Jump to content
Guest

The Ketchum Report

Recommended Posts

southernyahoo

I think the difference is not only in academic credibility and financial motivation, but also professionalism. It seems obvious to me that a prestigious institution like The Max Planck Institute could do whatever it wants with Sasquatch data, while an unknown person like Ketchum can't. But whatever is going on with Ketchum, she isn't handling it well. A publicist would be able to straighten out this mess easily, probably by simply being more transparent about what is going on behind the scenes. They wouldn't have to reveal the results, all they need to do is go into detail about what is taking so long. If the paper got kicked back, or there is a lawsuit, or she is trying to get some kind of deal with some kind of a media company, simply being forthright and stating these things would be good enough. I can also understand her sitting on multimedia proof of Sasquatch being on her property - if that is indeed true - but she should have not said anything until after the paper is released. The rants on Facebook are odd and make her look less credible every time she makes a post.

I have to agree. Ketchum's communication skills are disheartening. If she has legitimate data then she needs to stay on point in the lab and hire a publicist.

You are contradicting yourself, saying anything or something only fuels the fodder, which has no bearing on the science in the paper. It may influence someones doubt or optimism but "that" doesn't mean much in the end.

After 2 weeks of silence, I expected more rambling than that on the fb page. I especially expected to see the 2 posters dogging the Oxford study. No mention, I'm surprised. If you had to wager today who would publish first, Ketchum or Sykes, who would you lay your money on?

If Sykes were to publish positive results using the same amount of data, my money would be on Ketchum. She's miles ahead of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaun

If Sykes were to publish positive results using the same amount of data, my money would be on Ketchum. She's miles ahead of him.

Is she though? We don't actually know where she is in relation to getting anything published. All we get from her is 'soon', and we've been hearing that for quite some time.

At least Sykes is well published, know how a paper submission works, and has given us an expected date. Given his history I think it's safe to bet he knows if he can or can't deliver by the date he's given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Out of tens or maybe HUNDREDS of thousands of people in the woods and who knows how many trail cams looking for Sassy over the many years and no credible video or pics and then, as if by magic, not one, but a whole FAMILY of Sassy's show up on the property of the person that just so happens to be compiling a study to prove SASSY is real.

Wait, I thought Dr. Ketchum was claiming that her cavorting bigfoot family was on a property at a habituation site in Oklahoma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shoot1

You are contradicting yourself, saying anything or something only fuels the fodder, which has no bearing on the science in the paper. It may influence someones doubt or optimism but "that" doesn't mean much in the end...

I don't think so - clarifying what is taking so long with the paper is one thing, while saying "And oh, by the way, a whole fricking family of Sasquatch practically lives in my back yard and you're just going to have to trust me because I refuse to release any photos to prove it" ...is another thing altogether. I'm not saying that it is not possible, but her attitude makes both situations seem preposterous. The only reason she still has my attention because reading about Ketchum is as addicting as watching a soap opera, but because of this I've also started to look at her less seriously. It's as fascinating as watching a train wreck in slow motion and I think I'm not the only person who will be a whole hell of a lot more skeptical about her results because of this drama.

Edited by shoot1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Given the Oxford timeline of being published by 12-2012, the Ketchum study is having their hands forced now. Choices: A-IF it's supposedly submitted and accepted and reviewed, hope the journal publishes soon. B- take the study and Erickson's work and release it all without review. C- keep on doing what they have been and hope Sykes stumbles or can't complete. D- do nothing and go down in flames. E- be the second study to come out. Obviously, someone here had previously stated that it seems they want the attention and drama. If not, ZIP IT and PROVE IT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
indiefoot

Wait, I thought Dr. Ketchum was claiming that her cavorting bigfoot family was on a property at a habituation site in Oklahoma.

She has mentioned visiting a site in Oklahoma, she also has ranch property in Texas. She may have visited other sites as well as she has gotten to know a number of folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunflower

Melba did not say exactly where she was when she saw a family. So where do people get these tidbits of information? Please point me to the sentence where she says when, where and whom.....I'm listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BFSleuth

Melba did not say exactly where she was when she saw a family. So where do people get these tidbits of information? Please point me to the sentence where she says when, where and whom.....I'm listening.

On her FB page:

"Now that I have seen them, it is more interesting and I Know volumes now, but once again, I didn't seek that out, it came to me quite unexpectedly on my lease."

So it seems that her sighting was on her lease property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chelefoot

After 2 weeks of silence, I expected more rambling than that on the fb page. I especially expected to see the 2 posters dogging the Oxford study. No mention, I'm surprised. If you had to wager today who would publish first, Ketchum or Sykes, who would you lay your money on?

She and Sally both have made comments saying that they welcome further research. I'm trying to find the specific quote but facebook is acting freaky today and won't load for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunflower

People have leases all over the country. Her lease could be anywhere.....????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

I don't think so - clarifying what is taking so long with the paper is one thing, while saying "And oh, by the way, a whole fricking family of Sasquatch practically lives in my back yard and you're just going to have to trust me because I refuse to release any photos to prove it" ...is another thing altogether. I'm not saying that it is not possible, but her attitude makes both situations seem preposterous. The only reason she still has my attention because reading about Ketchum is as addicting as watching a soap opera, but because of this I've also started to look at her less seriously. It's as fascinating as watching a train wreck in slow motion and I think I'm not the only person who will be a whole hell of a lot more skeptical about her results because of this drama.

Clarifying what is taking so long with the paper would only offer cynics an opportunity to call her "reasons" an "excuse" since she still couldn't release proof of the paper's existence let alone the other proof. I wouldn't take that bait, and wouldn't expect her to. Dr. Ketchum practically lives in Monster Central in texas bigfooter's terms, so experiencing something on a lease in that vicinity wouldn't surprise most texas researchers. Be skeptical all you want, it doesn't change the evidence at hand, or any publishable conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spurfoot
538672_10150991809556119_72329886_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist

Given the Oxford timeline of being published by 12-2012, the Ketchum study is having their hands forced now. Choices: A-IF it's supposedly submitted and accepted and reviewed, hope the journal publishes soon. B- take the study and Erickson's work and release it all without review. C- keep on doing what they have been and hope Sykes stumbles or can't complete. D- do nothing and go down in flames. E- be the second study to come out. Obviously, someone here had previously stated that it seems they want the attention and drama. If not, ZIP IT and PROVE IT.

If all Syke's seeks is mtDNA which is all I have seen specified or alluded to.... to date; then, you would be comparing apples to oranges if the Ketchum study is pursuing both mtDNA and a complete nuDNA genome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Why would you need to go as far as nuDNA to prove they exist? If you want to know what it's lineage is sure, go all out like Ketchum has claimed to do. Replicated unknown DNA from several different animals all pointing to an unknown primate= proven. Then let the testing begin with the rest of the labs. Ketchup/ Hersom/ Paulides/ whoever is calling the shots there is overkill just to prove they are real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...