The Ketchum Report

[Guest Cervelo]

jodie doesn't care for dr ketchum or her study, and doesn't hold back about it. Even when comes out I doubt she will embrace it.

Zig are you suggesting something like this? LOL

[Guest Jodie]

Now, Jodie. You know if she delivers it will all be water under the bridge. You'll be telling friends and family you were following all this back when most people thought sasquatch was a figment of overactive imaginations (or some kind of undiscovered non-human primate).

Of course, I'll be partying like a rock star if this all pans out and not the least bit remorseful when I call in our bet on that B&N gift certificate, if and when we find out you are wrong.

jodie doesn't care for dr ketchum or her study, and doesn't hold back about it. Even when comes out I doubt she will embrace it.

See Puff's comment above, I'm holding back right now because he said it so much more tactfully than I ever would have.

Zig are you suggesting something like this? LOL

I guess we livened up the thread for five seconds but the worst we can do here is throw a caps lock at each other, not nearly as entertaining as what Jerry is talking about.

But here you go, Zig this is for you -->

[Guest]

Jerry, I'm guessing there has been some degree of effort to keep the media out of the know for the time being. Any self respecting DNA scientist is gonna wanna make darn sure they have something before blowing the whistle; otherwise, they could end up being just another charismatic public fool. I don't blame her there, as much as I would love to know what's up with the "evidence".

AaronD, your guess is is probably right on. I understand that part of the equation. It just seems that the news and journalist side of the equation would be anxious to "scoop" the newsworthy developments with what has been revealed to date, at least.

Perhaps if the report had been initiated by a university or mainstream scientific org., instead of coming from the "Bigfoot community", there would be more interest. This may be due to what Mulder has rightly noted is the lingering smell of the Georgia Boys punking.

[Guest Cervelo]

I believe The Ketchum Report has a PR person indicating when it's time I'm sure the media will be informed of the findings.

There's really nothing to ignore at this point!

Edited April 15, 2012 by Cervelo

[Guest]

I think that the Georgia hoax Makes people more skeptical of anyone coming foward with evidence. Also it doesnt help that people seem so impatient. I think it'll come out when it comes out and hopefully it will be good news. I'm not getting my hopes up though.

[Guest]

Jerrywayne, maybe you should start a thread on negative evidence, and lay out your thoughts how they matter in the mind of one who has determined all evidence is negative. You must have some idea of what constitutes positive evidence, but it apparently is not the presence of other sightings next to one another.

Sorry sy, missed this one. Not sure what or who you are referring to with "the mind of one who has determined all evidence is negative".

As I mentioned, the field is not just neutral and therefore positive evidence tilts it in favor of [whatever]. Negative evidence must also be included in the overall discussion. The reason there are scoftics (which is not a synonymous term for skeptics, btw) is because many folks see only the negative evidence and fail to acknowledge positive evidence.

As to "the presence of other sightings next to one another", if you are referring to more than one local sighting, then do you think we are obliged to seriously consider the reality of this?: http://www.americanmonsters.com/site/2010/03/dover-demon-massachusetts-usa/

[southernyahoo]

Jerry, My point was that negative evidence could be described as any molecule of matter that exists outside the body of whatever creature we are looking for, or it could be any evidence that is suggestive the creature is real but not proof.

Positive evidence can also claim the middle ground (inconclusive evidence) which is also suggestive i.e, sightings close to one another, associated tracks, photos, videos, hairs etc.

When you argue about negative and positive evidence you should define this better so we know where you are coming from. You had defined negative evidence as a lack of sightings that support a single sighting in isolation, so there is a presumption that more from the same area would be positive, Is that right or wrong?

[ShadowBorn]

Jerry, My point was that negative evidence could be described as any molecule of matter that exists outside the body of whatever creature we are looking for, or it could be any evidence that is suggestive the creature is real but not proof.

Positive evidence can also claim the middle ground (inconclusive evidence) which is also suggestive i.e, sightings close to one another, associated tracks, photos, videos, hairs etc.

When you argue about negative and positive evidence you should define this better so we know where you are coming from. You had defined negative evidence as a lack of sightings that support a single sighting in isolation, so there is a presumption that more from the same area would be positive, Is that right or wrong?

Positive evidence in my opionion would be when a wittness has encounter, discovers evidence of that encounter and then is confirmed by others.How can you have negitive evidence when negitive is just that negitive.I no longer care about any evidence since there is no doubt on what i know and what i saw and have encountered.Folks who know me know very well that i have had encounters and i really do not care about evidence.People can ingnore and all the signs point to a creature that is very close to us that is very primal that has a sick way of toying with us.Like it has been said before they know the results and they are going to come out soon.Whether this will be big to the world will remain to be seen and if they are kins of ours that will explain alot about the encounters in the field.

[Guest]

Julio 126-

You have stated that you have had encounters and noboby is doubting that. What I would like to point out at this time is that there is a difference between hard evidence and proof, undisputable proof and I believe that that is the point of the peer review IMO. ptangier

[Guest]

Jerry, My point was that negative evidence could be described as any molecule of matter that exists outside the body of whatever creature we are looking for, or it could be any evidence that is suggestive the creature is real but not proof.

Positive evidence can also claim the middle ground (inconclusive evidence) which is also suggestive i.e, sightings close to one another, associated tracks, photos, videos, hairs etc.

When you argue about negative and positive evidence you should define this better so we know where you are coming from. You had defined negative evidence as a lack of sightings that support a single sighting in isolation, so there is a presumption that more from the same area would be positive, Is that right or wrong?

No offense sy, if I have not made myself clear, your ambiguous post doesn't help me clarify where I've got it wrong.

First, a lack of evidence is not overruled by a sighting. A sighting is easier explained (as erroneous for various reasons) than explaining why there is a lack of evidence (evidence that should be there if the animal exists).

