The Ketchum Report

[Guest DWA]

Ok, then there's absolutely no chance I'll run into him out in the forest. That's probably good.

There's something to being a master of derivative study rather than first-hand investigation.

I guess it takes both types.... but when did it get turned around to the point that someone who is a master of the derivative is able to discredit the first hand investigator by simple proclamation?

Your last sentence pinpoints one of the things I have the biggest problems with in this field: endless fetishization of "stuff" - P/G film; hair; alleged bodies/steaks/hands/etc. - and total ignorance of a large, growing, and amazingly consistent body of anecdotal evidence (and, yeah, footprints) that demands explanation.

Amazing, that is, for something that doesn't exist, because it behaves so much like something that does.

[HOLDMYBEER]

From what I remember Justin signed full ownership of the original sample to the Olympic Project. Derek Randles owns the original sample that was sent to Ketchum. So as far as the Ketchum study goes, Justin has no rights to it. Spooky huh.

I defer to the record. I cannot spend the time to locate it at this time. It was Justin's statement that he was away hunting when he received a call from Derek R encouraging him to get the sample sent to Ketchum. It seemed there was a concern for timeliness. Eventually Justin relented and had his wife select and mail the sample. It is my foggy recollection the sample was sent directly to Ketchum and never to Derek.

Ownership of the sample is not why I bring this up. I am more concerned about the appearance of due diligence. People on this thread are arguing all sorts of convoluted and complex scenarios.

[TimB]

... He went so far as to say that he is regularly asked to serve as a peer reviewer for papers which propose to identify new species or subspecies based on DNA evidence and was surprised that he had not been asked to serve as a reviewer for a paper like the one described in Ketchum's November press release.

So he's on record with his disgruntledness. Interesting that he's cast himself as an opponent to the reported paper that "slighted" his expertise...

Tim B.

[Guest Cervelo]

Uhh there must be more than one interview, what I heard was more like this....

It's a small community of people that would be approached to do this type of peer review.

They all know each other and talk, even though they shouldn't he felt that a little scuttle butt would have gotten out about something this earth shattering....these are my words interpreting the interview not his.

[Guest]

If you want to be taken seriously, you reach out to someone like Disotell. If you insolate yourself with only Bigfooters, some of which have sketchy back stories, it is way harder to get much credibility. Please can someone here give the name of a top flight scientist who is known to be working with Dr. Ketchum? It would only take one email that showed a snipit of data to at least keep someone like Disotell from laughing at you. I know it will be said she can't because of the peer review, but that ship has sailed, press release, C2C interview etc.

That's why I asked if he had been contacted about SYKES' paper. I think he is being taken seriously, and so far I haven't heard of any involvement by Disotell with his study.

[Guest]

There are plenty of opportunities for bias in the scientific method. There have been repeated examples of editorial bias. The reviewers are also human with bias in each of them.

That said, the reviewers should be reviewing the material submitted, and place no bearing on the source of the submission (hence blind). Their main goal is to evaluate if the science is solid, based on methods that have been utilized correctly. Who submits the article should not be at issue. The editor selects reviewers who have the qualifications and knowledge to evaluate if the science is solid and the conclusions reached are based on the proper statistical rejection of the null hypothesis.

You just made my case for me. You admit that reviewers can and do have biases. Therefore their identities should be known publicly so that any criticisms they make can be evaluated in the context of their known biases.

You place too much faith on the process to eliminate politics and prejudice from the equation. Only "sunshine" can provide that by exposing it for public scrutiny (and scorn if needs be). The process should be 100% transparent.

Lets put it this way, he specializes in physical Anthropology, primate evolution; molecular evolution; genetics and mitochondrial DNA; analytical techniques of phylogenetic systematics; the history of biological anthropology, Dr. Ketchum doesn't.

Argument from large amounts of authority is still argument from authority. Dr Ketchum's lab is completely qualified to examine and type DNA.

FWIW, Dr. Disotell was interviewed by Scott Herriot for Episode 36 of "The Bigfoot Show" podcast (November 26, 2012) and said that he was not a peer reviewer for the paper. He went so far as to say that he is regularly asked to serve as a peer reviewer for papers which propose to identify new species or subspecies based on DNA evidence and was surprised that he had not been asked to serve as a reviewer for a paper like the one described in Ketchum's November press release.

Given his public statements in the past against BF, I wouldn't want him reviewing a BF paper either.

[TimB]

He's the skoftic's go-to guy for dismissing DNA. Our illustrious member Kitakaze who has moved on to bigger matters once cited him as and "objective" person to interview one of his pet subjects. That speaks a lot to me...

Tim B.

[Guest]

aren't the reviewers supposed to be biased ? with his opinion made public, would probably give reason for him to be overlooked.

[Guest WldHrtRnch]

Forgive me, I'm very new to this but is there really a paper in peer review? Legitimate scientific peer-review? I've read that it failed peer-review and was sent to Russia, I've read that it is still under peer-review, all on bigfootery news sites. I can find very few reports in any other online news outlets, a couple below, which say it has not been submitted. Found a couple saying it was under review.

Live Science reports the scientific community is skeptical about the claims and that nothing can be said about it since it has not appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Read more: http://www.digitaljo...6#ixzz2HEPOfqhM

And here:

Not yet, anyway: Ketchum's research has not appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and there's no indication when that might happen. If the data are good and the science is sound, any reputable science journal would jump at the chance to be the first to publish this groundbreaking information. Until then, Ketchum has refused to let anyone else see her evidence.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2HERbTFdX

Is there any evidence anywhere that Ketchum's paper is actually undergoing peer-review?

[Guest]

No evidence whatsoever.

[Guest]

WldHrtRnch, to my knowledege no. I would like to be corrected, but I don't think anyone outside her inner group can confirm that a paper is in peer review, not saying it's not but again my feeling would be that in a small community people would know and talk.

[Guest WldHrtRnch]

No evidence whatsoever.

Thank you, that's what I thought.

WldHrtRnch, to my knowledege no. I would like to be corrected, but I don't think anyone outside her inner group can confirm that a paper is in peer review, not saying it's not but again my feeling would be that in a small community people would know and talk.

Thanks. I've quickly learned that almost all I am reading, many of the exciting stories, is just mere speculation. Learning whose speculation to lean toward has proved challenging, to say the least.

[TimB]

No evidence whatsoever.

That's not accurate. There's extremely weak evidence in the form of Dr. Ketchum's press release. I find that extremely weak evidence and not definitive by any means but can not dismiss it out of hand.

Tim B.

[Guest]

I'm new here as well, brought on board with great optimism that this mystery was going to be unravelled very soon. When first hearing about The Ketchum report, I was sure it must be true, she's a professional, owns a DNA lab, must be an expert and trustworthy. Unfortunately, the more you learn, the more you read, it just seems like the same old stuff. I still hold out some hope to be wrong and have claimed for the record to publicly eat crow if she does deliver what I think we all want.

[Guest WldHrtRnch]

I'm new here as well, brought on board with great optimism that this mystery was going to be unravelled very soon. When first hearing about The Ketchum report, I was sure it must be true, she's a professional, owns a DNA lab, must be an expert and trustworthy. Unfortunately, the more you learn, the more you read, it just seems like the same old stuff. I still hold out some hope to be wrong and have claimed for the record to publicly eat crow if she does deliver what I think we all want.

I'm actually new to sasquatch/bigfoot research altogether. I must say, I'm better educated now, lol. I've certainly learned quite a bit. Just read a few articles about peer review.

http://www.nps.gov/policy/peerreview.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-peer-review.htm

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16

So although I feel a little smarter, I empathize with many here who've been awaiting this for so long, with hopes and optimism. I do wonder if she will seek to publish any paper at all. I can't fathom the scientific community getting on board however.