chelefoot Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Many of us held out hope for her project until it became painfully clear that it was hopeless. It was so very disappointing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 (edited) I completely agree friend. It is very disappointing. ↑↑ Edited September 13, 2015 by Patterson-Gimlin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheellug Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 I'm just a hold out of the 'wait and see' of things. While I cant agree in entirety with some of her personal claims, IF and When another independent organization can provide supporting data and test results is not something I can dismiss. It would mean that results can be replicated and bolster a claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) The bottom line in bigfooting is people want to capitalize on the discovery or knowledge that might be set forth, it was that way when Patterson and Gimlin were trying to put together their documentary, and it has been that way since. That alone is not a basis to deny Patterson-Gimlin as fraud, but in the case of Melba we have a jump to a conclusion without any proper vetting of the information. She seems to allow her Christian Beliefs, which I also share, to taint the outcome of the evidence, if science demands anything it demands objectivity, and we seem to catch her losing that perspective. Everyone seems to have an agenda when it comes to these creatures, why can't we simply discover what they are without having to control the outcome, I do not think they are as unusual a creature as we sometimes make them out to be, it is only that we hold a perspective that causes us to view them as such. Someday the mystery will be resolved and I dare say many of us will look foolish in hind sight...but no more foolish than the natives that spoke of the mountains gorillas in spiritual terms before their discovery, it is simply the way humans view other primates. Edited September 14, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted September 14, 2015 Moderator Share Posted September 14, 2015 Something bothers me. If Ketchum's work with purported bigfoot samples is as shoddy as the paper she presented makes it look, what else has she done poorly? I was thinking about this Friday, Sept 11 ... Ketchum takes credit for identifying human remains at the WTC complex after the 9-11 attack. I wonder if she did that as poorly? Leaves me with an uncomfortable feeling for the families. MIB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 I believe there is a lot of missinformation/disinformation regarding Dr. Ketchum's work. If this lab comes forward claiming to have duplicated her work will they be attacked with the same attacks, like it must have been contaminated to get those results, etc. as was done with Dr. Ketchum, or will this vindicate her, that her work was accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted September 15, 2015 Moderator Share Posted September 15, 2015 jayjeti - While there is misinformation, nobody published Ketchum's paper but Ketchum. She can't shift blame for that absolutely shoddy work onto anyone else. A scientific paper follows a very rigid form. The data / results presented MUST support the conclusion else the paper is invalid. Ketchum's data does not support her conclusion. The paper invalidates itself. This is not about other people criticizing her, it's only about others having the audacity to notice that Ketchum condemns herself. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Dr. Ketchums work started out as promising but there have been too many incidents that cast doubt on her professionalism as a scientist. I'm far from well versed on the technicalities of DNA research. However, just the "bear steak" issue was enough to cause me to question her research. I don't know if she started this research with the goal of finding an answer to the mystery and then got swept up and carried away by public interest? But, at some point, it became obvious that she had veered off the path of scientific discovery and was being fueled by her own personal agenda. I don't believe the government had anything to do with Ketchum's DNA debacle. Why would they even get involved when she was doing such a great job of self sabotaging her own research? Everything that made her look foolish, came out of her own mouth. Unless the government hypnotized her or manipulated her into making nonsensical comments; Dr. Ketchum was solely responsible for destroying her own credibility. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) Thanks for the replies but I asked a specific question. If this independent lab arrives at the same conclusions as did Dr. Ketchum, and they do duplicate her work, will that vindicate her? As far as the debacle of her paper, I believe a lot of people take other's word for it that it was such a sham without enough knowledge of the subject themselves to know on their own. I don't have the expertise to know how accurate all these claims are on either side, but I suspect there's some hyperbole on the part of those trashing her results since all of her testing was done in university labs that use thorough washing techniques to remove contaminants, and "all" those samples could not have been contaminated as some skeptics of her work have claimed. It just doesn't sound feasible that everything must be contaminated, but it sounds more like some who are biased against bigfoot's existence have assumed it must all be contaminated since they don't believe it exists. On the issue of how she interpreted her data, and the conclusions she arrived at, as I commented, I really can't speak to that, but if you start having others duplicate her results and conclusions I believe some may need to reassess their prior stances regarding her work. Edited September 16, 2015 by jayjeti 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 She seems to think that it will vindicate her. From the perspective of the as yet unnamed investigators conducting the new scientific analysis, it would be a matter of professional courtesy to give her a call and let her know that they are on the verge of publishing information that comes to the some of the same conclusions as hers. If nothing else this avoids having a media spat if they successfully publish and she attempts to assert first claim. It would also be appropriate for them to at least cite or reference her "publication". They may not be aware of some of her more fantastic claims that emerged after her study, may not take those into account, and may not care if, in fact, their results are close to hers. The science is the science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 They may not be aware of some of her more fantastic claims that emerged after her study, may not take those into account, and may not care if, in fact, their results are close to hers. The science is the science. What fantastic claims do you refer to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Hi Jayjeti! You seem to keep your thumb on the pulse of the Ketchum deal. Has she indicated at all when we can expect these other scientists to come forward and/or the release of the info?Seems like she just made a statement, then went black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 They may not be aware of some of her more fantastic claims that emerged after her study, may not take those into account, and may not care if, in fact, their results are close to hers. The science is the science. What fantastic claims do you refer to? Maybe I'm thinking about things people have claimed that she claimed, such as the mane braiding and putative intimate encounters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Hello JDL. Those things shouldn't really impact the science her and her team did. As far as the intimate encounter, she's denied that, claiming it was made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 I agree that the science should stand alone and gratified to learn that the allegation was fabricated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts