Jump to content

The Ketchum Report


Guest

Recommended Posts

As an author I'd work to get something published; as an editor, I'd work to prevent something from being published.

What if you really want the paper because it has awesome stuff in it? Are you still trying to prevent publication, or are you working with the author to make it better?

Edited by southernyahoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you work with the authors to make the best submissions even better. I might write 2-3 pages of text in a typical review. That's almost all advice for the authors on things to fix and how to fix them. If an editor decides that a manuscript is acceptable, that editor will often be very encouraging to the authors to make those changes so that the work makes it into the journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oooh - this was less than 24 hrs!

"It always amuses me when I post things about my own profession that people are so quick to dismiss/forget. Case in point, science advances more when an apple cart is upset than when more and more apples are added to it. We scientists live for the day that we can make some grand discovery, turning on its ear some idea or principle currently held to be true."

What do you think is "scary" about bigfoot to "most scientists"? I really don't understand what you mean. If "bigfoot" is discovered and found to be a big, bipedal ape, then that's not scary, it's awesome. If bigfoot is discovered and found to be a subspecies of Homo sapiens, then that's not scary, it's awesome! This notion that scientists are scared of the implications of science is just plain wrong. It's fantasy. It's incorrect. It's inaccurate. It's not right.

Oh, and in my list of publication possibilities to which you had responded, if Ketchum's analysis is "right-on" as I put it, then the tissue from which she obtained the DNA is the specimen. We can't lose sight of this basic fact, because I think it's the only one isolated to-date on which both Mulder and I agree.

I don't read all this thread, but I do agree here,pretty safe statements. I can add, after talking with a very BIG Cheese in Human Evolution, she didn't want it in her program if they can't successfully study. What? Huh? LOL

I think I do get it now though..to some degree. Without serious funding under the direct authority of a scientist, in the appropriate field (so living primates vs. palaeontology) they can't get at any meaningful research beyond genetics.

Discovery is one thing based on samples, taking on as a program to study another.

If this paper just gets a little buzz, assuming those reluctant for paradigm shift challenge it successfully, we may be looking to future grad students to take it on?

If it gets a big buzz, well who knows...I actually pulled out a GRE math book..LOL been a while and very rusty...but I can't think of a better way to spend retirement but in the major I rejected (but loved) as youth with need to earn a living. LOL For some reason I thought anthropology the domain of the wealthy sons and daughters, trust funds etc. I wonder now if I would have found employment - it was the early 80's....oh well, I still have some time

Edited by apehuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Jodie.. I understand. I do wonder (and it may be somewhere here or another thread) what type of data/methods the fresh-out PhD Erickson hired used and the resulting product. As far as I know she is the only formally educated anthropologist ( or was it zoology?) that I have heard of involved in the field observing and recording. Sans Bindernagel/Meldrum others tangentially involved but not contributing direct evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

I believe Hadj-Chik's PhD is in evolutionary biology/ecology if I'm not mistaken...... the techniques I would imagine involved hunting blinds and observational methods including

hair collection/blood collection techniques. Some of these techniques have been discussed in the earlier parts of these longer threads on the Erickson/Ketchum discussions I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that when studying a novel (purportedly, for the sake of those who doubt) sentient creature with a unique set of behaviors, a subset of which are actively and successfully geared toward avoidance, it is likely that novel means of study must be developed.

Would approved methods developed to study elusive creatures with animal intelligence work when attempting to study elusive creatures with near-human intelligence who often actively avoid humans? Would approved techniques developed for the study of gorillas, chimpanzees, or bonobos, which are known to accept to a greater or lesser degree the nearby presence of non-hostile humans work as readily? I suspect not.

Ideally, one would acquire enough evidence regarding behavior to form a hypothesis on how to proceed, then apply that hypothesis to see if it works. Whether the hypothesis succeeds of fails, it provides information that can be used to refine one's approach and form a new hypothesis, which hopefully works better. Several iterations may be required to achieve success, all the while hoping to avoid a critical failure which may cause the subjects to relocate, or completely reject the observer.

The only real measure of success is the attainment of definable empirical results. In the beginning this is not likely to be complete acceptance into the study group. It may simply be that one is allowed to get close enough for a picture, a few minutes of film, or to collect physical samples from discarded objects, hair, scat, etc.

Myself, I will refrain from judging someone based on how rigidly they apply "established" methods developed for the study of other species (likely by originally applying the process I've described above), and instead applaud their ability to attain results by applying the iterative process to develop novel methods to study a novel species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Hadj-Chik's PhD is in evolutionary biology/ecology if I'm not mistaken...... the techniques I would imagine involved hunting blinds and observational methods including

hair collection/blood collection techniques. Some of these techniques have been discussed in the earlier parts of these longer threads on the Erickson/Ketchum discussions I think.

Which would be ideal wouldn't it?

I also read, but don't know, she now holds the mortgage on that property?

I am very curious about that, as these same writers say the original owner, an elderly man? (so many histories I confuse with the BFRO/EP Kentucky/eastern thing) moved 6 miles away to find the BF relationship continued and they abandoned his original place?

I have also read she is working hard to stay quiet so as not to endanger her current job search? Of course, that is probably as much conjecture as all of these topic discussions are...bu,t I really am interested in her story as the DNA.

Of those that we know of with samples in, from JC to OP, none really seem to have any long witness over time.

I do know there are others we don't hear from so I am hopeful there is more evidence over time with respect to purported samples of BF to support a hypothesis of a separate whatever taxonomic designation these authors decide on...

lol I am not communicating that ideally.

.humm, I mean to say. The taxonomic designation.DNA is one thing...oh, we have samples, (some incredibly small number relative to sample size of modern human pop...so unless something just screams - BF...it becomes a statistical/methods argument I would think..going to haplotypes, etc. Some claim, nope..it is easily unique, so who knows)

but it says little about who they are and how DNA relates to physiology etc.

and so with supporting deep observation that funding/interest may come faster, and also validate any claimed culture/species. That would be bigger news, the combined information ... I am waiting to see the EP stuff as eagerly.

Myself, I will refrain from judging someone based on how rigidly they apply "established" methods developed for the study of other species (likely by originally applying the process I've described above), and instead applaud their ability to attain results by applying the iterative process to develop novel methods to study a novel species.

I agree with this exception. I can't tell if you read too much into my post. I don't think I suggest what methods I think are necessary or sufficient, except a real nod to the necessity of professional study.

We do have methods developed for now living modern, but "primitive," human populations of hunter gathers. For the most part, notably the Amazon, that is hands off. Others we are familiar with have already suffered intrusions in their cultures, either by Anthropologists or pressing humanity.

With most primates it is/was the Goodall method for the most part? We do "harvest" some primates for physical study... will/have we with Sasquatch....

I can't imagine too many have committed in their minds to a particular outcome without seeing the data.

Edited by apehuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sas, you wrote, "...if Ketchum's analysis is "right-on" as I put it, then the tissue from which she obtained the DNA is the specimen."

Do you mean to say that a blood sample or other piece of flesh from which DNA is extracted is the equivalent of a body? Would you explain, please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would a severed leg be considered enough of a sample, or would a whole body needed?

How about the majority of a body missing some parts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, and my opinion is not really a qualified one in any way,that the single biggest hurdle, assuming the Sasquatch exist, would be proving the provenance. I suspect much of their "technique" would be setting up circumstance on how to collect samples that cannot be dismissed easily, especially if there is a human element there. Assuming the existence,that could explain the delays, or the "raising of the bar" that was mentioned on their website. I am not sure, but I would think a standard hair trap,even if it collected anomalous hair,would not be good enough provenance when your try to prove a new species, sub species. I think they would need better evidence than that. I do not think they need a body, samples, such as hair,flesh,blood I think would be plenty, as long as there was some sort of supporting evidence,like some footage of the animal leaving the sample.

With Erikson's money, they may very well have come up with a way to pull it off, I doubt they where trying Cabala's game cams lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not my field, so I'm only speculating..........but I'm guessing that if they managed to take reasonable footage of something licking food off a plate that had glass shards glued onto it, and then showed custody of that plate through to the lab (bagging and tagging, filmed if necessary), where the blood is then sampled and tested, then that would be enough to cover the "provenance" issue.

Maybe one of our resident scientists could be persuaded to comment on such a hypothetical?

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest parnassus

I think, and my opinion is not really a qualified one in any way,that the single biggest hurdle, assuming the Sasquatch exist, would be proving the provenance. I suspect much of their "technique" would be setting up circumstance on how to collect samples that cannot be dismissed easily, especially if there is a human element there. Assuming the existence,that could explain the delays, or the "raising of the bar" that was mentioned on their website. I am not sure, but I would think a standard hair trap,even if it collected anomalous hair,would not be good enough provenance when your try to prove a new species, sub species. I think they would need better evidence than that. I do not think they need a body, samples, such as hair,flesh,blood I think would be plenty, as long as there was some sort of supporting evidence,like some footage of the animal leaving the sample.

With Erikson's money, they may very well have come up with a way to pull it off, I doubt they where trying Cabala's game cams lol

I think you are more or less correct. If Ketchum had DNA that was not modern human DNA, then that would be strong evidence by itself. However: The DNA that Stubstad described and that Ketchum has described in her copyright document are modern human (this is not my speculation: they both say it). They both try to make the argument that it came from bigfoots. I will not go into their arguments other than to say that those arguments will fail, because

1)the "default" explanation of the origin of modern human DNA is that it came from someone like me and you (even though neither one of us is probably in GenBank), whether innocently or as part of a hoax; in other words, the default explanation of the origin of modern human DNA is NOT that it came from an 8 foot 600 haircovered, monster with a strange wide and hinged foot, glowing eyes, a conical head, no clothes, fire, tools, or shelter, superhuman speed, olfaction, yet can't be photographed, etc etc. None of those are characteristics of modern humans.

2) In order to disprove that "default", you have to have more than what you call provenance; you have to have more than: "it came from a bigfoot and I know that because someone said so and I put it in a bag and labeled it." That won't do...its just exactly what has failed all these years (or even weaker): "someone said they saw a bigfoot leave that footprint"; "someone said saw a bigfoot kill that deer." You cannot overcome the presumption that something very much like you and I left that human DNA, unless you have enough of the body of a bigfoot along with it, to demonstrate at least some of the characteristics: an 8 foot 600 haircovered, monster with a strange wide and hinged foot, glowing eyes, a conical head, no clothes, fire, tools, or shelter, superhuman speed, olfaction, yet can't be photographed, etc etc.

p.

Edited by parnassus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you work with the authors to make the best submissions even better. I might write 2-3 pages of text in a typical review. That's almost all advice for the authors on things to fix and how to fix them. If an editor decides that a manuscript is acceptable, that editor will often be very encouraging to the authors to make those changes so that the work makes it into the journal.

Right, so you really aren't trying to prevent all papers from being published. You are picking papers that are both good and can topple some apple carts. Not more of the same stuff we allready know, but what advances knowledge and understanding of nature or nature of the beast in this case. :D I do however agree with exnihilo that human nature is ever present, and when faced with a paper that could topple a truck load of apple carts, well, I'll just say that i'll be pleasantly surprised if that mountainous perception that we are the only extant hominids on the planet is finally vanquished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parn, It will not be sufficient to criticize supposed 'modern human DNA' without demonstrating that the sequences exist in known humans. To say Ketchum's sequences are just people, is to state a provable thesis. Go to.

Edited by mitchw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...