The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

^At a bare minimum, there is certainly more than enough evidence to state with a reasonable degree of certitude that there is a very strong case that BF likely exists, and that Science should stop treating BF as a myth and a joke and start treating it as a phenomenon worthy of further research and study in an organized fashion.

[Guest]

How can you fault someone for considering the issue settled when they've come face to face with the phenomenon? Would you consider it settled at that point? Some people don't instantly say, "I must have hallucinated, that had to be a bear, or someone hoaxed me." People know when they've seen a deer, they know when they've seen a football game, and yes, there are situations when they know they've seen a Sasquatch.

[Guest]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

When Science demonstrates proper objectivity, we will stop attacking it

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!"

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.

Mulder,

I kept part of your reply concerning Dr. Meldrum and the faking of tracks so as to make this observation. If you watch the National Geographic special on Bigfoot made a few years ago, you will see a demonstration of someone faking tracks by being pulled behind a pickup truck and using fake feet.

Despite what Dr. Meldrum would have you believe, based on his emphasizing one failed attempt before one local TV crew, faking tracks in this manner can be done without one being dragged off his feet. Dr. Meldrum was wrong and he was wrong to conclude that one aborted demonstration is definitive.

Dispositive proof? Isn't that a legal issue? What is that in relation to science? Haven't you noticed that in law we are seeing increasing criticisms of such things as eyewitness reliability and more movement towards forensic evidence, which is grounded in science?

While Bigfoot track casts are hard, and Bigfoot prints are evidence, Bigfoot casts are not hard evidence. Eyewitness testimony is not hard evidence. "Hard" evidence is just another way of saying definitive evidence. Or, if you prefer, "dispositive proof."

[Guest]

I would agree that an eyewitness account is by no means proof to the world. But to the person who witnessed it, it's pretty convincing.

[Guest]

I would consider blood, hair, tissue, nail, and bone hard evidence. Am I mistaken in that assumption?

You are not mistaken: When and if such evidence is verified as having belonged to what we have been calling Bigfoot.

I would agree that an eyewitness account is by no means proof to the world. But to the person who witnessed it, it's pretty convincing.

I know one fellow who says he saw a centaur in broad daylight. He related his story to me in confidence and he was sincere. If you read Dr. Karl Shuker's From Flying Toads to Snakes with Wings, on page 114 he offers another sighting as he relates the details concerning "a centaur of sorts was encountered in Ireland one spring evening in 1966 ...."

We now are finding sincere werewolf sightings to give consideration to.

Are we obliged to accept centaurs and werewolves as part of nature because people are convinced they saw such things?

How can you fault someone for considering the issue settled when they've come face to face with the phenomenon? Would you consider it settled at that point? Some people don't instantly say, "I must have hallucinated, that had to be a bear, or someone hoaxed me." People know when they've seen a deer, they know when they've seen a football game, and yes, there are situations when they know they've seen a Sasquatch.

Most proponents who believe Bigfoot exist never claim to have seen one.

Some pro-Bigfoot researchers argue that most Bigfoot sightings are not literally true and that only a small percentage of claimed sightings are real. What do they say to the folks not included in the "real" catagory?

Personally, I know more people who have seen ghosts than have seen Bigfoot.

^At a bare minimum, there is certainly more than enough evidence to state with a reasonable degree of certitude that there is a very strong case that BF likely exists, and that Science should stop treating BF as a myth and a joke and start treating it as a phenomenon worthy of further research and study in an organized fashion.

In your opinion.

Edited April 7, 2012 by jerrywayne

[JDL]

Arizona's right. For those of who have had face-to-face encounters the matter of existence is settled.

For my part, though, I'm no longer eagerly waiting for "science" to formally recognize bigfoot. That it hasn't happened yet is now more a source of amusement to me than anything else. Since I know they exist, I understand that eventual "discovery" is inevitable. I'm simply looking forward to seeing it play out when it does happen.

[Guest]

Mulder,

I kept part of your reply concerning Dr. Meldrum and the faking of tracks so as to make this observation. If you watch the National Geographic special on Bigfoot made a few years ago, you will see a demonstration of someone faking tracks by being pulled behind a pickup truck and using fake feet.

Despite what Dr. Meldrum would have you believe, based on his emphasizing one failed attempt before one local TV crew, faking tracks in this manner can be done without one being dragged off his feet. Dr. Meldrum was wrong and he was wrong to conclude that one aborted demonstration is definitive.

Assuming I grant you that point, that in no way changes the other evidentiary points that debunk the Wallace Claim. The stompers do NOT match the authentic tracks. The circumstances of the terrain and timeframe of the finding of the trackways makes fakery virtually impossible, etc.

Dispositive proof? Isn't that a legal issue? What is that in relation to science? Haven't you noticed that in law we are seeing increasing criticisms of such things as eyewitness reliability and more movement towards forensic evidence, which is grounded in science?

Forensically typed hairs are science (Moore, et al). Tracks/body/body part impressions cast that are scientifically analyzed are science.

While Bigfoot track casts are hard, and Bigfoot prints are evidence, Bigfoot casts are not hard evidence.

Yes they are. Something made those tracks. The nature of that something can be scientifically analyzed, and has, by Meldrum, by Fahrenbach, et al.

"Hard" evidence is just another way of saying definitive evidence. Or, if you prefer, "dispositive proof."

