The Ketchum Report

[Guest VioletX]

Scott Carpenter aka Joe Black is a NABS team-member/Sasquatch researcher from Eastern Tennessee who has presented a body of work on youtube, a blog and submitted samples for analysis in the Ketchum study. Known recently here on the BFF for some plotwatcher setup videos of a tree peeker. He is a member here too unless somebody is masquerading with some of the names/ids above.

Scott Carpenter is repeating what Paulides said, that the release of the paper is " very very close". Hopefully that second very is a good sign.

[Ronnie Bass]

Where is this "angel DNA" coming from? Apparently Robert Lindsey mentioned it and the skeptics have picked that up and thrown it in their talking points of why this is a farce. I do agree if Ketchum ever tried suggesting such an DNA existed it would be problematic in terms legitimacy but I have yet to see where this "angel DNA" was born from.

[Guest]

More words. Still no paper. Racing for fame might make ya' trip up. Always focus on the process, not the product.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Earlier in this thread we discussed 'peer-review', 'embargos' and 'NDA's'.

Dr. Ketchum had done a decent job of maintaining a level of professional silence on her paper (to an almost maddening degree) which gave me hope that there was indeed something here worthy of keeping an eye on.

With this self-released PR bit she not only mentions 'peer-review' in her first sentence but goes on to enumerate information one would consider 'hands-off' due to an NDA or an embargo or what have you.

I don't mean to ruffle feathers here but none of what has transpired over the past 48 hours inspires confidence. As I stated above, I really did (kind of / sort of still do) think there was something to all of this but would have prefered Dr. Ketchum stayed the course and not leak data in such a sensationalistic fashion. I don't think there was a need to respond to Dr. Burtstev's comments with damage control of this sort.

Optimistic still ... but then again, I've always drank out of a half full cup ...

Excellent points, Simmon. Welcome to the BFF, by the way.

I diagree with everything you said.

We've been told, ad nauseum, by the mass of skeptics that seeing isn't believing. That witness reports are notoriously inaccurate even when trained people, such as a law enforcement, are the witness. "We need proof!", we were told.

Now we have DNA. Having said that, the proof isn't the DNA alone. We have DNA in addition to hair samples, video, audio, footprints and witness reports by gazillion.

Feel free to disagree, but we're actually saying the same thing. As I've stated several times in this topic, the presentation of the DNA with additional accompanying evidence will be required to claim "proof" to anyone other than geneticists and/or the scientific community. I'll say again that I'm talking about conclusive evidence, not blurry video of photo evidence with red circles and commentary explaining what we're seeing.

I'm not skeptical per se', just realistic. Notice that before any evidence has actually been presented - including the study itself - there are calls for legislation to protect the creature. I find this to be problematic, as will the majority of average, everyday citizens who may or may not be affected by said potential legislation. As I said earlier, how do you expect a landowner to not harvest trees on his property to protect a creature based on DNA evidence only? That's nonsense. However, should you present the evidence we both hope is accompanying the DNA - provided it's conclusive and definitive - there is something for the public to put with the genetics.

Personally, I hope that the video/photographic evidence is a slam dunk. If not, we're back to arguing just as before, but with the DNA being questioned as well.

[Guest VioletX]

More words. Still no paper. Racing for fame might make ya' trip up. Always focus on the process, not the product.

So if I were in the same situation, what would I say. I think it will be soon but I do not know the exact date, is what I might say.

Why can't anyone be specifically nonspecific,lol?

When they say soon it is as if they are repeating from another party that knows something but is unwilling to be pushed into admitting anything for whatever reason.

So we are back to square one of knowing nothing...sigh.

[bipedalist]

Scott Carpenter is repeating what Paulides said, that the release of the paper is " very very close". Hopefully that second very is a good sign.

Well as I'll be calling in to the show and asking questions tonight I'll guess we'll see?

[Ronnie Bass]

I'm not skeptical per se', just realistic. Notice that before any evidence has actually been presented - including the study itself - there are calls for legislation to protect the creature. I find this to be problematic, as will the majority of average, everyday citizens who may or may not be affected by said potential legislation.

This is the one downer I found in Ketchum's press release was this:

Ketchum calls on public officials and law enforcement to immediately recognize the Sasquatch as an indigenous people:

“Genetically, the Sasquatch are a human hybrid with unambiguously modern human maternal ancestry. Government at all levels must recognize them as an indigenous people and immediately protect their human and Constitutional rights against those who would see in their physical and cultural differences a ‘license’ to hunt, trap, or kill them.â€

I do believe she would have been better served leaving this part out of her press release, save it down the road when/if her work passes the peer review.

[Guest VioletX]

Well as I'll be calling in to the show and asking questions tonight I'll guess we'll see?

Yes, I am satisfied with that, Bipedalist; he will not be able to withstand your scrutiny. ; D

I am of two minds; one, reading between the lines I feel everything is working out, and the other part is thinking that the paper is in danger somehow.

[bipedalist]

Why include any of it without simultaneous release of the paper?

Is there supposed to be some element of reassurance in not doing so?

(other than attempt to quell the blood-lust folks?)

I don't see panic in the streets yet?

[Guest DWA]

More words. Still no paper. Racing for fame might make ya' trip up. Always focus on the process, not the product.

Earlier in this thread we discussed 'peer-review', 'embargos' and 'NDA's'.

Dr. Ketchum had done a decent job of maintaining a level of professional silence on her paper (to an almost maddening degree) which gave me hope that there was indeed something here worthy of keeping an eye on.

With this self-released PR bit she not only mentions 'peer-review' in her first sentence but goes on to enumerate information one would consider 'hands-off' due to an NDA or an embargo or what have you.

I don't mean to ruffle feathers here but none of what has transpired over the past 48 hours inspires confidence. As I stated above, I really did (kind of / sort of still do) think there was something to all of this but would have prefered Dr. Ketchum stayed the course and not leak data in such a sensationalistic fashion. I don't think there was a need to respond to Dr. Burtstev's comments with damage control of this sort.

Optimistic still ... but then again, I've always drank out of a half full cup ...

Right. Not proceeding according to Hoyle doesn't mean you're wrong. But anyone with a passing acquaintance with this field knows that right now, opportunities are growing like Topsy for the mainstream to say you're wrong, go back to sleep, and let this sink like a barge in mid-Pacific. The 'skeptical' take on this topic has gone unchallenged by the mainstream pretty much since European settlement. Think that will suddenly change with an unpopular - and incomplete - finding now?

I hadn't seen you post before Simmon, but ...

You nailed it head-on. From the start we were told things were off-the-table because it would compromise publication in a respected journal, NOW, before it's even finished with peer-review, selected highlights are dangled before the waiting masses.

I don't think it bodes well for the course this "study" is about to take... so in the immortal words of Westly

"Get used to disappointment." - JMHO

If the best bettors go with history, well, they're going with a bad outcome for this one. Because shenanigans like this have pretty much been 100% fails.

I diagree with everything you said.

We've been told, ad nauseum, by the mass of skeptics that seeing isn't believing. That witness reports are notoriously inaccurate even when trained people, such as a law enforcement, are the witness. "We need proof!", we were told.

Now we have DNA. Having said that, the proof isn't the DNA alone. We have DNA in addition to hair samples, video, audio, footprints and witness reports by gazillion.

The skeptics are wrong. Eyewitness reports aren't "inaccurate." They are inadmissible as proof. Fact is, unless the eyewitness has specific motivation to lie or a proven specific handicap of perception, we have no reason at all not to believe eyewitnesses. The skeptical ignorance of the eyewitness testimony is their Achilles' heel; it holds together to paint the morphological, behavioral and ecological picture of an unlisted species. Any scientist who knows what he's talking about knows that a random concatenation of false positives does not do that.

