The Ketchum Report

[Guest VioletX]

There are victims here. People who have suffered because they enountered something the rest of the population at large considers mythical. How is it no on thinks about it like this? I have risked alot and heard alot of negative conversations because of my encounters. That monkey they found never had anywhere near the stigma of bigfoot.

It is the stigma that drives the true "doubters" and the true "believers to bring emotions into logical discussions. If Dr. Ketchum is feeling some of that, it seems fair. I have been called crazy, a liar, a moron and much worse because of BF. Those with the evidence can remove that stigma NOW.

How much money has been spent on this? How much money is trying to be made off this? I have my own proof that is good enough for me, the rest of the world and especially those who have encountered BF are waiting for vindication! What other issue is more important that this?

I agree with your sentiment, but in this case, it does not sound like Vann wants to hold back evidence, if I am not mistaken he/she is looking for the best plan to get the info. out. But I do understand about the stigma, although I am not a witness and cannot know completely how you feel, and I am sure it is something that resonates on this forum.

Edited September 15, 2012 by VioletX

[Guest BFSleuth]

Amen to that and +1 to your post Woodswalker. I think you've pretty well nailed it regarding stigma being the primary issue driving the conversation. It was certainly the reason why my own brother didn't tell me anything about his encounter until decades after the fact, and the reason why so many witnesses continue to remain anonymous. Hopefully the proof will be arriving soon and witnesses can be more forthright in the future without fear of ridicule.

[NitroSquatch]

A 7 to 10 ft tall ,weighing 500 to 800 lbs, and in north america, is just a little different than a new breed of monkey.

^That is this first thing that came to my mind. The relevant information was the amount of time that elapsed during the study and publication for Cercopthecus Lomamiensis.

Edited September 15, 2012 by NitroSquatch

[Guest BFSleuth]

Beyond just the time elapsed, I've been reading through the original report of the monkey study, just finished the main report and started on all the links to the charts, studies, graphs, etc. This is an exhaustive report. Easily a small novel in scope of writing, and likely thousands or tens of thousands of man hours for research. I get the impression from many of Dr. Ketchum's detractors that they think writing a report should be an easy undertaking on the same level as a college or high school term paper. I encourage everyone to go back to the link to the original monkey report I noted yesterday and read through every single link provided in the Supporting Information section and References and think about what it took to research, debate among themselves, and craft each section of this paper. Then think about what it took for a peer reviewer to read through the material they produced, comment on it, and give it back to an editor (who compiles multiple peer reviews) and gets back to the authors with recommended changes and go through X number of rounds of revisions.

This isn't a high school term paper folks. It's a professionally researched science paper with multiple contributors to establish a new species of primate. It took three years to get this one done. If it takes Dr. Ketchum et al to publish their paper in four years that would be on par with this effort IMO.

[Guest]

^Shhh, Sleuth...you aren't supposed to make sense. It messes up the Skeptics' tidy little world of denial.

[Guest]

Here are some other Melba FB excerpts from my own collection:

I am glad I didn't see them until after most of the data was in. I needed to prove

it scientifically to myself first as a former skeptic before hitting the field

and actually observing them. I had no fear, the ones I encountered were

peaceful and gentle. I keep going back. I know why so many people love doing

this now.I saw one silhouetted between me and a white gooseneck trailer in

bright moonlight at about twenty-five yards. It was about ten feet tall as it walked

by. I was awed at the appearance, so graceful and silent and so tall. You cannot

appreciate all that they are until you see for yourself. I hope that when our

data is out, it will afford protection for our hairy friends. They do not deserve

to be hunted or captured. Everyone needs to step back and take a Jane Goodall

approach.

If Ketchum really did make claims of being privy to a Sasquatch infestation where on one occasion she was blessed of seeing a ten footer, I seriously question her state of mind. Does she not realize that such statements basically converts her report to toilet paper in the eyes of academia. It ranks up there with that lady that claims her BF neighbors would knock on her to ask for garlic by name.

