The Ketchum Report

[Guest RayG]

When did Dr. Ketchum say nothing? I must have missed that. And it's not so much THAT she says something, it's WHAT she says, that have some people questioning her methods.

She seems to be her own worst enemy. If she had just stuck with what she wrote way back when....

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 proofâ€. This is what we are doing.

See the part I highlighted? Had she stuck with that, maybe she wouldn't feel so frustrated. If people (mostly bigfoot proponents) had been given that answer every single time they asked for further updates, they might have gotten the hint. Instead we heard convoluted stories about gag-orders from journals, and other curious things, especially when she seemed to toss scientific objectivity out the window.

Here are some of those other things she has said:

"Yes, I do know about them now. I am glad I didn’t see them until after most of the data was in. I needed to prove it scientifically to myself first as a former skeptic before hitting the field so to speak and actually observing them. I had no fear, the ones I encountered were peaceful and gentle. I keep going back, I know why so many people love doing this now."

"My sighting is not a big deal. I saw one silhouetted between me and a white gooseneck trailer in bright moonlight at about 25 yds. It was about 10 feet tall as it walked by. I saw eyeshine from 1 nearby. I was alone at the time. I don’t ever take cameras in case it scares them off. Not trying to prove anything here and do not care if I am believed or not. The DNA takes care of that for me. I should not have even brought it up. Any investigation on my part is purely to satisfy my curiousity (which got me into this in the first place), for my enjoyment and edification and no other reason."

"I have been fortunate to see them, but it is not a big deal in the sense that this has nothing to do with my research nor will this personal experience be related as far as any scientific discovery. Like everyone who has seen them, there are people that will not believe you and there are people that do. This was something I did for me, not to impress anyone or “prove the species†because sightings are just that and cannot be proved because it is just one person’s story without evidence. I was awed at the appearance though, so graceful and silent and so tall. You cannot appreciate all that they are until you see for yourself. I am thankful for that opportunity."

"I am so excited about our findings and am anxious myself to get them out into the public. Wish science wasn’t so slow."

So while some bigfoot proponents might stand and applaud her musings, I'm guessing most real scientists are rolling their eyes. How can someone remain unbiased when they've written those things? She's right on one point -- she should not have even brought it up.

So much for being unable to give any details.

RayG

[Guest]

Those aren't details about the study.

[Guest Jodie]

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

Yes, because in the grand scheme of things we don't matter.

[Guest]

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).

You picked a poor example with Fouke. Lyle Blackburn's new Beast of Boggy Creek book includes 72 reports from the area going back to as far as 1908 and as recently as 2010. Heck back in 2010 when I ran into Lyle there, I was out that night with others and we had a rather intriguing incident with what may have been one very close. Viewed on a thermal cam after a near response to a callblast and some movement heard and when myself and another flanked the woods near the thermal hit, a loud snap and movement was heard as it exscaped out behind the other down the hill into the swamp. We went in after it and found the just broke green sapling broke down at about 4' high from its burst out of the situation. All of the incident I captured on audio and photographed the break. Normal 5 toed track casts have been made in ther area in recent years too. Have a good day

Edited April 15, 2012 by GEARMAN

[Doc Holliday]

as far as divulging details, bf ,dna,nda etc etc..

imo, if it were me i would make every effort to "lay low" & out of the public eye until everything was finished,reviewed,tested & approved.

barring an unfortunate leak to the public it would seem best to me to avoid the bashing and/or argument & say nothing until it was airtight or debunked,whichever the case may be.

but then again,i suppose it makes for good forum ammo/discussion.....jodies right, we dont matter ...but we sure help to keep things stirred up

[Guest swanky slinky]

i go on an employment induced Rip Van Winkle intraweb Blackout and this thread explodes bigger than a Dyer RV roadside fire. Should I go back and read from page 80 or what is the one line summary?

[Guest]

Soon.

[Guest RayG]

Those aren't details about the study.

If I understand correctly, this study isn't just about DNA results. This study will turn the world on its ear, so to speak. It will prove, through DNA analysis, the existence of a creature presently unaccepted by mainstream science. When she makes comments prior to the release of any official scientific disclosure, to the effect that:

~I know they exist, I saw and actually observed one of these gentle 10-foot-tall beasts.~

How does that NOT affect her study? How could anyone peer-reviewing her submission ignore her bias if they read what she's written? It sounds like she's setting herself up so that if/when mainstream science doesn't hop on board and agree with her study, she has the old, 'Well, it doesn't matter whether they accepted my study or not, I know what I saw, and I know they exist.'

Not good science, but will likely please a good number of bigfoot proponents.

And if that's how it plays out, I suspect the anti-science stance of some individuals will be strengthened, skeptics will be left saying it was another case of much ado about nothing, and the mystery will still be no closer to being solved.

Maybe there is no solution.

swanky: you snooze, you lose.

JohnC: Perfect summation.

RayG

[AaronD]

Just curious, how many of you have ever met Dr. Ketchum in person? And of those, do any of you know her on a first name basis?

[Guest spurfoot]

RayG, does this mean that an orthnithologist such as Audubon is discredited because he said he saw certain birds, and worse yet, documented some by drawings, not photographs. Everything about Audubon's methodology has been criticized by Bigfoot critics when the same is applied to Bigfoot.

What say you Sasceptic ? Are any of your methods similar in kind to Bigfoot observations ? Some obviously might use modern technologies, some might not. Let's hear about the ones that are simply eye-witness observations.

[indiefoot]

Didn't she say she was glad the DNA work was complete before she had an encounter? How many scientists are a part of her study? Have the rest of them seen a Bigfoot? Can't sweep her co-authors under the rug now can we?

I'm guessing there are scientists out there writing papers every day that are as goofy as an outhouse rat, but their science is right.

[Guest]

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

Jodie all I was doing was replying to this post by slimwitless

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).

From your post I believe that is your position,If that is not your position then sorry. But what HR said in is post, just doesn't work.

That's like somebody sitting at the blackjack table and placing their bet after the dealer flipped his cards. That is not really a fair position to be in, just because your afraid of being burned or being wrong, Why? it's not like your going to loose your house,or you or anybody else were never wrong about something before. I just don't think it's really fair to Melba,to bash her so you don't get burned and then if it turns to be true your going to be in her corner,

You can't have it both ways.

Edited April 16, 2012 by zigoapex

[southernyahoo]

Now, when do we have a tipping point where the available "positive" evidence begins to outweigh the "negative" evidence.

I can't imagine there is a tipping point for you without knowing what you call positive evidence.

[Guest Jodie]

Jodie all I was doing was replying to this post by slimwitless

From your post I believe that is your position,If that is not your position then sorry. But what HR said in is post, just doesn't work.

That's like somebody sitting at the blackjack table and placing their bet after the dealer flipped his cards. That is not really a fair position to be in, just because your afraid of being burned or being wrong, Why? it's not like your going to loose your house,or you or anybody else were never wrong about something before. I just don't think it's really fair to Melba,to bash her so you don't get burned and then if it turns to be true your going to be in her corner,

You can't have it both ways.

Sir, I do not know Melba personally, what I say about her FB posts are strictly about her presentation.

Now can I ask you why you are honing in on me when I am one of many in this thread that share the same opinion? Is my nut magnet on high today?

Let me tell you something, a woman can have any opinion she wants and change her mind tomorrow. If you haven't figured that one out yet, then I don't know what else to tell you.

I will continue to bash the FB posts to my heart's content and if she is successful then I will promptly forgive her for her bad form. I believe I do not need to ask you to either agree or disagree with that.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Jodie

[Guest RayG]

RayG, does this mean that an orthnithologist such as Audubon is discredited because he said he saw certain birds, and worse yet, documented some by drawings, not photographs. Everything about Audubon's methodology has been criticized by Bigfoot critics when the same is applied to Bigfoot.

Not sure I see the correlation.

First, Dr. Ketchum holds a doctorate in veterinary medicine, not ornithology, and we're talking bigfoot not birds.

Second, Audubon died in 1851, long before any kind of genetic DNA testing was developed.

Third, in an age prior to photography, Audubon was noted for his detailed illustrations of birds. I'm not aware of any drawing, illustration, painting, or photograph of bigfoot presented by Dr. Ketchum.

Fourth, Audubon studied birds up close in the field. I have no knowledge of Dr. Ketchum studying bigfoot up close in the field.

Fifth, to my knowledge Audubon didn't author a scientific paper on a unknown, unidentified species of bird that was nothing like any bird previously known to science.

Sixth, I never said Dr. Ketchum should be discredited because she claims to have seen a bigfoot, I asked how would it be possible for peer-reviewers to ignore her bias.

As for Audubon's methodology... his was to hunt birds for sport, and collect specimens for drawing. I'm unaware of anyone successfully utilizing the same methodology with bigfoot.

RayG