Cotter Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Parn: The last few weeks/months, the Ketchum camp has been making some fairly 'unusual' comments in my book. Not necessarily comments on items I felt would be controlled by the NDA, but rather comments that lack the scientific bedside manner that I have envisioned. IMO, more emotional and sensational comments have been made. But that's just the construct I have in my mind on how I imagine a scientist on the brink of a world altering (in certain aspects) event would behave. A 'side show' might be a bit much, but I think it may be on that path. However, I do think that the amount of people alledgedly involved and the amount of money spent thus far doesn't bode well for the 'hoax' deal. They would have quite a bit of money to make up if trying to turn a dime. Perhaps this has been discussed, but I'd like to ask anyway. What are the alleged motivations behind a hoax here? We've got PhD's, BF researchers, independent benefactors all putting themselves on the line here....what could motivate a large group of professionals to pull off a hoax (fraud?) in the scientific community? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 southernyahoo: you wrote: Ray, you are making an issue about "not" doing the very thing skeptics deplore (claiming good data that isn't published). I suppose you would rather be blind sided by a study like this, but who could have collected this many samples without word getting out? If she had posted a pre-submission manuscript, you'd still be crying about it not being published. You and others here don't seem to be comprehending what Ray is writing, and you are just strawmanning him. He is making the point that he doesn't trust Ketchum's PR person, and he has shown why: Ramey quotes the Nature guidelines extensively as her example of what they have to follow, yet she chooses not to acknowledge the journal's guidelines on the points Ray has raised. So why should Ray trust her? please, read what he says and respond to that, not to a bunch of stuff that has been conjured up. (And I doubt that Ray would cry about anything Bigfoot. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Ketchum is posting on Twitter that she can take questions. I posted two. No reply as of 1:34 eastern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 He's a cynic. What do you expect. For his version of reality to be true all of those people have to be lying or disillusioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 11BRAVO Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Ketchum's Twitter account is linked to her new Facebook page. Questions are being answered there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 southernyahoo: you wrote: You and others here don't seem to be comprehending what Ray is writing, and you are just strawmanning him. He is making the point that he doesn't trust Ketchum's PR person, and he has shown why: Ramey quotes the Nature guidelines extensively as her example of what they have to follow, yet she chooses not to acknowledge the journal's guidelines on the points Ray has raised. So why should Ray trust her? please, read what he says and respond to that, not to a bunch of stuff that has been conjured up. (And I doubt that Ray would cry about anything Bigfoot. ) Parn, Ray is using the journal Nature as an example for arguments sake, is there any confirmation that the journal is Nature? If not, then there is no need to debate that speculation. He's hoping to flush out whether it is Nature though isn't he? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) You know, I think it is possible for someone to be technically competent with regard to the science, yet unsophisticated when it comes to the publication process and the media. So Ketchum gets her study past the review, revision, and re-review stage to the point where it's in the queue for publication. All she really has to do at this point is not spill the beans on the details of the study prematurely. Doesn't mean she can't talk about things that aren't in the study, like post-study visits to habituation sites. You or I may think, "Boy, I'm glad I've finally seen some, but I'm keeping my trap shut until the study is published." But that's you or I, people who have been dealing with the credibility debate for decades. She's relatively new to the credibility debate and probably is pretty certain that she's got the goods. Hard to view yourself as losing credibility when your study has made it through all the gates and is about to blast out of the chute. By comparison all the as yet unfounded speculation, questions, and aspersions regarding the credibility of the peer-reviewed study have been splashing out of the flume daily like logs, and I don't mean the wooden kind. Yeah, a journal may allow previous versions of a study to be published ahead of time, but why expose a work in progress to the kind of criticism that this thread indicates it would suffer. No upside, it is scientifically controversial, so wait until it's wrapped tight and in a peer-reviewed journal. The suggestion that there is something to be intuited because she has not published an earlier work in progress takes some serious imagination, and probably indicates the kind of tendencies with regard to thought process that would qualify one to be a bigfoot witness in the minds of some skeptics. The way she's going about things does show a lack of sophistication when it comes to the legal, business, and publicity end of things, but those are separate and distinct issues from the science. She may arguably be making some miscues in these areas, but these aren't her field of expertise and are unrelated to the science, which is. So do a lack of sophistication and miscues in legal, business, and media matters rightly give skeptics a foothold to assault the scientific integrity of the as yet unpublished peer-reviewed study? With so many straws being grasped at, it's a wonder that anyone can even begin to