The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

If this tooth matter hasn't been resolved, it needs to be. Rugg submitted the sample in good faith, it was seemingly received in good faith as well and under a specific circumstance and agreement where someone else would apparently fund its testing, with Stubstad acting as agent.  But the rules were changed by the recipient because of her change in relationship with this funder and agent. This change was w/o the tooth provider's agreement (or initial knowledge), and so rules were changed on Rugg. So now Rugg is put in the position where he is told he must agree to new rules. He has every right to say 'no, I don't agree and would like my tooth material returned'. That or Dr. Kethcum should find a way to carry out the initial terms of the agreement. Nothing against her but its not right that she change the rules mid stream on someone who acted in good faith in his actions with her under circumstances she then agreed to herself. Especially so since his evidence was placed on such back burner status.   IMHO

Edited August 16, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist

[Guest]

Here's something to consider Mulder, If the DNA shows one type of entity, the probability that there's no other gets a little higher because the samples weren't selectively taken directly from some hominid , at least that would be the case for those found on trees and in nests in the wild.

That is true enough.

[gigantor]

From the article Sasquatch: Is it out there?

Dr. Ketchum won’t comment on any of sasquatch DNA testing or her findings

until her research has been submitted to a journal

and has passed a confidential peer review by experts in the field.

So, her paper has NOT been submitted to a journal yet.

Y'all got lots 'o waiting to do...

[Guest HairyGreek]

From the article Sasquatch: Is it out there?

Dr. Ketchum won’t comment on any of sasquatch DNA testing or her findings

until her research has been submitted to a journal

and has passed a confidential peer review by experts in the field.

So, her paper has NOT been submitted to a journal yet.

Y'all got lots 'o waiting to do...

Hmmm...you should have kept underlining. The paper could very well be in peer review. All the reporter is stating is the criteria Dr. Ketchum would make a statement under. Do we have any idea of when this article was written and/or published? Hard to tell sometimes from online sources as someone else may have picked up the story.

Edited August 17, 2011 by HairyGreek

[BobbyO]

Here's the latest Lads & Lasses, form a whopping 15 mins ago..

Melba Ketchum

Ok, for the sake of time ( and I hope all of you understand), I will answer everyone publicly here. I keep getting a lot of emails from everyone wanting to know the status of the project. Though I cannot give details or timing, I will assure everyone that all is well and we are continuing to move forward. Good science cannot be forced or quickly completed. If it is not extremely thorough, then it will all be for naught and any paper rejected outright. So, I ask you to be patient and understanding and realize that extreme scientific overkill is required in order to convince a world full of skeptical scientists. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". This is what we are doing. When we started this, I thought we would be finished in a few weeks, but instead as Sasquatch are known to do, they threw us curve balls even with their DNA which can be as elusive as they are. Thank goodness we are past that! As a result, we have assembled a renowned team, each of us with our own specialties to make this project "extraordinary". If everyone will hang in there, I promise it will be worth the wait. We have the proof, now just give us the opportunity to present it in a form that will even convince skeptics. Thanks so much for all of your emails and support. Best wishes to all.

[Guest gershake]

"If it is not extremely thorough, then it will all be for naught and any paper rejected outright."

Does this mean

a) They're still working on it, it's STILL not out for peer review, or

b­) It's been initially rejected in peer review and now they are working on "presenting it" in a different fashion, or

c) other?

Thanks for the "update"... Bobby.

Edited November 4, 2011 by gershake

[Guest]

I read that and interpret her statement as the paper has not even been written yet. Right? We have the science and now we need to present it. That's how I take it. Bobby, where did you find her statement? Bring out the elephants and trapezes, this thing is a circus!

[Guest gershake]

She posted it on Facebook.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

It's absolutely fantastic that she is saying she has proof. Extremely great news.

[Guest]

10-4 on the Facebook. Is her page public or do you have to friend her?

[Guest]

Great news.

Just because things aren't moving forward as fast as we'd like to see, doesn't mean things aren't moving forward.

[Guest gershake]

It's absolutely fantastic that she is saying she has proof. Extremely great news.

Is that news though...?

No idea about the FB page, since I've friended her. She doesn't post much anyway.

[Guest]

It's an official statement by her regarding the project. So yes...it's news, just not what some folks wanted to hear.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Wait a minute.... this isn't page one? JK I feel like we finally broke out of the Star Trek temporal time loop.

Well maybe you're right Gershake. I haven't heard it in so many words yet but I haven't been paying attention. Has she used the words "sasquatch" and "we have the proof" yet, in the way she did here? I like the way it has been said here. I don't think the words have been this precise before now. I also don't see many outs for bad news lol, which is cool.

[Guest slimwitless]

No. This is the most definitive statement she's made (publicly anyway).