The Ketchum Report

[Guest mitchw]

Ketchum wrote in her response on FB that, they 'made the corrections they asked for.' Her use of the word 'corrections' doesn't sound consistent with the recent attacks upon Ketchum which we've heard. Corrections don't seem to me to include revising one's interpretation of data in a significant way.

[Guest]

I noticed she pretty much side stepped that question.

Edited December 15, 2012 by squatting squatch

[Guest poignant]

Thank you BFS +1 from me

[Guest]

Who would have thought that Facebook, a social media site started by a veritable youngster would become the Newspaper of Record, and that Twitter would provide non filtered (and some would say non thinking) follow up completely subjective interviews and reporting. From what i can tell by the time "real journalism prints, publishes, or airs a story its old news on Facebook. Merry Christmas to Everyone (not sarcasm) Hope everyone has a Great Holiday Season!

The Egyptian revolution (and others that were part of the arab spring) started on facebook before it spread to the streets. I was working im Cairo at the time and could not believe how quickly it turned from a cyber group run by admins to a full on protest that successfully saw a dictator topple. Who could have predicted that??

....I posted the following on the Sykes topic but thought i should post it here too as reading this topic conjures images of a dog chasing its tail so here is my two penneth worth..

Although Melba seems to be purporting an imminent release date; if she does indeed come out with the results before Sykes I forsee the paper being torn to shreds in the media and scientific community. A combination of the Melba teams reputation, rumours and poor PR are all fodder for a media that already thrives on tearing BF reports apart. I will repeat what I have said before that only the Oxford-Lausanne study will engage the scientific community to explore the results. Melbas study will just be a field day for the tabloids.

Re RL - we've all read his blog and probably will continue to browse his updates, so the joke is on us really as he laughs his way to the bank.

Edited December 15, 2012 by kezra

[Guest]

Although Melba seems to be purporting an imminent release date; if she does indeed come out with the results before Sykes I forsee the paper being torn to shreds in the media and scientific community. A combination of the Melba teams reputation, rumours and poor PR are all fodder for a media that already thrives on tearing BF reports apart. I will repeat what I have said before that only the Oxford-Lausanne study will engage the scientific community to explore the results. Melbas study will just be a field day for the tabloids.

I hear what you are saying and your probably correct on the media reactions.

I just get a kick out of the reasons as to why the paper will fail, It's like saying a particular horse will not win the race because the trainer believes he was a horse in a previous life, the jockey always raced on a Quarter Horse and is racing on a Thoroughbred for the first time, and because the track has a green fence around it. Meanwhile, nothing is said about the horse himself.

There is defiantly a smear campaign against DR.K , partly because who she is, the other part is the rock star researchers could be proven wrong about their ape theory, and their ego's can't handle it.

At the end of the day, it's all BS, and leaks are going to happen, it's a major discovery, even people that should keep quiet, are going to whisper to family and friends, and you know were it goes from there.

Edited December 15, 2012 by zigoapex

[Guest DWA]

We may need to get used to science by the Ketchum book.

One thing introduced on another forum that I can at least provisionally buy is that Ketchum might - on purpose or by accident - be crazy like a fox here. Mainstream science rarely titters about anything until the final results are presented. Ketchum might sense that peer-stonewall thing coming (and scientists have themselves to blame for the general attitude toward this topic), and has decided to "leak" this to the public to create and stoke interest in the findings. If she actually does have something, a general public that is about 30% sold on sasquatch - if you believe a recent survey - might start generating a lot of pressure for greater scientific involvement. Science is paid by the public. That pressure would be extremely difficult to ignore.

Edited December 15, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

DWA, while I differ greatly with your take on mainstream science, it is odd that there is so little concensus among scientists about the evolutionary path of humans.

Examples:

One study points to interbreeding between multiple species of hominids, and one says no, it's just the common ancestor that provides the DNA closeness.

One study sounds more like there is a linear track without much overlap between hominids and another shows huge overlaps between species.

The most puzzling thing that lacks any concensus is the age range of different hominid groups. Did Erectus die out at 350,000 years ago, or much later. Some studies suggest 50,000 years ago and some way later.

There are many more examples, but it does seem that many scientists would have a more open mind to the possibility of surviving hominids.

[Guest]

Science is paid by the public. That pressure would be extremely difficult to ignore.

We pay taxes but how much clout do 'we, the public' have to direct state funding streams?

Of all the lobby groups I would imagine the environmentalists would be the first (and possibly only??) to push for further research of BF, habitat etc. but this section of lobbyists is notorious for being ridiculed, overpowered and brushed aside. Add BF to their mix (proven on paper) is all the more reason to overlook their (what is seen to be) bleating.

Am I too cynical? If you have examples to the contrary please fill me in. This isnt the way I would like it to pan out.

Interesting article linked below on state funded research and the possible implications of costs:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/the-real-cost-of-researchand-who.html

[Guest DWA]

We pay taxes but how much clout do 'we, the public' have to direct state funding streams?

Of all the lobby groups I would imagine the environmentalists would be the first (and possibly only??) to push for further research of BF, habitat etc. but this section of lobbyists is notorious for being ridiculed, overpowered and brushed aside. Add BF to their mix (proven on paper) is all the more reason to overlook their (what is seen to be) bleating.

