The Ketchum Report

[AaronD]

Pecking orders? Hmmmm, I hate being so undereducated, some of the terms you mentally montrous people use.....LOL

Ego of academic personality vs a Micky D's drive thru worker....you might use a correlation scale of -1.0 to +1.0, or a basic 1-10 scale, but I'm gonna guess other factors will inevitably come into play such as physical appearance, area of academics, overall satisfaction with life in general, and of course socioeconomic background to name a few...all of this AFTER you've defined and quantified "ego". Sorry, college is in my rear view mirror by a couple decades so forgive me if I'm short on fancy terminology

[Guest]

I know this is all very off topic. I'm pretending we are out on the veranda having mint-julips, passing the time pleasantly while waiting for word from Dr. Ketchum.

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.

Not so fast...... http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/wallace-2012/

Hard evidence is simply independently examinable, debateable and testable in an objective manner. Dispositive evidence places the matter beyond any debate.

Disputes sometimes are due to word usage. I use "hard evidence" as conclusive evidence. You use it as you have explained. Good.

So I argue that trackways and sightings are surely evidence, but not evidence that "places the matter beyond any debate." When you hear some blue meanie skeptic say something like "there is no evidence for the existence of Bigfoot," remember what is meant is that, to date, there is no evidence for Bigfoot that "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.

BINGO! Trackways are not conclusive evidence, or "proof"..

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.

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.

Actually, most sightings occur without physical evidence, such as tracks and hair findings, just as most physical evidences are absent sightings.

If we look at sightings alone, then comparing them to a growing body of werewolf sightings is relevant (as an indication of possible cultural explanations).

What you fail to note in your advocacy is the notion of negative evidence. For instance, the Crew tracks just suddenly appeared literally overnight. There were no multiple findings of such tracks in the area over time that one would expect of a native population of large animals. In fact, no one knew what to make of the tracks. Some thought bear, some considered fanciful Lemurians of lore, or a giant, mentally challenged Indian boy storied to live in the woods, or a very tall kid who was said to have ran away from a local CCC camp back in the thirties, etc. It took John Green to come down from Canada to make a link between the tracks found and sasquatch, Green's pet project of converting Indian stories about a giant tribe of Indians into a yeti-like man-ape.

But we do know that there was a fellow there who even the authorities fingered as the track maker. A coincidence?

Or consider sightings and negative evidence. For every individual sighting of a Bigfoot in, say eastern Texas, I dare say you could find locals who have lived and worked and hunted and fished the area of the sighting who will tell you that they have never seen anything remotely like a Bigfoot, nor have they found any secondary evidence like tracks.

As an advocate, you will present sightings divorced from their negative evidence context. I know. Because I used to be an advocate and I would get so bored when someone would say something like --"Hey, Mr. Jone's says he saw a 7 foot tall two-legged ape cross the road one night near Farmersville, but I know folks there who say they've lived there all their lives and never saw hide nor hair of anything like that, and their neighbors say the same thing."

[Guest BFSleuth]

jerrywayne, it would seem that you are in agreement with Mulder's fundamental point that there is evidence, although the evidence can be in dispute. Mulder is simply noting that with as much evidence (whether disputable or not) as we have gathered to date, that scientists would want to explore what kind of phenomena is creating said evidence. While you note that each piece of evidence can be disputed, Mulder has made a valid point.

[Guest]

jw,

Concerning your position on the importance of negative evidence, I gather, because I've never seen you, I am to conclude you do not exist.

Ecologically speaking, an observation of an orgsnism is nearly infinitely more informational than the absence of an observation. For example, if I spend a day observing a portion of our natural biosphere and report, "I observed no blue whales," can you descibe what portion of the biospher I spent the day in? No, you can't; I may have been in the Sahara (hint: no blues whales there) or on the Antarctic Ocean (blue whales live there, but I may just not have run into one that day). If I report "I saw a kangaroo," you can be certain I was in Australia.

By the way, we should not be responsible for reading the minds of skeptics (or anyone else). People should take responsibility for saying what they mean and to accept the consequences for failing to do so.

Pt

Edited April 9, 2012 by Pteronarcyd

[indiefoot]

Apparently until everyone has seen a Bigfoot, no one has.

[Guest]

@Mulder: Please be explicit about what sort of organized scientific inquiry you think we need to prove the reality of Bigfoot. SY has suggested a hair analysis clearinghouse. What have you got?

This is necessarily a bit "broad brush", but in a perfect world, I would like to see a multi-phase, long term (18-24 month plus) research effort involving a laboratory team and multiple field teams.

Phase I would involve cataloging, coding, and analyzing the existing evidence databases (eyewitness, casts, etc). Extensive statistical analysis would be performed to determine trends and patterns relating to the data, and would include re-confirmation of (among others) Fahrenbach's track size distribution and height vs elevation of sighting papers. A systematic check of LE databases where permitted would be included to elucidate further documented incidents and to include associated trace evidence into the existing dataset.

All of this would be aimed at identifying historical and current 'hot spots' if possible as potential targets for field team insertions in Phase II.

Phase II would be two pronged:

1) Field teams would be dispatched to identified areas of interest to begin long-duration continuous-presence research in the Jane Goodall mode. Field teams would be multidisciplinary in composition, including at least 1 professional game tracker/outdoorsman, 1 anthropologist, 1 video/audiographer, one forensic technician, and 1 security element. All team members would hold appropriate credentials for their fields, and ideally should be experienced field researchers. Suggest recruitment from such places as Nat. Geographic, etc (sorry guys, no BFRO, et al). Field teams would be fully equipped with appropriate gear and would maintain contact with research "headquarters".

2) Laboratory team would begin systematic laboratory analysis and documentation of existing physical trace evidence inventories (track casts, body part impression casts, hairs, etc). Lab team would also be multidisciplinary including (but not limited to) physical anthropologists, forensic hair identification experts, statisticians, DNA analysis technicians, and audio analysis experts. The laboratory team would also remain "on call" to rapidly follow up on any obtained trace evidence reported by the field teams.

At the end of the investigatory period, two reports would be prepared: 1) a historical report detailing the findings relating to the pre-existing evidence dataset at the onset of investigation. 2) a report summarizing the field research effort including both field notes and the analysis of any trace evidence obtained (if any) during the active investigation.

[Guest BFSleuth]

+1 Mulder, well stated and comprehensive.

[Guest]

Not so fast...... http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/wallace-2012/

Same old regurgitation. Still not addressing Dr Meldrums points.

So I argue that trackways and sightings are surely evidence, but not evidence that "places the matter beyond any debate."

*snip for space*

Trackways are not conclusive evidence, or "proof".

Nor do I. I class them as "hard evidence", not "dispositive" evidence, though I do place them at the end of "hard evidence" that is closest to dispositive on the spectrum.

Actually, most sightings occur without physical evidence, such as tracks and hair findings, just as most physical evidences are absent sightings. If we look at sightings alone, then comparing them to a growing body of werewolf sightings is relevant (as an indication of possible cultural explanations).

There is looking at individual cases and there is looking at the phenomenon as a whole. Looking at the entirety of the BF phenomenon, it is appropriate to consider all types and grades of evidence in toto.

