The Ketchum Report

[Guest parnassus]

The Lindsay post sounds like someone is feeding him baloney. I assume he is babbling about Y-X amelogenin peaks. That's not gonna cut it. jmho.

Edited April 17, 2012 by parnassus

[southernyahoo]

Actually, the issue is not about positive evidence (I agree that there is evidence for Bigfoot). The issue the existence of negative evidence. This is overlooked by Bigfooters. By overlooking or ignoring negative evidence, problems like this crop up: http://www.texlarese..._incident01.htm

I copied this report and showed it to a co-worker who lives near this location (and only 40 minutes or so from where I am sitting now, in a major city). He is no scoftic, or skeptic. He couldn't stop laughing. "Are you kidding me? Give me a break!" He understood, instinctively, the problem with taking such a report seriously.

Looking forward to that negative evidence thread Jerry, Discussion of sightings should be taken to a like thread to keep this one clear of it.

[indiefoot]

There are two competing theories here. One theory supports the existence of a primate as yet catalogued in North America. The other says there is no un-catalogued large primate in North America. Both sides examine evidence submitted to support the two theories.

I don't see two kinds of evidence just two different theories. "Negative evidence" sounds wrong, but maybe I'm missing something.

[Guest gershake]

"Update: There is not a pub date yet but things are going well. So much more fiction as usual. Very entertaining."

[Guest wadaguy]

Robert Lindsay has a new post up predicting the Ketchum report will likely be published either this week or next. Lots more...

Hmmmmmm? For some reason, that sounds very familiar!

[Guest Nalajr]

All this and she still can't or won't even tell WHAT jounal she's working with. After what, 2 or 3 YEARS and you STILL can't say the name of the journal?

You'd think she was working on a plan to revamp our nuclear weaponry complete with launch codes. Oh and lets not forget the FAMOUS (& worthless) Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Yep it just about that time of year for all this to start ramping up again. The next "leak" will have it out around Halloween. Then when that passes, it'll be "right around Christmas."

Nalajr

[Guest BFSleuth]

Interesting article in NYT regarding the rise in retractions in science journals:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/science/rise-in-scientific-journal-retractions-prompts-calls-for-reform.html?hpw

All this and she still can't or won't even tell WHAT jounal she's working with. After what, 2 or 3 YEARS and you STILL can't say the name of the journal?

If you make a submission to a journal and it is in peer review, if you reveal that, "I'm going to have my paper published in 'XYZ Journal'" prior to their permission to do so, your paper is dead in the water. If you want to find out more, go to any major science journal online and check out their submission guidelines.

[Guest MikeG]

Oh and lets not forget the FAMOUS (& worthless) Non-Disclosure Agreement.

I'm curious as to why you think an NDA might be worthless. I hold a few, and they're pretty precious to me. ........but I'm interested in your perspective.

Mike

[Guest]

'FuriousGeorge':

This is all we have so far. We have proven hoaxes. People purposefully falsifying their data. We also have people that hand in false data but don't do it on purpose, like reporting misidentifications and blobsquatches that are actually porcupines and such.

This is not factually correct. We have forensically typed hairs (Moore, et al), we have cast tracks and body impressions with discernable biometric indicators. We have eyewitness testimony that contains consistent detail crossing 100s of miles in space and years in time, going all the way back to aboriginal times (meaning that the people involved had no involvement with each other, yet their testimonies are similar)

I think the magic number is 10,000. After about 10,000 false reports (which happened somewhere in the '80's), "science" gets to officially say "pul-eeze" without being called bias.

ANY such statement indicates bias, particularly in the face of the evidence to hand. The number of "false reports" (and it should be noted that it is your opinion they are all false, not a demonstrable fact), is not relevant in any manner. All it takes is ONE confirmed report and the entire so-called "negative case" is out the window.

'Particle Noun':

I really don't fault scientists for being overly skeptical of this study, or the phenomena in general. But there will certainly be a good deal of self reflection on how science has allowed a relic hominid (or whatever) to go undiscovered right under it's nose for hundreds of years. Assuming there is anything to this.

It is easy to fault Science (and scientists) for intellectual dishonesty and bias when they display both in the face of the mountain ov evidence that BF does exist. Their unreasoning and unrasonable demand for absolute proof prior to any engagement on their part is a betrayal of their intellectual credentials and calling, and an indictment of their objectivity.

'RayG'

How so? Since when has bigfoot been captured or identified?

Let's go back and look at what I was responding to (said by you):

Absolutely nothing. Keep in mind however, we're not talking about any regular animal, we're talking about the Kraken of the woods, the Holy Grail of the deep forest, the creature whispered about around the campfire, the legendary beastie that has so far eluded any and all attempts at capture or identification. No sir, this ain't no normal critter.

which was in response to this (from MikeG):

Can you tell me what exactly the problem is with a scientist saying that they have seen the animal they are studying?

That is classic special pleading. Your statement is that Dr Ketchum's eyewitness testimony should be criticized (and held against her study) because there is something super-duper special about BF that, unlike if she'd claimed to see a bear or a deer or whatever, it requires that her study be viewed any differently than any other study from a scientist who has seen such other animals.

It is an asymmetric application of standards.

It is not intellectually honest or impartial.

As others have said, the data is ALL. It would not matter if Dr Ketchum was the biggest nutjob (mods note I am NOT calling her a that) since Beckjord or the guy who spends all afternoon on the streetcorner ranting about the Purple Unicorn Conspiracy. If her data is sound, it should be accepted without reservation or "shading" based on what she says or believes outside the study.

'jerrywayne'

Mulder,

Actually I’m trying to point out the existence of negative evidence, which itself is not conclusive, but seriously suggestive. My thinking that true believers and advocates never consider negative evidence, never enters their mind really, has been confirmed. Thanks.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence" - Carl Sagan There is no such thing as "negative evidence". ONE piece of evidence forever closes the door of "no evidence", and we have had entire books written on the evidence for BF.

We go back to the coelecanth. For 100s of millenia, no evidence whatsoever that they still existed...then we caught one. They were there all the time, we just didn't see them.

Let’s consider two boats adrift, one with bears, rattlesnakes, and the like, and the other with Bigfoot, Fouke Monster, Mo Mo, etc. Your argument does not work for me. You want to put the man-like Monsters in the boat with bears and rattlesnakes and liken them to one another because you have not encounter any of them in the woods. But really, it is more like you are putting the bears and rattlesnakes in the boat with the “cryptidsâ€. This doesn’t work because we have conclusive evidence of the existence of bears and rattlesnakes in Missouri, and do not have such for the Forest People and Wood Apes. Your argument is question begging.

No, YOUR argument is special pleading. That BF must be considered separate from everything else when it comes to the chance of encountering it in the woods.

My (entirely accurate and valid) point was and is that there is NOT a statisitically fixed possibility of any random person going out into any random woods at any random time of year and seeing or not seeing a bf. Each individual encounter scenario is a unique moment in time, a unique confluence of circumstances that can never be precisely duplicated.

Put another way: How would the fact that no one has claimed to see a BF at the bottom of the Marianas Trench in January invalidate a report from someone at 2200' up the side of Mt Ranier in July?

Yes, it is my opinion that 3 or 4 toed tracks are spurious. I understand my opinion holds little water with you. May I bring in some qualified experts:

Alton Higgins: “In my opinion, no three-toed track has anything to do with the Sasquatch or any undocumented primate.â€

Jeff Meldrum: “I have never seen a credible three-toed track.â€

(Both quoted by Blackburn, The Beast of Boggy Creek, p.198)

]

Argumentum ad authority, jerry? I hold Dr Meldrum in particular in high regard (which is why you used him, of course), but that doesn't mean that the simple fact he said that means that all variant-toe tracks are automatically invalid. It simply means that he himself has not seen one he feels is convincing.

I really expected better of you jerry...

'jerrywayne'

Actually, the issue is not about positive evidence (I agree that there is evidence for Bigfoot). The issue the existence of negative evidence.

Because "negative evidence" is not evidence at all. It is a logical fallacy passed off by Skeptics as some form of evidence.

This is overlooked by Bigfooters. By overlooking or ignoring negative evidence, problems like this crop up: http://www.texlarese..._incident01.htm

I copied this report and showed it to a co-worker who lives near this location (and only 40 minutes or so from where I am sitting now, in a major city). He is no scoftic, or skeptic. He couldn't stop laughing. "Are you kidding me? Give me a break!" He understood, instinctively, the problem with taking such a report seriously.

There are places in the city I live in where it is entirely to encounter large, forrest-dwelling wildlife. I screwed up my car a couple of years ago swerving to miss a deer in a suburb, for example.

Circumstance and location, jerry...circumstance an location.

Any attempt at blanket statements (or theories like yours) is fatallly flawed from the inception.

'parnassus'

The Lindsay post sounds like someone is feeding him baloney. I assume he is babbling about Y-X amelogenin peaks. That's not gonna cut it. jmho.

Nothing short of a full body or body part is going to cut it for your parn...why pretend otherwise?

Edited April 17, 2012 by MikeG
Disrespectful generalisation removed

[Guest]

All this and she still can't or won't even tell WHAT jounal she's working with. After what, 2 or 3 YEARS and you STILL can't say the name of the journal?

Nalajr

Check your dates friend. It hasn't been anywhere near 2-3 years.

Other projects have been promised for years though and a little research on your end will point you in the right direction as to where those emanate from.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Not yet Mulder, not yet. As of now, there has been no paradigm shift. These items you have mentioned are not indexed in a library, they are posted on a blog.

There is a difference between being bias and having standards. Standards that can be measured. Can these items you have listed be measured? Yes, they can. Have they been submitted? Or are they too flimsy and they know it? It's not about the claim. That is the way science used to work. Now it's all about the verification by a means that can be measured. When I say "standards" and prior "hoaxes", I'm talking about the Georgia Boy's et al. Please tell me you acknowledge their existence. They were on tv.

If these items are proof of bf, why are we waiting for this paper?

What happens if/when the paper comes out and is proven to be true? Will science still be bias? Should I not take their word that the paper is true, if they are so dishonest?

This paper being considered to be reviewed and now being reviewed should be enough to show that science is not bias. If you still feel they are bias, then it is up to you to prove that they are, use their own methods against them, and dethrone them all. That's a tall order. It has been done before.

[Guest]

Not yet Mulder, not yet. As of now, there has been no paradigm shift. These items you have mentioned are not indexed in a library, they are posted on a blog.

So if it's "indexed in a library" it's evidence, but if it isn't it's not? Who gets to say what gets indexed? It's a circular reasoning/argument from authority "combo plate" argument, to wit: It's not evidence because Science has not accepted it as such.

It's arbitrary and self-serving on the part of Science to be able to fix the rules of what is "evidence" as it chooses, conveniently able to dismiss anything it decides it doesn't like.

It's a classic Skeptic dodge:

Step 1: Declare there is no evidence.

Step 2: Dismiss/throw out any evidence proffered on some trumped up basis.

Step 3: Declare there is no evidence.

The only reason they can get away with it is because Science has conned people into thinking that it and it's processes are objective and beyond intellectual criticism. As has been demonstrated elsewhere, neither of those assertions are in fact true.

That being the case, why then does Science get to claim the intellectual and moral "high ground" and get to tell US what it will and won't accept in terms of "proving" our case?

There is a difference between being bias and having standards. Standards that can be measured.

By Science, and changed at it's whim

Can these items you have listed be measured? Yes, they can. Have they been submitted? Or are they too flimsy and they know it? It's not about the claim. That is the way science used to work. Now it's all about the verification by a means that can be measured.

Any scientist can make the same observations as Drs Meldrum, Schaller, Swinder, et al. Take the same measurements, perform the same analyses. The simple fact is that they REFUSE to do so, and then play the "science is what WE say it is" card when proponents rightly protest their lack of intellectual good faith.

When I say "standards" and prior "hoaxes", I'm talking about the Georgia Boy's et al. Please tell me you acknowledge their existence. They were on tv.

No one is denying the Georgia Boys, et al exist. Then again, they are not central to the case for BF in any way shape or form. There's plenty of evidence out there no way associated with them.

If these items are proof of bf, why are we waiting for this paper?

Back you go again to the self-serving circular logic of "if it were evidence, Science would have accepted it. Since Science didn't, it's not evidence".

This paper being considered to be reviewed and now being reviewed should be enough to show that science is not bias. If you still feel they are bias, then it is up to you to prove that they are, use their own methods against them, and dethrone them all. That's a tall order. It has been done before.

Yep, which is why I refuse to cede them the position of correctness.

The CRU scandal, the Korean cloning experiments, suppression of ID science, etc...all powerful reasons NOT to accept Science's pronouncements on BF when there is plentiful evidence to hand they are not just wrong, but biased.

[Guest]

We are very very close to 150 pages. Here is where we stand. THERE HAS BEEN NO CONFIRMATION THAT THE PAPER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION. IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS NO PUBLICATION DATE. THE PAPER AS OF THIS DATE HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION.

MY PREDICTION: THIS PAPER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN 2012. WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT!!! THE END!

[Guest MikeG]

THERE HAS BEEN NO CONFIRMATION THAT THE PAPER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION does not equal THE PAPER AS OF THIS DATE HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION.

Any particular reason you're shouting?

Mike

[HOLDMYBEER]

Thank you, bigfootnis. I have been gone for a month. Nothing has changed.