The Ketchum Report

[Guest BFSleuth]

What do I base my opinion on? Reality.

Reproducible experiment showing that plaster casting creates artifacts which resemble some lines in a plaster footprint, which are claimed to be from a beast no one can lay a finger on.

Do you have a reference scientific experiment showing these reproducible artifacts? I'd love to read it so I can understand more about this issue.

[Guest]

Darn fonts

That little sentence is asking for Drew to provide his credentials, and to explain to us how is qualified enough to understand the topic, let alone debate it with Dr Meldrum.

Edited June 19, 2012 by JohnC

[Drew]

Show me we are dealing with a primate foot, and not plaster casting artifacts that can be reproduced in a sand box in my backyard, and I will yield to the professor's credentials regarding primate foot anatomy. Unfortunately for both of us, you can't show me anything that confirms the existence of such a primate. So I am qualified to play with plaster in my backyard, unfortunately, Dr. Meldrum won't acknowledge the casting artifact issue.

BFSleuth: here is one link- http://orgoneresearc...eview-material/

Edited June 19, 2012 by Drew

[Guest]

Dr Meldrum probably does not have the time, or the will, to indulge every uneducated claim against his work. Why would he acknowledge and give validity to the woo coming from a group of pseudo scientist who having nothing better to do than hide behind a moniker and fuel each others ego's?

Thats like your car is spewing oil, but the customer insists its the muffler,because they read it on the internet. Are you still for realing us?

Edited June 19, 2012 by JohnC

[Guest BFSleuth]

Show me we are dealing with a primate foot, and not plaster casting artifacts that can be reproduced in a sand box in my backyard, and I will yield to the professor's credentials regarding primate foot anatomy. Unfortunately for both of us, you can't show me anything that confirms the existence of such a primate. So I am qualified to play with plaster in my backyard, unfortunately, Dr. Meldrum won't acknowledge the casting artifact issue.

BFSleuth: here is one link- http://orgoneresearc...eview-material/

The link seems to be a nonexistent page. Have anything else?

[Guest]

Check it again. It works for me.

Here is another good thread for you right from the BFF itself:

[southernyahoo]

If it's a bigfoot then its dimensions will differ significantly from those of described hominins - unless all those alleged eyewitnesses out there have been wrong all these years. If its dimensions overlap those of some other species then making the case for it to be a new species will require additional analysis. Even that analysis, however, needn't be scientific. It could be purely descriptive as well.

The point is not that one couldn't do science with a new species - people do all the time. The point is that the description of a new species does not need to invoke the process of science: it could be purely descriptive.

The role of science in "getting us closer" to discovering new species is relevant for a discussion of cryptic species - not cryptids - cryptic species. This refers to species that cannot be distinguished morphologically, but differ enough in their genetic make-up that separate species status is warranted. We lacked the ability to identify many of these species before we had used science to develop the technology to compare DNA. In that respect, advances in molecular biology over the last 2-3 decades have moved us closer to identifying new species. Today, those techniques are fully operative, and there's nothing inherently more scientific about using those techniques today than there would have been in using calipers and an accurate scale in the 18th Century.

Thus, I see no middle ground in work like Ketchum's. Her analysis will prove there are bigfoots or it won't. This is not a knock against Ketchum or her analysis. It is what it is. A Higgs Boson is something we can get closer to discovering using science. A bigfoot is something we can discover with no application of science at all.

Observing, measuring, documenting and decribing at length the distinctions between the hypothetical bigfoot and all other known hominins on record along with all the appropriate published reference material to establish a new species "is science" as much as the same can be done with DNA to distinguish BF from others. While you could discover BF that way, the DNA stone would not be left unturned, and I don't think your paper would pass review without it, because there would be no excuse to not get it done, the potential anthropological impact of such a find would demand it.

If the physical /anatomical overlap (with humans) wasn't there, the equivalant of the PGF would have proven BF long ago. So I'm afraid Bigfoot will demand all the science you got plus several of your peers.

[Drew]

The link seems to be a nonexistent page. Have anything else?

It works, but in case John C needs an Anthropologist to qualify someone talking about dermal ridges:

Here is an article by a professor of Anthropology asking if dermal ridges can be faked.

http://www.vetmed.ws...29%20Bodley.PDF

Edited June 19, 2012 by Drew

[Guest Darrell]

Anything can be faked or misidentified, so if there is one instance of soemthing being misidentified or faked then everything can become suspect. Thats just common sense, right? And if Meldrum, Ketchum, or any other scientist/academic has been wrong in the past should'nt all of their work then be scrutenized to a higher degree? If not then why? I have a personal opinion that because there is the potential for a great deal of fame and fortune to anyone that brings this home there is also a greater chance of "spinning" the information to meet whatever requirement is needed for 'proof".

Edited June 19, 2012 by Darrell

[Guest]

I am sure than can be faked, Dr Meldrum is qualified to tell a fake, or an artifact, from the real deal, or at least capable of giving an educated answer, the moon landing "could" have been faked, so it must have been huh?

I did not have time to look right now, but I will later,and see if that Anthropologist is also a foot and locomotion expert, and if his credential exceed Dr Meldrums.

In the mean time Drew, I am still waiting on hearing your credentials, I take it all with a grain of salt, I do not have the credentials to pass judgement on those that have.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Thanks for the link to the previous thread Splash, and for that link to the pdf file Drew. I've got reading to do.

One reason I'm looking into this issue of casting artifacts is because I'm trying to develop a system for photographing prints without taking casts that would negate any issues with casting artifacts. If this can be done successfully then what I'm hoping to accomplish is to be able to use the photographs to directly input into 3D modeling and output a "cast" without ever touching the track itself. This will allow researchers to be able to take more "impressions" without having to carry heavy plaster and therefore be able to document trackways in remote locations.

[Guest]

I am sure than can be faked, Dr Meldrum is qualified to tell a fake, or an artifact, from the real deal, or at least capable of giving an educated answer, the moon landing "could" have been faked, so it must have been huh?

I did not have time to look right now, but I will later,and see if that Anthropologist is also a foot and locomotion expert, and if his credential exceed Dr Meldrums.

In the mean time Drew, I am still waiting on hearing your credentials, I take it all with a grain of salt, I do not have the credentials to pass judgement on those that have.

So how do you feel about all those other credentialed zoologists and anthropologists who think the evidence says BF does NOT exist? Are their credentials meaningless?

[Guest Tontar]

So how do you feel about all those other credentialed zoologists and anthropologists who think the evidence says BF does NOT exist? Are their credentials meaningless?

It depends on who you ask. Seriously, it really does. Typically those guys would be dismissed as not having an open mind, not having seriously looked at the evidence before dismissing it, and are guilt of making a hasty conclusion without due diligence because in all likelihood they have a preexisting disbelief in bigfoot. Take that and apply it to any or all topics of bigfoot, or aliens, or ghosts or whatever. The ones that have credibility are the ones that support the subject's authenticity.

[Drew]

In the mean time Drew, I am still waiting on hearing your credentials, I take it all with a grain of salt, I do not have the credentials to pass judgement on those that have.

My credentials are: 1. I can read the instructions on the bag of plaster 2. I know how to measure fluids using a measuring cup 3. I have a backyard to do such work in 4. I can see the lines which Meldrum thinks are dermal ridges of a Giant Hairy Beast, form in the casting.

What more credentials do I need? You don't need to be a 'Locomotion Expert' to see this, and you don't have to be a 'Cement Specialist' either.

[Guest Tontar]

Well said Drew. If an experiment can be conducted that proves the hypothesis of an argument, then it doesn't matter what the credentials are. Fully accredited people have been wrong plenty of times.

It also should matter that Dr. Meldrum tends to stand away from the crowd in his circle of colleagues. He doesn't have a lot of other professors agreeing with his findings.