The Ketchum Report

[Guest MikeG]

.......throw away time, money and reputation..........?

Mike

[Guest Tontar]

Jeff Meldrum is an example of a person that believes so strongly in bigfoot that he has said that he has been overlooked for promotions. His reputation, and his career has suffered for his belief in bigfoot. He is an example of someone that would do just as you suggest someone wouldn't.

A parallel study? So tell me, what have they found so far? I have seen all sorts of "studies" that eat up lots of time, money and whatever else. Huge research studies dedicated to finding the Ark, or the ark of the covenant, or the burial site of Moses. The thing is, outside the Bible there is no evidence those things ever existed. I'm not trying to go religious here, just posing examples of huge studies that may not have anything historical, or tangible as a basis for that study. If there is a DNA study being conducted collaboratively between Meldrum and an Oxford professor, what does that really mean? Does it mean they actually have some tissue? From where? From that piece of fur that was found in the snow, identity unknown? No bones, no body, nothing?

If you want to interject an Oxford study as proof that there is some legitimacy to DNA evidence, flesh it out with where the DNA came from.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Dr. Ketchum has gone quiet lately. The calm before the storm?

[Guest BFSleuth]

Tontar, I would respond but that would mean running in circles, and I hated distance running on the track.

Just the facts, stay with the facts.

[Guest Tontar]

So tell me what the facts are again?

[Guest BFSleuth]

Let's start with your post:

Evidence of non-existence is a the logical fallacy, dude. You can't show evidence of something that doesn't exist. But there are some tell tale signs, however. Like not one single bit of organic material from one. Not one little bit of cellular tissue. Not one single cell. Not one single hair. Not one single poop. Not one single bone. Not a tooth. Nothing. Footprints in sand and mud? Sorry, there's no proof of what made those prints.

So you want to know what non-evidence there is? There is the non-evidence of the bigfoots themselves.

There is also evidence, substantial evidence, that sightings and tracks have been faked. The only thing that suggests they might exist are tracks, sightings, and the PGF. Tracks and sightings have been shown to be faked in many cases. That is evidence against the track making primates existing. That leaves the PGF. That's why the PGF is so valuable, so precious, and so worthy of defending tooth and nail. It is the most compelling piece of evidence that bigfoot exists. Without it, the rest is pretty weak, and already established as easy to fake. So the biggest, most important piece of evidence for bigfoot to exist is the PGF. There's a lot of evidence against it being authentic. Which requires radical tactics to dismiss that evidence, and radical tactics to try to assert otherwise.

Where to begin?

Physical evidence in the form of hair, poop, etc. have been collected and are part of not only Ketchum's DNA study but now also Meldrum's. You can ask some of the forum members for the chain of evidence after publication and NDA's no longer apply.

Trackways - yes some have been proven to be hoaxed. Based on that you wish to proclaim that all have been hoaxed, but in particular there are trackways that couldn't have been hoaxed. There is an existing challenge on this forum for any skeptic to try to emulate the Oregon trackway, for example. But I haven't heard anyone step up to the plate on that one.

PGF - yes, I understand your true believer point of view regarding how this is a hoax and your position that somehow if this can be proved as a hoax then the whole BF thing will come crashing down. I'm sorry to inform you that many if not most BF proponents don't actually hold the PGF as the one and only true evidence of BF. We are all still waiting for you to show evidence of a man walking in a suit that looks like a real animal and doesn't make us spew coffee out our nose. If it was such a simple thing to have faked the PGF then I'm sure the must be video footage somewhere online that you could easily download that would show such an incredible work of art. Please find that and post it in the PGF forum, the gold standard for hoaxing if you will. I won't hold my breath.

So you want to know what non-evidence there is? There is the non-evidence of the bigfoots themselves. - this is where the circular logic starts making me dizzy...

Perhaps it would be well served for everyone to read Glickman's paper. Tontar, if you would like to undertake a refutation of Glickman I would be the first in line to read it:

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/docs/nasirpt.pdf

[Guest]

Really? I'd say that is completely false. There are plenty of ideas and even reports about bigfoot that absolutely DO require accepting magic, and that defy the laws of physics. Bio-stealth, bio-cloaking, telepathy, the ability to vanish into thin air, bodies that vaporize upon death, claims they ARE aliens, mind control, many of the habituation claims include magical abilities that the bigfoots have.

