indiefoot Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 How many pictures do you suppose "almost" got posted here until the person read a few threads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 10, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 10, 2012 Well now that Melba Ketchum is being called a liar re: the location of her BF sighting on a link on facebook by a prominent BF blogger (I know.... I'm fast, tyvm)....... we can ask the mods to please correct the spelling of Melba Ketchum's last name in the thread we are presently entertaining here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) I think it might depend on what your paper is about. Some works are high profile while others are considered fringe. It would seem to me that the first question to be raised at such a presentation would be whether anyone has reviewed the findings and if it were published. The remainder of the discussions would likely go like they do here, with skeptics unable to get past the premise for the study in the first place, and never trusting that second and third unbiased opinions have been weighed. You don't think it is logical that if someone had done so much work so as to identify a new species, that they would want to protect their data in that discovery? Who would want to put in all that work only to get scooped by someone else? SY: I don't think you get the idea. We are talking about presentations of unpublished studies. The idea is that this is a sort of informal peer review. Often the last step before submission; sometimes happens after submission, because of the calendar. The same sorts of folks are there that do actual journal peer review. They raise the same sorts of questions that are raised in peer review of a submitted manuscript, the sorts of issues that have to be dealt with when the paper is submitted, before the paper can be accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. The questions might well go the way they do here, depending on what methods the author used, what he/she has found, and how they analyzed and interpreted the data. It's like practice. rehearsal, feedback, criticism. Improving the paper. You can't beat the Packers on Sunday by rehearsing against the Sisters of the Poor. I think it is supremely logical. Have done it myself on multiple occasions. Won't result in scooping. That's not a problem. (Going on 400 years in North America, and three years after the specimens were submitted, that is laughable, by the way). You think Dr. XYZed can accomplish in two weeks what it has supposedly taken Ketchum nearly three years??? no. And anyway scientists are pretty ethical about that sort of stuff. Misconduct gets noticed and acted upon by scientific bodies. Ketchum goes a long way toward staking her claim by publicly presenting her data. It should make for a better paper and faster acceptance. You are free to think what you like, but I don't see this facebook stuff as anything but dog ate my homework. p. Edited January 10, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I get the idea parn, in that the refinement of analysis can benefit from the input of peers. I think this is why there are other authors of the paper, plus plenty of published work to use as examples and references towards interpretation of the data. I just don't see that this has to occur at some sort of science conference. I think wild speculations would still be prevalant prior to actual peer review and publication. You've participated in that yourself, so you'll have to excuse my perceptions about some of you scientist types. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I, for one, would take the series more seriously if competent non-partisan [emphasis added] researchers had been involved Skeptic code for "bring in OUR boys to pronounce this as being 'bunk' while we nod approvingly..." How insulting! If you have any evidence to present that Dr Meldrum or any other of the great men working on documenting the BF species are either incompetent or incapable of objectivity then please present it. Otherwise I think you owe them (and us) an apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Wait a minute......... On Facebook today, Dr. Ketchum elaborated on this encounter with a Bigfoot: The post that Arla put on my wall is true. I know her, but have not been to OK since 1995. My sighting is not a big deal. I saw one silhouetted between me and a white gooseneck trailer in bright moonlight at about 25 yds. It was about 10 feet tall as it walked by. I saw eyeshine from 1 nearby. I was alone at the time. I don't ever take cameras in case it scares them off. Not trying to prove anything here and do not care if I am believed or not. The DNA takes care of that for me. I should not have even brought it up. Any investigation on my part is purely to satisfy my curiousity (which got me into this in the first place), for my enjoyment and edification and no other reason. - Dr. Melba Ketchum I thought when Josh Gates first took her a sample, and I have seen her quoted other times before saying when people would bring her a Bigfoot sample, she thought there was not going to be anything to it. Just another