The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

Interestingly, the DNA Diagnostics web site is currently down for "redesign". Just FYI.

All the more reason to believe it ain't gonna be out anytime soon.

[AaronD]

The Bigfoot community is it's own worst enemy.

Mike (watch1)

I agree, but then again it is comprised of people of various mindsets, poking in various different directions. Try imagining a travel device (car, boat, plane...) doing that, would it's destination objective likely be reached?

Thanks so much Shaunw73, UPS , and AaronD for your supportive comments .

NP Crystal, your "rant" only shows you take things seriously

[Big Stinky]

Wow , just wow!! As a member of the "so called science community", I am beginning now to understand why more of my colleagues are not quite as receptive as I to this phenomenon. I stumbled upon the ketchum project some 11 or so months ago . I was , at that time , fascinated and excited that this legend might in fact be real . I began then to read all that I could about BF , went to all the forums that would allow me in and began to immerse myself in what was known to date . I read about Meldrum and all that he had been through and felt horribly about how he had been treated by his colleagues . I entered this field with an open mind , as I have learned many times over in science that it is very important to think outside of the box and equally as important to understand that mainstream thinking is not set in stone and believing that it is , is dangerous and will keep you in the dark ages. I do believe that sasquatch exists as there are far too many credible sightings and far too many genuine researchers that have seen this creature to believe otherwise .

However, having said that , and no worries, this will be my last post here , although I have encountered and interacted with some very genuine, bright , and grounded individuals , I have also realized that the sentiments of @science critic are echoed by many . I have read all 200 pages of this thread and have realized that some here are so biased the other way that they are worse than the "skeptics " and members of the "so called science community " like myself. Stating , as he has that scientists are a part of the problem speaks volumes really . I would argue that with science on your side , and with publications in decent journals, will come more interest from other scientists, which will bring funding and exposure ... all of which will allow this field to move forward far quicker that it would otherwise . So .. .science critic , understand that attitude will only serve to keep this field in the dark ages . Perhaps there are some that would like it to stay as it is , perhaps they are concerned that having scientists involved will disallow the average researcher from being at the forefront of the field . That is a genuine concern and I would hope that would not be the case . At any rate , I would suggest that we all need to keep an open mind, scientists and non-scientists alike , as to do otherwise will keep this field and many others from moving forward .

Crystal very well put. I am in the science field myself and ditto your words as well. I see the worst of both sides during these "debates". As a scientist who visits this site daily and has read many books and reports on this enigma I cannot say that these beings exist as we obviously do not have the conclusive scientific evidence required for species verification . But anyone who is privy to this wealth of historical information has to feel that this is so much more to this than a simple hoax. I cannot believe how a diligent scientist could review this information and simply discard the notion because of lack of hard physical evidence .... Science must keep an open mind and follow through on this.

Like everyone I am optimistically waiting on the DNA work in progress. All that is needed is one sample to spark interest from the mainstream scientific community.

Hopefully the time is very near.....

Big Stinky

[georgerm]

Oh, come on Crystal, you can't quit now. We need more scientist on the forum.

[Guest]

Well, it is great to hear from such stalwart folks as Crystal and Big Stinky who are within the scientific community and maintain an open mind to the subject of BF.

Dunno, you guys seem to be the cool extreme to the vast majority of your colleagues as more often than not they view the notion as silly it seems.

Please pardon the proponents/knowers here if they are not all *giddy* and display a lack of respect about scientific review. They have been burned, told that their belief is silly, and been made fun of before.

I always advocate that a body is needed myself. It presents a controversial view I know but I do not think there is any piece of photographic evidence that would convince the scientists.

I also know that to document and protect the species that we need some measure of scientific involvement.

But if the scientists are closed-minded, make or have made disparaging statements, they are of VERY little value to the BF community.

I dunno, you guys seem cool and open minded for scientists. Many others do not. You don't dress up like Little Lord Fauntleroy do you when headed to the woods? Just asking as I have little patience or regard for the weekend warrior/city slicker type.

Something is going on as the sightings continue, and despite the feelings of some of the more skeptically inclined, not all can be attributed to paredoila, mis-identification, and hoaxes.

I think those may consume a large portion but not all.

Want the BF community to respect science? Well, respect is earned. Let's see the scientific community render some respect to the BF community. Quite the stalwart and respectable group for the most part. I'm sure the respect would be reciprocated if extended.

With mutual respect, we might just solve this mystery.

[Guest dxm2]

Mike (watch1),

Thank you for the phase, "The Bigfoot community is it's own worst enemy.". This sums up everything for me and puts a nice, neet cap on too many years of thinking anything is going to change with all of this. Good luck to all.