What you fail to note in your advocacy is the notion of negative evidence. For instance, the Crew tracks just suddenly appeared literally overnight. There were no multiple findings of such tracks in the area over time that one would expect of a native population of large animals. In fact, no one knew what to make of the tracks. Some thought bear, some considered fanciful Lemurians of lore, or a giant, mentally challenged Indian boy storied to live in the woods, or a very tall kid who was said to have ran away from a local CCC camp back in the thirties, etc. It took John Green to come down from Canada to make a link between the tracks found and sasquatch, Green's pet project of converting Indian stories about a giant tribe of Indians into a yeti-like man-ape. But we do know that there was a fellow there who even the authorities fingered as the track maker. A coincidence? Or consider sightings and negative evidence. For every individual sighting of a Bigfoot in, say eastern Texas, I dare say you could find locals who have lived and worked and hunted and fished the area of the sighting who will tell you that they have never seen anything remotely like a Bigfoot, nor have they found any secondary evidence like tracks. As an advocate, you will present sightings divorced from their negative evidence context. I know. Because I used to be an advocate and I would get so bored when someone would say something like --"Hey, Mr. Jone's says he saw a 7 foot tall two-legged ape cross the road one night near Farmersville, but I know folks there who say they've lived there all their lives and never saw hide nor hair of anything like that, and their neighbors say the same thing."

I fail to note it because it is not in fact genrerally evidence of anything. It is a logical fallacy related to argument from ignorance. What person A may or may not have seen at place W at time X is not invalidated by what Person B may or may not have seen at place Y at time Z, unless it is the case that Persons A and B are referring to the same place and same time, in which case some marginal value to B's experience obtains.

[Guest]

"If I report "I saw a kangaroo," you can be certain I was in Australia."

You could also have seen that kangaroo in any one of the many zoos around the world, too, you don't necessarily have to go to Australia.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Chris

[Guest]

I specified a " portion of our natural biosphere." That excludes zoos. But, thank you for playing.

[Guest]

@Mulder: Good on ya for a thorough plan. Sounds expensive though. What's your plan for convincing the NSF that what sounds like a multi-million dollar investment over several years will result in transformatory science? For example this:

"At the end of the investigatory period, two reports would be prepared: 1) a historical report detailing the findings relating to the pre-existing evidence dataset at the onset of investigation. 2) a report summarizing the field research effort including both field notes and the analysis of any trace evidence obtained (if any) during the active investigation."

doesn't demonstrate a resolution. It doesn't detail how a new species would be described minus a specimen and, if no specimen is forthcoming, it doesn't demonstrate what's to be learned along the way. The NSF - or other agencies that would presumably be needed to pony up the cash for the effort you describe - don't take kindly to investing in research without a clear payoff.

More to the point, I still don't see demonstrated that what you're calling for is qualitatively different than what we have already.

For example in Phase 1, do we really need a new analysis of historical accounts to tell us where bigfoots are supposed to be? Why not just go to the BFRO database and look into all the states with > 200 reports and start there? It's obvious that mature forests in CA, FL, OH, OR, and WA would be good places to start. You could also filter for the most recent encounters and for example look into southeastern Oklahoma or wherever the Smeja guy was supposed to have collected his "steak."

Next you propose inserting small teams into hotspot areas, presumably to attempt habituations that can lead to the collection of physical evidence. We're led to believe that such contact has been made in TN, KY, OK, OR, VT, FL, and wherever Sasfooty lives (although she declines to describe her case as one of habituation if I recall). So that too is already/has been done. The difference you seem to be proposing is better training of the people involved, correct? The hope is that these teams you would deploy would be able to collect photographic evidence and hairs that could be analyzed. We have that now, don't we?

Next you propose laboratory teams of perhaps 5 different experts waiting on standby for forensic material to come in. I'm pretty sure we don't have that, but we certainly have had hairs, body impressions, footprint casts, and audio analyzed by experts in those fields. While in multiple high-profile cases the material has been determined to come from prosaic sources, some of that data remain of interest to some experts, e.g., Jeff Meldrum. But without people in the position to publish analyses of that data in mainstream journals willing to do so, there's no case being made outside of the "bigfoot community" that there's anything to that data.

As I wrote years ago on the BFF 1.0, bigfoot doesn't go mainstream until bigfooters mainstream it. Constantly wailing against "science" for not paying attention to bigfoot misses the mark. If I was convinced that bigfoot exists and desperately wanted to prove that to the world, I would focus my energies on people like Meldrum, Fahrenbach, Bindernagle - and now Ketchum - and encourage them as best I could to actually write up their analyses and doggedly submit them to mainstream journals. If what we hear from Ketchum is true (i.e, that there is a paper and that she's been trying to get it published), then it looks like she's the one leading the pack to actually bring attention of the larger scientific community to the possibility of extant, undescribed hominins in North America. So that, too, is happening.

@Pteronarcyd - the inflated ego is certainly a well-earned stereotype among scientists, but I submit that the stereotype is far more inflated than the ego of the average scientist, at least in applied fields like mine. Many of my colleagues are almost humble to a fault. Getting back to the point of your original comment, publication in journals of the highest tier is an institutionalized benchmark for our career advancement. While it's certainly an ego-boost to publish a paper in a great journal, without our warped reward systems in academia geared to such journals there'd be a lot less emphasis on doing so. Personally, I just want my work out there so others can access it, so once I hit the tier in which anyone can find my papers, I'm happy. It's the bean-counters in my administration, however, who keep pushing me to aim "higher."

[Guest BFSleuth]

Saskeptic, that sounds like the old "publish or perish" pressure that is put on professors, the need to publish work in journals or books in order to have enough credibility to become tenured. I remember my professors discussing this during my time in college. While Dr. Ketchum isn't trying to get tenure, I think that attributing motivations like having a big ego as the main driving force behind a scientist publishing a paper in a major journal is a bit of a stretch. What happened to good old desire to get to the truth and sharing your results? I agree with your assessment that scientists are often humble people, that has been my experience. It is usually the ones with the least accomplishment that seem to try and make the biggest noise in the room.

[Guest slimwitless]

Ego is more generally associated with a specialized (and competitive) skill. Comparing academics against McDonald's employees is a stretch. A more appropriate comparison would be with surgeons, professional athletes, dot-com millionaires, NASCAR drivers, politicians or bigfoot researchers. If you could gauge ego, I think you'd find academics are no different than most people. In fact, I'd put them on the low end of the aforementioned examples.

If you do devise such a test, you might first want to get it vetted by a peer-reviewed journal if you want anyone to take it seriously.

Edited April 9, 2012 by slimwitless

[Guest parnassus]

It is usually the ones with the least accomplishment that seem to try and make the biggest noise in the room.

or on Facebook.

p.

Saskeptic wrote:

For example in Phase 1, do we really need a new analysis of historical accounts to tell us where bigfoots are supposed to be? Why not just go to the BFRO database and look into all the states with > 200 reports and start there? It's obvious that mature forests in CA, FL, OH, OR, and WA would be good places to start. You could also filter for the most recent encounters and for example look into southeastern Oklahoma or wherever the Smeja guy was supposed to have collected his "steak."

Oh, I think there are a dozen or two new hotspots that have opened up in the past year. Just follow the path of the Finding Bigfoot crew and you will find a couple hundred people who wanted to be on tv saw Bigfoot, and a lot of them are little kids and people who wear camo to meetings credible witnesses. I could show you the tapes. These represent the most recent, most concentrated areas of bigfoot activity. Plus most of these areas have historical sightings that were the reasons why Finding Bigfoot came in the first place. So I think that North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan (town hall last week in Houghton Lake), Minnesota, Rhode Island, etc, will have to be targeted. I don't see how you can refute that.

Plus, going to these places again would undoubtedly generate even more reports, after so many people there were successful in getting on tv able to help the scientific effort when Finding Bigfoot was there.

They could pay for the whole thing by getting a cable deal from the Comedy Channel Nat Geo entitled Wasting the time of scientists who should be documenting the actual response of our fauna and flora to global climate change Bigfoot: Really?

p.

Edited April 9, 2012 by parnassus

[Guest Jodie]

walked right into that one. sorry guys, my screen is printing right to left and i have no way of fixing it that i can see.