The Ketchum Report

[Guest njjohn]

She did buy the other journal and not just create it from scratch.

http://www.bigfootbuzz.net/ketchum-dna-paper-passed-independent-peer-review/

[Guest ajciani]

If the data was evident & sound then science would support it regardless of where it pointed.

Unfortunately, this is "science" we are talking about, which is a construct of Man, and therefore susceptible to all of Man's short comings.

I myself have had things that were evident, strong, and well demonstrated, but rejected, either due to political reasons of the reviewer (e.g. delay my publication so they could do the same project and publish first, or I was stepping into their territory) or due to the reviewer's own lack of knowledge. The basic solution is to refute the reviewers claims and for the editor to find another. I have heard from Ketchum that so many reviewers treated it as a joke, that the editors just gave up. What good is science when it is being run by children?

Yep, she did buy the journal. I'm not sure what the original name was, but it was supposed to become the American equivalent of Nature, focused on cutting edge, general interest research.

The plan was to continue collecting articles and make a proper publication, but Ketchum became convinced that another paper on bigfoot DNA is coming out on Feb. 15th, and so she rushed the release of her paper. It would be great if another paper is released soon.

[Guest]

The last part of that quote says it showed unusual signs not generally associated with alopecia. Also if this were definitely bear wouldn't they be able to easily detect this rather than make so many human comparisons? It just seems a little strange.

But Bart and Tyler's labs did easily detect bear.

[Guest]

She did buy the other journal and not just create it from scratch.

http://www.bigfootbu...nt-peer-review/

I,m suprised this was being discussed as I thought it was known by everyone, . I assumed everyone interested in this issue would know this. I am glad you linked this . I am certainly not qualified to intrepet the raw data, and I look forward to the debate on that from the really knowledgeable members here. But I hope to get the data as I, ignorant though I be, lol think I can tell what I wish to know about a couple of specific submitted samples without relying on anyone elses expertise. I support Dr. Ketchum and wish her the best in this matter, I hope she does fight off the onslaught of innuendo, mischaracterization, and downright lies. Real issues of course should be debated and resolved and the chips should fall where they fall. I wish the best to both sides of this matter, may the truth be the winner.

[Guest gerrykleier]

Gerry these are all great observations. There is a big problem though. She can't back away from the hybridization scenario because it's the only she can say she has BF mtDNA that is 100% human and nuDNA that is partially 100% human and partially "novel."

She's really painted herself into a corner.

To a great degree, certainly. However, if the nuDNA is persuasive or even intriguing, then people will pay attention. People more skilled than her perhaps, and with bigger budgets might follow it home (if it was, in fact, Bigfoot DNA). Her hybridization theory would be dismissed as bad interpretation by a non-specialist and ignored. Eyes on the prize, after all.

If she has Bigfoot DNA, she could lose the battle but still win the war.

A number of the criticisms have focused on contamination and the implied lack of experience with the subject area. Those are probably fatal weaknesses, if accurate.

GK

[Guest Ishcabibble]

So I'm sitting here today, trying to keep up with the thread and I realized that something very important has been overlooked. I remember someone making reference to it earlier in the thread (sorry to whoever that was, I want to plus you, but I don't have time to go back through 400 pages to find it), but it is a crucial misstep that derails everything that comes after.

The misstep is that this study seems to be based on the acceptance that BF exist in the first place. Let me say that I am not bringing this up as an arguement against BF nor am I trying to troll or discredit any believers here. Those that have seen something and believe, I accept that. I bring it up in the context of trying to publish this particular paper and trying to get it through peer review, and then getting pissy when it is rejected.

The authors, and I think we need to start talking about them as a group but that is another discussion, have made the a priori assumption that BF exists and proceed to identify dna evidence to support lineage. Hello? Wouldn't the first logical step be to prove they exist in the fist place? Skipping the proof of this hypothesis, puts everything that follows on shaky ground at best. It would be like if I, in my line of work, were doing a wetland determination, and had already decided it was a wetland before being on-site. I would no longer be doing a determination of a wetland, I would be doing a determination of wetland type.

I think we all need to take a step back and take a good, hard look at the methods and assumptions employed in this "study". The data may still be salvagable, but the approach used in this particular paper renders it DOA.

[TimB]

You'll have to show where she said "I know there's bigfoot now I'm going to prove it." I'm not aware of it being stated but would love to see it.