misidentified animal. Now we find out she saw one or possibly a few 17 long years ago? I smell something fishy here. I am not sure if this a big hoax on a grand scale, or what, but something ain't right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Skeptic code for "bring in OUR boys to pronounce this as being 'bunk' while we nod approvingly..."How insulting! If you have any evidence to present that Dr Meldrum or any other of the great men working on documenting the BF species are either incompetent or incapable of objectivity then please present it. Otherwise I think you owe them (and us) an apology. I think an even better answer would have been to point out that once the report is published, every scientist in the world will be free to rip it to shreds if they can. If it is robust enough to stand up to that sort of scrutiny, and contains stuff for others to successfully replicate, then the "our boys" thing becomes an utter irrelevance. They, the skeptics, will have been superceded by events. I've said it before on here. Skeptics play an important role. Skeptics attacking the Ketchum report, and, at the moment, the threat of them doing so, will ultimately strengthen the report, and the science behind it. The classic case of this, in my view, is the obsessive campaign against the K-T boundary, continually coming up with more and more obtuse arguments against the case for a meteor strike 65 million years ago. It took decades of work, dealing in great detail with every objection put forward, before there was nowhere else for the nay-sayers to go. The case for the KT event was strengthened and strengthened through this process, to the point where it is overwhelmingly accepted now, with opponents only on the very fringes. So, in my view we shouldn't be asking for skeptics to apologise. We should turn them loose on the report and wish them good luck. Then, quietly work our way through all the elements of their critique, dealing with them in turn, until the case is completely secure. Mike Edited January 10, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 10, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted January 10, 2012 Wait a minute......... On Facebook today, Dr. Ketchum elaborated on this encounter with a Bigfoot: The post that Arla put on my wall is true. I know her, but have not been to OK since 1995. My sighting is not a big deal. I saw one silhouetted between me and a white gooseneck trailer in bright moonlight at about 25 yds. It was about 10 feet tall as it walked by. I saw eyeshine from 1 nearby. I was alone at the time. I don't ever take cameras in case it scares them off. Not trying to prove anything here and do not care if I am believed or not. The DNA takes care of that for me. I should not have even brought it up. Any investigation on my part is purely to satisfy my curiousity (which got me into this in the first place), for my enjoyment and edification and no other reason. - Dr. Melba Ketchum I thought when Josh Gates first took her a sample, and I have seen her quoted other times before saying when people would bring her a Bigfoot sample, she thought there was not going to be anything to it. Just another misidentified animal. Now we find out she saw one or possibly a few 17 long years ago? I smell something fishy here. I am not sure if this a big hoax on a grand scale, or what, but something ain't right. Go find the quotes Hoosier & we can ask the question .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I saw it on the "Bhutan yeti" episode of Destination truth that was just replayed last week. And also she had stated it on Coast to Coast AM when she and Paulides were on there a few years back. I'll have to find a link later and post unless someone else can find it quickly. The gist of it was people had brought her samples, never tested anything other than a known animal. That was until Gates brought her a sample of claimed yeti hair. She stated that she had done guys before and never had anything unusual, but his was "unknown primate." The way I understand, that is what spurred the whole project and Paulides and herself made a call for other samples on C2C AM. Supposedly she was not a believer and was a skeptical scientist, which was why they chose her. She had the open mind to test samples. This description and story would be vastly different if she actually had a sighting! Take samples for unbiased testing to a lab where the owner has encountered the creatures before on a personal level? Really? I call BS on that! Ps: I pulled the quote from her fb from the Bigfoot evidence blog. Here is a rundown and some of her transcript from Bigfoot Busters radio show: April, 2001: A British expedition team is led to a hollow cedar tree in the Kingdom of Bhutan, in the eastern Himalayas by Sonam Dhendup, the King of Bhutan’s official yeti hunter. A long black hair was found and DNA analysis was conducted by Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at the Institute of Molecular Medicine in Oxford. “We found some DNA in it, but we don’t know what it is… It’s not a human, not a bear or anything else we have so far been able to identify. It’s a mystery and I never thought this would end in a mystery. We have never encountered DNA that we couldn’t recognize before.