Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Nice intro. I'm happy to say I have not lost faith in her yet. CHEERS TO DR.KETCHUM!!! eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted June 7, 2012 Admin Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) "if this doesn't come out soon, it's a hoax" I agree that Dr K wouldn't hoax it. But she could have been the victim of a hoax. You have to admit, she does seem pretty naive believing tree falls are "structures" constructed by BF. Plus the fact that she has the ability to spot many BF on an otherwise normal picture of the woods, like tracker does, undermines her judgement somewhat. You yourself posted the pics and her comments of them. Then there is this 3+ year paper without an end on sight.... It's not gonna end well. Edited June 7, 2012 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 MK isn't the only one who's gone dark. There are certain prominent posters who have been regulars on this thread to the point of several posts per day who haven't posted here in over a week. Maybe they are operating under the maxim......"when there is nothing to say, say nothing". Gigantor, I don't know how we are in a position to be critical of her ability to spot purported sasquatch in a photo when we haven't seen the photos she is looking at. For all we know, they may be as clear as a double page spread in a National Geographic magazine. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Dr. Ketchum answered a question on her FB page a short time ago as follows: I will not know until a week before it publishes. So, at this point I really do not know. I wish I did know but I have guessed wrong a couple of times with unexpected delays so now I just will wait till it is set in stone with no speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Link: http://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum/posts/451496048195850?comment_id=5829329&offset=0&total_comments=75 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I don't think it is a hoax. But it'll never be published with peer review. Here is what I think, take with a grain of salt because it's all speculation: Had samples submitted. Recovered DNA. Tested DNA and it was something new. Then they went too far and went off the tracks trying to make this thing "a tribe of people" by manipulating the DNA results. That's Paulides' narrative. Not ape or whatever, they are Sasquatch people. And that, I believe is what the snag is. Parnassus indicated that long ago, that she can't bend the findings into what they want the results to be. Remember all the smack talk a while back from them about the "old guard" and "ape camp"? I think if Sykes gets samples, DNA tests them and then says here is what we found, you decide what it means, then it will shed light and bring credibility to Bigfoot. But I could be all wrong. All I know is: I'm not gonna be anxiously waiting by the tv on thursdays, that's for sure. I have better things to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 "manipulating DNA results" is a bit strong. In fact, on the face of it that is an accusation of scientific fraud. Is that really what you meant to say, or were you rather thinking that they perhaps drew conclusions which weren't wholly supported by the evidence? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I think even Dr Ketchum expected this thing published by now, but for whatever reason, it isn't. Maybe she's as frustrated as we are. I certainly don't think it's in her hands anymore. Be it, lawyers, or publishers, I think someone else is holding this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Ding, Ding, Ding. I think the preceding post by Hoosierfoot is a most plausible scenario for the most part with a couple of minor alterations. Don't know for sure but I do hear things from some pretty *stout* folks that I can't discuss. Think of it like efforting to fit a square peg in a round hole. Then realizing it does not fit and then backtracking if what I'm hearing is true. Going *silent*, and removing a FB page when one has repeatedly promised *soon* does not look too good to most. In fact, I suspect numerous sniffometers are going off. Could be doing so rightly or wrongly. Time will tell I guess as it often seems the ultimate arbitor. But *all* is not lost I hear so do not lose total hope. Really all I can say and maintain my word so don't ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 "manipulating DNA results" is a bit strong. In fact, on the face of it that is an accusation of scientific fraud. Is that really what you meant to say, or were you rather thinking that they perhaps drew conclusions which weren't wholly supported by the evidence? Mike Let me illustrate the difference....... "Drawing conclusions not wholly supported by the evidence" is when you stand over a corpse with a smoking gun in its hand and a bullet hole in the side of the head, and declare that you think he/she died of natural causes. "Manipulating results" is when you stand over the same corpse, but pick up the gun, clean off the fingerprints, and stick it surreptitiously in your mother-in-law's hand-bag. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I don't think it is a hoax. But it'll never be published with peer review. Here is what I think, take with a grain of salt because it's all speculation: Had samples submitted. Recovered DNA. Tested DNA and it was something new. Then they went too far and went off the tracks trying to make this thing "a tribe of people" by manipulating the DNA results. That's Paulides' narrative. Not ape or whatever, they are Sasquatch people. And that, I believe is what the snag is. Parnassus indicated that long ago, that she can't bend the findings into what they want the results to be. Remember all the smack talk a while back from them about the "old guard" and "ape camp"? I think if Sykes gets samples, DNA tests them and then says here is what we found, you decide what it means, then it will shed light and bring credibility to Bigfoot. But I could be all wrong. All I know is: I'm not gonna be anxiously waiting by the tv on thursdays, that's for sure. I have better things to do. I think any paper on alleged Sas DNA would attempt to point to the closest known "statisticly" and explain the relationship if it is evident in the data. This is the same as finding Neanderthal DNA in humans. A paper that simply said "we don't know" doesn't have any of the conclusions that should be forthcoming if any analysis was done at all. Not a liikely outcome for something published, and claiming something new.JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted June 7, 2012 Admin Share Posted June 7, 2012 In response to: What happen to the other page? Cant seem to find it now. She wrote: Melba Ketchum I decided to unpub for awhile as I have no time to answer people plus we continue to have problems with posers. It will go back up in the future but until I catch up, wouldn't you all prefer that I am working on things to forward this research? No need to speculate why she took it down. She explained why. Hooooold on There Babba-Louie........... You mean she set up a FB page to answer questions and to keep those inquiring minds up to date with progress (or no-gress).......but now she (or someone on her behalf) has decided to "unpub" because she has no time to answer the questions on a FB page that was established for that purpose.........even though she has assistants answering on her behalf and so on and so forth?.... Look here, I'm fully prepared to retract my next statement in the event something astounding happens but ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 How about instead of "manipulating DNA" we will just say bending the evidence toward a desired conclusion. I think, given Paulides' books and theory that these things are a tribe of Natives, if the DNA showed 50% ape and 50% human DNA you can guess which way they are going to make the results read. People! And that's where the sticking point is. Just show what you discovered, no need to show lineage or a family tree at this point. I have pounded that point for a while now. Step 1- here is DNA we found and tested. It is something new. It has been found in multiple locations. Locations are habituation sites in remote areas where Sasquatch sightings are reported. Oh, btw, here is video of an unknown creature at one of those sites (Erickson). Step 2- proven DNA is mos likely from creature. Step 3- scratch head and come to the reasonable conclusion "hey, I bet this unknown DNA came from that unknown creature where it was collected!". Step 4- proven to exist. Step 5- universities etc fall over each other to test DNA to identify the family tree of this new organism. They went too far in an attempt to make it fit their desired outcome. You think Paulides would go to all this work to have an outcome prove he was wrong all along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I have served as a reviewer for scientific journals and "creative interpretation" of the data to fit ones views is seen . However, if the data are solid but the conclusions of such data are too strong or skewed, we usually will ask for rewrites in the discussion section to soften the conclusions some or perhaps more correctly stated, to better reflect what the data actually shows. IN other words, if it is just her interpretation of the data that are perhaps in error or too biased, this should be an easy fix...assuming that she is willing to change them . If she would not be willing , then an impasse would be reached and she would probably have to submit elsewhere which of course requires another round of reviews and more time . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Dr. Ketchum answered a question on her FB page a short time ago as follows: I will not know until a week before it publishes. So, at this point I really do not know. I wish I did know but I have guessed wrong a couple of times with unexpected delays so now I just will wait till it is set in stone with no speculation. It can be reasonably inferred from her statement that the paper has been accepted and that she expects imminent publication. When publication actually happens is beyond her control. Normally an author has much more notice than a week in advance, therefore it can also be inferred that the paper is being treated in a special way. No surprise there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts