The Ketchum Report

[Guest parnassus]

Q: Sas how are scientist going to explain a giant hairy ape living under our noses.

A: I don't know.

I had to chuckle.

[Guest]

Your opinion is wrong. No derail attempt; it is related to evidence of absence. You have no interest in formal logic? No more sharing with you then.

Since when did you start dealing in "formal logic" or logic in general? You're still trying to tell us that because Bob Ballard didn't see a bf at 13000' down during his dives on the Titanic in 1986 that a hunter didn't see a bigfoot 3000 feet up the slope of Mt Ranier in 2012.

What do you have against pigs, Mulder?

You know exactly what I meant by that.

I'm with you there Mr. Noun. I was only interested in the Georgia boys for the amount of time it took me to do a cursory Google search. I was aware of the DNA study but what really set the hook was the Lindsay's leak of the Sierra kills story. I figured out Justin's name in short order and some additional poking around suggested this wasn't your garden variety bigfoot hoax. Of course the jury is still out even as the hook is still in.

As I recall, even Lindsay hopes she's not going there. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the alien stuff is coming from someone close to Paulides. The man seems to have a special interest in extraterrestrials. I recall reading an article he wrote about bigfoot (including discussion of the DNA study) in a MUFON journal. It's either that, or someone is trying to out a mole. Sally Ramey has specifically banned any alien discussion from the Ketchum FB pages. That should tell you something.

It tells me that she's doing her job and not allowing outside parties to tarnish the paper before it even gets published.

[Guest]

Some hay farmer is very very happy with the amount of this going on around this forum on the part of the Skeptics.

Careful there Brother Mulder. That is really close to breaking this rule...

3. Respect For The Forum and the Forum Staff

A. The Bigfoot Forums is owned by the Centre for Fortean Zoology and operated with the aid of volunteers that include a Steering Committee, Administrators and Moderators. Members of this Forum will follow the instructions of the Administrators and Moderators. Questioning their actions or motivations in public will not be tolerated. Members will practice common courtesy in dealing with the Staff and users of this Forum. Should you have an issue with the way a Staff member is behaving or disagree with a decision, you should first take it up with the Moderators. It is important to remember that this Forum is run solely on a volunteer basis.

The insinuation is that skeptics are given more leeway than proponents and that is simply not the case. I think if one asked them they would agree. Heck, some of them think they get treated unfairly.

If both sides feel like the other side is favored then my Staff is doing their job.

The simple and irrefutable fact is that all members here are held to an similar standard by Staff and there is zero favoritism or partiality afforded to either side.

Members of Staff are human and have their personal beliefs but they toss them out of the window in rulings and assume a stance of neutrality.

Some folks are just more gifted than others at getting their points across within the rules and not crossing the line.

The determining factor, more often than not, is that folks/members who post from an overly emotional perspective tend to cross the line.

There is one set of rules for the General Forum and everyone has to abide by them.

There is much more freedom allowed in the Premium Membership Plan's forum for heated debate named the Tar-Pit.

[Guest]

If every other [known] North American mammal has been shot by hunters or has become road kill, Bigfoot is not only special

in not succumbing to such mundane fate,

Type "bigfoot shot" into search engine of choice. Lots of reports to be read.

Next unobjection?

Scientists - prior to Ketchum - have analyzed hair samples. Nothing has come of those analyses.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/hair.htm

http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/other_forms_of_bigfoot_evidenc.html

http://squatchwatch.weebly.com/bigfoot-evidence.html (scroll down about 90% of the page)

Careful there Brother Mulder. That is really close to breaking this rule...

HR, I'll simply point out that the comment I made you reference had nothing whatsoever to do with staff, and everything to do with Parn's army of strawmen.

If you are referencing some other comment of mine, could you please point to it?

[Guest MikeG]

Forgive my pedantry, but there is a great deal of difference between hay and straw. A hay farmer may not produce any straw at all, and no farmer produces just straw. It is a by product, not a product in itself. Hence the possible reason for our confusion reading your hay-farmer quote........Indeed, I don't know of many farms that produce hay at all these days. They tend to produce silage or haylage instead, in my experience. It could of course be different in your neck of the woods. Some farmers around here are paid to produce old-fashioned long-stalk straw for thatching, (the modern varieties being too short for that purpose), but even then it is a by-product of wheat or barley production.

Now, interesting as this diversion to arable farming methods is, wasn't this thread about the Ketchum report?

Mike

[Guest]

Well, the inference that I took from the line I quoted was just what I related.

I've also read some of your recent PM's to other Staff members of late so I can add 2 + 2 and come up with 4.

If you didn't mean it that way then cool. But in light of your recent PM's, and that line, I know how you feel.

All I'm saying is that you can post just like anyone else and will be granted the same leeway. You just need to remove the emotion as that is what gets most in trouble.

I'm not going to get into an back and forth echange. It is what it is.

The topic of this thread is The Ketchum Report. Members of Staff may step in from time to time to address something extraneous related to moderation but doing so should be kept to an minimum.

If you would like to discuss it further with me then send me an PM. I've been on the forum for 8 hours this morning and will soon duck out to handle other matters so if you PM me and I don't respond immediately that is why.

Back to The Ketchum Report now......

[Guest]

http://www.bigfooten...iology/hair.htm

http://www.bigfoot-l...ot_evidenc.html

http://squatchwatch....t-evidence.html (scroll down about 90% of the page)

Bless your heart Mulder! You provide links to websites containing references to people who've made vague statements about some hairs they thought looked unusual. So can you please explain to everyone why you failed to include the references I've repeatedly provided of actual peer-reviewed literature that has analyzed such samples? I think I've even attached these actual papers as pdfs earlier in the thread. Why do you ignore them? Is it because their results don't conform to what you want to believe?