†Sykes was the first scientist to extract DNA from archaeological bone specimens. Analysis completed after the media release, however, clearly showed that the samples were from the Brown Bear and the Asiatic Black Bear. 2009: Josh Gates and the Destination Truth team return to Bhutan to look for the Yeti after having found tracks on the season premiere of season two. The team recovers a hair sample and it is brought to Dr. Melba Ketchum of DNA Diagnostics. Dr. Ketchum states, “This sample did test very clearly on the human panel of markers. That makes it a primate, and it makes it a large primate.†When Gates asks her if contamination could be an issue, she replies, “The hair, visually, is not human. It’s courser than horse tail hair… Initial searches indicate that it’s an unknown sequence. There are literally millions of sequences in this database. And we’re really shocked that it didn’t match any of the species exactly in the database… If we’re going to prove that there potentially is a new species, with this first hair sample, we really need more hair samples like it. And once you establish there is a group of animals, that will go a long ways towards proving that there is a new species indeed.†August, 2010: Dr. Melba Ketchum appears on Coast to Coast A.M. with Dave Paulides. During the last hour of the program, Dr. Ketchum reported on ongoing DNA testing of possible Bigfoot hair samples, some of which have a combination of human and animal attributes, and are considered anomalous or unknown. She and her team are in the process of preparing a peer reviewed paper that will reveal their complete findings. October, 2010: Dave Paulides and Melba Ketchum appear on Bigfoot Busters on Blogtalk Radio. (You can listen to the full episode here. What follows is a partial transcript of the most pertinent portions of that interview.) In that program, Dr. Ketchum describes how she got involved in Bigfoot DNA testing. “I have a curious mind and I’m a renegade, and I’m not a PhD, that’s probably most of it. I’m old enough that I predate the latest trends in molecular biology. I had to learn it that hard way – from scratch. We started getting samples back about ’95, starting with some unknown feces samples. We had some from Texas Parks and Wildlife and we had some from that people would send in and want to know what animal left this DNA here, so we sort of routinely did species ID. “About ’95, we started getting the occasional person calling, ‘Oh, we believe we’ve got Bigfoot,†[and I said], ‘Oh, ok, whatever…If you want it tested, we’ll test it.’ And for years, we got nothing but horses, or raccoons, or any number of different, you know, creatures. I didn’t take it seriously, but I would test it nevertheless. I try to be open-minded and not close-minded and I think that’s the veterinarian in me, because we’re kind of a different breed. [laughs] “So, two years ago in the spring, we had a couple of samples submitted, and actually Dave [Paulides] was one of the submitters, that sent some hair to us, and Destination Truth, it was a show… I was so tired of dealing with these things – I [knew] that they would be close enough to ape or human that they would run on human markers if they were something worth looking and so I got to the point that I would screen these things on human markers, and if they tested out, fine, and if they didn’t I would just pass it on and say, ‘Nope. Not what you’re looking for.’ “Well, we had two samples… those two samples actually turned into something a little bit different? And I was foolish; I wasted a lot of the DNA because I wasn’t believing I was going to get anything. We did get some interesting results and they were just… it was different results for different types of testing, though, so we couldn’t combine the two and go anywhere with it. And, like I say, we didn’t have enough DNA to continue on with it. As a result, we just had to let it go… but it led me to believe that there might be something worth looking for. “Shortly after Destination Truth aired, we started [laughs] receiving a huge number of samples from all over the country. In fact, all over North America. So… we’re knee-deep now in this huge undertaking. [laughs]†Melba is then asked about the Destination Truth sample, how it didn’t match any known primate or anything in the large database she checked. “Not exactly. That’s not exactly what I said. Things got… kind of ‘spliced’. [laughs] Basically, we did get some differences that didn’t blast in Genbank. They were very subtle differences but there were a couple of bases difference that what would normally blast in Genbank. But, once again, it was only [primary run?] and there was only one sample in that and there wasn’t much else I could do with it because we used up the DNA. Most of that hair did not have root material on it. It’s very hard to get… one peculiar thing that we’ve found about what we believe to be Sasquatch hair is that it does not want to give up its mitochondrial DNA very easily in the hair shaft like other creatures. Even human is easier to get the DNA out. And there’s been a raging debate amongst me and my team as to whether it’s actually inhibitors that’s causing it or whether somehow the DNA just doesn’t make it into the hair shaft like it does in other species. So we have to have good rooted hairs. We have to have hairs that have been basically pulled out by the roots in order to get good DNA for our purposes.