The Ketchum Report

[Guest BFSleuth]

People are worried because NDA's were broken, information leaked, and people can't see the report fast enough for their taste.

Not understanding issues surrounding peer review, journalistic embargo, and NDA's then people leap to the conclusion it must be a hoax.

[Guest]

I wasn't fishing for compliments regarding my demeanor, but I thank you for the kind words. Old-timers here might recall that I do have one bet regarding bigfoot: If it's ever proven to exist, I "have to" travel to Palmer, Alaska and treat my rhetorical foe Huntster to a prime rib dinner.

No, I meant to address stuff like this:

I don't know this "Snow Walker Prime" person to whom you referred, but I see the ire of skeptics regarding the Ketchum project as directed at Ketchum, not at the people who've pre-decided that she's really got what she claims. Even "ire" is too strong a word, because that continuum of skeptics includes some who think she's a victim of someone else's shenanigans as well as those who suspect that she's "shenanigan-in-chief." I guess I mean that if there was some great reveal that the entire Ketchum analysis was a sham, I don't know any skeptics whose first reaction would be start serving up heaping helpings of crow here at the BFF to people who were taken in by the hype. We might have lots to say about Ketchum, but not much about the folks who put stock in her. If Snow Walker Prime is indeed such a character, i.e., he's made statements of wanting to serve crow to folks uninvolved in the study, then I'll stand corrected.

Most skeptics realize that we cannot prove to anyone that bigfoot does not exist, but it certainly can be proven to us that it does.

sas, if she is wrong I'll gladly eat my crow and even ask for another dish just like i did when i said that ricky hatton was going to beat floyd mayweather. :-)

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I hope that cat is ok. Wait who's floyd mayweather!?

[Guest]

Fallacy? Seems more like probability.

PGF, Skookum Cast, LMS, Pine Ridge, Norway House, Cave Junction, Teslen, Memorial Day footage, Kentucky pancake video, New York bigfoot baby video, Snelgrove Lake, Bindernagel's sighting, Sierra Sounds, Bigfoot in a freezer, The 'Russian Expedition' of 2011, bigfoot handprint on a truck, Ivan Marx footage, Johor Bigfoot, Mary Green/Janice Coy farce, Japanese Yeti expedition, Myakka Skunk Ape pictures, Mike Green's Thermal Zagnut Bigfoot, Jacob's photo, Minnesota Iceman, Bobby Clarke's Manitoba bigfoot video, Bigfoot toenail, Prince Edward Island footage, bigfoot shot and killed, track size distribution paper/NASI report, Bigfoot hand in a jar, analysis by Bill Munns/Sweaty Yeti, Hairy Man Pictographs, and crypto-linguist presentations... I'm sure I missed a few, but which of these, or any other claim regarding bigfoot, have been proven true?

It ain't exactly a stellar track record.

RayG

In your opinion.

Your list may be more detailed than Drew's, but it's the same old argument by assertion fallacy, tied up with circular argumentation.

I think you've lumped quite a hodge podge of examples in your list. I hope you aren't trying to equate a DNA research paper authored by several Phd's that have probably spent hundreds if not thousands of hours on the research and writing and submission for peer review to the work of a couple hoaxers with a gorilla suit in a freezer.

You also include the Munns Report. Are you really classifying the work of Bill Munns as a hoax? He has his data set out there for review by anyone, and has noted it is a work in progress with additional work to be done. I'm baffled how you include this in your list of "disappointments".

Listing videos as disappointments, well I can certainly understand that, as most are simply suggestive of a creature without actually showing it in detail. The hoaxes, yes those are disappointing. But then to lump the work of Bill Munns and Dr. Ketchum et al in with such a strange list of items, I'm just not sure exactly what point you are trying to make, unless this was simply venting in advance ("pre-venting") in case you might be disappointed again.

Let's not forget the rejection of commonly accepted statistical norms, as in Fahrenbach's bell-curve analysis.

[Drew]

Actually, I'm not even making an argument.

When I tell Charlie Brown, 'Chuck, don't try to kick the ball, Lucy is going to pull it away at the last minute.'

That is not a fallacy, that is common sense.