None of those are required to be accepted in order for there to be a bigfoot. There can be a large, bipedal woods ape that possesses none of those qualities.

Not so with the other mentioned entities, the existence of magic and/or a rethinking of physics being required to accept the entity.

Not to mention they are just about the only animal that is accepted as factually existing by a given segment of the population which has not a single tangible, substantial bit of biological matter to verify it does exist.

Hairs. Biological indicators (tracks, body part impressions, etc) as well as blood that tested out under older tests as "unknown primate".

Accepting that bigfoot exists does in fact require the suspension of disbelief. The evidence is against existence

Please list this so-called "evidence against existence".

so one needs to relax the normal, logical requirements in order for bigfoot to be real.

Not at all. We have everything short of a body we need. Physical evidence, trace evidence, photographic evidence, eyewitness testimony that paints a largely consistent picture of an identifiable organism, etc.

We have let ourselves get so caught up in the Ketchum (and now Sykes/Meldrum) studies that we have been forgetting the voluminious case that exists supporting BF outside those studies.

[Crittergetter]

So tell me what the facts are again?

There are 4,502 Bigfoot sightings recorded in the BFRO database. There are thousands of others that are left undocumented, floating around on the net.

There are hundreds of videos, a handful of which seem to show something of value, and there are also hundreds of footprint casts that have been collected and studied by Dr. Jeff Meldrum(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Meldrum), an Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology and Adjunct Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology and holder of a B.S. in Zoology, specializing in vertabrate locomotion at Birmingham Young University, an M.S.(Master of Science) also gained at Birgmingham Young University, and a Ph.D. in anatomical sciences gained at State University in New York at Stony Brook.

There are now two parallel DNA studies being conducted, one of which includes Dr. Jeff Meldrum as well as Bryan Sykes(,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Sykes) who is a former professor of Human Genetics at Oxford University and holds a Master of Arts degree, a Ph.D, and a Doctor of Sciences degree.(http://www.oxfordancestors.com/)

The other is being run by Dr. Melba Ketchum, the director of DNA Diagnotistcs INC., which was founded in 1985 and runs DNA tests that involve, "human and animal forensics, human and animal paternity and parentage testing, disease diagnostics, trait tests, animal and human identity testing, species identification and sex determination." (http://www.dnadiagnostics.com/staff.html)

To sum up, we have thousands of documented sightings, hundreds of footprints, a couple dozen videos that seem to have something of value in them, and a handful of passionate scientists, who hold the necessary credentials to be perfectly qualified for their work, studying what evidence that they are qualified to study and all of them seem to be saying that there is something to this Bigfoot phenomenon.

And that, Tontar, I think is a pretty good summary of the facts at hand.

At this point I think the claim that there is 'no evidence' for Bigfoot is a misunderstanding of the evidence presented or a negligent use of the english language at best, and dishonest at worst. It would be more accurate to say that there is 'no hard evidence' or only 'circumstantial evidence' . In fact, I think it would be appropriate to say that there is an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence. More then enough, I imagine, to get someone convicted in Court and sentenced to death.

Now you may say that is a fault in the judicial system, and you may easily say so, however it is the judicial system we have to work with and your opinion does not diminish the likelihood that if you had the same amount of evidence for a murder, it would be an open and shut case.

Jeff Meldrum is an example of a person that believes so strongly in bigfoot that he has said that he has been overlooked for promotions. His reputation, and his career has suffered for his belief in bigfoot. He is an example of someone that would do just as you suggest someone wouldn't.

Also, I think the point that was trying to be made by interjecting Dr. Meldrum, and indeed, Dr. Sykes, is not that they're in a situation where it makes no logical sense to pursue something like Bigfoot, but rather, it makes no logical sense for them to pursue something like Bigfoot or be involved with it in any fashion unless they thought that there was something to be gained and that they are likely to gain it.

