The Ketchum Report

[Guest parnassus]

Where were you when I had this discussion with Nona?

possibly in bed, on campus, at the pool, on my bike, in The City, in the kitchen....my smartphone could probably tell me if you really need to know...

Parn, do you rule out the American Journal of Physical Anthropology?

seems unlikely but I don't know those folks.

Well , you could do your best to prove it's something else in an effort to falsify the hypothesis, but if you fail then you could say it is a strong hypothesis depending on what your hypothesis of what bigfoot is and what the evidence says it is from. Obviously "bigfoot is a modern human with no genetic divergence" won't work for a testable hypothesis without (not just a body) but a complete population of said hairy humans.

there you go. exactly.

Edited December 5, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest mitchw]

#632 Parn, take a look at their current articles. Why would you say it's unlikely Ketchum went to them? They cover humans and primates. They have articles built around genetic data. Here's a link.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1096-8644/earlyview

ps The double print in my previous post to you occurred due to some software gremlin.

[Guest slimwitless]

Slim,

I know you have read Stubstad's stuff. That is modern human DNA. Even he kind of admits it.

If you're right, a lot of people are being deceitful about the nature of this study. That doesn't mean human DNA. That means hoax. And frankly, I find a hoax more believable then the mental gymnastics one has to perform to think Ketchum is promising "proof" in the form of 100% human DNA. You never offer explanations for those things that don't fit into your scenario (the Sierra Steakâ„¢, Ketchum's recent claim of "proof", etc). You shrug it off and proclaim it doesn't make sense. Of course it makes no sense; you've already rejected the central premise. Until I see what she has, I'm not going to accept or reject anything out of hand.

Yeah, I've read Stubstad's stuff. In fairness, Ketchum has distanced herself from his "revelations". We don't even know whether the samples he refers to are included in the study. That doesn't mean I haven't heard stories that echo aspects of his thesis. Those rumors sound fantastic and even improbable (but not, as far as I understand it, impossible). I'll leave it there because we simply don't know what she'll be presenting. Do we? If it's an actuarial accounting of the weird stuff people send in response to a request for BF samples, I'll congratulate you on my way out the door.

Edited December 5, 2011 by slimwitless

[bipedalist]

#632 Parn, take a look at their current articles. Why would you say it's unlikely Ketchum went to them? They cover humans and primates. They have articles built around genetic data. Here's a link.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1096-8644/earlyview

ps The double print in my previous post to you occurred due to some software gremlin.

Link busted you might try again or ask mods if they can help you, thanks.

[Guest mitchw]

#635 Maybe this modification will take. If it doesn't, you can go the the AJPA website and look for the 'early view' button.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1096-8644/earlyview

[bipedalist]

Cutting and pasting works with that one without using the http://

[Guest parnassus]

#632 Parn, take a look at their current articles. Why would you say it's unlikely Ketchum went to them? They cover humans and primates. They have articles built around genetic data. Here's a link.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1096-8644/earlyview

ps The double print in my previous post to you occurred due to some software gremlin.

wait, are you talking about submission of a paper, or publication of a paper? I thought the question meant who would accept it for publication.

I wouldn't know where she would think to submit it. I couldn't rule out the possibility that she sent it there.

yeah, I dupl all the time. It's funny. masterbarber cleans it up.

If you're right, a lot of people are being deceitful about the nature of this study. That doesn't mean human DNA. That means hoax. And frankly, I find a hoax more believable then the mental gymnastics one has to perform to think Ketchum is promising "proof" in the form of 100% human DNA. You never offer explanations for those things that don't fit into your scenario (the Sierra Steakâ„¢, Ketchum's recent claim of "proof", etc). You shrug it off and proclaim it doesn't make sense. Of course it makes no sense; you've already rejected the central premise. Until I see what she has, I'm not going to accept or reject anything out of hand.

Yeah, I've read Stubstad's stuff. In fairness, Ketchum has distanced herself from his "revelations". We don't even know whether the samples he refers to are included in the study. That doesn't mean I haven't heard stories that echo aspects of his thesis. Those rumors sound fantastic and even improbable (but not, as far as I understand it, impossible). I'll leave it there because we simply don't know what she'll be presenting. Do we? If it's an actuarial accounting of the weird stuff people send in response to a request for BF samples, I'll congratulate you on my way out the door.

Slim,

fair enuff on that last; but I really don't think you have to shout hoax. I have never said hoax had to be involved, and I specifically do not think Ketchum was hoaxing; though I think it would be possible for hoaxing to be involved in the provenance of the specimens, and it would be a pretty good trick for a hoaxer to use. But I get the sense that DR, for example, is not a hoaxer. I have my suspicions of others, based on what I have read of their track records.

I really believe that between Stubstad and Ketchum, they believed that what they were finding was proof of bigfoot. They still do, for all I know. And that could have been based on good faith specimens and good lab work.

If you will: they were correct in their finding that their legs were wet, but they concluded that was because it was raining. But it wasn't raining.

p.

