bipedalist Posted January 10, 2012 BFF Patron 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! <br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); "> You are right on the money with this in my humble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheellug Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) I don't recall any statements saying she was skeptical. From what I remember her lab was one that was willing to take these samples in and not dismiss them so readily. Edited January 10, 2012 by Wheellug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Why is this confusing people so much? She has clearly stated that she did not have a sighting until after the DNA analysis had been completed. The sighting she is now revealing is not associated with the mention of Oklahoma. The mention of not having been to Oklahoma since 1995 is meant only to back up Arla's statement that Robert Lindsay is incorrect in his recent claim. Edited January 10, 2012 by Christopher Noel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Why is this confusing people so much? She has clearly stated that she did not have a sighting until after the DNA analysis had been completed. The sighting she is now revealing is not associated with the mention of Oklahoma. The mention of not having been to Oklahoma since 1995 is meant only to back up Arla's statement that Robert Lindsay is incorrect in his recent claim. You want to point me to the completed DNA work? Not published= not complete! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Hoosierfoot, that's not true. First, the science gets done, then the results get written up, then the peer-review and publication process (sometimes including rewrites of the article) takes place. Occasionally, yes, journals ask the author(s) to go back and re-test certain aspects of the analysis, but we have no indication that this is the case with the Ketchum study. I think you are muddying the water for no reason. Edited January 10, 2012 by Christopher Noel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 That was worth saying twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 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! I call BS on your call of "BS". The objectivity of a scientist is not dependent on the positions they take. Dr Meldrum, Dr Ketchum, and the others are no less scientists because they are proponents (NOT "believers", which is an unfair and inaccurate pejorative), nor is their objectivity and impartiality necessarily suspect. Otherwise, proponents would be entirely within their rights to dismiss the scientists who the Skeptics favor on the basis of their "non-belief" and inherent lack of objectivity due to their proclaimed Skeptical status. The science is the science, and it is ALL that we should be looking at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Not muddying the water, just interpreting what I read and questioning why she is even putting it out there. NDA doesn't apply to Facebook? She had been fairly tight lipped until recently, I question why? I assume from her stating people would bring her samples to test and she was tiring of it but would do it for them and take their money anyway, says, she was skeptical the creatures exist. Otherwise it leans toward what Parn has essentially been saying- she has this human DNA, and has to mold it into a Bigfoot. A sighting would be an attempt to do that, right? Not muddying the water, just interpreting what I read and questioning why she is even putting it out there. NDA doesn't apply to Facebook? She had been fairly tight lipped until recently, I question why? I assume from her stating people would bring her samples to test and she was tiring of it but would do it for them and take their money anyway, says, she was skeptical the creatures exist. Otherwise it leans toward what Parn has essentially been saying- she has this human DNA, and has to mold it into a Bigfoot. A sighting would be an attempt to do that, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Just a heads-up to the membership that I moved a thread regarding Dr. Ketchum from the Cryptomundo Forum and merged it with this thread. For your convenience, I left a link in the Cryptomundo Feed Forum to this thread for anyone following or interested in it. The moved and merged thread had 3 pages of discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) 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. occasionally things presented in these meetings make it to the press. So what? stories about bigfoot do anyway, or hadn't you noticed? An informal presentation of someone's ideas really doesn't make much of an impact. News coverage of scientific meetings is just about non-existent anyway. Just another rumor, an unconfirmed story about bigfoot. I think you over-estimate the impact of an unconfirmed bigfoot story. Crying wolf I mean bigfoot is a national pasttime. Saskeptic has listed a number of papers about bigfoot, papers that were actually published; I didn't notice panicked people running through the streets, buying up elephant guns when those "exploded onto the front page," did I miss something? Journals wouldn't mind a little blurb in the press. If an author were to try to make it into a media circus, making all sorts of claims, abusing the function of the meeting and its members(or a particular journal) by using it as the platform for their unconfirmed unpublished paper, that would be inappropriate on several levels, and that author could expect some feedback for acting like a Biscardi oops I mean a clown. But let's look instead at what Ketchum IS doing. Making bucks, hiring lawyers, getting multiple NDA's, running off to Europe, letting Paulides make announcements/excuses for her, acting like a diva, updating her "fans" on facebook, with all manner of excuses and contradictory stories. This isn't someone who wants to be taken seriously in the scientific world, at least as can be judged by her actions. I find it laughable. What's next, a Patterson-type tour? will she use the real Justin Smeja or a fake one with a wig? will a freezer be involved? Edited January 10, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) occasionally things presented in these meetings make it to the press. So what? stories about bigfoot do anyway, or hadn't you noticed? An informal presentation of someone's ideas really doesn't make much of an impact. News coverage of scientific meetings is just about non-existent anyway. Just another rumor, an unconfirmed story about bigfoot. I think you over-estimate the impact of an unconfirmed bigfoot story. Crying wolf I mean bigfoot is a national pasttime. Saskeptic has listed a number of papers about bigfoot, papers that were actually published; I didn't notice panicked people running through the streets, buying up elephant guns when those "exploded onto the front page," did I miss something? Journals wouldn't mind a little blurb in the press. If an author were to try to make it into a media circus, making all sorts of claims, abusing the function of the meeting and its members(or a particular journal) by using it as the platform for their unconfirmed unpublished paper, that would be inappropriate on several levels, and that author could expect some feedback for acting like a Biscardi oops I mean a clown. But let's look instead at what Ketchum IS doing. Making bucks, hiring lawyers, getting multiple NDA's, running off to Europe, letting Paulides make announcements/excuses for her, acting like a diva, updating her "fans" on facebook, with all manner of excuses and contradictory stories. This isn't someone who wants to be taken seriously in the scientific world, at least as can be judged by her actions. I find it laughable. What's next, a Patterson-type tour? will she use the real Justin Smeja or a fake one with a wig? will a freezer be involved? I am glad you re-posted on this Parnassuss, because I concur with a great deal of your thinking and yet am a witness, so I am able to start from a different point in, well nothing but thinking I guess... But, I recall Meldrum presented a paper asking for a Taxonomic designation based on his idea of foot morphology and the casts he has available to study. I don't think that paper ever made it to peer review, although it is broadly published on BF websites (sorry, no link just now, if you desire I shall retrieve). When I went to an Anthro Professor with my early digital evidence and account I referred to Meldrum as a supporting qualified mind. She quickly looked him up and responded, "he's no-one, nothing here peer-reviewed." That was a few years back, maybe three or four. Anyway, I assume this is the situation Ketchum will face if not published in journal she deems worthy? I have not read all new news on this thread..is there actually a date for a conference of her peers I don't know about where she i s presenting her work? Otherwise Par, keep it up you shall arrive at the truth. I respect truth-seekers. Is that really your photo? If you ever camp (it's doesn't look like it tho) pick up a copy of Robert Morgan's Bigfoot Field Observer's Manual...laugh thru it, put faith in it, and go out and try. You just might have the time of your life, or not, one can't predict how different minds react. It can be emotional. Use the compilation of sightings databases, or Google search, and find an area convenient to you, you may want to return - a few times. Or, get someone here to take you out...just a thought. No need to be snarky with me! Also, I see all the Facebook post talk, and I gotta say, I don't know what to say about her post. It is not satisfying for me and the information I seek. But,right now, it seems to be the only thing on the horizon beyond amateur researchers/hunters and media entrepreneurs. p.s. I re-edited three times and am sure still some tpyos..my deepest casual effort to avoid getting trashed! Edited January 10, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Hi there, As I understand it, Dr. Ketchum had her sighting AFTER she did the DNA tests. She said it herself: she was glad she didn't see them before it was completed. She didn't see one in 1995. She is not saying that. She is saying she was in Oklahoma last 17 years ago.Christopher Noel is correct I believe. I am a little surprised she has come out with her latest statement on FB, though I am glad she has. However, as she only saw a silhouette of one, could it be possible she was hoaxed? Unless she is completely fibbing about