Now given what I have said, do I expect you to suddenly and radically change your position on the matter? No I don't. All evidence I've examined up until now would say precisely the opposite, however, I do hope that you change your position ever so slightly. Instead of thinking that .. "Accepting that bigfoot exists does in fact require the suspension of disbelief.", instead you begin to consider it something that does not require the suspension of disbelief, and seems in fact, possible. Whether or not you concede it probable is another thing entirely. Considering it possible is something I think that everyone discussing Bigfoot should concede because of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence involved.

In fact, I would posit that the denial of possibility at this point is illogical and potentially dishonest, at least in the academic sense. I also would like to apologize ahead of time if my post offends you in some way, Tontar, that is not my intent. I am merely stating my opinions based on the information that I have presented to you, and in fact only post at all in the hope that the discussion my be progressed to a new stage.

I admit that I have little hope for this goal, but I figured I would give 100% to the attempt.

Wishing you and all others who read this well,

Crittergetter

[Guest Cervelo]

As always a bunch of anecdotal, unknown "facts", reports, ect ect blah blah blah and as yet unpublished reports equal only one thing at this point....no Bigfoot

Show me the Bigfoot

[Crittergetter]

As always a bunch of anecdotal, unknown "facts", reports, ect ect blah blah blah and as yet unpublished reports equal only one thing at this point....no Bigfoot

Show me the Bigfoot

I don't know what you mean by putting quotation marks around the word 'facts' there, if you are indeed replying to me. All of the facts that I presented are, to the best of my knowledge, true. There are 4,502 recorded BIgfoot sightings on BFRO(Their individual veracity is questionable, but I didn't say it wasn't), I added them all together myself. Also the information about Meldrum, Sykes, and Ketchum all appear to be accurate as well. Though the statement that some of the videos hold value was basically my opinon I suppose, though I thought that was pretty clear...

Requesting to see a Bigfoot, alive or dead, on an internet forum is a bit foolish. It should be obvious that I don't have one(I never claimed to have one anyway) and if I did have one why would I go about showing it to a random person on the internet. Even if I did, the logistics involved would be extremely complicated and it would be rather costly due to the required travel and the packaging costs involved. Also, you probably already would have heard of it.

I wasn't trying to convince you of the existence of Bigfoot anyway, I was merely recounting the facts and basically describing them as I see them. Perhaps it could be said that I was attempting to convince people, not you specifically, that the possibility of Bigfoot exists but I would never presume to attempt to prove the existence of Bigfoot without the evidence, especially on a medium that basically precludes the ability to view any hard evidence that I, hypothetically, would have.

You are correct, however, in your assessment. Despite all this, there is no identified Bigfoot remains, scat or hair currently documented and held in scientific hands. That was not what my post was really about though.

I'm sorry, but it appears to me that your post is irrelevant.

Also to reduce upwards of 4,502 reports to a 'bunch' in description is a bit of a stretch lingustically, as it seems to indicate a small number as opposed to a large number.

EDIT: Grammar and sentence structure

Edited May 18, 2012 by Crittergetter

[southernyahoo]

A parallel study? So tell me, what have they found so far? I have seen all sorts of "studies" that eat up lots of time, money and whatever else. Huge research studies dedicated to finding the Ark, or the ark of the covenant, or the burial site of Moses. The thing is, outside the Bible there is no evidence those things ever existed. I'm not trying to go religious here, just posing examples of huge studies that may not have anything historical, or tangible as a basis for that study. If there is a DNA study being conducted collaboratively between Meldrum and an Oxford professor, what does that really mean? Does it mean they actually have some tissue? From where? From that piece of fur that was found in the snow, identity unknown? No bones, no body, nothing?

If you want to interject an Oxford study as proof that there is some legitimacy to DNA evidence, flesh it out with where the DNA came from.

They have found BF to be worthy of study because other scientists say there is unique DNA in the samples. The DNA comes from the samples. The samples have small pieces of flesh. A new hominin is the conclusion to be confirmed or refuted. That is a pretty good basis and a compliment to Dr. Ketchum because they are taking that seriously. Can you dig it!!!

[Guest]

I'm sure this "evidence FOR existence vs. evidence AGAINST existence" stuff is one of the most common discussions on these forums. But as was pointed out several pages ago ( -- sorry to link to my own post), evidence against bigfoot's existence doesn't always amount to, "The evidence FOR bigfoot is fake!" or some such permutation. It also includes accepted knowledge about animals in general.

The simplest way I can summarize it is: A) there are general needs an animal has as far as caloric intake, and the combination of purported size of bigfoot combined with the biomes they are supposedly found in, makes it highly dubious they could survive in North America. Lack of a body is not definitive proof that big does not exist, but that itself strong evidence.

[Guest Tontar]

Critter, thanks for the respect offered in your note. I appreciate that a lot. I understand what you are saying, and I understand that you are asking me to change my perspective a little bit to allow for the possibility based on what seems like a wealth of circumstantial evidence. Please understand that I do weigh those things constantly. It's very compelling, in fact. I want there to be bigfoots in the woods. I moved to the PNW because I wanted to be able to go looking for them, to have my own experience. But as much as you or Dr. Meldrum or anyone else provides a very well thought out, rational argument for the possible existence of bigfoot, I'm still left without substantial proof. There requires a "belief" to bridge that gap. Some people believe strongly, so strongly that they call it knowing, and some people are not willing to bridge that gap with faith or belief. Solid proof is what is needed in that case. I'm hovering around waiting to see what happens. I go out hiking in the forests. I take plaster in my pack in the event I find footprints. Why would I do that, am I crazy? Maybe so, maybe a little bit, but I take plaster and water in the event I find something to cast. I wonder how many people in the forums actually go looking. I don't know if I will find anything. I don't know that there is anything TO find. Yet I go and look anyway. There are people here who have never seen one, never will see one, never go looking, yet know far better than anyone else that they still exist. That's beyond my ability to comprehend!

So changing my perspective a little bit to the side of believing they might exist, I already court that idea. I have hope. I wish. I want to believe. But I still am faced with the idea that nobody has one, or even a piece of one. I don't know what bits of bigfoot has been used for these DNA studies, but I have heard that the two that were supposedly shot,. left in the open, and then weeks later after the snow had fallen, they go back and find a scrap of fur, from who knows what? No bones? No proof that what they found was even linked to what was supposedly shot? Talk about a break in the chain of custody. It could just as likely be coyote skin for all they know, not having seen what the skin came from.

Seriously, I think there's a very slim possibility that bigfoots could exist around here. can't buy into them existing everywhere they are claimed to be, like where, Rhode Island? But they may exist around here, I don't know. If they do, I'd like to see one. And if they do, I will need to see one to believe fully that they do or can exist. Or at the very least, objective evidence accepted by scientists not fans of bigfoot. DNA may be that objective evidence. How long do you think it will take for this research to show definitive results? I don't accept that an active study means anything. The results will tell, but the process does not.

They have found BF to be worthy of study because other scientists say there is unique DNA in the samples. The DNA comes from the samples. The samples have small pieces of flesh. A new hominin is the conclusion to be confirmed or refuted. That is a pretty good basis and a compliment to Dr. Ketchum because they are taking that seriously. Can you dig it!!!

Well, can you point me to the conclusive proof of what this implies? That there is indeed flesh known to have come from a bigfoot, and not another animal. That there is some sort of conclusion based on the analysis of this flesh. As far as I know, the Ketchum report is the big deal, right? Nothing form it so far. I was under the impression it was done before the end of 2011, and that it was only waiting for review, then publishing, and the date was pushed back to January, the end of January, and now when? It's halfway through May. Any clues to when? If there is no publishing date, then what? Is the study considered valid even with no published or even publicized results?

I can dig something tangible, but so far I have not seen tangible stuff coming from DNA discussions. Where's the DNA coming from, what flesh?

PJam, nice note, and thanks for the link to the previous one. I had not seen it before, coming late to this topic. I didn't read the followups to the older post, but I will try to later.

[Guest]

Tontar, I would respond but that would mean running in circles, and I hated distance running on the track.

Just the facts, stay with the facts.

That wipes out 90% of the posts on the forum!

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

^lol

People can go a whole lifetime without ever seeing one. I know that because even people who live in remote squatchy areas all there lives normally don't see one. I think maybe we are forgetting just how rare it is to spot one, but one thing many people know for sure is that they do exist.