free

I'm struggling with the money issue. Meet with reps of Nat Geo, Discovery or any one of a number of media outlets or corporations, and if Erickson has the quality footage he claims he can get his investment dollars and still have a very sound proprietary position.

If Matilda is supposed to whet our appetite wow, what a disappointment. I think Matilda looks like a giant brown poodle in need of a good grooming. Nonetheless, if you do believe you see a sasquatch in that HD video clip, then I have a handsome young "bigfoot" for sale. He's good with kids and will fetch:)

if they keep putting 'finding bigfoot' on with NO footage, then i find it impossible to believe that erickson's histoic, dramatic, earth-shattering footage would not have a taker

[Guest]

The files provided in the Ketchum paper are not nearly long enough to contain the complete genome. The longest I could find was only 5 Mb or so. For a 2.8 Gb genome that is wrong. Also, the files are not in FASTA format as claimed. I tried to load them into the NIH "Workbench" program and it would not take them.

Perhaps Melba has some explanation. Since she doesn't respond to emails, I have no choice but to post this here.

Those files are from a comparison of chromosome 11 between the samples.

[Guest TwilightZone]

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

See, I can't help but think the carrot-on-a-string metaphor equates to "We don't really have the goods so we're going to lead you on as long as possible on the belief that we do have it... and you will never, ever get that carrot." The excuse for not giving out the carrot can be as inventive as they care to make it, such as not having enough money to release it, or not having the license. Rest assured, there will always be a excuse.

I think if somebody has truly convincing footage of a Sasquatch, they could make plenty of dough by selling it like Jack Wild mentions, or by licensing it for TV shows like the Patterson widow does.

Edited February 20, 2013 by TwilightZone

[Guest]

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.

I'm not convinced that she's wrong yet, either, but I don't like what I've read so far from TheAGenes, GenesRus, Ridge, Njj, or some of the public comments made by scientists, but being as I am not versed in anything DNA, I can only go off what is stated, or what the paper, itself, appears to be, which I believe you are correct in saying, a laymans paper. I don't pretend to know any of the submitters emotions throughout this whole timeline, but I know that I, personally, would've been excited beyond comprehension, and probably would've been telling everybody I know that proof is coming soon, based off of what she had been telling everybody. I don't know if the submitters are having to backpedal at all, but it pisses(is that a bad word?) me off that people like Derek have to post things on FB to explain the circumstances of his contribution, so that his good name isn't damaged by being associated with this in any way. She caused it! Nobody else. She shouted from the rooftops that it was a lock, then to fumble on the goal-line like this is inexcusable. I feel as if she owes you all a public apology. There still may be some salvageable data there, but her inability to publish something even remotely professional, in lieu of the hype that she generated around it, is pathetic, IMO. She had five years to lock it up, and it appears as if she put five minutes into the overall presentation. I hope that all of the submitters are vindicated somehow.

As far as the Matilda vid is concerned, if something is hoaxed, it will appear hoaxed, IMO. It is extremely difficult to make something appear natural and have fluid movement. Something that close will be a no-brainer. It will either be real, or it will be fake, and it will appear as so, either way. I think the hesitation on Erickson's part has to do with him having a bogus video, and not getting the reactions from people who have seen it as he had hoped. Maybe I'm wrong, but his actions don't jive with somebody who has definitive proof, which surely a video from a few feet away would be. If you have a real video of a BF from that close, it won't look like a monkey suit whatsoever.

The whole defensive nature of people who have pics, or vids that they claim to be BF, but they won't release due to preconceived notions that people will claim hoax really bothers me. Yeah, people are going to blast you if you try and put something out there that is fake. I'd like them to cite specific videos, or pictures that were real, that people called hoax on. The Patterson vid gets it, but it's still being talked about 40-something years later, and appears real to me. Other than that, I've never seen any daylight vid/photos that people claim to be real that are real. In the end, whether people like it or not, the individual who presents the evidence is just as important as the video/pics themselves. If you aren't a credible person, it's dismissed outright, and rightfully so, unless it is so good that it is obviously real. I've seen Bart's therm vid, and it is very compelling, IMO. It passes the initial eye test, and it also comes from a credible person. His analysis, the circumstances surrounding it, and his blatant transparency lead me to belive that he filmed what he claimed to have filmed. Erickson should take notes from him. I hate how a lot of these projects/evidence seem to be more about the person delivering it than the Sasquatches themselves.

[Guest]

Here's an interesting article about the new Denovo journal:

http://www.historum.com/blogs/ghostexorcist/1380-melba-ketchum-s-bigfoot-dna-study-questionable-ethics-creating-journal.html

[Guest]

The files provided in the Ketchum paper are not nearly long enough to contain the complete genome. The longest I could find was only 5 Mb or so. For a 2.8 Gb genome that is wrong. Also, the files are not in FASTA format as claimed. I tried to load them into the NIH "Workbench" program and it would not take them.

Perhaps Melba has some explanation. Since she doesn't respond to emails, I have no choice but to post this here.

she is only releasing a portion of chromosome 11 in this manuscript - the rest of 11, and the rest of the genome is yet to come. As far as I can tell, the files are PDF files, while the FASTA should be something else - the "<consensus" header is FASTA format. I have not yet found an easy way to convert these PDF to FASTA compatible.

[Guest]

I appreciate Violetx taking the time and making the effort of calling Mr. Erickson. I was just curious as to what kind of dollar figure "funding" would be needed to finish, publicize and market the documentary with a reasonable expectation of recovering the costs and make a profit. I dont really understand the business side of these matters, but I do wonder of the expense some of the channels, such as History Channel, Animal Planet, Nat Geo, and Discovery Channel incur to produce shows with much less impact, viewership, and certainly less real historical and societal relevance than a well made documentary with clear, basically undeniable video of a new Human related species. Just wondering why it wouldnt be a slam dunk business decision to basically write Mr. Erickson a blank check.