The Ketchum Report

[Guest Darrell]

Ok, let me address a couple things. I don’t know what I have to apologize for as I think I was more than reasonable in stating my position per the BBB issue. I also don’t think I need to concede that I’m wrong either. Dr Ketchum from the start has made misstatements per her study, delegated media releases to incompetent underlings, made outrageous statements she has refused to confirm, leaked info, and muddled everything up to the point she can’t or won’t even comment anymore. If that doesn’t reflect on a person’s ability to lead and their integrity what does? Is this the person to lead the scientific effort to use DNA to prove the existence of an unknown species? I don’t think she is. But because she is a scientist that believes in bigfoot she gets more than a free pass and proponents are still treating her like she is some kind of royalty. And for the BBB thing, all the proponents are saying how it doesn’t matter and isn’t a big thing but if she had an A rating you all would be using that to add to her position. And what if somebody on the other side of the fence had the BBB rating her lab does? I bet you would all be using that to show how incompetent that person was. And I have been critical of Dr Meldrum in the past but since this is the Ketchum thread I won’t address those concerns but don’t blame me or others skeptical of this phenomena for the reason Meldrum or Ketchum doesn’t participate on this forum. Again it’s a free pass since you can’t make a negative comment, even if justified, since they are members. If they can’t defend their positions, their integrity, or their science that’s not my fault. Lastly, whether you are a proponent or skeptical, you still need to maintain some common sense and if you don’t you will walk right off the cliff with the person you are blindly following.

[Guest]

Can you really insert anyones name in the blank and speak for them as to what their beliefs actually are? Should anyone investigate the question of bigfoots existence then? Why is it necessary to project a belief on a complete stranger whom you've never met? I know some investigators that started after their own personal encounter, do they believe or do they know? Why would anyone investigate the question of BF's existence if they felt all the evidence was fabricated?

1. If they tell me what those beliefs are, then yes, I can regurgitate what was said.

2. Any one can investigate anything they desire as long as no one gets hurt or laws aren't broken.

3. I was not projecting, I based my comment on posts made by NGJ over the last several pages, albeit I misunderstood what he meant by investigation.

4. If someone had a sighting then they "know" and are looking for corrobartive evidence, how they judge the quality of whatever evidence they find is what matters.

5. I don't think all of the evidence is fabricated and I certainly don't get the impression from those that do investigate think all evidence is fabricated. Most of the evidence we see here is mainly damage, a blurry photo or video, or tracks that might be left by bigfoot or something else. Personally, I hesitate to accept someone else's interprtation of what that kind of evidence might indicate. Many times I end up drawing a different conclusion based on what was presented.

If there is an alternative explanation then it makes the evidence in question useless for establishing the possibility for bigfoot's existence, with bigfoot being the last option on that list of probabilities. Some might see that as bias but is based on the fact that bigfoot is thought to be mythical, which has nothing to do with what the reality of the situation might be, probabilities can be wrong, but not often. That's the perspective I choose to take, it may not be everyone's choice.

Edited August 7, 2012 by CTfoot

[Guest Twilight Fan]

lol, thanks Cotter.

[Guest]

As an aside, I don't happen to consider the BBB reports as any indication of the quality of Dr. Ketchum's work as most of the in depth sequencing for the nuclear DNA was probably out sourced to other labs.

I don't think DR. Ketchum is leading the DNA investigation, I don't think she has the capability to do that, which is why other's were brought in who are probably doing the majority of the work. If I had to guess, she initiated the study and did the ground work, which caught the attention of the few that are now involved, if what is rumored is true.

Edited August 7, 2012 by CTfoot

[Guest]

Isn't the question of whether or not Ketchum is making or will make money out of the project irrelevant? I wouldn't give two hoots either way. The only thing that counts is the published work, and it's replication/ rejection/ whatever by independant groups of scientists, in my view.

Mike

+1, I agree that's all that really matters, although I will take it a step further and say if she manages to prove through DNA that there is an unknown hominid or primate in North America and has biological and photographic evidence to suggest that it's what we have come to know as Bigfoot, then she certainly does deserve any riches that come her way for it.

