The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

Evidently Ketchum doesn't have one. Instead, she apparently has the other alternative: a paper that in essence says, "this modern human DNA was collected by bigfoot enthusiasts so it must be from bigfoots." Well, that is just never going to fly in any journal worth the paper it's printed on.

Proof?

Just a couple of pages ago in this thread, Mulder charged that Henry Gee's willingness to consider cryptid manuscripts for publication in Nature was nothing but a dishonest attempt by "S"keptics to create the impression that there's no publication bias against such papers. I addressed his charge with actual, referenced quotes from Henry Gee that illustrated Mulder's inaccuracy on that point. What was the logical fallacy I committed there?

Straw Man, perhaps?

The point is that you are not accurately citing what I said, and I've had to correct you multiple times now on it.

I said that Henry Gee's words are not backed up by his deeds, IF (and I have to empnasize the "if" as you seem to be incapable of recognizing a caveat when one is given) the leaks about Nature rejecting the paper and the nature of the crits of the study that formed the basis of the objection are true.

This is the last time I am going to correct you on this issue. Continue to deliberately misrepresent and misquote me and I will take the issue to the Mods.

Thanks much, Jodie. Appreciate the info. I wonder why Dr. Nelson would seemingly find it more incredible that human blood would be found on a screw trap on a cabin's front porch instead of the blood of a near human. Comments like that are the cause of much head scratching.

He answers your question IN the quote you cited. He finds it unusual that a human would simply step on the screwboard in the manner the intruder did.

I'd further add to that the immense size of the foot, based on the number and positioning of the screws with material adhering to them as documented in the Monsterquest ep.

[Guest]

It was interesting about what she said about observing Squatches 'after' she had compiled most of her data, and has gone back a few times to check them out, or something to that affect. Is Dr.K having multiple sightings?

She might have, I heard on a talk show that she got to see some but the person being interviewed said it was for Melba to recount her sightings. I got the impression that she was invited to go visit a hot spot where there is supposedly a local family.

Edited January 3, 2012 by HODS

[Guest]

As opposed to the irrational position of the proponents who make assumptions that have no basis in reality.

Has there been a review process Mulder? How would you know? Please answer my questions for once.

See the post at the top of this page

Starting here:

Where is the answer to my question about the skeptics who first reported on the Nature rejection?

Links please.

I'm not going to trawl back through this entire thread just to satisfy you. A thread was started, then merged into this one. That is fact. Just to shut you up though, Parn brings the whole issue up (complete with assumptions about the paper and it's contents and the reason for rejection) here:

I don't believe that she can't run an electrophoresis and mail out containers and read the results, and transcribe them into a paper which says: we have DNA that is "one third of the way from a human to a chimp?" Really? You think that Henry Gee would say, "no, sorry, I know you have identified a new species of primate but you spelled "electrophoresis" wrong, so I tore up your paper? c'mon.....can't you see how self destructive that would be for Henry Gee? does the man seem like a hopeless neurotic to you?

The problem is in the validity of the data (there is no way to show that it came from a bigfoot), and the results (modern human), not the procedures/DNA analysis. Those problems can't be remedied. That's why the paper was handed back without apparently even making it to review.

[indiefoot]

Since Dr. Ketchum's paper may have been re-written a couple of times and then handed around to the co-authors for their input and when that whole process is done it may be ready to hand back in to the journal with all of the changes that were asked for covered, it's unlikely that anyone in this discussion has any idea what is in Dr. Ketchum's paper at this point.

I noticed that scientific type folks like to stick to the facts that can be proven, except when they are bad mouthing other scientific type folks.

[Guest]

And we wait.

[Guest]

Straw Man, perhaps?

Now Mulder, don't go introducing fallacy-based argumentation into the thread, mm-kay?

The point is that you are not accurately citing what I said, and I've had to correct you multiple times now on it.

I said that Henry Gee's words are not backed up by his deeds, IF (and I have to empnasize the "if" as you seem to be incapable of recognizing a caveat when one is given) the leaks about Nature rejecting the paper and the nature of the crits of the study that formed the basis of the objection are true.

This is the last time I am going to correct you on this issue. Continue to deliberately misrepresent and misquote me and I will take the issue to the Mods.

(bolding mine) You're killing me, Mulder. How can I misquote you when I have quoted you? I'm glad I run no further danger of you "correcting" me, but if you feel you must, I'm sure the Mods would love to hear from you. Here's how the conversation started:

"Posted 27 December 2011 - 04:06 PM

Mulder, on 27 December 2011 - 06:55 AM, said:

If Nature did indeed reject it, then the meme about how Henry Gee is so open to publishing a sasquatch paper is just more Skeptic misinformation."

