The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

Still going huh? I popped on this thread today and it had been since mid-December since I last visited. Lots of catching up? No. Skip to the last page, it's the same old stuff. So, we still waiting on this thing? I didn't miss it did I?

[southernyahoo]

Not within the 15K year time frame. Show me where Disotell says human-ape hybrid is possible under Ketchum's thesis.

LOL..COOL.

\I listened to the latest Monster Talk episode with Disotell, I was tickled to hear him set Radford straight when he said the hybrid theory was credible. Why Radford hadn't done his homework on how that could be, speaks about him. Disotell also said he would become a believer with the right data set in front of him. I think Disotell is atleast well informed on where to look in the genome to vett samples claimed to be BF from here on.

[Guest thermalman]

Is he not heavy?

Nope. 6'4" skinny. It was a winter shot. He has lots of clothing on.

Same picture, thermally tuned for definition.

Still going huh? I popped on this thread today and it had been since mid-December since I last visited. Lots of catching up? No. Skip to the last page, it's the same old stuff. So, we still waiting on this thing? I didn't miss it did I?

Nope, not a thing.

Evolution would take thousands of years to test, but it's about as close to fact as science comes! Btw, anyone listen to the two interviews with Professor Todd Disotell? He was very skeptical of Dr. Ketchum's claim, but also expressed his opinion on why Dr. Ketchum's human-ape hybrid theory is totally plausible.

Disotell can say all he wants until the report is published. Until then, again, its all speculation on his part. Hearing what he has had to say the past 8 months, he seems "put out" that he's not involved in some way.

[Guest Scout1959]

441 pages and the stuff worth reading wouldn't even fill a decent sized single post.

[Guest]

Do you need more Jerry?

Of what? How does Lisa Simpson prove your point that scientists "push through the remotest, unproven theory's as truth in most cases"? Scientists aren't writers for the Simpsons.

Once again, you're pointing to scientific myths promoted by popular culture.

[Guest]

Down in the comment section I found some interesting comments.

Steve summar wrote:

"I arranged for M.K. Davis to view and examine some of the Sells VHS tapes, at the request of Dr. Melba Ketchum, about 18 months ago."

And from another poster named Matt k:

"It's funny that you should mention people not returning their borrowed evidence, since Melba Ketchum is one of the individuals who is guilty of that."

So is it possible that this so called HD video Ketchum claims to have is none other then the Mike Sells tapes that MK Davis is enhancing right now?

http://bigfootcrossroads.blogspot.com/2013/01/truth-lies-and-video-tape-mk-davis.html?m=1

[Guest thermalman]

441 pages and the stuff worth reading wouldn't even fill a decent sized single post.

LOL, get used to it scout. It's the way of "free speech" ( although not necessarily intelligent speech). It goes around and around from thread to thread.

Edited January 29, 2013 by thermalman

[roguefooter]

Nope. 6'4" skinny. It was a winter shot. He has lots of clothing on.

Are you strong enough to carry him?

[Guest]

I'm not even really talking about bigfoot. I was responding to your claim that scientific consensus is useless and based on a popularity contest.

Scientists proclaim their consensus when the majority of data supports that position.

Excellent...then we can expect a reversal of the "consensus" on BF any day now, seeing as how the majority of the data supports the position that it DOES in fact exist.

In context of this discussion, yes the example is absurd, as is your entire argument.

Go back and re-read the entire paragraph I wrote instead of taking pieces of it out of context to make an absurd semantic argument.

Translation: I still got you. You can't deny the logic of my point, so you resort to mocking it.

So then, is it possible that "peer reviewed" research could still be false?

Absolutely. Happens on a fairly regular basis in fact. That's why citing "consensus" or "peer review" as being probative of truth is an illogical argument.

As for the Ketchum report; I see that fewer and fewer are blindly hanging on in support of her work, but those few are very dogmatic. It is absolutely incredible that the proponents of her work, that I take it, have never seen it, want us skeptics to prove it is wrong.

Well, since it's YOUR claim that it is wrong, it's incumbent upon you to support that claim. I for one have always either explicitly or implicitly added (assuming the data holds up) to my statements in support of Ketchum.

To date, NO Skeptic has proffered any evidence that the data has not/will not hold up. They claim that. They presume that.

But they haven't given us any reason to accept that.

May I ask where you saw it and were there any other's present? At what distance were you from the subject?

At a friend's house (I had just arrived), everyone else was in the house, and about 30-35' and in good light (headlight high beams). It was in view at least 3-5 seconds, as I clearly saw it take a full step then the first part of a second step as it went around behind the house.

This doesn't mean you can use, for example, anecdotal evidence in place of SCIENTIFIC evidence.

"annecdotal evidence" = observations by someone without a bunch of "alphabet soup" behind their name.

"scientific observational data" = observations by someone with a bunch of "alphabet soup" behind their name.

Science provides us with the civilization we have....all the technological advances of the 20th century are predicated on science.

Technology =/= "science". Not even close.

The Model of evolution is valid....it may be supplanted by more sophisticated models in the future.

At best it is incomplete. No known or predicted advancement of our understanding can reconcile initial conditions with the rise of the precursors of life, without resorting to "it just did". That's why evolutionists refuse to address the initial conditions question as a general rule.

BF has yet to be scientifically demonstrated to exist...and no argument you can proffer will trump that fact.

That is a matter of opinion. The best you can say is that your "consensus" has yet to agree that BF has been scientifically demonstrated.

Ketchum study is doomed to failure..in my opinion..because, at a MINIMUM, it will not demonstrate the PROVENANCE required of the samples tested.

Res Ipsa Loquitur...“the thing speaks for itself†A clean DNA chain from an undocumented primate would be prima facie evidence of such a primate, regardless of "provenance".

[Guest]

Are you strong enough to carry him?

Yeah, because the road is long with many a winding turn.

[Guest]

At best it is incomplete. No known or predicted advancement of our understanding can reconcile initial conditions with the rise of the precursors of life, without resorting to "it just did". That's why evolutionists refuse to address the initial conditions question as a general rule.

The origin if life is abiogenesis not evolution.

"annecdotal evidence" = observations by someone without a bunch of "alphabet soup" behind their name.

"scientific observational data" = observations by someone with a bunch of "alphabet soup" behind their name.

I already explained to you the real difference but your response was emotionally changed populist rhetoric ("so scientists are smart and laypeople are dumb").

Technology =/= "science". Not even close.

Very close, most of technology is made possible by scientific understandings.

Absolutely. Happens on a fairly regular basis in fact. That's why citing "consensus" or "peer review" as being probative of truth is an illogical argument.

Your right in the case of PR. Some articles are later found to be wrong by other articles. So if Ketchum publishes her paper and other papers critique it, how are you going to take it?

[Guest thermalman]

Are you strong enough to carry him?

I suppose, if needed.

Of what? How does Lisa Simpson prove your point that scientists "push through the remotest, unproven theory's as truth in most cases"? Scientists aren't writers for the Simpsons.

Once again, you're pointing to scientific myths promoted by popular culture.

That were taught as truths in the education system. That's my point. Where some scientific truths are eventually proven as myths, there are many more "theories and truths" taught as truths, waiting in the wings for "truthful" verification.

Edited January 29, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest DWA]

"annecdotal evidence" = observations by someone without a bunch of "alphabet soup" behind their name.

"scientific observational data" = observations by someone with a bunch of "alphabet soup" behind their name.

This is a very under-appreciated point: All scientific knowledge is anecdotal evidence, backed by advanced degrees.

When a paper is presented for peer review, it is presented to people who simply weren't there for most of the production of what is in that paper; in other words, they are largely taking the submitter's word for it. (Ask yourself how fraudulent papers have passed peer review, which has happened more than once.) They address the science evident in the paper and whether the paper's conclusions are supported by what else is in the paper. The peers aren't doing all the research again, or watching while the submitter repeats every single step; they are reviewing the neat tidy package in which is packaged the research that better have happened. Consequences for lying are the insurance that the submitter did all the work. The peers' expertise is insurance that errors in the manuscript, or incomplete research, or incorrect statements, didn't happen.

Much scientific research is what Newton would have called "standing on the shoulders of giants." In other words: research into stars - or animals, or plants, or anything - starts with a host of presumptions, at virtually every step, about what is, based on prior research.

And what is a fact, anyway? Has anyone been to any heavenly body other than the moon? We use all sorts of stand-in proxies to tell us what we presume they are, based on the very limited direct experience (i.e., of the earth and the moon) we have had. You been to the sun? How do you know it isn't a heat lamp on loan from the Ceti IV system? Easy. Someone told you what the sun is, and you bought that.

All the crap about peer review in sasquatch research ignores one simple fact:

The scientific mainstream is ignoring all the simple facts.

[Guest John]

So... you would dismiss a peer reviewed submission accepting the existence of sasquatch?

[Guest DWA]

So... you would dismiss a peer reviewed submission accepting the existence of sasquatch?

Why would I?

I didn't say peer review is crap; in fact I made the case for it. I said that peer review is an irrelevant concept when the people who would supposedly be doing such review dismiss the topic out of hand.