†Dr. Melba Ketchum is asked how many “unknown†samples she has that have been collected in the last year, and whether “unknowns†means that she has tested them and they’ve come back as a large, unknown primate. “Quite a few… we can’t discuss results, because I’m going through peer-review with our paper before we let anything out. Let me be clear about that. Because we’re doing this as forensic cases, we’re documenting, we’re taking every conceivable care in making sure that everything that we do is by the book scientifically, so it would be good enough to stand up in court. And part of this would be a peer-reviewed article which is now being written, actually, and whenever we get the peer-review back is when this thing will come into the open.†Dr. Ketchum is asked whether the unknown samples from Destination Truth and America are similar. “Well, there’s subtle difference from where they come on the body, they’re different lengths, obviously. They basically look very much alike. The Destination Truth [hair] samples were interesting in that there were some fibers in there as well as hair, so what everybody saw in there was not just hair. It was a combination of things… I think that they run generally very similar, even across continents, from what I’ve seen. But that’s not to say that one that lives in a more frigid climate isn’t going to have a longer hair coat. And also where the hair comes from on the body is going to affect he length. You have short hairs and you have long hairs on your body. Think about it. And the same with any other type of animal. A horse has a long mane, a long tail, and short body hair.†She is asked if the DNA will look the same, regionally. “Well, yes… in a general sense, it’s going to be the same amidst the species. However, you have subtle differences as with any breed of horse, or humans. Some humans are redheaded and some humans are black-headed and you’re going to have differences like that, I’m sure, that are subtle differences. But the overall organism, just like overall human beings, for instance, are going to have basically very similar DNA except for some physically characteristics and maybe some mutations or genetic disease or what have you. And that’s like that with all species. So they will basically be the same, but there will individualized differences, of course.†Melba Ketchum is asked a chatroom question: “Why is it that the mitochondrial DNA is most often identified while the nucleic DNA is difficult to identify?†“Well, mitochondrial DNA is a 16.5-thousand base loop of DNA that lives in the mitochondrial, or a little organelle, that’s in the cytoplasm of the cells. It is maternally inherited. There’s approximately 100 mitochondria in each cell, so there’s 100 copies per cell., making it much more plentiful and much tinier than your regular nucleic genomic DNA, which is in the nucleus of the cell, and it only has the copy from the mother and from the father. So you’ve basically just got your chromosome that carry it. So you do not have the copy numbers that you have for the mitochondrial DNA. And these little tiny organelles, with this little tiny loop of DNA, oftentimes, if some of them get degraded – say the DNA gets moist and mold and bacteria starts growing on it and that’s how it gets degraded – you’ve got 100 times better chance of actually retrieving that little bitty loop of DNA from the mitochondria than the nucleus of the cell. So it’s used in degraded remains. I worked on the World Trade Center disaster. There was a team of forensic scientists that was put together to analyze the remains and a lot of these, the only thing that was left was the mitochondrial DNA because of the condition of the remains. It survives better and there’s more copies of it, so that’s how you end up being able to see it much more often than your nuclear DNA.†Dr. Ketchum is asked whether the team was careful to eliminate human contamination. “Oh, absolutely. And the type of DNA we’re using, it’s easily done. We handled it like forensic samples. We did our blank controls and positive controls and, of course, I’m tested, since I handled it, so we’re taking every precaution. I’m sure that everything we’re testing has come from the samples we’ve received. †Dr. Ketchum is asked about the most-received color of purported Sasquatch hair sample submitted. “Reddish-brown.†Dr. Ketchum is asked, without violating any non-disclosure at the current time, if she believes there is a bigfoot. “Oh, I can say yes. I’ll answer that yes without any problems. Just have to wait for all the details.†Dr. Ketchum is asked whether she has been provided any evidence besides hair, like bone or feces, or blood. “Ask Dave if he wants me to answer that…†Dave Paulides replies, “Let’s leave that for later.