[Guest]

^ Well how does the paper start? I presume that it lays out the case for the existence of these creatures in the first place?

[Guest vilnoori]

I'm pretty sure Dr. K has stated unequivocally that she was a skeptic until she saw the results. So she started out with a clean slate and did the study with no prior assumptions. Now when she wrote the paper she obviously had already seen the data and perhaps this creeps into the text of it. I have yet to read it, though...too poor right now. lol

[Oonjerah]

At some point, she saw habituated Bigfoots, and knows that they donated a sample or two.

[Guest vilnoori]

Carl Zimmer, an award winning science writer has commented on the paper: https://twitter.com/...809169097453568

Ouch.

[Guest]

Hi all - just wanted to add a bit to the 700-odd pages...

I've seen it said repeatedly (in this and other BFF threads, as well as other BF websites and blogs) that no reputable journal worth their salt would ever publish a legitimate paper on this topic, it'd ruin their reputation for evermore, etc, etc.

Well, maybe a mid-level journal, but a top-tier journal would take the chance - why do I think so? Because they have taken the same chance before.

In particular, I'm talking about Science. In March 2002 they published a very controversial paper on sonfusion - google it and do some reading - anyway, have a look at the quote below - this is the 1st and then the last 2 paragraphs of the Editorial ("To Publish Or Not To Publish", Donald Kennedy).

Where you see the word 'sonfusion', substitute 'Sasquach', where you seen 'Taleyarkhan', substitute 'Ketchum'.

Every once in a while, we at Science receive a paper that causes us to exercise particular care in handling, because it may be controversial or because it is important--or both. The paper by Taleyarkhan et al. on p. 1868 of this issue is a case in point. It qualified for careful, responsible treatment on both counts. And its history with us has exposed some of the more unusual challenges that can arise in the publication process.....

.....

....I have been asked, “Why are you going forward with a paper attached to so much controversy?†Well, that's what we do; our mission is to put interesting, potentially important science into public view after ensuring its quality as best as we possibly can. After that, efforts at repetition and reinterpretation can take place out in the open. That's where it belongs, not in an alternative universe in which anonymity prevails, rumor leaks out, and facts stay inside. It goes without saying that we cannot publish papers with a guarantee that every result is right. We're not that smart. That is why we are prepared for occasional disappointment when our internal judgments and our processes of external review turn out to be wrong, and a provocative result is not fully confirmed. What we ARE very sure of is that publication is the right option, even--and perhaps especially--when there is some controversy.

A reporter also asked me whether this was the only time pressure has been put on Science not to publish a paper. Although this case is exceptional, it is not unique; we have been there before. The motivations for urging us not to publish have varied from one case to another. Often they rest on serious legitimate scientific differences of opinion, although sometimes that is not so clear. In this instance, we see no good reason for abandoning our plans to publish the paper, and we can see no merit whatsoever in the efforts to discredit it in advance. Both the premature critics and those who believe in the result would do well to wait for the scientific process to do its work.

I have no doubts at all that there is a bias against Sasquatch (and cryptozoology more widely) in most of the scientific establishment. Those looking to break ground are going to do it hard.

But there is a difference between bias and poor science, and from what I've read so far, I'm not sure the delays were due to bias. that said, I'm pleased to see comments such as the one from Richard Gibbs - Ketchum needs to get the data out there and let it do the talking.

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure Dr. K has stated unequivocally that she was a skeptic until she saw the results.

Of the testing???

[Guest Ishcabibble]

As far as I can tell, given the text of the press release and the intro of the paper, the authors have already accepted the existence and jumped to making the data fit their conclusions.

In the context of trying to get this paper any serious consideration, they've already lost. I'll say it again, given the methods and assumptions that this paper are based on, its DOA. The dna data might be worth something once someone credible looks at it, but based on the sloppy analysis, cognitive dissociation, a priori assumption, and completly amateur handling of the release, nobody, and I can't stress this enough, NOBODY, with any real scientific underpinning is going give this paper a first look. People can put all the hope they want into this story, the simple fact is that it's not good science, and without that, it will not get noticed outside of these forums.

[Guest]

^^^

This. In SIMPLE TERMS terms....BF has been here for 15000 years and we know it..so here's what I have..and we better protect em too