The Ketchum Report

[Cisco]

From Robin Lynne:

"In regards to what is being said . The only thing that happened with the paper was at one time it was sent back rejected pending revisions. They didnt even read it all. this is a long paper 50 pages. This is what Igor is referring to The REVISIONS HAVE BEEN DONE AND THE JOURNAL HAS THEM NOW. They are now reading the paper. I have read the paper myself it is very indepth. and long. Extremely scientific. This is why it is talking so long. This is what Igor is referring to. In Russia they very much believe in the forest people . That is why it is also in review there. It is being reviewed in the U.S. as well as Russia. The large amount of information takes alot of time to be though. Also this is a topic never been done before. All this adds up to taking alot longer to approve."

I'm not sure who is causing more damage to Ketchum; Igor or Robin?

It's bad enough that Igor pushes Ketchum under the bus but then Robin comes out with her own follow up which just makes Ketchum look inept. If Ketchum has chosen Robin to speak for her then I have serious doubts as to her judgement.

I hate to focus on Robins language skills but for Gods sake, somebody needs to proof read her statements before they are released! How does one spell "alot" and what does it mean? That's just one of many mistakes.

This whole thing is starting to circle the drain....

[Guest mitchw]

I don't believe it should take so long for Ketchum's Public Relations person to react to false statements. And Burtsev needs to stay clear of his internetski.

[TimB]

From the Knapp article- I think this is telling:

Since Dr. Ketchum made her premature defense of the study, responding to unfortunate leaks, an army of armchair critics have already dismissed the results without waiting to see the actual data. That’s not the way science is supposed to work, but it is exactly how modern science operates. It’s as much a religion as Catholicism or Mormonism, and anything that falls outside the accepted scriptures must be ridiculed.

Tim B.

[Guest Particle Noun]

Please keep in mind that wasn't a statement meant for release to everyone, it was a quick facebook post to a certain group, and we then got permission to spread it around. Many of you might be in the habit of carefully crafting facebook posts, but many are not. Also, the reaction took time because Robin had a family emergency this morning, so was delayed, and didn't see all of this until recently.

Real life! Who would'a thought it would ever get in the way?!?

[Guest crabshack]

From the Knapp article- I think this is telling:

Quote

Since Dr. Ketchum made her premature defense of the study, responding to unfortunate leaks, an army of armchair critics have already dismissed the results without waiting to see the actual data. That’s not the way science is supposed to work, but it is exactly how modern science operates. It’s as much a religion as Catholicism or Mormonism, and anything that falls outside the accepted scriptures must be ridiculed.

Tim B.

I was just going to post that.

Edited December 6, 2012 by crabshack

[Guest]

A nice sentiment indeed, but this will be virtually impossible due to the hackjob that has been a complete success. It's one thing to question someone's professionalism and business skills, but to try to tie that in to what the quality of her scientific research may or may not yield is a dirty tactic and way too easy to do successfuly unfortunately. You can't deny that the ones slinging mud have made it very clear not that they think the paper will fail, but that they WANT the paper to fail, and are happily doing their part to make sure that happens.

It's ugly and it has no place in science.

Absolutely 1 googleplex % correct!

I'm still a page or two behind (given that I'm responding to this post), but IF the paper has been rejected, I want to see the rejection letter(s). If they turh out to be like the "no testable hypothesis" BS from over a year ago (this is an analytical paper, not a hypothesis-driven paper), then it's more of the same old political BS on the part of the journals.

That said, I too think it's time for sample submitters to "jailbreak" their results and get them over to Sykes/Satori for a look over.

[Guest Cervelo]

I'm not sure who is causing more damage to Ketchum; Igor or Robin?

It's bad enough that Igor pushes Ketchum under the bus but then Robin comes out with her own follow up which just makes Ketchum look inept. If Ketchum has chosen Robin to speak for her then I have serious doubts as to her judgement.

I hate to focus on Robins language skills but for Gods sake, somebody needs to proof read her statements before they are released! How does one spell "alot" and what does it mean? That's just one of many mistakes.

This whole thing is starting to circle the drain....

Always liked this one alot

[Guest Particle Noun]

Mulder, Spoiler: It hasn't been rejected.