Am I too cynical? If you have examples to the contrary please fill me in. This isnt the way I would like it to pan out.

Interesting article linked below on state funded research and the possible implications of costs:

http://news.sciencem...rchand-who.html

The public has the ULTIMATE authority in all matters relating to money. Yeah, we know, a few get a disproportionate amount of the money. But those few got where they are by understanding the public mood and moving the emphasis where the public wants it to go. When you spend your money, do you spend it on what a rich man tells you...or on what YOU want to spend it on?

Public funding simply puts a lot of "you"s in the place of one "you."

As the latest awful example, watch the aftermath of the Connecticut massacre. You will see funding streams start addressing problems that this (once again) brings to the fore. Gun control is already being discussed for major re-emphasis...and you know that isn't the firearms companies.

Public interest in bigfoot = $$$$$. Watch. (Provided anything comes of this, of course.)

[Guest]

DWA, while I differ greatly with your take on mainstream science, it is odd that there is so little concensus among scientists about the evolutionary path of humans.

Examples:

One study points to interbreeding between multiple species of hominids, and one says no, it's just the common ancestor that provides the DNA closeness.

One study sounds more like there is a linear track without much overlap between hominids and another shows huge overlaps between species.

The most puzzling thing that lacks any concensus is the age range of different hominid groups. Did Erectus die out at 350,000 years ago, or much later. Some studies suggest 50,000 years ago and some way later.

There are many more examples, but it does seem that many scientists would have a more open mind to the possibility of surviving hominids.

This has always puzzled me too. Surely the only thing we can be certain of is what the fossil record shows us. I do not see enough examples to say definitively that a species died out or lived for a x amount of years. As all science its theory that fills in the gaps snd until proven otherwise is taken as fact. The different schools of thought have a variety of ideas but the easiest to digest is taken as the status quo. Puzzling way of ascertaining a fact as it seems to put limitations on possibilities and ideas for potential archeaology.

[Guest DWA]

This has always puzzled me too. Surely the only thing we can be certain of is what the fossil record shows us. I do not see enough examples to say definitively that a species died out or lived for a x amount of years. As all science its theory that fills in the gaps snd until proven otherwise is taken as fact. The different schools of thought have a variety of ideas but the easiest to digest is taken as the status quo. Puzzling way of ascertaining a fact as it seems to put limitations on possibilities and ideas for potential archeaology.

I once read the best description of scientific fact I have heard, from a scientist:

A set of provisional truths, supported by evidence.

The mainstream too often forgets the "provisional" part. How many years ago would it have been considered ridiculous to presume primates and dinosaurs on the earth at the same time? This article talks about one reason for presumptions like that.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-suggests-primates-a

[Guest]

The public has the ULTIMATE authority in all matters relating to money. Yeah, we know, a few get a disproportionate amount of the money. But those few got where they are by understanding the public mood and moving the emphasis where the public wants it to go. When you spend your money, do you spend it on what a rich man tells you...or on what YOU want to spend it on?

Public funding simply puts a lot of "you"s in the place of one "you."

As the latest awful example, watch the aftermath of the Connecticut massacre. You will see funding streams start addressing problems that this (once again) brings to the fore. Gun control is already being discussed for major re-emphasis...and you know that isn't the firearms companies.

Public interest in bigfoot = $$$$$. Watch. (Provided anything comes of this, of course.)

I want to have faith in your position but the public having the final say seems idealistic. Isn't it more about keeping the public on side to ensure you (the current government) stays in power. Sure funding might go to one or two areas that are seen as in teh public interwst and therefore vote winners but how much of the overall funding budget goes to public led causes as opposed to what the large lobby groups and people in powerful positions deem worthy.

Your Connecticut example is a good one, however gun control is an issue of continuing national debate and affects everyone as opposed to the BF issue, which as you state if recent the recent survey is to be tsken as gospel has less than 2/3 of the public on board.

I once read the best description of scientific fact I have heard, from a scientist:

A set of provisional truths, supported by evidence.

The mainstream too often forgets the "provisional" part. How many years ago would it have been considered ridiculous to presume primates and dinosaurs on the earth at the same time? This article talks about one reason for presumptions like that.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-suggests-primates-a

Great article thank you! I will see what else I can dig up (terrible pun not intended) on this.

Edited December 15, 2012 by kezra

[Guest DWA]

Kezra: remember that "less than 2/3" also translates to "a substantial share of the public." 30% is a BIG lobby. (Actually there's another name for a group that size: Major Social Movement.)

Again, some people have figured out how to get a bigger share of the pie. But that pie is a lot of people, spending a lot of money; and intercepting them where they are headed themselves is another part of what we call "marketing."

That article is one of the better nuggets to toss at people overly presumptuous of what we "know."

[Guest]

This is not rhetorical. How can we develope an entire narrative for how an animal lived based on the findings of three jawbones and several thousand teeth? I will not mention what primate I am talking about because it does not fit the narrative that is flying on this forum, but I believe this shows how scientists and non-scientists can be equally closed minded and married to their personal biases.

Please some of the experts chime in on this.

[Guest]

She posted on Facebook last November it was in peer review.