The testimony, again, is not proof. But it says - and this is not an opinion - science must search until the cause of all this evidence is ascertained.

One thing that has crippled this field is the all-but-universal presumption that each piece of evidence must be either proof or garbage. Sometimes evidence is neither, but simply compelling.

[Guest]

Does anyone have a link to the Bigfoot Tonight show with Carpenter/Black? Is that on tonight?

[bipedalist]

http://m.blogtalkradio.com/bigfoottonightshow/2012/11/26/guest-scott-carpenter

[Guest]

Well as I'll be calling in to the show and asking questions tonight I'll guess we'll see?

Good luck with that BP, I hope you can get us some more info to work with! Personally, I would love to know if there is any relationship between Sykes and Ketchum (professional of course!) and what that means in terms of release dates.

On the 'DNA as proof' subject, I think it is going to be as simple as some people will find it convincing, some people won't.

Just like anything in life. Some people for instance believe the evidence for global warning, some don't.

The game-changer/ender in the upcoming situation will be how many good quality ducks have been assembled in the line.

If we have video, perhaps photos of one or more dead bodies (has anyone ruled this out for Sierra Kills?), on top of the DNA, then that will create momentum.

[Guest DWA]

Really ? If calling the subjects "wood apes" and shooting at them, is where the sasquatch field is right now... I'm glad to not be in that particular field. Not speaking about all involved, just some. On the other hand, there are other extremes wanting the "forest people" to have constitutional rights, and maybe even vote in the next election or get free healthcare. Others, are into the sasquatch entertainment business, and making a living out of it, while raising more public awareness of the still unproven, but like the others.. not finding much.

In between it all... there are groups and individuals quietly doing their investigations, shaking their heads and still wondering about it all. Not making any claims, or trying to rise above the rest. Just getting the same results as the notables, which is pretty much All the same.. Nothing provable.

Like it or not, you're in this field, all of it, if you are interested in the sasquatch being confirmed.

The TBRC is basing its opinion of what these animals are on a lot of experience in the field, and a refusal to go all rosy anthropomorphizing over every soulful look somebody gets from a sasquatch. (Their opinion is overwhelmingly backed by the eyewitness literature.) You may not want one killed. I don't, either, really. But I'm realistic about what the scientific community wants.

This DNA thing isn't going to fly, if my bet means anything, because nothing plagued by this kind of Duelling Premature Disclosure has flown yet. The mainstream is already loading up its guns to shoot this thing full of holes; and the Ketchum team is providing the ammunition. The critics will likely not even have to address the science, just the Facebooky-ness of it. Worked for the critics of Patterson-Gimlin; the smart money says it will work here too. Science has been saying present a body for six decades now. It's not going to change because somebody doesn't know the proper protocols for preparing and submitting scientific papers.

If you think the sasquatch is doing fine without confirmation, well, OK. But if you think confirmation is required to save its habitat (the biggest threat, much bigger than crackpots with guns)...well, then, you better make your peace with a body being the way it's done. At the rate we're eating up habitat, extinction with dignity may be the other option. And I am personally glad that we tend not to go that route...once we come to our senses, that is.

The TBRC is by leagues the most serious and organized group out there, serious and organized enough to have conducted two of the only three sasquatch expeditions in recorded history. If you think that time is running out for the sasquatch - and unless we get an attack of Enlightenment like Bhutan, and declare immense sasquatch reserves now, it is - then you are hoping the TBRC succeeds.

Or if you don't care, or are almost unjustifiably optimistic...not.

[Guest]

.

The TBRC is by leagues the most serious and organized group out there, serious and organized enough to have conducted two of the only three sasquatch expeditions in recorded history.

What does that mean? I am NOT being coy, it seems an interesting claim, and perhaps you can qualify it better, I do not follow all the various groups.