The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

Mulder:

There is no "the Scientific institution."

There is definitely an "institutional" position in Science, which represents the "consensus" point of view.

Which right there should be a big red flag about Science, because argument from either "agreement" or "consensus" is a logical fallacy.

As a favor to Mike, I removed my extensive rebuttal of parn's inaccurate claims about the CRU scandal.

I would urge anyone interested in the facts to simply download the file of the emails themselves and read the truth w/o CRU defender "spin".

Google "foi2009 files" and you should find it.

Grayjay, you beg to differ with what? That there is no "the Science Institution," or that the investigation of scientific conduct was not extensive in the case mentioned? Your quote suggests that scientists police their own. I certainly agree that there have been fakes in science. I uncovered one myself. The infusion of large amounts of cash from pharmaceutical firms and drug equipment companies is probably the biggest single cause, and most major medical schools have adopted strict policies to deal with it, and some have already punished transgressors. The absolute numbers are still small, a fact which is hidden in the article.

Here is an entire bookabout the problems with the scientific industry:

http://www.amazon.com/Wrong-us-Scientists-relationship-consultants/dp/0316023787

To get back to how this relates to bigfoot, i will put up science against bigfootery discoveries for true findings, objectivity, lack of hoaxing and honesty of famous investigators any day of the week and twice on sundays.

Thank you for admitting that you are not objective, and build your position by letting authority do the thinking, rather than following the evidence.

Do you seriously want to go there? The lack of bigfoot proof in North America for 400 years is not attributable to dishonest, biased scientists, nor to government men in black, or parnassus, or logging companies or to national forests charging a fee to profiteers. who is ignorant? p.

Noted the use of the self-defined word "proof" as opposed to "evidence", the later of which is available in abundance.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest]

Grayjay, you beg to differ with what?

That there is no "the Science Institution," or that the investigation of scientific conduct was not extensive in the case mentioned?

Your quote suggests that scientists police their own. I certainly agree that there have been fakes in science. I uncovered one myself. The infusion of large amounts of cash from pharmaceutical firms and drug equipment companies is probably the biggest single cause, and most major medical schools have adopted strict policies to deal with it, and some have already punished transgressors. The absolute numbers are still small, a fact which is hidden in the article. To get back to how this relates to bigfoot, i will put up science against bigfootery discoveries for true findings, objectivity, lack of hoaxing and honesty of famous investigators any day of the week and twice on sundays. Do you seriously want to go there?

The lack of bigfoot proof in North America for 400 years is not attributable to dishonest, biased scientists, nor to government men in black, or parnassus, or logging companies or to national forests charging a fee to profiteers.

who is ignorant?

p.

I beg to differ that holding up rigorous scientific scrutiny without acknowledging the issues within that community, in effect shoving the fact that funding drives the results, many of which end up being retracted at a later date for shoddy methodology, then holding up that system as the ''gold standard'' is an incomplete view of the argument.

My apologies if you thought I was specifically refering to the case previously mentioned. I wasn't.

Actually the numbers are larger than you suggest in research fraud, altho true it's finally being addressed, usually only after it's exposed via the media.

That said I'm a HUGE proponent of science in general, but to not discuss this in it's entirety, yet allude the Ketchum study is flawed or less than rigorous sight unseen makes for less than a complete discussion. The ethics that used to be common across the board have fallen by the wayside in the last 20 yrs. As distressing as that is, it doesn't make it any less true. It also doesn't mean it isn't something to strive for, or something that shouldn't be applied to Bigfoot.

I'm also not saying that the lack of BF proof is due to dishonest biased scientists whatever their field, but will add due to the current system they are equally NOT ENCOURAGED to take the current body circumstancial evidence and follow it to whatever conclusions they come up with. Other than being handed a BF cadaver no one has suggested a way to

get science onboard and at this time to investigate. The argument tracks or recordings aren't enough yet pays pretty short shrift to both the brilliance of our young career people in the scientific community, and begs the question science for science sake.

It used to be science didn't have a ''set conclusion'' yet was pursued for it's own sake. Nowadays it's cash driven for

results in the private sector and has tipped away from it's origins. Its difficult for me to hold the current system up as the ''gold standard'' since it clearly is just a fond memory at this point. If rigorous scientific application is being called into play for Bigfoot it's also fair to say the scientific system has flaws and pitfalls as well.

[Guest]

I'm also not saying that the lack of BF proof is due to dishonest biased scientists whatever their field, but will add due to the current system they are equally NOT ENCOURAGED to take the current body circumstancial evidence and follow it to whatever conclusions they come up with.

But scientists are doing that. I just posted a couple of days ago a list of published papers by scientists who did analyze facets of that circumstantial evidence. Meldrum is doing this, Bindernagle, Ketchum, are too etc. I really don't understand why these multiple scientists who do study bigfoot are so often ignored by bigfooters. It just looks to me like a sentiment borne of a general distrust of science and frustration over the very vexing problem that none of those people have actually had any success in proving bigfoot from their analysis of such evidence.

[Guest vilnoori]

That article I posted about the Lovelock Cave skeletons said there were still skulls stored at the Humboldt County Museum, in the back rooms, available upon request. In other words, not on display.

There is some evidence that there was an early sea-faring tribe of tall, red-haired caucasoid people who may have ranged from China to the Americas, for example, the Long Ears of the Easter Islands--the people who carved and erected the splendid statues there. I suspect these skeletons are probably from the same tribal people group. As late as the 1960's some of the people living in the Easter Islands still traced their ancestry to these people, though mixture occurred with the Polynesian people who overlapped and overtook them (and eventually exterminated them). Both peoples originated in Asia but were from different, you might say, waves of movement, and they looked very different from each other.