find enough material to craft a strawman. Edited February 21, 2012 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) I saw a movie a few years back called 'The Forth Kind'. I won't bore you with the details but people thought it was a true story and the producers had planned it that way. They went as far as to create websites beforehand to make certain characters (a doctor) looked like they were real people. They were successful, I had someone in my office, the one who lent me the movie, go on about how it was based on real events and on and on. Took me a week to convice her it was not real, just a good put up. I think this could be the case with the Report. Also, if you look this person up on the net, the only references to her, or her 'research', is related to bigfoot pages, crypto pages, or skiptic pages. There are more Sasquatch reports from downtown Houston than mentions of her on any scientic website, other than her own, which appears to show her as much older than the picture on her FB page. If real scientists, who study primate and human evolution, had a wiff of an alleged scientific peper coming out for peer review that was about to unleash this kind of news, you would be hearing from others all over the place. Even if to say they had doubts. This story is out there now, if it was real, or had the potential to be real, it would be lead off stuff on every network. Might even knock Whitney or Iran fuel rods down a few pegs. It is a huge story but it is only mentiond in the bigfoot universe because that is the whole idea. Edited February 21, 2012 by grayjay 1A forum rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I'm a little thick-headed, but I'm figuring out the heavy handed anti-Ketchum mentality amongst the ivory tower crowd. Apparently, if profit is part of your motive, your results are suspect. HOWEVER, if academic prestige is your ultimate goal, then your purity of purpose is above reproach. In other words, if private sector research becomes legitimate, then the university system becomes unnecessary for government to support. To combat this, a "profit boogeyman" has been conjured to dismiss the findings of anyone not linked to a university. Of course, this is exclusive of all participants of THIS forum. I am not singling any one of my fellow BFF brethren out. I mean other anti-bigfoot-possibility academics NOT a part of this forum. I love all you guys!! Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 If a person risks their reputation but makes $.47 off of BF, they are clearly a charlatan. I am slightly concerned about what is going on on Ketchum's FB page. Having been through this before I'm betting it's going to get ugly before all is said and done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 @JDL They are not going to go down without a fight, they know in the near future that they are not going to be able to deny it any longer. I'm at the point of saying, your right , it all fake, and giving them the last couple swings before they lose the war. In the end, we can all put for our signature," WE TOLD YOU SO " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) I asked a question about why they can't provide pictures. Question deleted! Ability to add comments blocked! Haha, you can only interact with their page if you're blowing sunshine their way!!! This is starting to remind me of a story where some guy claimed to have bigfoot in his freezer! Edited February 21, 2012 by grayjay 1A forum rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 So do a lack of sophistication and miscues in legal, business, and media matters rightly give skeptics a foothold to assault the scientific integrity of the as yet unpublished peer-reviewed study? With so many straws being grasped at, it's a wonder that anyone can even begin to find enough material to craft a strawman. Yes, they might all be used up in the bolded statement. Since when does asking questions or speculating about what might be the case amount to an assault on scientific integrity? There's nothing to assault at all because we've seen no science in the first place. All we have are rumors and hype perpetuated by Dr. Ketchum et al., and lots and lots of hopeful people just itching for this to be it. We skeptics are simply people at once jaded, because we've seen hype like this before, and open-minded that the most obvious explanation (i.e., that there is a paper at all) might not be the case, because sometimes the things people do can be really surprising (see "Georgia Boys" for one example). Because there is no paper (yet?) to provide any science that can be assaulted or otherwise considered, all we have are these statements that Ketchum and her associates put out. Many of the statements I've seen significantly add to my skepticism because they are so far removed from behavior typical of scientists. As always, I (and I'm sure Ray, Parnassus, et al.) would be thrilled to be wrong about my skepticism re: Dr. Ketchum and her analysis of alleged bigfoot DNA. So far though, I've seen nothing but things that deepen my suspicion that there's something decidedly fishy about all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Dr. Melba Ketchum So, glad I set up this page, I can answer more questions for everyone! Naïve, touching, but melancholy. She has no clue about what is coming her way. Edited February 21, 2012 by exnihilo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Since when does asking questions or speculating about what might be the case amount to an assault on scientific integrity? There's nothing to assault at all because we've seen no science in the first place. This bolded statement is the key point, and it applies to both sides of the debate. So asking questions about the study is perfectly valid. Pre-judging the study is problematic. There's more than enough hype, hope, and "hesitancy" to spread around. All of it, however, is hasty. Edited February 21, 2012 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts