The Ketchum Report

[Guest Particle Noun]

Ok, well, to add fuel to the fires in both camps, here are another couple o' recent update hot off the presses:

Dr. Ketchum

Fact: When a paper is submitted for publication, the reviewers can outright reject it with no coming back, they can reject and give you a chance to re-submit it with more data and/or major revisions, or they can pass it with major revision which means it comes back for some major re-write, minor revision which is typos or verbiage changes, or no revision at which time it proceeds to publication. I recently reviewed a paper from a group that required 3 major revisions and 1 minor revision before it was published. It took months to satisfy the peer reviewers, including me, but now it is published. The same goes for this paper. It is very much alive though and we are just going through the process.

From the comments in that thread:

Sally responding - Steven, the journal is not permitting us to say where it is in the process, which is a standard practice.

(I would imagine those viewing this unfavorably will cry foul at that, claiming no journal demands such secrecy. I don't agree, but there it is)

Another post:

RE the paper: No, I didn't say anything about timing. We have been through some of the steps already. Between each we work and then there is more waiting. It could be quite soon or a little farther out. Not too awfully long though. It is close enough that we felt it was time to get the protection folks organized and our websites ready. If it was way off, we wouldn't be doing that.

That doesn't sound like someone who hasn't found a home for the journal, and it sounds like the paper has been going back and forth for revisions pre-publication, and may be nearing it's end.

Notice she also appears to be a part of the peer review process for other articles.

On another note, to maybe take the speculation in this thread to an area beyond "is she full of it or is this real..."

IF this study turns out to support the existence of BF, (take that as a given for the following question), would we stop caring completely about things like the PGF for instance? Would many then assume it is real? Those who don't believe in it's authenticity, would you still think it wasn't real, yet still allow the existence of BF (if the paper supports that hypothesis).

I imagine many many new areas of interest and research will pop up after the release of this paper, and some old and road-worn subjects, like PGF, will just cease to be meaningful.

Would finding Bigfoot be cancelled? Or go into Overdrive?

Edited March 19, 2012 by Particle Noun

[TimB]

The paper according to what's been shared publicly is purported by the author to prove in some way the existence of Bigfoot through genetic identification. I can't figure out how they would go from unusually dna to the existence of "sasquatch" but I have a hard time with anything done from minute samples. I would NOT be a good anthropologist.

Tim B.

[Bill]

Particle Noun:

"I imagine many many new areas of interest and research will pop up after the release of this paper, and some old and road-worn subjects, like PGF, will just cease to be meaningful."

In my opinion, if such a paper validates something biologically new, I think the PGF issue will actualy intensify, because invariably, people will be asking "what do they look like?" and if the PGF is real, it answers that question better than any other photo, film, or video material. Such a paper would also take away from the skeptical side the often heard claim,"the PGF must be fake, because there is no bigfoot."

Maybe the release of such a paper will do the PGF a great favor by refocusing media attention on the new work of the last few years, (both Kitakaze's and mine, as two examples) and lighting a new fire under the debate.

Suffice to say, I am hoping that would be the result, because I think the media at present has become a bit bored with the unsettled status of the PGF.

Bill

[Guest Particle Noun]

Bill, that could be true! We have to take into consideration that along with the paper is a purported treasure trove (my words) of new film and images from the Erickson project. Since both projects have been working closely in tandem, I think there must be some validity to this. If that is the case, it could take focus off of PGF, since it is newer footage. This will depend on its quality and Wow factor of course. No doubt there will be some vindication of PGF (or the reverse) when we start to get a look at what these creatures look like.

But I think 1) We'll see a RASH of new hoax videos as anyone and everyone tries to cash in on some fame at getting video and pictures of the newly identified beast and 2) old footage will be seriously re-evaluated and 3) I hope that the new research by yourself and others will be brought more to light.

[Bill]

Particle noun:

I agree with you that a paper strongly advocating the existance of something called "bigfoot" will inspire a rash of new hoaxes. Some will be crap and the occasional one may be well done and ingenious. That is one of the merits of the PGF, in that it's "ancient" status takes it back to an era where good hoaxes were harder.

On the matter of new material, let me just say I am confident that once the dust settles, the PGF will still be appreciated as a superlative example of photographic evidence.

Bill

[Guest Particle Noun]

The paper according to what's been shared publicly is purported by the author to prove in some way the existence of Bigfoot through genetic identification. I can't figure out how they would go from unusually dna to the existence of "sasquatch" but I have a hard time with anything done from minute samples. I would NOT be a good anthropologist.

Tim B.

Tim, well again, I'm indulging in some good ol' fashion speculation but here is how I could see that going down:

1. Multiple samples with recorded provenance from encounters with a creature said to be bigfoot.

2. Multiple samples indicating an unknown species closely related to Human, but not human.

3. All samples indicating a single species, not a bunch of wildly varying samples of unknown determination.

If these criteria are met, it's hard to see how it doesn't strongly STRONGLY point to bigfoot. But, we'll see!

[Guest]

I imagine some of the samples in the study will have companion video provenance showing the actual collection of the sample used from the source in the field and not necesarily just the Erickson portion. Showing more than just a hair as well (no offense to hair samples) , like a blood, bone or tissue sample. Perpetual optimism is tiring though.

[Guest Bipedal Ape]

The report will come out. The public will demand a body. The woods will be full of hunters for the first few months. Nothing will be found. Another 40 years will pass and still no body.

[Guest]

The report will come out. The public will demand a body. The woods will be full of hunters for the first few months. Nothing will be found. Another 40 years will pass and still no body.

Which will in no way change things because a confirmed dna sample will conclusively for all time document BF as a living creature. No body needed.

[Guest]

SIGH. Here we go again....

[southernyahoo]

The report will come out. The public will demand a body. The woods will be full of hunters for the first few months. Nothing will be found. Another 40 years will pass and still no body.

That will be fine with me. The woods are full of hunters for months annually anyways....same result.

[Guest]

I think you will have to rethink your scenarios a bit Jerrywayne. One thing is that these other scenarios most likely wouldn't be left to critics to test , but would be part of the study itself. You don't think that you could think of explanations that the authors couldn't do you?

This would depend on how neutral the authors are. Obviously, partisan authorship may overlook or ignore or minimize stronger objections and competing scenarios.. I submit as a cautionary example the Heuvelman's paper on the Minnesota Iceman, wherein he decided the exhibit was of a modern neanderthal rather than a carnival giff. This, after his study was basically look and see and proclaim since he was unable to examine the subject in any meaningful way. Did he really consider the obvious, especially considering the context of the exhibit?

Another example is the cold-fusion fiasco of a few years ago. Are you saying these gentlemen scientists actually considered alternative explanations and were forced to publish only after all possible criticisms were considered and rejected?

[Guest]

SIGH. Here we go again....

What is your alternate explanation for dna? Whence does it come from if not from a living creature (or the body of a formerly living one)?

DNA=critter

[Branco]

Tim, well again, I'm indulging in some good ol' fashion speculation but here is how I could see that going down:

3. All samples indicating a single species, not a bunch of wildly varying samples of unknown determination.

May not be the case; and might be the problem.

[Guest Peter O.]

Notice she also appears to be a part of the peer review process for other articles.

It would be interesting for someone to find out for which journals she's been a reviewer.

I can't figure out how they would go from unusually dna to the existence of "sasquatch" but I have a hard time with anything done from minute samples. I would NOT be a good anthropologist.

Tim B.

Or would you??

--Peter