Jump to content

The Ketchum Report


Guest

Recommended Posts

Ketchum is not a PhD, but she claims to have some attaching their name to the paper, any idea on the names of those people?

Any word on a working title yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Transformer

^ I asked that question a while back and it is supposedly covered under the NDA which makes no sense from a scientific or publishing standpoint but there you go.

I think the working title is " The Dog Ate My Homework So I Will Be Late Handing It In".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest slimwitless

^ I asked that question a while back and it is supposedly covered under the NDA which makes no sense from a scientific or publishing standpoint but there you go.

I think the working title is " The Dog Ate My Homework So I Will Be Late Handing It In".

Dr. K said one reason we don't know the names of the other authors is because she doesn't want them to be bothered. (I would have used the word 'harassed'). That's a pretty good reason, IMO. Until proof is published and all parties can discuss the results, everyone involved would face the same ridicule Dr. K is facing now. I certainly wouldn't want my name out there if I couldn't talk about what I knew. Telling everyone "just wait" and "trust me" would get old real fast.

Would I feel better knowing the names of the "double-digit" co-authors? Yeah, especially if they have solid reputations and letters behind their names. That said, I really don't blame her for not revealing that information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Particle Noun

There was a tantalizing clue from the Bobo/Joe Rogan interview when Bobo said something to the effect that "there was one PHD, famous scientist, that you'd definitely know, on the team". I'll try and go back and listen for the real quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

The experienced hunters of which the vast majority have never had anything that even remotely comes close to a sasquatch encounter in BC will laugh and continue on doing what they do in the bush without even thinking about such a creature. Hard to say what those who have excitable imaginations and too little experience will do. If you spend your life in the wilderness and never come across anything different than the normal animals and their sign why should you think you are all of a sudden going to find something different just because some DNA is found somewhere far away that may be different? DNA alone will not prove that the animal known as sasquatch exists.

And then there are those that do, some of them hunting guides with far from excitable imaginations and with years of experience, some on horseback, etc. Some of your own fellow countrymen who are members of this forum seem to feel differently. It must be comforting to feel the way that you feel because some other "hunter" types from your region apparently know differently.

Edited by bipedalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If hunter's aren't LOOKING for BF sign, or don't believe it exists, why/how would they ever come to a conclusion that the sign they see are from BF? They would instantly assign it to a known animal, no matter how weird.

"Never seen a bear tear into a tree like that before!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jane Goodall?

Dr. Goodall wouldn't be involved in this report as she isn't in the DNA field. I've read that she believes bigfoot is a possibilty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BFSleuth

There was a tantalizing clue from the Bobo/Joe Rogan interview when Bobo said something to the effect that "there was one PHD, famous scientist, that you'd definitely know, on the team". I'll try and go back and listen for the real quote.

The only real reference was that the unnamed scientist was well recognized in the field and is on staff at a major university, and that he can't reveal the name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

Leila Hadj-Chikh, because she is also on the Sasquatch The Quest roster. And, had connections to the Kentucky

situation. Or, perhaps Anna Nekaris (Team Bigfootology so more remote since they are affiliated with the Sykes-Sartori Project, and doubt that doing double-duty would occur betwixt them). Possibly even Bindernagel if he is emeritus (which I think he is not). If he'd mentioned the country of the institution where they are faculty it'd be alot easier. Sounds like it is more than likely an American university for a largely American study, *speculation*

Edited by bipedalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then there are those that do, some of them hunting guides with far from excitable imaginations and with years of experience, some on horseback, etc. Some of your own fellow countrymen who are members of this forum seem to feel differently. It must be comforting to feel the way that you feel because some other "hunter" types from your region apparently know differently.

I would like to add.....some of us who have spent our entire life in the woods saw sign and never really knew it was BF until much later. I had heard things, saw things and my mind's eye WRONGLY associated it with a "must be" species. Sightings and tracks finally slapped me in the face like a bucket of ice water. My wife had a sighting just this weekend as a matter if fact.

KB

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DNA alone will not prove that the animal known as sasquatch exists.

You keep saying this, but what do you base this opinion on? Any particular knowledge about phylogenetic classification that you would like to share?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The experienced hunters of which the vast majority have never had anything that even remotely comes close to a sasquatch encounter in BC will laugh and continue on doing what they do in the bush without even thinking about such a creature. Hard to say what those who have excitable imaginations and too little experience will do. If you spend your life in the wilderness and never come across anything different than the normal animals and their sign why should you think you are all of a sudden going to find something different just because some DNA is found somewhere far away that may be different? DNA alone will not prove that the animal known as sasquatch exists.

I've met one or two experienced woodsmen (well, maybe more than that), and there are those among them who have encountered what they insist are squatch. And those who say they've never encountered a squatch can still spend an entire evening bending your ear about the wierd things that have happened to them in the woods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...