The Ketchum Report

[Guest MikeG]

Jodie - do you think (and others I guess!) that if this report was accompanied by approx 22 minutes of video and close ups of the creature(s) a sample came from would put it in 'lay up' territory?

That's how rumours start, Cotter!!

[Guest Jodie]

Jodie - do you think (and others I guess!) that if this report was accompanied by approx 22 minutes of video and close ups of the creature(s) a sample came from would put it in 'lay up' territory?

I'ld have to wait until someone else verified the sample demonstrating a good chain of custody before I would believe it. Showing me a film and telling me that part of the DNA analyzed came from that creature isn't good enough for me just because the topic is so controversial.

I think it depends on what level of acceptance is good for you. I need a leg, arm, or significant piece of a body with scientists clamoring all over the world for a smidge of it to analyze before I would start getting too excited. I know they decided that the Denisovans existed based on a finger bone fragment but it isn't hard for me to believe that someone like that may have existed 40,000 years ago in that area.

[Guest]

Just to clarify...if the DNA scenario played out as I described, I wouldn't call it proof yet, but substantial evidence that would tip the scales and make me of the opinion that they may be real. I would poor over the sighting threads in this very site, which I have never even visited.

[Guest slimwitless]

Forget the footage. There's blood on the boots of one of the two witnesses to a purported shooting. Why wouldn't their eyewitness descriptions be deemed credible if the DNA indicated a new species of hominin?

Edited April 5, 2012 by slimwitless

[Guest parnassus]

More derailing, of course, no one actually identifies who the evil scientists are,( who by the way are cutting off their own noses by preventing bigfoot from being recognized), who have gone strongly on the record as saying bigfoot is impossible. These evil scientists have been around since 1607, with helicopters, swooping in and grabbing up bigfoot carcasses, fossils, skulls, skeletons, hides, film, video except for the ones that somehow fall into the hands of the simple honest entrepreneurs like Patterson, Paul Freeman, Ivan Marx, Rick Dyer, Tom Biscardi, et al.

More derailing, finger pointing. Meanwhile, the subject of this thread is, well, embarrassingly non-existent. Hmmm. Oh, wait, Dr. Ketchum on facebook wishes you a happy Easter.

[Guest Jodie]

I thought it was you Parn

[Cotter]

@MikeG - Lindsay's been short on sources lately, maybe that'll get him going again! ;-)

@Jodie - I understand how the chain of custody would play a key role, however, assuming that some footage of BF's doing clearly BF things (say, things that Humans couldn't do), how would that play a role?

[TimB]

One of the rules of this board is you can't call any member's character into question, so naming someone as "evil" would have a negative effect on the conversation. That being said, I would never say a true scientist is evil. I wouldn't even say a self-proclaimed "Skeptic" is evil- they've just lost sight of their priorities and invested in their own non-factual belief system. And of course, present company is totally excluded from that sentiment. If you know what I'm saying.

Tim B.

[Guest]

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

Certainly. And LMS holds up, unlike the baseless claims of the Skeptics that have yet to demonstrate any evidential support.

Take the "Wallace Claim", as an example. Skeptics like to post up a picture of Wallace with some crude stompers and talk about the claims his kids have made and they call that "proof" that Wallace faked BF tracks in the field (as opposed to making casts for his store operation)..

Dr Meldrum, after careful examination of the purported stompers and the tracks alleged to have been made by them, points out specifically that the anatomical details, while roughly similar, do not in fact match the authentic BF tracks. They DO match the details of certain modified "presentation" casts (whose details had been altered with clay before duplication to "improve" their appearance), of which Wallace is known to have had in his possession.

Dr Meldrum also goes on to note the characteristics of several trackways such as their ascent and descent of extremely broken terrain, combined with the need for a great weight to make impressions of the depth noted. For these trackways to have been faked would have taken an entire TEAM of hoaxers many hours using heavy weights, block and tackle, etc. This supposedly was done in a single night, near areas of human presence, entirely undetected and without leaving any trace of the hoaxers and/or their gear.

Lastly he notes that the one time a Wallace family member donned some of the stompers to attempt to demonstrate how a simpler trackway was alleged to have been created, he was almost drug under the truck being used as part of the process.

All of that combined quite effectively debunks the Wallace Claim with solid EVIDENCE and LOGIC.

What have Wallace Claim supporters provided to counter that evidence and logic?

Nothing.

So Meldrum is vindicated and the WC supporters debunked.

It's that simple.

The same goes for issue after issue. Meldrum provides his evidence and reasoning, and the Skeptics refuse to provide anything other than bald, self-serving statements of denial.

So, as far as science is concerned, argument from disagreement and lack of consensus is logical and preferred?

No, following the evidence objectively to the best, most logical conclusion is preferred. That best, most logical conclusion for all the documented evidence is that there is a large, bipedal primate that has so far not been documented living in the remote forest/wilderness areas (and some not so remote) in N America and on other continents.

