bipedalist Posted January 4, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 4, 2012 Perhaps the Ketchum sighting was a field sighting with multiple observers? Someone could ask her the questions of how many persons were present observing the same Bigfoot(s). That would go along way to at least saying it was unlikely mididentification and certainly remotely a mass hallucination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 So Saskeptic, as a scientist, let's say you decided to pursue any particular piece of "evidence" like hair or blood splatter for the possibility of opening up a formal case study. If you asked the person presenting the claim (what I'm guessing is the first protocol question), "Where did you obtain the sample?" and the answer was "I'm sorry but our research location is a secret". Would you follow through with your study? Or pass? I might not pass on it just because the person presenting the sample did not want the location known. Some people claim to still have Ivory-billed Woodpeckers on private land (hunting clubs, etc.) and no amount of bribery/torture would get them to reveal the location because they think its secrecy is essential to the survival of the species. So there's precedent for that when it comes to the conservation interests of something really rare. That said, I would be very suspicious of the person bringing the evidence not being completely up front with an intended research partner. If there was some kind of chicanery involved with the sample that made me a patsy in some hoax, I would not be pleased. If I am an unwitting participant in a hoax, then that is something that could reflect poorly on me as a scientist, and that's not cool. Still, if I had a MItsubishi Hair Analyzatroninator 2000 in my lab, I would analyze the crap out of any bigfoot hairs sent my way. The "suscpiciony" part would affect my decision on what to do after I had the results. Note, this seems to be the case with several labs who've analyzed bigfoot evidence. For example, we know that Tod Disotell has done some analysis, but that it hasn't led to publication so his work wasn't included in my previous email. Wasn't there also an Ohio State researcher who analyzed some stuff? Seems to me that the number of scientists who've been willing to take a look at some putative bigfoot is much bigger than the number who've done that and followed through with publications, but I'm just speculating on that based on a couple of well known examples. Sasceptic, please elaborate those references to full formal refs. What you have there is too brief to follow up. Most of those refs I was unaware of. Many thanks. Coltman, D. and C. Davis 2006. Molecular cryptozoology meets the Sasquatch. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 21: 60–61. Kim, J. Y., K. S. Kim., M. G. Lockley, and N. Matthews. 2008. Hominid ichnotaxonomy: an exploration of a neglected discipline. Ichnos 15: 126–139. Lockley, M., G. Roberts, and J. Y. Kim. 2008. In the footprints of our ancestors: an overview of the hominid track record. Ichnos 15: 106–125. Lozier, J. D., P. Aniello, and M. J. Hickerson. 2009. Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modelling. Journal of Biogeography 36: 1623–1627. Milinkovitch, M C., A. Caccone, and G. Amato. 2004. Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31: 1–3. Wu, X., X. Zeng, and H. Yao. 1993. Analysis of a single strand of hair by PIXE, IXX and synchrotron radiation. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B75: 567–570. That's 16 scientists I'd never heard of and 5 peer-reviewed journals engaging the putative evidence for bigfoot, all found by simply searching the literature for such papers. Note that the Ichnos papers were not analyses of bigfoot evidence per se, but they both address Meldrum's work on the mid-tarsal break in putative bigfoot prints and his efforts to use such prints in ichnotaxonomy. Thank you for the list of publications Saskeptic. I take it you mean you have engaged in putative bigfoot evidence for the preparation of educational material as apposed to the publication of a paper related to the subject in a scientific paper? I consider my participation here every day to be a "scientist engaging in bigfoot evidence." If I was not interested in learning about putative evidence, I would not be here. This is one reason it bothers me so much when the claim is made that science ignores bigfoots. By making that argument to me, the argument is automatically false. Further irony comes when some of the same folks making that argument cite the work of Meldrum, Krantz, Fahrenbach, etc. to help make the case for bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Wu, X., X. Zeng, and H. Yao. 1993. Analysis of a single strand of hair by PIXE, IXX and synchrotron radiation. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B75: 567–570. I'll see if I can find this later when I've got some time, but it looks like the point of the journal and the paper may be more about the methodology than the animal. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I'll see if I can find this later when I've got some time, but it looks like the point of the journal and the paper may be more about the methodology than the animal. Mike Here's the Abstract, bolding mine: "The experimental methods of the analysis of a single strand of hair by PIXE, IXX and SR-XRF, respectively, are compared. IXX and SR-XRF are more suitable than PIXE for the direct analysis of hair due to their nondestructiveness and better sensitivity. The analysis of a few single strands of human hairs, general primate and unknown primate (wildman) in China are presented. The high Fe/Zn ratio in wildman hair is given by different analytical methods, and may be the first scientific evidence of the existence of the Chinese wildman." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Perhaps the Ketchum sighting was a field sighting with multiple observers? Someone could ask her the questions of how many persons were present observing the same Bigfoot(s). That would go along way to at least saying it was unlikely mididentification and certainly remotely a mass hallucination. Its just not worth it. How many "good" reports are there? More than enough, but it just isnt in any way scientific proof. If Dr. Ketchum can go out and observe them, than somebody, likely the Erickson Project, has all the know how to find, observe and study them. What did we learn from all these witness accounts? Assumptions: -There is more than one -There are females as well -They live in family groups -They can make some noise -They walk on two legs most of the time -They dont seem to be hostile in general -They eat nearly everything -They use their hands ... All in all we just learned what we already could assume by the first nation peoples "myths" translated into an ape or protohuman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Saskeptic, Budgets must really be tight if you guys settled for the "2000". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Saskeptic, Budgets must really be tight if you guys settled for the "2000". What can I say? I didn't negotiate a big enough start-up package! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Primate Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Melba's seen a 'Squatch . Melba's seen a "Squatch . The paper is all done..Skeptics on the run.. Where did they take her tooo.??!! Adrian's Bigfoot Zooo..??!! You know it ain't been easy . Sometimes I think she tease me. And Erickson takes the blame.. But now we got a new Man. The DNA is Human. The world will never be the same.. Bias , Bias is what they'll say , yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah... Bias and broke NDA's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Does anybody know if the Ketchum Team made any kind of dating analysis of the samples? Its a big difference to have a ancient new hominid or a still living one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Very droll Primate, very droll. Scans great too. P.S. Don't let Jon Downes see this, or he'll only go and record it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Primate Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Thanks Strick, This is actually based upon her recent FB post.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Perhaps the Ketchum sighting was a field sighting with multiple observers? Someone could ask her the questions of how many persons were present observing the same Bigfoot(s). That would go along way to at least saying it was unlikely mididentification and certainly remotely a mass hallucination. I think that's a good idea. I am intrigued by Melba's sighting. The Facebook entry sounds very much like she spotted more than one with her own two eyes, not a reference to some video she might have seen. Now I'm pretty sure the good doctor is a busy lady and doesn't have time to do her own field research on top of everything else. I also doubt she spent weeks and weeks in some hot spot with another researcher. It reads to me like she was taken to somewhere with almost guaranteed sightings. Personally, I thought such places didn't exist, but what do I know? Maybe she just got lucky. I am very sceptical about habituation scenarios in general but, am I the only one who picks up this is the kind of thing that she might be alluding to? Are there any known habituations going on in the Honobia/Oklahoma area? How about the forum member who got the audio recording in the company of a native american woman who has multiple sightings and occasionally pops up on some of the blog talk shows. Is this Arla? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 View the full article Fascinating. So she recognizes that some of the world's most elusive animals have really only been captured with hidden cameras, but that camera traps are useless for bigfoot. Then she alludes to having multiple encounters with multiple bigfoots in the field. If no one else will provide an answer I might need to go straight to Ketchum with this one, but why/how on earth could creatures be so stealthy as to essentially be immune to capture via hidden camera, but open and approachable enough to allow themselves to be viewed directly by humans in the field? sense make no its Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) Fascinating. So she recognizes that some of the world's most elusive animals have really only been captured with hidden cameras, but that camera traps are useless for bigfoot. Then she alludes to having multiple encounters with multiple bigfoots in the field. If no one else will provide an answer I might need to go straight to Ketchum with this one, but why/how on earth could creatures be so stealthy as to essentially be immune to capture via hidden camera, but open and approachable enough to allow themselves to be viewed directly by humans in the field? sense make no its Ah, she's a gifted woman, so she is, so she is. And a fine-looking lass ......as my old chemistry teacher used to say Edited January 4, 2012 by Strick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Ah, she's a gifted woman, so she is, so she is. And a fine-looking lass ......as my old chemistry teacher used to say I didn't teach you chemistry . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts