The Ketchum Report

[Guest Thepattywagon]

"Science" appears to be the category, not the name of the journal.

I doubt this is it (and someone earlier said the Ketchum article is unlikely to be embargoed, which I think is true), but who knows.

None of the listings have the actual publication listed. I assume that requires a 'press pass'.

How would anyone know whether her work will be embargoed or not? SHE herself may not have that information until it happens.

[Guest]

I never saw this show, and this clip posted on a blog...so no idea when it was produced..but interesting comments by Sykes on DNA..and seem on the surface to parallel some comments from Ketchum?

http://www.youtube.c...v=uAUZDgv_33g#!

This was an old story. Sykes later cleared all this up. His researcher on the project originally had issues with human contamination. once she got that figured out, the samples came back as asiatic black bear, and brown bear. He simply spoke out too soon. He learned his lesson from that event. Thats why you will only see information from him when it is complete!

Given todays next gen technology, it would have been much simpler to figure that out now - this was several years ago.

But this raises an important issue,. This is still being held up as scientific proof of BF. or yeti , even though it was nothing of the sort, and is in fact another nail in the coffin!

[Guest]

I find it interesting that there is no description under 'Channels' unlike the rest.

[Cotter]

slowstepper, can you direct me to where Skyes cleared that up?

[Guest gershake]

I find it interesting that there is no description under 'Channels' unlike the rest.

Nice catch.

[Guest]

Science. : a virtually perfect tool that belongs on that pedestal;

Scientists: the people (yellow flag, that word!) using - or not! - the tool.

Plus 1 DWA..... You nailed it in a concise hard hitting way ...

[Guest]

slowstepper and yowie

Dr sykes is still being misreported re the famous DNA result from the asian samples collected by Rob mcCall and which he analysed april 2001. He explains the results he ended up with at the cryptozoologists ' weird weekend ' 20 8 11. He gets into the DNA part at about 40 mins into his talk. Here is the link,

You will see he did have some interesting bear results for two of the seven samples , then one wild boar, then 3 had no DNA, and the mystery sample he now changed to not being able to get a result that meant anything due to technical problems. One could speculate about the three samples from which no DNA was obtained as putative bigfoot hairs seem to be short on DNA within the shaft. Having problems with the mystery sample is surprising as it seemed to be the one with the nice hair follicle. There seems to be unusual difficulties with bigfoot/yeti samples.

So we now have to keep our fingers crossed and hope someone can come up with some good results.

[Guest]

Here's a terrible question. Could it be that Ketchum is holding up publication of the paper because she insists on BIgfoot being recognized as a human hybrid? She has stated a wish to have them protected as such. So if what njjohn says about the question of interpreting the results to support a hybrid is fact, then it suggests Ketchum's testing has been sound and reproducible: Just as Ketchum has been saying about her testing. Is this what's holding up publication? A protection agenda? What in the world? A handful of certified humans aren't going to make this decision in a democracy. Get on with it

This is very close to the scenario posited by several people in private conversations with me. She has the DNA "goods" to establish a new primate species of some kind extant in N America, but her insistence on claiming it as a hominid is making acceptance of the DNA data difficult. A more modest paper focused on establishing the new species and leaving exact taxonomic classification for later would have been a much better way to go.

There will be a book. It will provide no evidence just her theory. It will proclaim that the evil science guys just could not accept the truth.

Her multiple terrabytes of data remain evidence whether it is accepted or not.

But this raises an important issue,. This is still being held up as scientific proof of BF. or yeti , even though it was nothing of the sort, and is in fact another nail in the coffin!

Not true. All it proves is that sample was not evidence of a BF. Even if every single sample ever taken turned out to not be evidence of BF, that in no way "disproves" BF. Negative evidence is not evidence, and you can never "prove" that something "does not exist".

Edited February 7, 2013 by Mulder

[Guest Crowlogic]

Very early on I said in this thread that the Ketchum Report would amount to nothing. So far it seems to be heading in that direction. I agree that Dr. Ketchum by claiming habitation and steady observing shot herself in both feet! Why in bloody blue blazes would any scientifically based professional get involved with the very sketchy story and samples that the Ketchum Report is based on.

Would it not make much more sense to use the known resource of your habituated Bigfoot to do a proper study and sure fire DNA that would be available from such a resource? For me the biggest red herring in the Bigfoot scenario is the claim of multiple sightings and worse yet habituation.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Well, yeah, you've pointed out another in a big list of flags to anyone interested in proper scientific procedure.

There's been way too much crowing that's added up to way too little confidence. A habituator - or any scientist working with one - shouldn't have to cast far and wide for dubious samples.

[HOLDMYBEER]

Agreed, Crowlogic. The vetting documents beg the question. +1

[Guest]

Not true. All it proves is that sample was not evidence of a BF. Even if every single sample ever taken turned out to not be evidence of BF, that in no way "disproves" BF. Negative evidence is not evidence, and you can never "prove" that something "does not exist".

+1

Well put, and probably written in this forum before......That folks, is all there is to say

[Guest]

slowstepper, can you direct me to where Skyes cleared that up?

I could, do you never do your own research? This is not difficult. Meldrum addressed this issue several times as well,. It isn't a hidden secret, all it requires is 3 minutes and a ture desire to know the truth!

[southernyahoo]

There's been way too much crowing that's added up to way too little confidence. A habituator - or any scientist working with one - shouldn't have to cast far and wide for dubious samples.

Yeah, like the TBRC has dozens of samples to work with right? There should be squatch hairs everywhere you look? LOL I suppose you might be able to find enough if you are collecting just any hair that you can find then throwing most away after closer examination. Doing a broad study across regions would require submissions from across the country and demonstrates less bias towards any particular region , submitter, etc. I think people would accuse her of making the whole thing up if there "weren't" so many other submitters who can vouch for the provenance of their own samples.

[Guest DWA]

Yeah, like the TBRC has dozens of samples to work with right? There should be squatch hairs everywhere you look? LOL I suppose you might be able to find enough if you are collecting just any hair that you can find then throwing most away after closer examination. Doing a broad study across regions would require submissions from across the country and demonstrates less bias towards any particular region , submitter, etc. I think people would accuse her of making the whole thing up if there "weren't" so many other submitters who can vouch for the provenance of their own samples.

Um, the kind of obvious point here is:

If you are using a habituator as the foundation of your evidence there should be video and photos and track casts and recordings so copious as to make P/G look like a drawing. It's a serious misstep to talk that up ....and not be able to rely on it as your proof!?!?!?!?

And this is why everybody's talking about Ketchum getting all bubbly about habituators.

Whether they want to share evidence or not is their prerogative. But if you are talking habituation to anyone who wants to listen as the prelude to releasing scientific findings, it is a major misstep...which you better correct by having so much photo, video, track and other evidence, if not a body, as to make Patterson/Gimlin look like an artist's conception.

All we're saying.