I certainly do think it would be an excellent idea to fund students to search in museums for anomalous skeletons. To narrow the field you could concentrate on areas that have higher incidents of sightings, for example, the British Columbia Museum of Anthropology, and then use a morphological list to eliminate modern skeletons. You would want archaic looking skeletons, so be looking for a sloping forehead, pronounced eyebrow ridges, prognathicism (teeth and jaws jutting forward of the nose), no chin, very robust (heavier) bone structure, and greater height than normal. You also might look for other anomalies that have been mentioned such as extra fingers and toes, tooth structural differences (a root that continues down into the jaw, or multiple roots on precuspids, for example, and greater tooth size and robusticity).

There would be advantages to this. It would please the no-kill crowd by providing a body without the nastiness. It would also provide a bone structure that could be compared immediately to known homins such as Asian H. erectus. You could circulate photographs and there would be a very clear provenance or history of each sample. The chance of fakery would be much decreased.

[JDL]

Great points. The more I interact with folks on this forum, the more I recognize that there is a wealth of credentialed experience represented. Your post is very useful in that it offers criteria to narrow down and simplify the process to provide the best possibility of success in the least amount of time.

I'm thinking that when I get ready to put out an RFP (probably late 2013), I should make it available for review by select members. It may also be that there are more than a couple of anthropology undergads that frequent this forum who will want to make sure their program gets a chance to submit a proposal.

I believe that if just one significant "discovery" comes from such an effort, institutions will be encouraged to start re-examining their uncatalogued (or unidentified) holdings.

I also think Suzie's Dad was right.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Now I'm thoroughly confused. If all of science is sketchy, and Dr. Ketchum's paper gets the thumbs up, we should have no confidence in those results now? Okay you win, I won't believe a word those shady scientists say from now on.

[Guest RayG]

Here is an entire book about the problems with the scientific industry:

That seems more like another book on how not to get fooled, whether by science or pseudoscience. Anyone remember the pronouncements about cold fusion? Heard about N-rays? Both were supposedly scientific breakthroughs, but they both failed to live up to their hype.

One of the earliest books written about scams, shenanigans, and pseudoscience, was by Charles Mackay, published back in 1841 -- Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

Martin Gardner published not one, but two. The first one being published in 1952 -- In the Name of Science, which was reprinted in 1957 as Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.

The newer one is Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus, originally published in1981.

All three are excellent books worth checking out.

There's a fairly extensive collection of books of that type. Bad Science, Uncommon Sence, Nonsense on Stilts, Don't Believe Everything You Think, At the Fringes of Science, and Believing Bullsquat (I couldn't use the real title...) among them. It's really a very old concept, kept alive by modern snake-oil salesmen, con artists, and mistaken experts.

Speaking of Dr. Ketchum... If we're supposed to be distrusting of all science, shouldn't we cast a skeptical glance at Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science?

RayG

[Guest Cervelo]

FG,

LOL you got it right bro its good science as long as it supports ones preconceived conclusions.

I think it's just a tad ironic that the proponents of this "report" hopes are pinned to the science, and the scientist that are part of the vast conspiracy against the bigfoot community.

[Guest]

I think proponents hopes are pinned to DNA which can not be as easily overlooked as footprints or hair. It takes it out of the "conspirators" hands.

[AaronD]

LOL Cervelo, ain't that the truth?

[Guest slimwitless]

I don't know if Bigfoot is real but I hope Ketchum is successful in proving the existence of a new hominin. What thinking person wouldn't? Anyway, I guess that makes me a proponent. I'm also deeply disturbed by what I see as an anti-science, anti-intellectual movement in the United States. It doesn't bode well for the future. Anyway, the point is that some of us probably wouldn't be here if we didn't think science holds the key to cracking this mystery.

[southernyahoo]

Hypothetically, if one were able to map one or more complete Genome of the target DNA samples, how would that affect the ability to compare the results to Hss DNA and find an accurate relationship?

The larger the sequence of DNA that has been repeatedly and independently extracted, the stronger the data is, and more conclusive. Whole genome comparisons meeting that standard would be like leaving no stone unturned.

[Guest]

Anyone remember the pronouncements about cold fusion?

You may want to revisit your skepticism on the topic of cold fusion. The phenomenon does exist, but mainstream nuclear physicists and electrochemists are dubious because 1) it cannot be routinely replicated, and 2) no one has proposed a credible mechanism to explain what is happening. The phenomenon occurs in only about 30% of the experimental trials, but when it does occur both excess heat and significant amounts of tritium are generated. Companies in Europe, Japan, and North America are conducting research with the goal of commercializing the technology. It's been found that the reaction can be generated using a nickel electrode rather than platinum, which should help keep costs down. NASA is looking into the techology these days.

Cold fusion (those studying it call it something else these days, because the initial term evokes such ire among skeptics) -- a potentional physical/chemical analog to the bigfoot phenomenon?

[Guest BFSleuth]

Not to derail the thread too far, in regards to cold fusion Google "cold fusion explosion". Yes, there is something there, it was just premature to announce something that so far isn't reliably repeated. There are ongoing conferences and research in cold fusion.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...

[Guest RayG]

You may want to revisit your skepticism on the topic of cold fusion.

I would if it could be reliably produced or replicated. In the 23 years since the Pons-Fleischmann press release/conference that hasn't happened.

And Joseph Newman still hasn't produced a viable/testable free energy machine, but that never stopped him from claiming he did.

RayG