No, it's not. It's very close, but it doesn't quite rise to the standard of disposition of the issue. Hard evidence is simply independently examinable, debateable and testable in an objective manner. Dispositive evidence places the matter beyond any debate.

Using tracks as our example: Tracks that are cast or otherwise documented can be analyzed by the appropriately credentialed person to derive data that speaks to the legitimacy or illegitimacy of those tracks.

Dr Meldrum, in this case, can take a cast track or track photo and say "I see in this track the following things

• . These data points lead me to the conclusion that this track represents [conclusion]." That opinion is based on an unchanging data source (the track/s) that can be freely examined by anyone with access in the same manner and can be subjected to the same analytical methods.

Nevertheless, another scientist CAN in good faith examine the same data sources, with the same methods and potentially reach a different conclusion. This is what makes the difference between "hard evidence" and "dispositive" evidence, where follow on investigations have no other option but to reach the same conclusion.

I would agree that an eyewitness account is by no means proof to the world. But to the person who witnessed it, it's pretty convincing.

Again, the difference between "evidence" and "proof". The two words are NOT interchangeable.

I agree that eyewitness testimony is probably the weakest form of evidence, esp considering each report in isolation. It is when testimony is considered and analyzed in the aggregate and starts to disclose patterns and consistencies that they become much more significant.

You are not mistaken: When and if such evidence is verified as having belonged to what we have been calling Bigfoot.

Absent this "verification", it is what? A figment of the researchers' imagination?

Are we obliged to accept centaurs and werewolves as part of nature because people are convinced they saw such things?

Apples and oranges comparison. BF does not rest merely on "sightings". It rests on sightings PLUS other evidence PLUS scientific analysis of that evidence that shows patterns and traits that speak to the validity of that evidence.

In your opinion.

In any objective person's opinion.

[Guest]

While Bigfoot track casts are hard, and Bigfoot prints are evidence, Bigfoot casts are not hard evidence.

You need to battle the field af anthropology if you believe footprints cannot be hard evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laetoli_footprints.

[Guest MikeG]

^At a bare minimum, there is certainly more than enough evidence to state with a reasonable degree of certitude that there is a very strong case that BF likely exists, and that Science should stop treating BF as a myth and a joke and start treating it as a phenomenon worthy of further research and study in an organized fashion.

........and of course, that is EXACTLY what is happening at the moment.

Patience!!

Mike

[Guest]

I understand exactly why Dr. Ketchum is taking so long, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. I enjoy griping about it along with the rest of you.

The issue is the constant reassurance of "soon". If she had just said had no comment or said "I don't know" I think my attitude would be a little different.

I have to agree with this sentiment and gave Jodie's post a +1.

I *understand* why it is taking so long but the constant FB updates and promises of *soon* are really grating.

I just hope that the *suggestive innuendos* on those FB pages bear fruit.

If not, it will be yet another blackened eye on our community.

Heck, after the Ga Boys fiasco, Enoch, and multiple other things that didn't pan out, we look like we've just gone 10 rounds with George Foreman.

But as other astute members have noted within this thread, try telling someone who saw a BF or those who have a close family member/friend who saw one that they didn't see what they saw.

There is too much there for there not to be something there IMO.

The results of Dr K's study will come out when they come out. The delay is frustrating but not at all unusual if one imagines numerous involved parties, NDA's, and a bunch of attorneys involved in representing the *best interest* of various clients.

Still, it absolutely kills me to have skeptics *rail* about the time it is taking to release the findings of Dr K's work while they *lobby* for more time for *others* who promote their POV.

And, there is much more involved, with legal ramifications, in the release of Dr K's findings than that of the *other*.

Agenda?.......

Dunno. But I'll say again that I'll make an healthy wager that Dr K's work will be released before the work of the *other* is.

I'm not saying a timeframe should be placed on either Dr K or kit. Heck, give them time to do their work, present their findings, and the individual members of the BF community can make up their own minds.

But the skeptics seem to be trying to demean Dr K due to time, (when there is an awful lot of extraneous circumstances/roadblocks involved with her info that just isn't a factor in kit's *claimed* info), so why shouldn't their standard bearer face the same scrutiny regarding time parameters?

Especially considering he has been making promises of an *documentary*/*release of info* for years.

I'm just saying...... There seem to be differing parameters of patience/expectations on the part of some.

[AaronD]

I've fantasized about a colossal breaking story on the 5 O'clock news of "Bigfoot finally found and proven to exist", since about the 4th grade. So, a while longer for Ketchum report shouldn't hurt. My greatest fear is that nothing will come of it at all and we'll be left back to square one....hoping that isn't the case.

[Guest slimwitless]

My only real problem with the delay (aside from wanting to spend my B&N gift card) is the fact that a few family members and friends got wind of my interest. I won't go into the gory details about how it happened or what it entails but lets just say it's source of mild consternation around these parts.

Edited April 7, 2012 by slimwitless

[Guest]

Get that slimwitless. Trust me, the majority of my family thinks I'm nuts for my belief in BF.

Never really hidden it and look forward to the day when proof has been provided and I can go on TV and mention a long list of folks who can kiss my butt.

[Guest]

I have one friend, especially, who will be first on my list come B-Day. And I don't think I'll let him forget for the rest of his life.

[Guest Jodie]

I just like being "right" in general, doesn't have to involve bigfoot.