[Guest Particle Noun]

Is it your opinion that skeptics who do not take as granted the truth claims of those claiming an experience are heaping derision on those folks? Is then skepticism itself the equivalent of derision, as you see it? Believe, or deride, the only options?

Jerrywayne:

My comment was overly vague to be sure. No, of course I don't expect skeptics, or even believers, to take as granted to truth of claims from those who claim first hand experience. And no, skepticism isn't the equivalent of derision. Not at all. Honest and robust skepticism, as has been said many times by many reasonable people, is a critical part of any study, search, or question. There are some on this board who very much embody this, and are usually treated with the degree of respect such positioning deserves. I'm referring to those who are not just skeptical, but derisive, mean and rude about it. Please know that I'm not speaking of this board or its members. A great thing about the discussions here is that they are kept in line by the moderators and administrators, so that the conversations don't devolve as they do on places like Bigfoot evidence. If you want to see the kind of derision I'm talking about, go over into any post on that site and look through the comments. Of course, sticks and stones and all that.

I don't think an open mind means acceptance, by any means. It simply means what it states, an open mind, willing to entertain many possibilities, however remote, even while remaining fairly certain of the unlikelyhood this creature exists. Willing to entertain the notion that the over 30,000 sightings have not all been lies, hoaxes or misidendification. I suppose I'm separating things into a sort of "agnostic" toward bigfoot approach, which I find more honest than a straight up atheist approach toward bigfoot.

[Guest]

I know this is continuing "off topic", but I want to address this, given that I have been told repeatedly by various persons that my attitudes are similar to those that set crystaloff:

I am not and never have been anti-science. My beef is with those claiming to be scientists who are unobjective, close-minded, and approach the topic from a cynical, biased "no bigfoot, prove me wrong" position. Which is the "consensus" opinion of Science as a community.

All I ask, and have ever asked, is for the collective institution of Science to admit the truth: there is a strong evidentiary case for BF, and that the topic needs to be persued with the mindset of confirming this case and bringing it to the point of full documentation of the species.

I have absolutely no beef with truly objective scientists such as Dr Meldrum or even crystal herself, as she has expressed a properly open-minded viewpoint.

[Guest]

HRPuffnstuff , I think that you have stated very clearly what the bottom line is : That with mutual respect and a bit of working together , we may just collectively solve this . I do understand your point about the scientific community and am the first to acknowledge the close minded nature of many scientists that I encounter . However, there are a few that are interested and it is just going to take one publication to bring a few more over . I do know that there are some that no matter what evidence is placed in front of them , will never take this seriously, but with each bit of evidence that brings this subject more to the forefront of reality , a few more will start to question whether there might just be something to this . That is really all that it will take . I also certainly do not believe that this cannot be solved without scientists, as it definitely can , but again , having the universities involved would bring funding , which has the potential to open many doors and also gives a big incentive for participation .

I hope that both DNA studies result in published work in high impact journals . If this occurs , the scientific community will have no choice but to at least view the evidence and conclusions . My guess is that Dr. Ketchum has faced a lot of bias along the way , making publication harder than it would have been for any other subject. It is my hope that the oxford study with the names behind it will face less .

Bigstinky , thanks for your post and glad to meet a kindred soul. I agree wholeheartedly with everything you have said . It is just going to take one study to make a few more of the scientists take pause and seriously think about this . I also find it egregious that anyone in science would dismiss something like this without looking into it . It was not that long ago relatively speaking that those who believed in microbes as the cause of disease were thought to be crazy. We all need to remember that paradigm shifts are necessary for progress . I am optimistically waiting as well . It will happen

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I, for one, believe the DNA is there. It just needs to get analysed and published.

[Drew]

I know this is continuing "off topic", but I want to address this, given that I have been told repeatedly by various persons that my attitudes are similar to those that set crystaloff:

I am not and never have been anti-science. My beef is with those claiming to be scientists who are unobjective, close-minded, and approach the topic from a cynical, biased "no bigfoot, prove me wrong" position. Which is the "consensus" opinion of Science as a community.

All I ask, and have ever asked, is for the collective institution of Science to admit the truth: there is a strong evidentiary case for BF, and that the topic needs to be persued with the mindset of confirming this case and bringing it to the point of full documentation of the species.

I have absolutely no beef with truly objective scientists such as Dr Meldrum or even crystal herself, as she has expressed a properly open-minded viewpoint.

The problem is, you think there is a strong case for Bigfoot being a real creature, when there isn't.

In fact, it is an extraordinarily WEAK case, if you base it on actual evidence.

Honestly, you are anti-science, unless the scientist believes in Bigfoot, otherwise you call them:

unobjective, close-minded, and approach the topic from a cynical, biased "no bigfoot, prove me wrong" position

Would you find the statement: "No evidence, show me some" to be closed-minded?

Most scientists would be extremely open to evidence showing an upright primate's existence. Any journal would be stupid not to publish a legitimate paper outlining such a discovery. The problem is inherent in the Bigfoot argument, there just ain't any solid evidence, and there just ain't no way to write a legitimate paper based on stories and obscene plaster footprints. If there was solid evidence such as DNA, do you really think Dr. Ketchum would be struggling for so long to publish it? If the paper was done properly, and the evidence shown to exist, it would be published. The failure is; if it existed it WOULD leave evidence, but it doesn't leave any, despite being encountered in heavily traversed areas.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Drew

[Guest Particle Noun]

Well, here's the obligatory "It's 11am PST, one more week down" post! And, the DNA Diagnostics Page is back, with nothing on it worth noting that I can see.

Crystal, and Big Stinky, would either of you being willing to share what scientific field you are involved in? I'd love to know! Maybe we should start a thread about that sort of topic...

If there was solid evidence such as DNA, do you really think Dr. Ketchum would be struggling for so long to publish it? If the paper was done properly, and the evidence shown to exist, it would be published. The failure is; if it existed it WOULD leave evidence, but it doesn't leave any, despite being encountered in heavily traversed areas.

This would be, in my view, the Atheist view of Bigfoot. I don't believe it's in any way objective to jump to a conclusion like " If there was solid evidence such as DNA, do you really think Dr. Ketchum would be struggling for so long to publish it?" All due respect, you don't have any inside information, or any information period, besides the fact that we don't have a paper, to jump to that conclusion. That isn't skeptical. You've made up your mind there is nothing to it, and therefore lack of the paper confirms your hypothesis.

Here is a nice (although of course simplified) quote from a recent article by the California Academy of Sciences about new species: "While it takes months and even years to formally describe and publish a new species in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (the reason they are not included in the 2011 total)" (entire article found here: http://www.calacademy.org/newsroom/releases/2011/new_species.php ). Science takes time. This sort of controversial sciences takes even more time.

I also don't have any inside information. But I consider it just as likely that if it is with a journal they are proceeding with extra caution, and sending it back for rewrites on every dotted i, crossed t, etc. that they can, to make sure it is unassailable. No journal would publish something on this subject in particular unless it was as near beyond reproach as possible. That is a high standard, and one which I could very conceivably think would cause extra delay.

Do I have proof for that? No, but it is as likely as your statement. There are a lot of possibilities and variables. True believers will stick to a more positive set of variables, and the Bigfoot atheists will stick to a singular variable, such as you do. When I honestly evaluate myself, I do tend to gravitate toward the positive variable scenerios, but I do try and acknowledge that for myself, so as not to go too blind. A good skeptic, I think, will reserve judgement, and consider as many likely scenarios as possible.

[Guest slimwitless]

Well, here's the obligatory "It's 11am PST, one more week down" post! And, the DNA Diagnostics Page is back, with nothing on it worth noting that I can see.

Not that it means anything but the home page is still down where I am. The supporting pages are (and have been) up but the default page still displays the redesign message. It's an odd way to update a site.

[Guest Particle Noun]

Huh, you're right! Down for me too. It is 'strange'. But at this point, I find myself jumping at any and all shadows!

[Guest]

The problem is, you think there is a strong case for Bigfoot being a real creature, when there isn't.

In fact, it is an extraordinarily WEAK case, if you base it on actual evidence.

Eyewitness reports are actual evidence, forensically typed hairs are actual evidence. Tracks with distinct, consistent bio-metric indicators that withstand professional analysis both in terms of identification and statistical mapping to a natural population curve are actual evidence, as are casts of other body parts also with professionally observable bio-metric indicators pointing to a large bipedal non-human primate.

You cannot simply wad all this actual evidence up and toss it in the can with a "not evidence" claim.

THAT is the attitude of a non-scientist.

Honestly, you are anti-science,

I have clearly stated that I am not. Retract that statement.

Would you find the statement: "No evidence, show me some" to be closed-minded?

Given that we have abundant evidence, I would definitely find it close-minded and outright WRONG to boot.

Most scientists would be extremely open to evidence showing an upright primate's existence.

Apparently not, given their lack of response to all the evidence to hand up until these DNA studies.

The problem is inherent in the Bigfoot argument, there just ain't any solid evidence,

Wrong.

and there just ain't no way to write a legitimate paper based on stories and obscene plaster footprints.

Wrong again. Fahrenback and Meldrum BOTH have written such papers.

And what is "obscene" about plaster casts of tracks?

The failure is; if it existed it WOULD leave evidence, but it doesn't leave any, despite being encountered in heavily traversed areas.

And again, WRONG. Plenty of evidence for the properly objective and open-minded. Only people who are having trouble seeing it are unscientific and close-minded Skeptics.