the whole thing of course, which seems unlikely to me given her professional standing. Best. Lee Edited January 10, 2012 by dopelyrics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) When I went to an Anthro Professor with my early digital evidence and account I referred to Meldrum as supporting mind. She quickly looked up and responded, "he's no-one, nothing here peer-reviewed." Which is insitutional Science's way of weaseling out of having to deal with the ramifications of Dr Meldrum's evidence (or Dr Fahrenbachs, or Dr Swindler's, or Dr Schaller's, and so on), just as I've been saying for pages now. They will not engage the evidence. Edited January 10, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Which is insitutional Science's way of weaseling out of having to deal with the ramifications of Dr Meldrum's evidence (or Dr Fahrenbachs, or Dr Swindler's, or Dr Schaller's, and so on), just as I've been saying for pages now. They will not engage the evidence. Don't get me wrong, I agree! I was relentless, to the point I doubt she would correspond with me until I produce a peer-reviewed paper...so YES, I get it now! I must admit an undying faith in truth and altruism, even if my own (and others) efforts/thoughts fall short. Idealistic to the end..I insist. I apologize to all honest and earnest amateur and pro-BFers who have been "doing it right" (whatever that is...I remain open on that - somewhat - leaning toward all hands OFF) when I first had my experiences. I was as most non-believers, unaware of the difficult battle, ridicule in-fighting, just really incredible hurdles they faced, not to mention....seeking real evidence in difficult environs. I get that now too. I even have room to respect some of the media types (can't think who just now) and many careful authors (Meldrum included!). Yes - to Schaller and Goodall, Strum and so on. I want this in front of those types even more. This really is a job for field anthropologists....and that takes a reason to fund. This Prof also said, when I said make me a grad student I'll get funding, "It has to be a problem we can solve!" LOL then I knew...but still, Max Planck took a problem no-one could solve..that is science truly, right? LOL wow- a new wireless mouse, just learned a new button thing...thought I lost this post, wont risk edit now,,,clicking save..and returned for some edit..thanks for tolerance. Edited January 10, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I am glad you re-posted on this Parnassuss, because I concur with a great deal of your thinking and yet am a witness, so I am able to start from a different point in, well nothing but thinking I guess... But, I recall Meldrum presented a paper asking for a Taxonomic designation based on his idea of foot morphology and the casts he has available to study. I don't think that paper ever made it to peer review, although it is broadly published on BF websites (sorry, no link just now, if you desire I shall retrieve). When I went to an Anthro Professor with my early digital evidence and account I referred to Meldrum as a supporting qualified mind. She quickly looked him up and responded, "he's no-one, nothing here peer-reviewed." That was a few years back, maybe three or four. Anyway, I assume this is the situation Ketchum will face if not published in journal she deems worthy? I have not read all new news on this thread..is there actually a date for a conference of her peers I don't know about where she i s presenting her work? Otherwise Par, keep it up you shall arrive at the truth. I respect truth-seekers. Is that really your photo? If you ever camp (it's doesn't look like it tho) pick up a copy of Robert Morgan's Bigfoot Field Observer's Manual...laugh thru it, put faith in it, and go out and try. You just might have the time of your life, or not, one can't predict how different minds react. It can be emotional. Use the compilation of sightings databases, or Google search, and find an area convenient to you, you may want to return - a few times. Or, get someone here to take you out...just a thought. No need to be snarky with me! Also, I see all the Facebook post talk, and I gotta say, I don't know what to say about her post. It is not satisfying for me and the information I seek. But,right now, it seems to be the only thing on the horizon beyond amateur researchers/hunters and media entrepreneurs. p.s. I re-edited three times and am sure still some tpyos..my deepest casual effort to avoid getting trashed! ape, I have been curious about the Field Manual...I'll see if I can bag it for a few bucks. Many of the bigfoot books are really expensive. Meldrum published a paper about the PGF tracks, giving them a name. The paper is in a "symposium" in a marginal journal, a house organ if you will. You can find it here. I say marginal because some would consider it peer reviewed, while others wouldn't, and the practice of publishing symposia kind of subverts the purpose of peer review anyway. I won't comment on the paper other than to say that Meldrum makes some inappropriate remarks in the paper, and the editors/peer reviewers (if any) failed to take them out. So I don't think it was really peer reviewed. p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts