The Ketchum Report

[Guest BFSleuth]

MODERATOR STATEMENT

While government conspiracy theories regarding bigfoot may be interesting, the topic of this thread is regarding The Ketchum Report. If anyone cares to continue discussion of possible government conspiracies it may be better to start a separate thread on that topic.

[Guest Darrell]

Well put Drew.

[Guest watch1]

MODERATOR STATEMENT

While government conspiracy theories regarding bigfoot may be interesting, the topic of this thread is regarding The Ketchum Report. If anyone cares to continue discussion of possible government conspiracies it may be better to start a separate thread on that topic.

Just when I was going to comment on the possibility of the report (or lack of) being part of the conspiracy.

Mike (watch1)

[bipedalist]

Well here is something new.

RL stated (in his blog) Ketchum's DNA Diagnostics website was down and made many inferences about what that meant for her business. I checked the other night and you could negotiate around the "website down" splashpage/message and access many if not most of the previous areas except there was no listing for staff other than Melba Ketchum herself. This was done by simply clicking on menued items in the directory index on the left side of certain pages.

Long story short, though there is a message that the site is under construction, there is also a section for "news releases" still there.

Sometimes it helps if you exhaust many avenues before impulsively pimping a story.

Edited June 25, 2012 by bipedalist

[AaronD]

Arron, let me be clear, I am not accusing this forum, Dr Meldrum, et al of being part of a gov't led/operated conspiracy. I said that it was possible that some or all of them were. The same result you talk about is just as possible from earnest, decent people struggling with too little conclusive data and too many misconceptions on the part of the public.

I knew what ya meant, just adding my two cents worth

Sorry BF, we'll take your suggestion--err, how do we start a new thread? Seriously, I do lack puter savvy!

Edited June 25, 2012 by AaronD

[Guest BFSleuth]

To start a new thread just click on the forum where you want to start a new thread, when the list of threads come up then in the upper right corner should be a button for "Start New Topic"... then fire away.

[AaronD]

Did it, thanks BF !!!

[Guest]

Another would be that there is proof of bigfoot in the DNA.

Yes, I would consider that a possibility.

I mentioned this up-thread somewhere, and I would like to see your thoughts on this. Apparently Dr. Ketchum's report will validate the Ibarra sample (and sighting), the Sierra kills sample (and the accompanying story), and the Erickson habituation samples (and accompanying videos said to show a family of Bigfoot). Yet the creatures described in these accounts seem not to be closely related species at all, especially comparing Ibarra's decidedly human sasquatch with the Sierra kill ape and the Kentucky chewbacca.

What do you think is behind this? Poor observation by the witnesses? Hoaxes mixed with true Bigfoot accounts? The DNA will show more than one type of sasquatch? Sasquatch's incredible variation? Some of these samples will not be validated? They are all really the same type of animal, regardless of the reports.

This aspect of the issue really puzzles me, even if others seem to find nothing out of place with it.

Edited June 25, 2012 by jerrywayne

[indiefoot]

How about different amounts and differing racial components to hybridization. If they are hybrid with Hss then all kinds of combinations can manifest.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Even bears are waiting for the DNA results

[Guest shoot1]

... Apparently Dr. Ketchum's report will validate the Ibarra sample (and sighting)... Kentucky chewbacca...

Can you point me to these reports? Google gives me nothing with those search terms.

... The DNA will show more than one type of sasquatch? Sasquatch's incredible variation?

...This aspect of the issue really puzzles me, even if others seem to find nothing out of place with it.

I will be surprised if there is not more than one species, whether they are apes, hominids, and/or hybrids. I'm not sure but at the moment I'm leaning towards 3-4 types, myself -- a genuine 9 foot tall or more Sasquatch as seen in the PNW, a smaller orangutan-like skunk-ape as seen in south-eastern swamps, a north american ape and/or hybrid-humans. But that's just my humble, confused, and open-minded opinion.

Edited June 26, 2012 by shoot1

[AaronD]

Well put, Shoot1, well put

[Guest LJSLaw]

In regard to the high variances reported in the sightings and videos and, purportedly, even in the Ketchum study, maybe it's as simple as this: bears are bears. We all know what a bear looks like. But there are brown bears, grizzlies, black bears and polar bears. They all look like bears, they all look different.

Maybe there are subspecies for lack of a better term of sasquatches.

After all, if sasquatch is, in fact, half homo homo sapien ... even homo homo sapiens can be black, caucasion, asian ... with many variances as the ethnic groups mix.

Maybe it's that simple.

I am white, 5'8 and 160 pounds and Shaquille O'Neal is black, 7'2 and 300 pounds. We are both homo homo sapiens.

Try explaining that to a sasquatch. I think he could easily tell us apart.

Edited June 26, 2012 by LJSLaw

[Guest]

Oh spare me...you are seriously positing that a man who has spent untold hours examining both the feet and tracks of primates knows nothing about primate dermatoglyphics? He may not be a court-certified fingerprint examiner specialized in human fingerprints (such as Chilcutt), but he should very well know what characteristics in general to look for in such dermals.

Except for those many many hours studying primate feet and tracks, you mean...

In a dispute between the two on fine details, I would rate Chillcutt higher, yes, because he has more specific experience in that exact field.

That doesn't mean Meldrum is in any way ignorant of such things.

Context. It’s something you continuously seem to have issue with. When you take something out of context “on occasionâ€, it clearly could be unintentional. When it happens more commonly, it’s only fair to question whether it is purposeful. When it becomes the rule and not the exception, I think it becomes perfectly clear to everyone that the intent is purposeful.

What I actually said:

“Latent print examination is a very specialized skill set that in reality, is only possessed by an extremely small portion of the population who train to acquire that expertise. Yet you’re assigning Meldrum a relevant level of expertise in a very specialized field in which he has no formal study or training, and no work experience. A level by your own words that is only slightly below Chillcutt. The “expert via association†rationale that several others (not you) are clearly attempting to apply here in this thread, is also fatally flawed and is clearly driven by the bias that Saskeptic points out: Meldrum makes public statements that are supportive of pet belief systems and thus he’s afforded levels of expertise that he clearly doesn’t possess so that his assigned, but completely fallacious expertise can be appealed to as a figure of unquestionable authority. It's rather sad IMO.

This association is incredibly weak particularly when you consider the nature of their proverbial “work togetherâ€. The reality is that Meldrum and Chilcutt have never really “worked togetherâ€. The scope of their interaction together really involves Meldrum allowing Chilcutt access to his lab so he could examine casts while Meldrum left him unattended and soliciting Chilcutt’s opinion on what he thought was ridge structure on the Skookum impression. And parroting some of Chilcutt’s conclusions in the dermatoglyphics chapter in his book. They’ve not even co-authored a paper together. I’ve co-authored several internal reports and papers with a multitude of EE’s and ME’s whom I work with on a near daily basis. Should that make me an expert on pumps, VFD’s and other mechanical and electrical assets? Not even close. Do I think my interaction with those folks have given me a conversational knowledge in ME and EE that is above the norm? You bet. Is it actual expertise? Not even remotely close.â€

The bolded is for emphasis. I’m certainly not claiming that Meldrum is “ignorant†of dermatoglyphics, and that should be perfectly obvious to anyone who took the time to read what I stated, and not chop it up to purposely take things out of context. But he’s clearly no expert either. There’s a huge leap between being knowledgeable about friction skin, it’s function and general appearance and actually possessing expertise. It’s a blind leap you often make to “expertize†individuals so you can fallaciously appeal to their authority.

Have you ever even read any of the published research material that Meldrum has published or edited? Have you ever looked at his class schedule? What exactly in either his educational or research background makes you think that Meldrum possesses the incredibly high level of latent print expertise that you assign to him?

Yes, it's rather sad Skeptics continue to obfuscate the issue to deny credibility to experts like Dr Meldrum within the area of their training and experience.

That isn’t what is happening here. What is happening is you’re continuing to “expertise†Meldrum in a very specialized field that he has no academic background or work experience in. What training and experience does Doctor Meldrum specifically possess in the in the area of latent print examination or identification? Anyone that is at all familiar with Meldrum whether they’ve read LMS or not, is well aware that Meldrum places a lot of merit in Chilcutt’s opinion not because Chilcutt’s opinion matches his own, but that Chilcutt offers an opinion from a perspective of real expertise which Meldrum himself does not possess.

On that one cast only.

No not just on that one cast. You obviously missed the discussion in this thread about the impression with the “fingerprint†within. This wasn’t an impression where the “fingerprint†was unintentionally left in the impression during or prior to the casting process. It was fabricated and Chilcutt identified the same whorl patterns all over the impression. Meldrum thought those obviously human “fingerprints†were the friction skin of bigfoot and didn’t notice that the same, identical whorl patterns where all over the cast. Meldrum has not only rescinded his position on the presence apparent bigfoot ridge structure in this impression, but admits that this impression that he once branded as the real deal was hoaxed. How by your definition can some who is an “expert†in dermatoglyphics not only fail to identify a human print, but the same human print all over a single cast?

Since no one I know of is doing that, your statement is irrelevant.

Do you think anyone is actually buying that?

No one has said that, least of all Dr Meldrum.

But yet you continue to “expertise†Meldrum in a field he has no expertise in so that you can appeal to his “expertise†as an infallible source of absolute authority.

And the army of strawmen just gets bigger. "Once wrong, always wrong"? Is that the broad brush we've come to?

This is the quote you aimed that response at:

“He’s been wrong in the past, and has admitted so on various occasions. His opinions in regards to anything “bigfoot†should certainly be considered regardless of whether that opinion has anything to do with his field of study. But on the strength of how well he supports those opinions and theories, not on mere hero worship.â€

How does the opinion that what Meldrum has to say about bigfoot should certainly be considered whether it’s is relevant to his field of expertise or not translate into “a (growing) army strawmen�

Broad brush? Didn’t you just break out the rattle can and paint GuyfromIndy and John Cartwright (and his well known treestand experience) as Skeptics with the capital S? While quoting a 3 sentence post which begins: “Yes. I've seen one and I'm not afraid to tell anyone.†? Respectfully, I don’t think anyone is buying your “take†that the paint is indeed flying from my direction.

Not an entirely unexpected counter-attack. Accuse the one who exposes your fallacies of doing exactly what you are doing.

Too bad I'm not falling for it.

Well, honestly from my standpoint this wasn’t about attempting to convince you.

Totally agree with what JC said in post 6349. The “good†thing about bigfootery is that anyone with an interest can join the hunt. There are no academic requirements, no costly professional certifications that have to be obtained and maintained, no psych tests to pass or fail, and no semblance of critical training to process what passes as “field evidence of bigfootâ€. It’s a field dominated by amateurs. If you don’t like the level of “due diligence†being applied by someone else or even everyone else, you can literally go out and attempt to find better evidence yourself and subject that evidence to even more scrutiny.

The “bad†thing about bigfootery is that anyone with an interest can join the hunt. And with no controls of uniformity in training, evidence evaluation, etc. you get individuals that become so emotionally attached to their own comical “evidence†they simply will not throw out the proverbial “bathwater†even if the consensus is that the “baby†left the tub hours ago. You get individuals that see evidence of bigfoot everywhere. And importantly you get some individuals that are actually attempting to do their best to separate the wheat from the chaff and actually are only interested in the truth.

Unfortunately the most vocal proponents of bigfoot, by my experience, don’t always seem to fall in that last category.

And if you really do want someone to provide you with more evidence that the remaining Freeman tracks were obvious fakes, I’d suggest you start a thread on the subject. I’ll certainly comment when I have time.

Edited June 28, 2012 by MikeG
........adjusted font size, removed personal comments

[Guest BFSleuth]

The scope of their interaction together really involves Meldrum allowing Chilcutt access to his lab so he could examine casts while Meldrum left him unattended and soliciting Chilcutt’s opinion on what he thought was ridge structure on the Skookum impression.

You are claiming that Meldrum invited Chilcutt to access his lab, but they never had much in the way of conversations? Can you site references to confirm this is true?

I find it very hard to believe that the two gentlemen wouldn't have had a lot to talk about, given that Chilcutt built up expertise in ape dermal ridge patterns and Meldrum's life study involves interpretation of ape and early hominoid tracks.