What excuse did she use to explain why she didn't get a pic ? Was it to protect this endangered and highly honorable species or did this 10 footer dart back into the brush with ninja-like stealth? I assume that she also doesn't realize that if by some miracle her report is accepted, BF will be on every poacher's "to do list" thanks to her Sasquatch Conservation efforts.

[southernyahoo]

BF will be on every poacher's "to do list" thanks to her Sasquatch Conservation efforts.</span></span></span>

Thats ok, we'll send in all the guille suited hoaxers to manage the problem.

[Guest]

I have to admit, this whole affair has made me read Nature and Science every Thursday and Friday. I am lucky I guess to have access to these journals, but I tell ya, some weeks you can only get so much scoop on RNA or the latest gossip on the local nucleotides.

You know, as I read these journals every week it dawned on me that it may be so scientific that I may glance over it.

What are some of the probable titles of this paper. The possible title may be so obscure as to pass it by. But of course the fine people on this forum will sniff it out.

So what title might it be?

[Guest]

If Ketchum really did make claims of being privy to a Sasquatch infestation where on one occasion she was blessed of seeing a ten footer, I seriously question her state of mind. Does she not realize that such statements basically converts her report to toilet paper in the eyes of academia. It ranks up there with that lady that claims her BF neighbors would knock on her to ask for garlic by name.

Untrue.

The world's tallest recorded human was nearly 9' (3' above average), so with an average height in the 7-8' range a 10' bf is NOT a report sinker.

Even moreso when you consider that with a larger, more powerful frame and musculature, bf would be better able to support such a height w/o the problems the ultra-tall human has.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Most eyewitness accounts I've classified for the SSR that recall the height, mention that it was between 7-8 feet tall. I think that would be the average height for an adult Sasquatch. I don't know if their heights vary as much as our do, but if they do I would think a 10 foot tall Sasquatch would be considered very tall. Just my observation.

Edited September 17, 2012 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest]

You know, if her study does prove their existence, through DNA, then her eyewitness reports take on a whole new perspective don't they? If she proves existence, then why would any scientist disapprove of her sightings? She may have highly detailed field notes, and is just generalizing to joe public. She can even romanticize them all she wants, as long as her notes are scientific, accurate, and not subject to the whimsical discussion out side of them.

[Guest]

At the rate of speed to which Ketchum's report may ever come to light, I'm betting the TBRC will come up with proof of Sasquatch much sooner.. Very interesting situation going on with the TBRC..

[Guest poignant]

Untrue.

The world's tallest recorded human was nearly 9' (3' above average), so with an average height in the 7-8' range a 10' bf is NOT a report sinker.

Even moreso when you consider that with a larger, more powerful frame and musculature, bf would be better able to support such a height w/o the problems the ultra-tall human has.

Behold, Angus MacAskill - a true human giant with normal proportions at 7'9" and 500+ lbs, able to deadlift a 2800 lbs anchor to chest height.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_MacAskill

[Guest]

Untrue.

The world's tallest recorded human was nearly 9' (3' above average), so with an average height in the 7-8' range a 10' bf is NOT a report sinker.

Even moreso when you consider that with a larger, more powerful frame and musculature, bf would be better able to support such a height w/o the problems the ultra-tall human has.

I wasn't questioning the 10 footer, I was suggesting that she should not have revealed her alleged BF experiences because this only diminishes her credibility as an impartial, objective and sane DNA specialist in the eyes of her peers. But what's worse, she claims not just one encounter but several. For those reviewing her work who are animate that Sasquatch is nothing but a farce, they'll start wondering how many cats Ketchum owns. Now her state of mind will be also be in question, in addition to her findings. She just made it that much more difficult for the scientific community to take her seriously.

Personally, I think she's pulling a "Curt Nelson", but we shall see.

[Guest MikeG]

I simply don't understand this logic, Marlboro.

If someone was studying zebras and DIDN'T announce that they had been observing them in the wild, their writings on the subject wouldn't be taken very seriously. What on earth is the difference?

Mike