So those are your words. "Skeptic misinformation" is the source of the meme that Henry Gee is open to publishing a sasquatch paper. Only that's not true. Your statement is you spreading disinformation about skeptics being the source of that "meme." I addressed your statement directly with the following:

"Mulder, you seem like an individual intelligent enough to be able to distinguish between Gee being open to publishing a sasquatch paper and Gee actually publishing any sasquatch paper submitted. You do realize that it's possible for someone to submit a lousy paper to him that he cannot accept, right? So we are left to conclude that you make statements like the above because . . ? Well, actually, why DO you make such statements when you know darn well that they're ill conceived? I don't get it.

It is most emphatically NOT "misinformation" from the "Skeptics" (again, why are you capitalizing this word these days?). Here are direct quotes from Gee in his column published in Nature in 2004: (etc.)"

So when you wrote " . . . the meme about how Henry Gee is so open to publishing a sasquatch paper is just more Skeptic misinformation" were you not being serious? Did you intend to communicate something else? Did I not address what you wrote? In what way do you think I misrepresented your position?

I don't think this post tells us much that's new. But.....

She really nails her colours to the mast at the end though. She uses the word 'Sasquatch' and explicitly links this to the big hairy thing that people have had sightings of all over N. America for decades. She also appears to locate herself as part of the Bigfoot Community, rather than just a dispassionate scientist. In the past she's not made this direct link so explicitly and you almost got the impression that her data existed in isolation. Am I wrong?

I noticed that too, Strick. The thing I find even more puzzling is that she seems to be promising that her paper will be out "soon" while at the same time indicating that she hasn't received any feedback yet and doesn't know how extensive revisions will be. Despite the fact that she's unable to predict exactly when it will be published, she is assuming that it will be published.

Only two types of people proclaim that their paper will be published before they have an acceptance letter in hand: the arrogant and the naive. I never claim that something I've submitted will be published before the review process is complete, and I can't think of a single colleague who would make such a claim. We'll say things like "I've submitted a paper" or "I've got a paper in review" and then follow it up with something like "and I'm hopeful we can get it published."

[Guest parnassus]

I agree with Saskeptics impression, and would comment on this phrase from Ketchum:

... we have overkilled the science on this project beyond all realms of reason.

I expect that by "science" Ketchum means redoing laboratory tests, and thus replicating results. While the ability to replicate results is one part of science, I doubt very much that replicating the results is the issue. The issue most likely is that these replicated results don't mean anything interesting ie they represent known animals, modern humans in particular.

Edited January 3, 2012 by parnassus

[Guest slimwitless]

I expect that by "science" Ketchum means redoing laboratory tests, and thus replicating results. While the ability to replicate results is one part of science, I doubt very much that replicating the results is the issue. The issue most likely is that these replicated results don't mean anything interesting ie they represent known animals, modern humans in particular.

Do you think her co-authors (or reviewers) might alert her to that possibility or is she working with a cadre of like-minded individuals?

[southernyahoo]

Now Mulder, don't go introducing fallacy-based argumentation into the thread, mm-kay?

(bolding mine) You're killing me, Mulder. How can I misquote you when I have quoted you? I'm glad I run no further danger of you "correcting" me, but if you feel you must, I'm sure the Mods would love to hear from you. Here's how the conversation started:

"Posted 27 December 2011 - 04:06 PM

Mulder, on 27 December 2011 - 06:55 AM, said:

If Nature did indeed reject it, then the meme about how Henry Gee is so open to publishing a sasquatch paper is just more Skeptic misinformation."

So those are your words. "Skeptic misinformation" is the source of the meme that Henry Gee is open to publishing a sasquatch paper. Only that's not true. Your statement is you spreading disinformation about skeptics being the source of that "meme." I addressed your statement directly with the following:

"Mulder, you seem like an individual intelligent enough to be able to distinguish between Gee being open to publishing a sasquatch paper and Gee actually publishing any sasquatch paper submitted. You do realize that it's possible for someone to submit a lousy paper to him that he cannot accept, right? So we are left to conclude that you make statements like the above because . . ? Well, actually, why DO you make such statements when you know darn well that they're ill conceived? I don't get it.

It is most emphatically NOT "misinformation" from the "Skeptics" (again, why are you capitalizing this word these days?). Here are direct quotes from Gee in his column published in Nature in 2004: (etc.)"

So when you wrote " . . . the meme about how Henry Gee is so open to publishing a sasquatch paper is just more Skeptic misinformation" were you not being serious? Did you intend to communicate something else? Did I not address what you wrote? In what way do you think I misrepresented your position?

I noticed that too, Strick. The thing I find even more puzzling is that she seems to be promising that her paper will be out "soon" while at the same time indicating that she hasn't received any feedback yet and doesn't know how extensive revisions will be. Despite the fact that she's unable to predict exactly when it will be published, she is assuming that it will be published.

Only two types of people proclaim that their paper will be published before they have an acceptance letter in hand: the arrogant and the naive. I never claim that something I've submitted will be published before the review process is complete, and I can't think of a single colleague who would make such a claim. We'll say things like "I've submitted a paper" or "I've got a paper in review" and then follow it up with something like "and I'm hopeful we can get it published."

I see this as an evidence based argument. It has not been demonstrated that the journal Nature is open to BF papers. It is simply a claim. That's how Mulder views it.. It is the same as a skeptic saying there is no paper.

[TimB]

I agree with Saskeptics impression, and would comment on this phrase from Ketchum:

I expect that by "science" Ketchum means redoing laboratory tests, and thus replicating results. While the ability to replicate results is one part of science, I doubt very much that replicating the results is the issue. The issue most likely is that these replicated results don't mean anything interesting ie they represent known animals, modern humans in particular.

I really don't know how you can say that given the extremely limited information that's been presented to the public so far. I wish you wouldn't present guesses based on your personal sensibilities as fact. You are a smart guy- why engage in speculation? More focus on facts would help us all out.

Tim B.

PS- I highlighted your personal opinions so you can see what I mean. Every statement is conjecture presented as fact.

[Guest]

I think its fascinating. The usual info time before publication is just some days or even one day. The first 2012 Issues are getting ready to be published, embargoes shortly start to be lifted. Any day could be the day. Pure suspense

[Guest]

Yikes Guys, How and Why do so many people think BF sightings are hallucinations? I can accept mis-identification, but hallucinations are different from a poorly interpreted sighting of some sort.

I may be a little biased towards this idea as I have frequent hallucinations. My doctor informs me that even healthy people can have hallucinations. It took me a long time to come to grips with the idea that my mind was merely playing tricks on me. And I have to say that I am much better for accepting them as they are. Really the things I used to think were making me crazy. I'm much more sane now and happier to boot. I take medication to control them and still experience them from time to time. I think it's very easy to postulate that someone may well be having a hallucination. Harder to explain would be the group sightings. I'm seriously considering that bigfoot may be real. I just don't think people should put too much faith in the accuracy of their vision. I have read reports that sounded just like some of the hallucinations I've had.

I can deal with cat people over plant people anyday, the thought of a sentient super strong fungi on legs is even less appealing. It brings back memories of that movie "Attack of the Mushroom People"

They're triffids! my second favorite monster after bigfoot!

[Guest Admin]

Melba Ketchum alludes to the fact that she is now a Bigfoot witness on her facebook page.

View the full article

[Guest]

I see this as an evidence based argument. It has not been demonstrated that the journal Nature is open to BF papers. It is simply a claim. That's how Mulder views it.. It is the same as a skeptic saying there is no paper.

The "claim" is that the relevant editor at Nature, Henry Gee, is open to considering "bigfoot" papers. That claim is based on the evidence of Gee's own words, which I provided with references. Note that one of those sources was an essay he published in Nature. There is a claim, and there is evidence supporting the claim.

As for claims of the existence of Ketchum's paper, let's make sure we're on the same page. I have not said "there is no paper" and I don't know of anyone else making such a claim. (You need to be careful or Mulder will accuse you of making a straw-man argument.) I have made statements to the effect that "we don't even know that there is a paper." Although we have anecdotal evidence suggesting the existence of this paper, no one has yet provided it, as I did by providing Gee's essay.

Therefore, if by "the same" you mean "actually quite different," then I agree.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

No, I blame institutional scientists for not accepting and engaging with the evidence to hand (hairs, tracks, eyewitness reports, films, etc). There's plenty of evidence.

Mulder, I see this often and I have to disagree. I don't think it's fair to blame "institutional scientists". I am not a scientist, I'm just a dude, but maybe a real scientist could chime in to agree/disagree.

If grant money were ever to become available for a case study, and you showed them these things you have listed, they would say "No thanks, I'd rather use the money to study lichen in Siberia". Such evidence is fun to talk about here but there is a reason why it's rejected so far and why this is a closed institution. Some of the "evidence" shows a great deal of investigator bias. In most examples, the collection of case study evidence is hidden from science, because people want to prove it first and then bring in "institutional scientists". Therefore there is a weak chain of evidence where scientists are unable to attach questions to individual links in the chain like protocol. And most importantly (to me), most of it can and will produce a rival theory proposed by someone as simple as me. Now if this DNA thing ever pans out, that would be a great starting point to bring in the real scientists. And they will engage.

No offense to the lichen people.