Taking your posts generally, you treat secondary and circumstantial evidences as if they were synonymous with "proof."

I have always made it clear that they are not "dispositive" or "absolute" proof, but they are present in sufficient numbers and quality to make a strong evidentiary case that certainly would meet the "preponderance of evidence test" in a court of law or properly neutral debate setting.

Abundant secondary and circumstantial evidence does not equal primary or hard evidence, i.e., "proof," so no use hiding behind "abundant." (Abundant circumstantial evidence = circumstantial evidence).

A mountain made of a million pebbles and one the same size made of a single stone are the same size.

Without primary, hard evidence, no one, even a scientist, is obliged to concede the existence of Bigfoot.

Perhaps not the definitive existence, but certainly the very strong probability of existence.

So, I really do not understand why proponents attack science

Because it is not being properly objective and demonstrates bias. It's that simple.

When Science demonstrates proper objectivity, we will stop attacking it.

Have science accept the existence of Bigfoot without a specimen?

I'd settle for them simply acknowledging the strong case to hand suggesting BF as a starting point.

. "It's .... real, it's really real! Science sez so!"

In other words, have science as a general body of knowledge agree with you about Bigfoot, belief before hard evidence?

Tracks with anthropologically identifiable features are hard evidence. Forensically typed hairs are hard evidence. Eyewitness testimonies that agree in general details spanning the continent and centuries are hard evidence.

Dispositive proof? No, and I never claimed they were. But they are hard evidence.

[TimB]

For those of you under the NDA with Ketchum's study, is there a time limit on it? Will it lapse soon? If so, will you go forward with what you know or wait for the go ahead from Dr. Ketchum?

Tim B.

[Guest]

More derailing, finger pointing. Meanwhile, the subject of this thread is, well, embarrassingly non-existent. Hmmm. Oh, wait, Dr. Ketchum on facebook wishes you a happy Easter.

Hold up on that car wash Parn.

Didn't you just state the following in another thread?....

lol extraordinary? What is extraordinary about it? it has been demanded as ordinary proof ever since I have been around this board. But that's all word games anyway, and doesn't matter to the reality of the situation. I see this thread as just a lot of schoolyard taunts to try to manipulate kitakaze. It won't work. He's given you the outline (which has been misinterpreted, by the way) and told you it will be a while. And he hasn't told you to check NBC every Thursday afternoon lol.

If you want extraordinary proof, then go to the famous facebook page and start clamoring over there.

p.

I'll bet the farm and make a wager with you that Ketchum will release her findings before kit releases his. I saw something the other day in which there was advocation that he be given another year or two to prove his allegations.

No idea what the Ketchum Reports final conclusion will be. I have heard rumors but they are just that.

Still, you seem to show an inordinate amount of discretion towards the timing of kit's release of info if compared to your *shots* against Dr. K and the release of her study.

I mean come on, we've been hearing about the upcoming release of kit's info, with absolutely *zilch* provided, for several years now haven't we?

Haven't looked yet, but the old archives are available to PMP members. Can't and won't share that info here on the General Forum but we're having a really cool discussion of this in the PMP area btw.

[Guest Jodie]

@Jodie - I understand how the chain of custody would play a key role, however, assuming that some footage of BF's doing clearly BF things (say, things that Humans couldn't do), how would that play a role?

This sounds awful but unless the video was vetted I wouldn't trust it.

One of the rules of this board is you can't call any member's character into question, so naming someone as "evil" would have a negative effect on the conversation. That being said, I would never say a true scientist is evil. I wouldn't even say a self-proclaimed "Skeptic" is evil- they've just lost sight of their priorities and invested in their own non-factual belief system. And of course, present company is totally excluded from that sentiment. If you know what I'm saying.

Tim B.

I was just kidding, I don't think Parn is really evil

Haven't looked yet, but the old archives are available to PMP members. Can't and won't share that info here on the General Forum but we're having a really cool discussion of this in the PMP area btw.

And it was enlightening to say the least..........

[Guest]

Sally Ramey posted this to her FB page a couple of hours ago "The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you know nothing about." Wayne Dyer.

With a wild leap of conjecture - so maybe not that wild- I believe we have a problem Houston. Shucks.

[Guest]

Just received my copy of Science News, VOL. 181 (7), April 7, 2012. Check out:

Story One: Ice Age refuges may have fostered Homo speciation , p.5

Furry Friends Forever: Humans aren't the only animals who benefit from having someone to count on, p.16

Measure Your Giant Carefully and His Size Will Shrink, p.32 including the quote

"The Smithsonian will tell you at any rate, that there was no prehistoric race of giants - or pygmies either-

among the wonders of America's past."

Ancient oddballs in Indonesia, p.32. The current state of the debate vis-a-vis H. floriensis.

I take it this is a snapshot of the climate into which the Ketchum Report may be released.

RE

[Guest]

TimB ~ "(skeptics) just lost sight of their priorities and invested in their own non-factual belief system."

Nonsense.