[Guest]

I don't think we have the full word on this. Igor is reprising comments he made several weeks ago (he just recently confirmed this). Since then, Robin has clarified (In the Sasquatch Protection Group) that the paper was handed back for revisions, not rejected. This was a few days ago. As far as I can tell there is nothing new in what Igor is saying, and nothing new about him completely muddying the waters either.

Unfortunately, even if what he says is not true, he has poisoned the well so badly I'm not sure a recovery can be made.

That is my fear as well at this point.

That's what happens when....

Let the cryin begin

So sorry, have you ever heard the name Bryan Sykes?

And apparently Ketchum is still in the running, according to the latest from her camp.

But even if we lost Ketchum, even if we lose Sykes, we still have cast tracks with biologically distinct features, forensically typed hairs, consistent eyewitness reports going back 1000s of years to pre-European times, etc.

IF we lost this battle, the war goes on.

Am I the only one that cringes when they use this term? I realize Bigfoot isn't much better, but 'forest people?' It's a little too new age-y for me.

Not a fan of it, but it IS the preferred term in European/Asian BF circles. The Russians have long been in the "relict hominid" camp.

[Guest Cervelo]

^^^^

The DNa=Bigfoot=proven basket

[Guest]

Let us keep in mind that Disotell is a Dismissalist on the topic of BF based on his previous public comments. His implication of sinister financial motives on the part of Ketchum (why else note that she runs a "for profit" DNA lab), his dismissive attitudes towards anyone outside his preferred circle of potential reviewers and paper writers ("real experts", etc), and his invocation of logical fallacies as in point 4 are typical of the psuedo-skeptic/Dismissalist/Denialist community.

Mulder, I hate to break it to you, but no matter how biased you think Disotell is, you are more biased in the opposite direction. The fact that you "dismiss" his points by invoking logical fallacies, and then chastise him by saying his invocation of logical fallacies are typical of the skeptic community, is unfair.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Art1972
to remove personal swipe at member.

[Guest]

There is a belief among some Morman's (I expect a very small small percentage) that believe bigfoot is Cain of the Bible or an off spring. (Cain and Able were the son's of Adam and Eve. Cain murdered Able becuase God accepted Able's sacrafice not Cain's. Cain was cursed and had to roam the earth with a mark and he appearently settled with another group of people. Problem being is that Adam and Eve were the first so there should not have been other people.) I read on an x-morman forum that some mormans would take Ketchum's study as proof that Bigfoot is Cain. You learn something new everyday. Here is the link.

http://exmormon.org/...ad.php?2,718854

Which is nothing more than an extended OT ad hominem attack on Ketchum (and possibly Meldrum). Their religious opinions are irrelevant. The only thing that does or should matter is their science.

Here's where the Skeptics see us at, and maybe they're right:

Let us remember how THAT turned out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRvAAYjmqkE

To paraphrase a line from another great franchise:

"Though it take a thousand years...the truth will be free..."

Edited December 6, 2012 by Mulder

[Oonjerah]

Of DNA, I know nothing. I wrote this yesterday:

"Will the Sykes/Satori study, which also tested Bigfoot samples and

could be released even before the Ketchum study, be able to support

Ketchum's findings?

I seriously doubt it. Sykes-Satori, as I understand it, are testing

only mitochondrial DNA, which you can get from a hair shaft, and it

is very reliable: not subject to contamination. They are not looking

at nuclear DNA at all. According to Dr. Ketchum, Sasquatch mitochon-

drial DNA shows up as human ... could be why the dozens of tests

done on it in the past were tossed out as, "Nothing to see here."

The Sykes-Satori study isn't about Bigfoot in particular. It's about

cryptid homonids in general: Yeti, Yeren, Orang Pendek, Almas as well."

[Cotter]

So Cervleo- figured I'd read one of your posts by choice and not quote, and this is what I chose..."The DNa=Bigfoot=proven basket", shame on me.

I personally don't think just saying something makes it so, as many have pointed out and accosted DMK for.

So, I shall kindly ask, can you please provide some evidence that suggests DNA can't prove that an undiscovered primate is real, and/or that the DMK study has fell short in this regard.

[Guest]

Oonjerah, if true, then he would be doing a half-assed job of it, esp given the claim on the table of "near-human/human-hybrid".

I would expect him to be more thorough than that.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Mulder