The Ketchum Report

[Guest slimwitless]

yeah, we've just about done the speculation thing to death. I mean its getting down to who is jumping who.

We need MEAT!

Agreed. That said, can anyone argue this hasn't been hugely entertaining?

[Guest]

I think you're mischaracterizing modern skepticism. Skeptics work to employ critical thinking, a key part of which is to follow the evidence. If the evidence confirms bigfoot, skeptics will happily accept the reality of bigfoot. It's really quite simple. Given the evidence produced to date, skeptics are unconvinced of the reality of bigfoot. Given new and better evidence that confirms the reality of bigfoot, skeptics will would be convinced of the reality of bigfoot.

I'm basing part of my characterization on the JREF boards themselves and other Skeptic communities I've come across. I would disagree with your assessment that they are taking the actual evidence into consideration. Their opinions are in large part reactionary without taking any evidence into account. They base their opinions on preconceived notions. I wouldn't put you in this category based on your postings.

I also base my characterization on history. I think you would agree that in the past that scientists and researchers with theories and works outside of the established science of the times are belittled and ignored.

[Guest mitchw]

I'll make a distinction between skeptics who will examine evidence and those that will ask "where's the body," and not bother with the rest of the evidence.

If you go to Skeptic website, it looks like they're aware of what's out there, but are not persuaded.http://www.skeptic.com/tag/bigfoot/

But if you talk to the likes of my sister, she suppresses a smirk, and wants to know why there is no body. The other evidence doesn't get her attention. (I don't like talking BF with my sister, as I start to observe her clinically. It works both ways, you see.)

[Guest]

I'm basing part of my characterization on the JREF boards themselves and other Skeptic communities I've come across. I would disagree with your assessment that they are taking the actual evidence into consideration. Their opinions are in large part reactionary without taking any evidence into account. They base their opinions on preconceived notions.

But I'm basing my characterization on personalities I've come to know on the JREF too. What sort of evidence do you think is not discussed there? Footprints, PGF, Ketchum analysis, eyewitness accounts - it's all there and discussed ad nauseum.

[Guest]

Krantz was a full professor at a major research university. Meldrum is a tenured associate professor at a major research university. I see no evidence that either of their careers have suffered from active engagement in bigfoot-related research, despite the fact that this notion is so often tossed around in bigfooty circles. This does not mean that neither man has endured harsh criticism from some of their peers, only that the criticism cannot be demonstrated to have been job-threatening. (For a bit of perspective, I spent the first two hours of my day in a meeting this morning to discuss the dossiers and vote on the promotion of two of our tenured professors from "associate" to "full" rank, so I know a bit about this stuff.)

Quick search resulted in this example - Martin Hackworth, a senior lecturer in the physics department, called Meldrum's research a joke. "Do I cringe when I see the Discovery Channel and I see Idaho State University, Jeff Meldrum? Yes, I do," Hackworth said. "He believes he's taken up the cause of people who have been shut out by the scientific community. He's lionized there. He's worshipped. He walks on water. It's embarrassing."

John Kijinski, dean of arts and sciences, said there have been "grumblings" about Meldrum's tenure, but no formal request for a review.

[Guest Jodie]

I don't know that I would let a physicist's opinion bother me. Does anyone else see the irony in that, or is it just me?

Edited December 12, 2011 by Jodie

[Guest HucksterFoot]

As for absolutist statements from me, I don't feel comfortable attaching a percentage to my belief in bigfoot. I am completely unconvinced by the evidence put forward to-date that there is an extant physical, biological "bigfoot". I attribute the phenomenon to a cultural/societal construct. If new and better information was produced that proved otherwise, I would gladly accept that information and modify my opinion accordingly. Some people might interpret my opinion as 1% chance, 0% chance, or something in between; I don't have a problem with that. I'm completely comfortable making a general statement like "there is no bigfoot" with the knowledge that I might one day have to modify that statement to something like "I used to be convinced there was no bigfoot, but my opinion was wrong." I guess I prefer to cast my percent belief as either 0 or 100, rather than try to estimate something in between.

It's all tentative; all subjected to revision.

On another note :]

[bipedalist]

There fixed it for yah---------------

[Guest]

Quick search resulted in this example - Martin Hackworth, a senior lecturer in the physics department, called Meldrum's research a joke. "Do I cringe when I see the Discovery Channel and I see Idaho State University, Jeff Meldrum? Yes, I do," Hackworth said. "He believes he's taken up the cause of people who have been shut out by the scientific community. He's lionized there. He's worshipped. He walks on water. It's embarrassing."