Charlie Brown had unfounded faith in Lucy's willingness to play fairly.

Many Bigfooters have unfounded faith in the Bigfoot Elite's willingness to play fairly.

I am saying, 'DON'T TRY TO KICK THE FOOTBALL ANYMORE YOU ARE GOING TO BE TRICKED'

[Guest]

sas, if she is wrong I'll gladly eat my crow and even ask for another dish . . .

That'd be your prerogative; I would not be serving that crow, gloating while you ate it, or taking any joy at all in your disappointment.

[Guest]

The pattern of prior let downs compared to the current situation with Dr. Ketchum's paper may on the surface appear to be similar. However, the big difference between them is that none of the prior efforts brought together a team of Phd's to conduct DNA research, write a scholarly paper, and submit it to a journal for peer review. Certainly the Georgia boys didn't do that.

Apples and oranges IMHO.

Your reference to team of PHD's and Scholarly Paper makes my point. We were told many many months ago that there was a team of PHD's and a Scholarly Paper. Can anyone tell me where I can get the list of a team of PHD's who worked on this project? Can anyone tell me where I can go read this scholarly paper. Again we have claims with the specifics to be provided at a later date that keeps on "slipping slipping slipping into the fuuuuuuuture."

[Guest BFSleuth]

With NDA's covering everyone associated with the project there is no way to obtain a list of the scientists until the date of publication or embargo ends. You will be able to read the paper when it is published if you pay for the article, subscribe to the journal, or go to a library that carries the journal.

I know it is hard for folks that want it all right now, but we all have to wait for the peer review to be completed and the paper to be accepted for publication at a date of the journal's choosing. If the journal is a print publication the lead time to publication even after acceptance of the paper can be weeks or even months. It's not like they need to stop press to put this paper into print ahead of other papers that have already been accepted.

[bipedalist]

....We were told many many months ago that there was a team of PHD's "

...With NDA's covering everyone associated with the project there is no way to obtain a list of the scientists until the date of publication or embargo ends.

Well I did read where one reputed PhD on board as a co-author was a Department Head or former department head somewhere..... isn't that a leak or was it an RL leak? And then somewhere else where a PhD taxonomist was on board (both rumored anyways). Granted without knowing the affiliation/school/credentials that is a dead-end lead.... science departments are a dime a dozen and many department heads or former department heads..... not much of a clue really but it is another crumb served up for indigestion until Big Reveal Day.

Edited May 2, 2012 by bipedalist

[southernyahoo]

Several were real? Which ones? Who gets to choose which ones are real, and how does one arrive at that conclusion? Vouching for something means very little to science, or to anyone pursuing the truth. And truth is, none of those examples have proven anything.

All it takes is for one, just one to be proven real. Odds are, that should have happened, but it hasn't. Maybe the Ketchum paper will change that, but until/unless she gets something published, statistically speaking, I may as well put all my eggs in the basket of any of the previous historical failures.

RayG

Those things may not be proof to you Ray, that doesn't mean they don't cause acceptance for others. With proof being defined as a cogency of evidence that compells acceptance of the mind of a truth or fact, You can argue that there is no proof, but that actually depends on how the evidence affects other peoples acceptance. Proof may happen one scientist at a time, until skeptics find themselves in the minority. Would that then make them denialists?

Bottom line is, you get to decide for yourself, until you find yourself disagreeing with too many scientists for your personal taste.

Actually, I'm not even making an argument.

When I tell Charlie Brown, 'Chuck, don't try to kick the ball, Lucy is going to pull it away at the last minute.'

That is not a fallacy, that is common sense.

Charlie Brown had unfounded faith in Lucy's willingness to play fairly.

Many Bigfooters have unfounded faith in the Bigfoot Elite's willingness to play fairly.

I am saying, 'DON'T TRY TO KICK THE FOOTBALL ANYMORE YOU ARE GOING TO BE TRICKED'

I would never let Lucy hold the football. Particularly when Lucy has nothing at stake.