[Guest BFSleuth]

And for the BBB thing, all the proponents are saying how it doesn’t matter and isn’t a big thing but if she had an A rating you all would be using that to add to her position. And what if somebody on the other side of the fence had the BBB rating her lab does? I bet you would all be using that to show how incompetent that person was.

Frankly speaking, BBB ratings were the furthest thing from my mind in this discussion until it started surfacing on this thread from people that were attempting to cast aspersions on Dr. Ketchum. BBB ratings are never a consideration when I make decisions regarding which companies I chose as vendors for my own company or as a consumer.

It would never occur to me that BBB ratings are anything but fiction, and about as useful as polygraphs (you can use the search feature to read one of my many posts on that matter). Their best use is to print them out and keep them next to the "loo" for emergencies.

Ok, let me address a couple things. I don’t know what I have to apologize for as I think I was more than reasonable in stating my position per the BBB issue. I also don’t think I need to concede that I’m wrong either. Dr Ketchum from the start has made misstatements per her study, delegated media releases to incompetent underlings, made outrageous statements she has refused to confirm, leaked info, and muddled everything up to the point she can’t or won’t even comment anymore. If that doesn’t reflect on a person’s ability to lead and their integrity what does? Is this the person to lead the scientific effort to use DNA to prove the existence of an unknown species? I don’t think she is. But because she is a scientist that believes in bigfoot she gets more than a free pass and proponents are still treating her like she is some kind of royalty.

Again it’s a free pass since you can’t make a negative comment, even if justified, since they are members. If they can’t defend their positions, their integrity, or their science that’s not my fault. Lastly, whether you are a proponent or skeptical, you still need to maintain some common sense and if you don’t you will walk right off the cliff with the person you are blindly following.

I think HRP said it well several posts above, noting that Dr. Ketchum has handled PR about this issue in a less than optimal manner to say the least. As a member of this forum she is afforded the same protections as all members have. From the General Guidelines:

2. Do not make things personal. Attack the argument, not the arguer. No name calling. Terms like ‘liars’ and ‘idiots’ are beyond the pale and will not be tolerated here.

3. Remember at all times that this forum is here to discuss the subject of Bigfoot, not to discuss other members. If you don't have something nice to say about someone, you might want to consider not saying anything.

Thus, while you may question whether a member is the "right person" to conduct this DNA study in advance of any results, as is your right, name calling or indicating or intimating that a member is a fraud or liar or bilking people for money, etc. are not acceptable. I hope that is abundantly clear.

From my own point of view I prefer to withhold prior judgement of her work or her person until I see the actual report and have a chance to review discussion about it among those with greater knowledge of DNA than I. While it is fun to speculate or be titillated by rumors I remind myself that until we have the actual report these are rumors.

[Guest]

Dr Ketchum from the start has made misstatements per her study, delegated media releases to incompetent underlings, made outrageous statements she has refused to confirm, leaked info, and muddled everything up to the point she can’t or won’t even comment anymore.

No, people have said things ABOUT Ketchum and her study that have muddled everything up to the point where she can't or won't even comment anymore, and I don't blame her. She is limited by the embargo as to what she can say directly about or from the study, and has made that explicitly clear. Skeptics (and a few opportunistic proponents that don't necessarily agree with her for various reasons) have taken the leeway that her enforced silence offered and ran around saying all sorts of BS things that she can't refute without risking the publishability of her paper.

But because she is a scientist that believes in bigfoot she gets more than a free pass and proponents are still treating her like she is some kind of royalty.

Hardly...some proponents here have been even harder on her than the Skeptics.

And for the BBB thing, all the proponents are saying how it doesn’t matter and isn’t a big thing but if she had an A rating you all would be using that to add to her position.

Not me.

And what if somebody on the other side of the fence had the BBB rating her lab does? I bet you would all be using that to show how incompetent that person was.

If and only if the complaints related to their science, rather than problems in their business offices..

don’t blame me or others skeptical of this phenomena for the reason Meldrum or Ketchum doesn’t participate on this forum.

We don't need to as they already do.

Again it’s a free pass since you can’t make a negative comment, even if justified, since they are members.

Certainly you can make negative comments...lord knows I've had to put up with them.

What you CAN'T do is cast personal aspersions on their character, use the "L" word about them, etc.

If they can’t defend their positions,

I've seen plenty of defenses of their positions. Just because you want them to personally address your objections and they have seen fit not to do so is no reason to attack them personally.

their integrity,

They shouldn't have to, certainly not against the baseless accusations the Skeptics throw around here.

or their science

Show me some science equal to or superior to theirs that challenges them and you might have a point. But that's not the Skeptic way. Skeptics just cast doubts; they never have to prove anything. That requirement is only for nasty ol "b'leevers" in Skepticworld.

[Guest]

Ditto on that, I don't see how she could make any kind of money other than what the normal profit would be for any testing done at her lab. She certainly isn't going to be able to retire from having tested 130 samples or so and the headaches for her from this project far outweigh any monetary profit that would be gained.

[Guest]

If there is an alternative explanation then it makes the evidence in question useless for establishing the possibility for bigfoot's existence

With a little imagination, one can come up with an "alternative explanation" for practically ANYthing. The question isn't what is the only explanation for the evidence, but what is the best explanation for it.

, with bigfoot being the last option on that list of probabilities.

True science does not rank options and work through them in order. It analyzes evidence and follows it to the best conclusion that fits the facts, regardless of how "probable" that conclusion might be.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Ditto on that, I don't see how she could make any kind of money other than what the normal profit would be for any testing done at her lab. She certainly isn't going to be able to retire from having tested 130 samples or so and the headaches for her from this project far outweigh any monetary profit that would be gained.

True that...

... it is rather amusing to me, as a business owner, to consider putting myself in her shoes vis a vis the whole money thing. I very much doubt that the disruption to her business at this point has made her one red cent. It would not be a surprise to me if she has personally invested money in this project. It may be that she will gain fame and fortune in the long run as the first to publish a peer reviewed BF DNA study. If so, that would be great and my hat's off to her. Until then, I'll bet there are moments she's probably questioned whether undertaking the study was the right thing to do in the financial short run.

Think about the impact to her business from another practical point of view. Try googling Dr. Ketchum without getting autofill for "bigfoot" or "sasquatch".... I'll bet that is attracting some core business for her....

[Guest]

With a little imagination, one can come up with an "alternative explanation" for practically ANYthing. The question isn't what is the only explanation for the evidence, but what is the best explanation for it.

True science does not rank options and work through them in order. It analyzes evidence and follows it to the best conclusion that fits the facts, regardless of how "probable" that conclusion might be.

Not being an investigator, and basing judgement on what I read and see, I try to leave imagination out of it. This is why I find some of the evidence intriguing and why I am interested. Am I ready to give bigfoot credit for some of it? Not yet.....if anything comes of the DNA studies I will re-evaluate that opinion.

Working through analysis of evidence does rank options and you do work through them in order to rule out the least likely possibilities. Sometimes what you are left with seems just as preposterous as bigfoot for an explanation but since the probability for it is higher at the moment, it's the one I go with until I have something concrete like a body or DNA results to consider.

[TimB]

Ok, let me address a couple things. I don’t know what I have to apologize for as I think I was more than reasonable in stating my position per the BBB issue. I also don’t think I need to concede that I’m wrong either. Dr Ketchum from the start has made misstatements per her study, delegated media releases to incompetent underlings, made outrageous statements she has refused to confirm, leaked info, and muddled everything up to the point she can’t or won’t even comment anymore. If that doesn’t reflect on a person’s ability to lead and their integrity what does? Is this the person to lead the scientific effort to use DNA to prove the existence of an unknown species? I don’t think she is. But because she is a scientist that believes in bigfoot she gets more than a free pass and proponents are still treating her like she is some kind of royalty. And for the BBB thing, all the proponents are saying how it doesn’t matter and isn’t a big thing but if she had an A rating you all would be using that to add to her position. And what if somebody on the other side of the fence had the BBB rating her lab does? I bet you would all be using that to show how incompetent that person was. And I have been critical of Dr Meldrum in the past but since this is the Ketchum thread I won’t address those concerns but don’t blame me or others skeptical of this phenomena for the reason Meldrum or Ketchum doesn’t participate on this forum. Again it’s a free pass since you can’t make a negative comment, even if justified, since they are members. If they can’t defend their positions, their integrity, or their science that’s not my fault. Lastly, whether you are a proponent or skeptical, you still need to maintain some common sense and if you don’t you will walk right off the cliff with the person you are blindly following.

Your statement implies that those that don't agree with your unsupported opinions aren't using common sense. Your argument fails due to not having facts to support your opinions. I'm still waiting on the facts that back up what you say, so I can't really enter into a discussion with you. Stating opinion over and over doesn't make it any more factual. The one source for your opinion on Ketchum's competency (the BBB) is a known questionable source for accuracy. I'm waiting for something worthwhile to talk about.

Tim B.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

I just hope if scientists ever get a chance to test her results, they let reality speak for itself (one way or the other), rather than judging her DNA findings from bits and pieces of nothing gathered from the blogosphere. Looks like a few here have already disagreed with that notion.

And yes, this also includes all blogosphere facts + Matlock episode combo conclusions. Unless I'm wrong, and your method of acquiring knowledge is now better than the scientific method. In which case, you get to name it.

Which sounds more catchy, "The Blogolock Method" or "The Columbosphere Method"?

[Guest]

Ok, let me address a couple things. I don’t know what I have to apologize for as I think I was more than reasonable in stating my position per the BBB issue. I also don’t think I need to concede that I’m wrong either. Dr Ketchum from the start has made misstatements per her study, delegated media releases to incompetent underlings, made outrageous statements she has refused to confirm, leaked info, and muddled everything up to the point she can’t or won’t even comment anymore. If that doesn’t reflect on a person’s ability to lead and their integrity what does? Is this the person to lead the scientific effort to use DNA to prove the existence of an unknown species? I don’t think she is. But because she is a scientist that believes in bigfoot she gets more than a free pass and proponents are still treating her like she is some kind of royalty. And for the BBB thing, all the proponents are saying how it doesn’t matter and isn’t a big thing but if she had an A rating you all would be using that to add to her position. And what if somebody on the other side of the fence had the BBB rating her lab does? I bet you would all be using that to show how incompetent that person was. And I have been critical of Dr Meldrum in the past but since this is the Ketchum thread I won’t address those concerns but don’t blame me or others skeptical of this phenomena for the reason Meldrum or Ketchum doesn’t participate on this forum. Again it’s a free pass since you can’t make a negative comment, even if justified, since they are members. If they can’t defend their positions, their integrity, or their science that’s not my fault. Lastly, whether you are a proponent or skeptical, you still need to maintain some common sense and if you don’t you will walk right off the cliff with the person you are blindly following.

None of what you claim is relevant to the DNA results, From what I understand, the DNA can not be faked. Dr. K is a human being that made/makes mistakes like we all do, the things you point out, will not and do not change the DNA results.

Let me put it this way, If Einstein was a drunk, never paid taxes, a terrible neibhor, etc... would it change the fact that E=mc2 ?

Edited August 8, 2012 by zigoapex

[Guest Tontar]

Ah yes, but Einstein published. We're partway through August. Reading back through this thread, the hundreds of pages of it, wasn't her report finished before the end of last year, then revisions, then a projection of January or February publishing, something like that? Was it done back then? Was it done after the revisions? Is it out for publication? Is it still being worked on and modified and revised?

If the paper ever gets published, which is really the only thing that will verify the DNA, as saying there is valid DNA is not the same as having it verified, THEN Dr. Ketchum will have earned the immunity that Einstein has. Until then, it's all baseless claims, conjecture, legend, and so on. She or anyone else can go on and on and on about how she has DNA, she has proven sasquatches real, and act like the proof is in the bag, but it's not in the bag, not even close. Until she publishes, and it is verified, she's got squat, and she's not yet Einstein. If she never publishes, then it all was a house of cards.

In other words, while DNA cannot be faked, the whole DNA story is an imaginary tale we all buy into until it is published, examined, and proven to be real DNA from real sources. It's not DNA until it's verified as such. That ha snot been done.