John Kijinski, dean of arts and sciences, said there have been "grumblings" about Meldrum's tenure, but no formal request for a review.

Which proves nothing. Meldrum has tenure; hundreds of people every year are denied this honor. As I said, plenty of people (myself included) might be critical of Meldrum's work, but there has been no demonstration that his career has suffered for it. We've had a thread here a while back in which I wrote about this at length, and made the case that bigfoot has been very good to Jeff Meldrum.

Meantime, have you looked up this Hackworth guy? He's a physics teacher. He does not have a PhD. His CV does not list a single publication. He is not a professor and does not have tenure; his position is non-tenure track. I don't write any of this to disparage Mr. Hackworth; he might be a very fine fellow. But when this story hit the news cycle back in 2006, people just assumed that "senior lecturer Martin Hackworth" was some venerable old, crusty, tweed-jacketed physics snob and that his record would be so far beyond Meldrum's that he would be in a legitimate position to be so critical. The truth? Not so much. Hackworth could not hold a candle to Jeff Meldrum in terms of scholarly activity - they simply have very different appointments. More to the point though, Hackworth could not have served on the promotion and tenure committee that reviewed Meldrum's dossier. In other words, Hackworth's opinion of Meldrum had no more influence on the trajectory of Meldrum's career than mine, yours, or my daughter's orthodontist's.

For the opinion of someone in Pocatello who did matter in Meldrum's career, check out the statements from Kijinski, the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, a.k.a., Meldrum's boss' boss, and the one with the real authority to decide who gets promoted and who does not:

"He's a bona fide scientist," Kijinski said. "I think he helps this university. He provides a form of open discussion and dissenting viewpoints that may not be popular with the scientific community, but that's what academics (is) all about."

I would be delighted to have my dean say such kind things about me.

[Guest]

[Guest]

In other words, Hackworth's opinion of Meldrum had no more influence on the trajectory of Meldrum's career than mine, yours, or my daughter's orthodontist's.

Who I'd wager is like another member of the family.

[Guest]

Which proves nothing. Meldrum has tenure; hundreds of people every year are denied this honor.

No offense, but you're basically illustrating Slim's point.

[Guest slimwitless]

People who would mock someone for expressing interest in evaluating evidence to determine the legitimacy of some reported phenomenon are not "skeptics", they are "jerks." While those terms are by no means mutually exclusive, it should really be the "jerk community" to whom you should seek apologies under your scenario, not the "skeptical community."

To be clear, I'm not seeking apologies from anyone. Like most people here, I use an alias (for reasons that go to the very heart of this discussion).

[Guest]

No offense, but you're basically illustrating Slim's point.

That bigfoot is entertaining? Thanks, why would I take offense to that?

[Guest]

Here are some examples of this so-called "damage" and how it might affect me personally if bigfoot was proven to exist:

1) I'd get to share in the joy of an amazing new discovery, and that joy would be a serious "Christmas morning as a kid" kind of joy.

2) I'd be able to carry the hope with me that I might in fact encounter a bigfoot firsthand while doing field work. This would thrill me immeasurably.

3) Given my knowledge of the subject, I could rather easily cast myself as something of an expert on the topic.

4) Grant money would become rapidly and abundantly available to study such creatures, and I'd be in excellent position to be awarded competitive grants to do such studies.

5) My field research and scholarly interest in bigfoot would lead to peer-reviewed publications of high impact, which are the most important professional currency in my profession.

6) On the wave of my bigfoot work, I would easily be promoted to full professor, and enjoy many a back-slap from my colleagues who will sheepishly admit that I was right to have been paying attention to this bigfoot stuff all those years.

7) My "lost" bet with Huntster would mean that I would have to "endure" an Alaskan vacation and treat one of my most entertaining and thoughtful intellectual foes to a prime rib dinner.

So this would be a bad thing for me exactly how? I ain't seeing the downside of a bigfoot discovery . . .

This is an honest answer - I understand it and respect it.

Let me say - Saskeptic, I know exactly what I encountered as a child. There is no misidentification or ambiguity.

You will enjoy all of the things you describe, and I believe we will not have to wait much longer. I look forward to sharing in your pleasure when these things come to pass, and I hope you write about your feelings here, and share with us when it happens.

Cheers - Harry