[Guest]

I personally applaud Dr Ketchum for continuing on with her study. Anything we know about it was leaked in the first place, and was probably never intended to be up for public discussion prematurely. Basically all she has said is, yes there is a study, yes it has some interesting, and ground breaking results, and yes, when its ready, it will published under peer review in a scientific journal. When asked how long, she says "soon". I enjoy speculating as much as the next person, but she does not owe me, or any of us, any answers at all. This forum has nothing to do with the success, results, or acceptance of her work. Based on what little information that has been leaked, I don't think anyone has enough information to make any sort of assessment as to what is taking to long or not.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Anyone else think she's hot? Or was hot?

[Guest]

sas, if she is wrong I'll gladly eat my crow and even ask for another dish just like i did when i said that ricky hatton was going to beat floyd mayweather. :-)

you thought Hatton would beat mayweather....Obviously you have alot of hope for the impossible. Hopefully it won't be the same this time but I believe you will be let down by the truth again.

[Guest vilnoori]

Actually, I'm not even making an argument.

When I tell Charlie Brown, 'Chuck, don't try to kick the ball, Lucy is going to pull it away at the last minute.'

That is not a fallacy, that is common sense.

Charlie Brown had unfounded faith in Lucy's willingness to play fairly.

Many Bigfooters have unfounded faith in the Bigfoot Elite's willingness to play fairly.

I am saying, 'DON'T TRY TO KICK THE FOOTBALL ANYMORE YOU ARE GOING TO BE TRICKED'

Huh? There's a "Bigfoot Elite?" Where?!! Should I panic now? Are they being infiltrated by the illuminati? Sheesh.

[Guest parnassus]

The pattern of prior let downs compared to the current situation with Dr. Ketchum's paper may on the surface appear to be similar. However, the big difference between them is that none of the prior efforts brought together a team of Phd's to conduct DNA research, write a scholarly paper, and submit it to a journal for peer review. Certainly the Georgia boys didn't do that.

IMHO the pattern of hoaxing is a couple of folks cooking up a scheme and then calling a press conference or in some way announcing to the world they have something great, with delays along the way, building to intense media scrutiny (or BF world scrutiny) without producing anything of substance. The "pattern" of Dr. Ketchum's effort was to begin with DNA analysis submitted by individual BF researchers that they paid for, then becoming interested when anomalous DNA was found and then Dr. Ketchum requesting more samples from the BF community, getting more samples, running more tests, etc. THEN having people within the study team outing the work without her consent before the research was finished or a paper written, then having to respond to the clamorous BF community and accusations of a big cover up or hoax effort.

Apples and oranges IMHO.

BFS, and JohnC,

I certainly agree that what Ketchum SAYS she is doing NOW is different from previous efforts. And I don't think she is a hoaxer, at this point.

But.....I think your recall of the history of this may be a little incomplete.

Have you listened to the Coast to Coast radio show and the internet radio show that Ketchum did back in 2010? Cause if you can find those shows, you might change your idea of whether or not Ketchum made some announcement to the world that she has something great.

I do think that her efforts have been similar in some ways to efforts in which one person, with perhaps some related expertise and/or just overconfidence, took a bit of evidence from this source or that, and blew it up into something big, went public with some fanfare, TV, internet, etc; and then, on reflection and consultation with those who might have more expertise, the whole thing turned out to be of little or no significance. In other words, people can be wrong, without being hoaxers. Take for example the Snelgrove Lake fiasco. In a nutshell, an insect DNA worker thought the DNA was not human. MonsterQuest!! But then it just turned out that the mutation was likely to be just "unusual' DNA, of an ethnic group of humans who lived nearby (not unusual for them). You could think of other examples. I don't think there was any hoaxing involved, but rather just a mistaken interpretation of the data, resulting from bias, wishful thinking, inexperience, etc. In the aftermath of these "disappointments", there may be some finger pointing, whitewashing, denial or retrenching, or even renewed attempts to "make it work," finally tapering down into near-silence.

There is nothing unusual about being wrong. It happens to all of us, cooks, bottle washers, scientists...why, last night, Bruce Bochy, a veteran baseball manager, failed to insert a pinch runner, and it likely cost him the game; he's right a lot, but last night he was obviously wrong (not second-guessing either) in front of a million Americans at home, and ships at sea. So? There's another game today. Get it right.

We'll see....

p

Edited May 2, 2012 by parnassus