Now, when do we have a tipping point where the available "positive" evidence begins to outweigh the "negative" evidence. That is a good question. I think we would probably disagree on the answers.

Consider the Fouke Monster. Several sightings locally over the years. Alleged trackways. But, again, nothing definitive discovered. If anyone wants to believe the sightings, fine. But folks have lived there all their lives and have never seen anything like the FM. Would that be the case if a large bi-pedal ape or ancient human did live or visit the area? The creature is extremely stealthy, you might argue. Then, why have people said they virtually bumped into it, or have even been harassed by it? And the tracks are almost certainly spurious (3 or 4 toed).

Anyway, I might take this up in an original thread if I have the time and can clarify my position for you better.

Not meaning to derail the topic. Just sipping my mint-julep on the veranda while waiting for the Ketchum report.

[Guest]

^^^^^

Mulder help me out isn't this one your special pleading for intullectually dishonesty wrapped in some sort of straw man thingy capped off with a side order of fallacy du jour?

Care to be more specific?

http://www.facebook....359075637446173

"People keep complaining that I have a public FB page and answer some questions about the project. They criticize me mercilessly, calling me a variety of adjectives and claiming I am only a veterinarian, not a scientist. It is a no-win situation for me. On one hand I have literally hundreds of people clamoring for information and on the other, I have people saying how unprofessional it is for me to have a public FB and even mention my research in public prior to publication. If it hadn't been for people leaking results early in the study and stirring up people with an interest in BF, I would have pulled this off without anyone knowing until it came out, which is how it was supposed to have been. But, since it is already out there, I am making an attempt to give people as much information as I dare as it seems the majority would rather have a little info than none. You can please some of the people, some of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time so I am trying to keep most of you happy."

She absolutely NAILS it with this post.

She says nothing, she gets slammed.

She says EVERYthing, she gets slammed (and loses her one chance to get the paper out clean)

She says SOMEthing, she gets slammed, but as long as it's not directly from the paper or about the paper, at least the paper won't be summarily tossed.

She's taken the best option she has: say what she can and make it clear what she can NOT say.

Frustrating as that is, that's the situation.

FWIW , "critical" is as filled with bias and belief as "acceptance" is. Good thing we have objective peer reviewed science as the arbitor of truth.

please tell me you're being sarcastic...

Which is why I don't understand the facebook comments. She is not obligated at all to say anything, and if I had this much riding on something, then I would not do the facebook page not answering questions that can't be asked.

And get slammed (as she has) for not saying ANYthing...

What else is she supposed to do, Jodie? She didn't start this.

[Guest Jodie]

Mulder, you know my opinion on this. If it is that important, and you owe no one any kind of explanation, then it's best just not to respond IMO.

[Guest]

I doubt she was legally mandated to start a facebook page about a paper she can't talk about.

So it would be better to just sit there and let the bashers bash away unresponded to?

[ShadowBorn]

Julio 126-

You have stated that you have had encounters and noboby is doubting that. What I would like to point out at this time is that there is a difference between hard evidence and proof, undisputable proof and I believe that that is the point of the peer review IMO. ptangier

Not to sound dumb but are you kinda of saying that we are also acting as the peer as well?Hard evidemce and proof would that not be the same. We can say that we have DNA and that can be considered hard evidence but would that not also be considered proof?We can also say that we have had a sighting and here are the prints and stick formations or what ever they do as proof. But yet that is not considered as hard evidence as lets say a part of a body or the whole body itself.

As us being a whole in peer review we can make judgement on our encounters,whether we are believers ,skeptics or whatever.Only us as individuals can say whether encounter is real or not so arguing only leads to stress.If the Dr. has some thing it is worth waiting for it and making it right .If this redicule will stop more people will talk about there encounters and we will get to know the real creature.

[Guest]

First, a lack of evidence is not overruled by a sighting. A sighting is easier explained (as erroneous for various reasons) than explaining why there is a lack of evidence (evidence that should be there if the animal exists).

Once again we see the "closed loop" of Skeptic logic:

1) Assert that there is no evidence for BF.

2) Dismiss any claimed evidence as being "not evidence" until BF is "established" or "proven".

3) Assert that there is no evidence for BF.

Rinse

Repeat

Now, when do we have a tipping point where the available "positive" evidence begins to outweigh the "negative" evidence. That is a good question. I think we would probably disagree on the answers.

I think you've made your position quite clear: there is no evidence w/o "proof" so there can be no tipping point, in your world.

Consider the Fouke Monster. Several sightings locally over the years. Alleged trackways. But, again, nothing definitive discovered. If anyone wants to believe the sightings, fine. But folks have lived there all their lives and have never seen anything like the FM.

I live in MO. There are bear, rattlesnakes, etc in MO, but I've never seen one in person even back when I was in the woods as a kid.

I've said it before, and I'm about to say it again: what one person does or does not see in no way whatsoever invalidates what another person sees or does not see, barring the case that they are in the same place at the same time.

Would that be the case if a large bi-pedal ape or ancient human did live or visit the area?

There's no reason it cannot be the case. It's a big world.

The creature is extremely stealthy, you might argue. Then, why have people said they virtually bumped into it, or have even been harassed by it?

Luck or circumstance or a combination of both. You assume that there is no random chance involved in having an encounter, and you ignore the fact that circumstances have an effect on probabilities.

For example: In the spring, summer and fall, I go out into the woods. I may or may not see/hear a rattlesnake. On a 10 degree below zero winter day, I go out into the woods. I stand very little chance of seeing a rattlesnake. However, if I were to crawl into a rattlesnake "den" at that same moment, I'd be up to my proverbial armpits in them (and in rather serious trouble).

And the tracks are almost certainly spurious (3 or 4 toed).

In your opinion.