Edited December 6, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest]

I think what Parn is really trying to say is that he thinks Dr. K isn't smart enough to know what she's dealing with which I suspect is the argument in the holster the skeptics intend to pull out most often when the paper is finally published. As enjoyable as Parn is to talk with on these boards, he does come with a fair amount of agravating preconditioning that causes an equally fair amount of bias blindness. It's something we all suffer from to some degree, but Parn carries his around like a parasitic twin. He assumes the paper has failed to prove anything other than Dr. K's incompetency in sequencing and identifying DNA. In his defense, he's not basing his assumption on actually knowing Dr. K or seeing the paper. He's basing it on his unshakeable opinion that such a thing as ridiculous as BF could never exist. Any paper suggesting that it does has to be total crap.

BTW - Has anyone noticed that Parn's profile pic looks a little like David Paulides? Sorry. Low blow. I kid because I love.

[Guest]

You never offer explanations for those things that don't fit into your scenario (the Sierra Steakâ„¢, Ketchum's recent claim of "proof", etc).

My apologies for going off topic but who in the world trademarked "Sierra Steak"? If this was mentioned somewhere on the BFF I must have missed it.

[Guest]

My apologies for going off topic but who in the world trademarked "Sierra Steak"? If this was mentioned somewhere on the BFF I must have missed it.

I think Slim is making a joke because of the rumors that Smeja is interested in selling the steak.

[Guest]

I assume you chose the term "alternative journal" because your brain would explode if you considered the possiblity that it's a mainstream journal.

Thanks for your tender concern over my possible Monty Pythonesque demise. But, you misread me. I did not write "fringe alternative journal" and my comment should be understood as "alternative scientific journal", as in an alternative to Nature.

I'm very much hoping the DNA paper is sufficiently presented to be admitted to a "mainstream" scientific journal. If so, there may be interesting evidence so presented that a revision of the scientific community's attitude towards the subject will commence. And let the evidence fall where it may.

This would be good news because it will then take the phenomena away from the warm nurturing environment of the Bigfoot believing community and place it in the realm of cold empirical and objective research by employing the methods of science. Then, we will see what we really have on our hands.

[southernyahoo]

I think what Parn is really trying to say is that he thinks Dr. K isn't smart enough to know what she's dealing with which I suspect is the argument in the holster the skeptics intend to pull out most often when the paper is finally published.

You're probably right, yet some scientists say that the compartive work that can be done with the published archaic genomes can be done by high school students.

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=7691

Unlike most scientists mining the ancient genomes, Hawks has reported some of his more prosaic findings — Denisovans didn't have red hair, for example — on his blog (see go.nature.com/irclra). "These genomes are publicly available. There's nothing stopping high-school students from doing this, and the kind of stuff that I'm putting out on my blog is the stuff that a smart high-school student could do." More significant (and closely guarded) insights will come from developing new methods for analysing ancient genomes to test hypotheses about evolution, he says.

Like Parn has mentioned though, a key part in getting published is how you write it up, generated and tested the hypothesis and how well you've supported you're conclusions with all the right references, applications of standards etc.

[ShadowBorn]

In my humble opionion I believe that you all have this wrong.That the ending of this so called nightmare you seem to be calling will all be proving to be wrong.If anything this is pushing that high level sciencetist will be getting envolve and that the world is going to be in for a big surprise. That this so call " testable hypothesis" is needed in order for these creature to be proven to actually exist. Field work is the key to the mystery of these creatures and these so called higher level sciencetist are now needed to do the field work that has been done .

Now it is there turn to have there minds blown by what us who have wittness these creatures in there own enviorment.No longer is it in our power now to convince them since now they have there work cut out to search for themselves.What we can do is now help them and show them what we have learned.This is very excting times and becoming very eventfull.I cannot believe the movement that this has generated and not in a bad way but in a good way. Bravo Zulu to those involve and take the time to do it right.

testable hypothesis

http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/aboutscience/hypotheses.html#falsifiable

Edited December 6, 2011 by julio126

[Guest parnassus]

I think what Parn is really trying to say is that he thinks Dr. K isn't smart enough to know what she's dealing with which I suspect is the argument in the holster the skeptics intend to pull out most often when the paper is finally published. As enjoyable as Parn is to talk with on these boards, he does come with a fair amount of agravating preconditioning that causes an equally fair amount of bias blindness. It's something we all suffer from to some degree, but Parn carries his around like a parasitic twin. He assumes the paper has failed to prove anything other than Dr. K's incompetency in sequencing and identifying DNA. In his defense, he's not basing his assumption on actually knowing Dr. K or seeing the paper. He's basing it on his unshakeable opinion that such a thing as ridiculous as BF could never exist. Any paper suggesting that it does has to be total crap.

BTW - Has anyone noticed that Parn's profile pic looks a little like David Paulides? Sorry. Low blow. I kid because I love.

What I "was really trying to say" ?! ha ha. Not. This would win the red herring award for the year, I think. I briefly thought about reporting this post because it insults a member in personal terms, while trying to make it seem as if I am somehow responsible for it. But it's clear who said it, and if the mods want to leave it up, that is their concern and yours. I don't mind a little fun and games, parasitic twin is very clever, and it does look like Paulides (so do those sketches in his book!) but you blew a gasket on the Ketchum stuff, RW. That's just my opinion.

Edited December 6, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest]

That's just my opinion.

And you're entitled to it, good sir.

Edited to add: The last thing I want to do is make another member feel attacked. If I crossed the line in any way, I apologize to Parn and the community. I thought I was being funny, but I've been known to fail at my attempts many times before.

Edited December 6, 2011 by rwridley