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Does the hypothesis of a new species need to be stated for any other reason than to establish the premise of the study? Does it affect what the data actually supports as a conclusion?

SY,

For bigfoot? Yes. Bigfoot as a new species is past the threshold where words alone don't cut it.

I was under the impression that there is going to be proof, not just a theory. If it's just a hypothesis, setting up for future study and the basis was formed from something tangible (DNA), I'm hoping there will be more than words. I'm hopeful someone else will eventually be able to test that DNA. At the very least, I want someone else to verify that there were no errors or contamination.

I know my posts seem doubtful, but I'm really hopeful. I'm only a little furious because I (and you) have been here before.... many times. I have NBC on every Thursday (not really), just incase they mention anything on Access Hollywood. I do take Dr. Ketchum's words at face value right now.....until I have a reason not to. Nobody being able to verify the data would be a reason. I'm hopeful that's not the case. When I say I take her words at face value, I mean "okay, sounds great.... prove it", instead of "no way". I don't think that a wrong approach.

Edited for my usual hundreds of spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors.

Edited April 19, 2012 by FuriousGeorge

[Guest spurfoot]

If the Sasquatch people are so different from Hss that they are not recognizable to the average person as the same species, then surely they are a different species with a considerable reproductive barrier by reason of the unrecognizability. If they are nonetheless partially interbreedable by rape with Hss as testified by various international tribes, then they are somewhat related.

An expert taxonomist is rumored to be either a co-author or a consultant to the Ketchum et al. paper. If Dr. Ketchum, with such expert advice, is calling them a different species, then that has weight. I am prepared to say the same. Let's await the final publication to see the detailed support of that contention.

All the skeptics and puzzled people need to think outside the box on this one.

[ShadowBorn]

SY,

I know my posts seem doubtful, but I'm really hopeful. I'm only a little furious because I (and you) have been here before.... many times. I have NBC on every Thursday (not really), just incase they mention anything on Access Hollywood. I do take Dr. Ketchum's words at face value right now.....until I have a reason not to. Nobody being able to verify the data would be a reason. I'm hopeful that's not the case. When I say I take her words at face value, I mean "okay, sounds great.... prove it", instead of "no way". I don't think that a wrong approach.

Edited for my usual hundreds of spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors.

FG

I believe that this is healthy way to look at it,You know how long everyone has been waiting for proof.If there is proof it is going to come out soon and no i am not going to be waiting for the media to take over .Imagine a new species living in our forest and all these wittnesses have spoken of it but no solid proof.This is a big topic and it will always be big topic cause we cannot all be lying and yet here there will be solid proof of a living being that might be our ancestor in some way in this tree of life.It will be well worth the wait no matter how long it takes.

It would have been better if nothing was said at all and one day we all woke up to the news of living fossil.But like anything it is hard to keep sercrets when we are dealing with something of this magnitude.Everything we knew about ourselves will have to be rewritten.If this report has what we all believe it to have then our history will no longer be the same.Maybe this is where everyone is having a problem and sure it was the leak but she has done the best to keep things low key .Sure we all make mistakes but why not on something that is this great about something that no one seem to believe it exist in the first place.It is like the Holy Grail of science but the darn thing is a living being living among us as one .It will be a great day when this does come to light to the media and we will be talking about.

[Guest Shaun]

I'm starting to wonder if this paper wil ever be published.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Page 153???? Please please please

ETA

Drat

Edited April 19, 2012 by FuriousGeorge

[Cotter]

^^^ Ummm.....what?

That one whizzed about 3 miles above my head.

:-)

[southernyahoo]

SY,

For bigfoot? Yes. Bigfoot as a new species is past the threshold where words alone don't cut it.

I was under the impression that there is going to be proof, not just a theory. If it's just a hypothesis, setting up for future study and the basis was formed from something tangible (DNA), I'm hoping there will be more than words. I'm hopeful someone else will eventually be able to test that DNA. At the very least, I want someone else to verify that there were no errors or contamination.

I know my posts seem doubtful, but I'm really hopeful. I'm only a little furious because I (and you) have been here before.... many times. I have NBC on every Thursday (not really), just incase they mention anything on Access Hollywood. I do take Dr. Ketchum's words at face value right now.....until I have a reason not to. Nobody being able to verify the data would be a reason. I'm hopeful that's not the case. When I say I take her words at face value, I mean "okay, sounds great.... prove it", instead of "no way". I don't think that a wrong approach.

Edited for my usual hundreds of spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors.

I can appreciate cautious optimism, and a balanced skeptical approach. I think we call that being objective. I get the sense now that you don't want to see a hypothesis, is that right? If I trust in what Dr. Ketchum has done in her blind study, the conclusive data actually comes from other labs, who independently replicated her findings. If all that is properly assembled in the paper, then I think your concerns will be taken care of. If not, I think you can be comforted by the fact that some samples aren't completely consumed.

[Guest vilnoori]

There is an issue here Jerry, where you tend to focus on other peoples beliefs or your perception of their beliefs. Beliefs don't matter in science, but do matter in religion. You could argue that belief doesn't exist in science. We have hypotheses we test, observe phenomena, document and predict future findings through experimentation. Attempting persecution of someone's belief, isn't a scientific inquiry.

Just a little wee quibble here, but belief does matter in science, in fact in everything. You don't build a particle accelerator worth millions to detect previously undetected particles, for example, unless you believe they are out there.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/science/higgs-en.html

Scientists believe in their theories or hypotheses. Good scientists don't hold on too tightly to those beliefs though, because they could be mistaken. And many have made the mistake of doing so.