†The interviewer mentions that he heard on Coast to Coast that there was a bone sample. Dave Paulides confirms the truth of that, but declines to discuss it further. Dr. Ketchum is asked if she believes that there are aliens. “I have no idea. [laughs] I know somebody’s seeing something in the sky… I’ve even seen something in the sky, but I have no idea what’s flying it. It could be the military for all I know. I wouldn’t touch that. [laughs] Remember, I’m still a scientist and I’m still really skeptical unless I can prove it myself. Nobody’s given us any DNA from alleged aliens, so, can’t go there.†Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Wait a minute......... On Facebook today, Dr. Ketchum elaborated on this encounter with a Bigfoot: The post that Arla put on my wall is true. I know her, but have not been to OK since 1995. My sighting is not a big deal. I saw one silhouetted between me and a white gooseneck trailer in bright moonlight at about 25 yds. It was about 10 feet tall as it walked by. I saw eyeshine from 1 nearby. I was alone at the time. I don't ever take cameras in case it scares them off. Not trying to prove anything here and do not care if I am believed or not. The DNA takes care of that for me. I should not have even brought it up. Any investigation on my part is purely to satisfy my curiousity (which got me into this in the first place), for my enjoyment and edification and no other reason. - Dr. Melba Ketchum I thought when Josh Gates first took her a sample, and I have seen her quoted other times before saying when people would bring her a Bigfoot sample, she thought there was not going to be anything to it. Just another misidentified animal. Now we find out she saw one or possibly a few 17 long years ago? I smell something fishy here. I am not sure if this a big hoax on a grand scale, or what, but something ain't right. No, she was last in Oklahoma 17 years ago, but she's not saying that's where she saw the Sasquatch; that was apparently much more recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I'm not on Facebook, is that quote on her page? Anyone know? I assumed when I read she had a sighting that she saw the Erickson footage. Like we did on the playground with girls " you show me yours and I'll show you mine!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 10, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted January 10, 2012 Supposedly she was not a believer and was a skeptical scientist, which was why they chose her. She had the open mind to test samples. This description and story would be vastly different if she actually had a sighting! Take samples for unbiased testing to a lab where the owner has encountered the creatures before on a personal level? Really? I call BS on that! Ps: I pulled the quote from her fb from the Bigfoot evidence blog. If the general consensus is that she saw one in OK ( is it ?? ), she said she hasn't been to OK since 1995 below. ==== Melba Ketchum The post that Arla put on my wall is true. I know her, but have not been to OK since 1995. My sighting is not a big deal. I saw one silhouetted between me and a white gooseneck trailer in bright moonlight at about 25 yds. It was about 10 feet tall as it walked by. I saw eyeshine from 1 nearby. I was alone at the time. I don't ever take cameras in case it scares them off. Not trying to prove anything here and do not care if I am believed or not. The DNA takes care of that for me. I should not have even brought it up. Any investigation on my part is purely to satisfy my curiousity (which got me into this in the first place), for my enjoyment and edification and no other reason. Unlike · · 14 hours ago · ==== Melba Ketchum Yes, I do know about them now. I am glad I didn't see them until after most of the data was in. I needed to prove it scientifically to myself first as a former skeptic before hitting the field so to speak and actually observing them. I had no fear, the ones I encountered were peaceful and gentle. I keep going back, I know why so many people love doing this now. 3 January at 08:58 ==== I see a discrepancy in " i saw one. It was about 10 feet tall " in the first comment & " I do know about them now. I am glad I didn't see them until....". Could be innocent, could even be a little white lie for numerous different reasons, it doesn't really bother me a great deal if i'm honest. We could surmise all night long but it wouldn't get us any closer to the truth. I just want the results now, it's starting to drag a little bit & all the " he said, she said " stuff is starting to drive me a little crazy. I am not the most patient person even though i try my hardest to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 When she had the sighting is a critical detail here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 When she had the sighting is a critical detail here Why? It's trivia. The contents of her report are all that count. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I'm right there with ya Bobby. I have little patience and want to see this come to an end soon. If it proves a new species- great! If not, then we can move on to whatever the next step is to prove it. ( a body) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts