The Ketchum Report

[indiefoot]

Maybe when it is published we will find out how many times it went back and forth for revisions.

[Guest BFSleuth]

I noticed she pretty much side stepped that question.

After reading your comment I went back to reread the question that was posed to her, and noticed that the question of her interpretation of the data was not asked. Therefore she can't possibly have "side stepped that question".

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 is why the advent of DNA analysis is going to shake things up in the study of human origins and speciation.

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.

One aspect that can be studied is residue on teeth. This can give an idea of what kind of diet the animal had. If DNA can be extracted (depending on the age) then that can yield much more information. Are there any broken bones that have healed? That would indicate injuries.

[Guest]

Ummmm...anyone see this yet? Sorry if it's a repeat.

http://lasvegascityl...-christmas.html

Nice to see at least one scientist has the integrity to admit to the myth of "impartiality" on the part of so-called "scientific" journals:

The well-meaning Dr. Ketchum naively assumed that the world of science would welcome her data with open arms and open minds. Her initial draft of a scientific paper unwisely referred to the existence of a Bigfoot-like creature, and she was certain the information from her study would receive a fair hearing from the scientific world. My friend the microbiologist gave her the sad-but-true news that no mainstream science journal in the world would ever publish a paper, or allow for an honest peer review, of any paper that mentioned Bigfoot or Sasquatch by name. Unlike my TV prediction, that one proved prescient in the extreme.

........

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.

Which, if true, may well say more about the "integrity" of institutional Science (or lack thereof) than any lack of validity on the part of Ketchum's results.

What will they say in the (possible) event that they savage Ketchum as you say then Sykes comes out with the same results?

Edited December 15, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest DWA]

Mainstream science sometimes seems more like a religion than anything else.

This is one of those times.

[Guest]

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.

And just which "rock star researchers" might those be, zig? Meldrum?

He has repeatedly said that he looks forward to reading the study if/when it releases and has been nothing but properly neutral and willing to entertain the idea that he might be wrong.

The only thing he's criticized is the PR surrounding the study, a point that he is far from alone in making.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest DWA]

The scathing of Meldrum for his attitude toward the ongoing circus is very typical of Bigfootery, in which, if one thinks x, everyone who thinks y is ...well, everything from clearly wrong to an enemy of the people.

This is what happens when the scientific mainstream abandons a field to amateurs, and pays no attention when some of its own members take up the cause.

Meldrum is right to be upset about the soap-opera aspects of this saga. But he is wide open to whatever properly-derived results have to say.

[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.

It's not odd at all. Scientists are fallible human beings, subject to all the foibles and imperfections that implies.

In the last 80 or so years have we allowed ourselves to elevate Science to the exalted status of Infallible Truth.

[Guest]

After reading your comment I went back to reread the question that was posed to her, and noticed that the question of her interpretation of the data was not asked. Therefore she can't possibly have "side stepped that question".

The questions were "how many times was the paper submitted for review and when was the first time it was submitted". side stepped.

[Guest]

And just which "rock star researchers" might those be, zig? Meldrum?

He has repeatedly said that he looks forward to reading the study if/when it releases and has been nothing but properly neutral and willing to entertain the idea that he might be wrong.

The only thing he's criticized is the PR surrounding the study, a point that he is far from alone in making.

not referring to him Mulder,I don't think he is egotistical, and if scientifically was to be proven wrong about his theory, would not be upset. He has some doubts, but

really didn't say anything disrespectful.

I was referring to a couple other researchers out there, that I don't even care to mention.

[bipedalist]

If at 74,000 yrs ago the Toba supervolcano caused a genetic bottleneck as hypothesized whereby it was possible up to 30 reproducing human females may have have been left, then exactly what would such a genetic bottleneck have caused with the sun blotted out for so long post-eruption. Could it have led to new mutations to deal with dark adaptations in humans or archaic humans soon to be a separate genetic line? Gives a whole new meaning to "blind date" no?! Wonder how such a scenario could impact Ketchum conclusions? Yah, I'm a History channel buff. LOL.

Edited December 15, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

Nice to see at least one scientist has the integrity to admit to the myth of "impartiality" on the part of so-called "scientific" journals:

........

Which, if true, may well say more about the "integrity" of institutional Science (or lack thereof) than any lack of validity on the part of Ketchum's results.

What will they say in the (possible) event that they savage Ketchum as you say then Sykes comes out with the same results?

The media will ultimately have the loudest voice on the world stage when spreading the word of the results of Sykes study. Be it on TV or in print they will just do what they have always done either include the Ketchum study in various reports, completely ignoring their previous libel or at a push include a little footnote apology, which would only happen if legal action were threatened.

The scientific communtiy may be more willing to incorporate her results for better reflection but ultimately Sykes will be the one held up as the be all. I very much respect Dr. Ketchum but call it my institutionalised way of thinking I would always prefer an Oxbridge academic in the first instance.

The mainstream media will at the end of the day call a lot of the shots as to how this is received by the public at large.

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."

True 30% is a sizeable group but that would imply that in reality if the survey was scaled out across the nation 30% would step forward to actively advocate for BF research etc. With voter turnouts for national elections in both the US and the UK standing around the 65% msrk and around the lowest in the last 70 years I cant imagine the numbers would end up translating into a considerable collective.

Re the 'old timers' and the potential nullifying of their research and theories, Paulides touches on it in his C2C interview linked below.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2VQfQm3VeHY

Thread it came from here http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/35077-david-paulides-clears-recent-dna-misconceptions/ apologies if the link is not embedded correctly

[bipedalist]

Wouldn't surprise me if the robustness of the Ketchum article if released before Sykes, gives him impetus to extend his study another six months.

[Guest]

Lets say that Ketchum releases soon to the open arms of a loving media and the world gets warm fuzzies and marches into washington demanding research and protection for BF, how long would it take to draft and enforce a ban on hunters who would no doubt be the firat into the forest to claim the first specimen and therefore go down in history as the ultimate A-class hunter.

We can, will and should keep the semantics at play but the protection of these creatures should be at the forethought of us al considering the impending release of results albeit from Ketchum, Sykes or another source.

I'm not suggesting a love-in with sasquatch and i dont want to open up the kill/no-kill debate but i think species protection is something that should be discussed again now as it could just be around the corner that it plays out on the world stage...if anyone knows a thread that i can bump or should i start a new one?

[bipedalist]

This was a good one, a little political at times but the one with greatest responses.

[Guest]

Thank you I will delve into it soon, i bumped Protection Of The Wild Man From The Woods Species

but its posted in Video/Audio etc. So not sure its in the right place and will get the attention I believe it deserves. I've asked the chief his opinion so maybe it'll get moved or may start another but I will read the one you have kindly linked me to first