The Ketchum Report

[Guest Jodie]

Yeah, specifically for bigfoot research.

[bipedalist]

Better off an infrasonic trigger in my experience (yes, particularly for BF research).

[indiefoot]

How about, triggered by really bad smell?

Edit Spelling

Edited January 11, 2012 by indiefoot

[southernyahoo]

I 've buit a fake log out of PVC pipe and hid one of those sports cameras inside it, for leaving on a trail while hiking, to sort of watch the trail behind me. I don't use it alot but have it ready most of the time.

There are some new cameras that simply take a photo every few seconds and come with some nifty software that scans for changes in the scene to help find pics of animals. The triggering of current game cams would do better with a sound trigger, but as with any device, the programming to be discriminant allows it to also be fooled or foiled.

[Guest]

AH:

Sounds like you have extensive experience.

There may be some misunderstanding of what we are saying and what we are meaning.

when you say they know, are you saying that they know that an image of them has been captured, for humans to look at, and that they don't want humans to do that? or that they are aware that some device is nearby, and they are avoiding that device?

I do not know what they know, I believe based on results they detect and avoid these types of equipments.

[Guest]

So you see no problem with listing the names of four "institutional scientists" with bigfoot evidence when you're trying to make the point that institutional science will not engage bigfoot evidence?

Those are not institutional scientists. Science as an institution will not address the evidence presented by Drs Meldrum et al. They won't touch it. And the meme keeps being brought up by Skeptics about "no scientific evidence."

That is because the proponents can write a 1000s papers, and up until now not one of them has gotten any traction or moved the effort to document the species forward.

I once earned my living as a certiifed thermographer. Yes, particularly with the FLIR brand, you can reduce the gain such that definition is very detailed and observable. The sasquatch/thermal footages that seem to make the rounds typically were made with the gain turned up so high no detail can be seen. I don't really understand why. I suppose the footage could have been made with equipment that had limited ability to discriminate temperatures, but most equipment today is very, very capable. Twenty years ago when I worked at night I calibrated my device on the vascular structures under the skin of my partner's forearm.

I would guess that it's because we're dealing with the more primitive cameras available to the general public (and within the budget of weekend researchers). I'd also guess that they probably don't know more about them than "point it there and turn it on".

[Guest]

Those are not institutional scientists. Science as an institution will not address the evidence presented by Drs Meldrum et al. They won't touch it. And the meme keeps being brought up by Skeptics about "no scientific evidence."That is because the proponents can write a 1000s papers, and up until now not one of them has gotten any traction or moved the effort to document the species forward.

Bolded is mine. Precisely what evidence are you suggesting IS scientific evidence?

[Guest]

Bolded is mine. Precisely what evidence are you suggesting IS scientific evidence?

The biggest of them for me being (not an all inclusive list):

• Meldrum's foot morphology paper
  
• Fahrenbach's track size distribution and height of creature vs elevation of sighting analyses
  
• the scientific statements by Drs Schaller, Swindler, Sariamento, et al analyzing the Skookum Impression
  

[Guest]

The biggest of them for me being (not an all inclusive list):

• Meldrum's foot morphology paper
  
• Fahrenbach's track size distribution and height of creature vs elevation of sighting analyses
  
• the scientific statements by Drs Schaller, Swindler, Sariamento, et al analyzing the Skookum Impression
  

Is Meldrum's paper the one in American Journal of Physical Anthropology? If so then isn't it being taken seriously by science as an institution? Of course I only read the abstract to Meldrum's work. This paper seems to have some ready use in anthropology, paleontology, and animal medicine perhaps so I would imagine it's been read by more scientists in these fields.

Fahrenbach's data appears to be of interest only to bigfoot enthusiasts at the moment. All of the sites I looked up that were linked to it were BF sites. Do you know where this paper or these statements were originally published? I managed to read the paper that was listed immediately at the top of the list and it doesn't really read like Meldrum's paper seems to. Interesting reading though.

As for the skookum cast, I was under the impression that it was determined to be an elk wallow. Fahrenbach himself said he did not remember his hair sample from the cast as being sasquatch which would reasonably mean that it didn't test as BF. He would remember that I'm sure.

I'm not sure I can criticise scientists for not leaping up and down over these evidences. I appreciate the list but most of this stuff is not really much to go on. I suspect that any scientist even remotely interested in BF would be willing to read these papers and think about them. Furthermore, any scientist who currently has a job in the sciences gets paid to do what he was hired for. If there is no money in the research then it will depend on "hobbyist" types, some of whom are scientists. There's no use blaming the system as it won't change the way things are done.

For me one compelling bit is the distribution curve for the BF footprints. I can't reach a conclusion based on it beyond "something is interesting here" but it is (to me) encouraging information. This graph looks a lot like the same kind of graphs for human footprints. excepting for the sizes of course. I find it difficult to believe that hoaxers could create such an appearance.

[bipedalist]

For me one compelling bit is the distribution curve for the BF footprints. I can't reach a conclusion based on it beyond "something is interesting here" but it is (to me) encouraging information. This graph looks a lot like the same kind of graphs for human footprints. excepting for the sizes of course. I find it difficult to believe that hoaxers could create such an appearance.

Yeppers.

[Guest]

Those are not institutional scientists.

So their doctorates came from Cracker Jack boxes? C'mon Mulder, this guy is not an institutional scientist?

"Meldrum received his B.S. in zoology specializing in vertebrate locomotion at Brigham Young University (BYU) in 1982, his M.S. at BYU in 1984 and a Ph.D. in anatomical sciences, with an emphasis in biological anthropology, from State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1989. He held the position of postdoctoral visiting assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center from 1989 to 1991. Meldrum worked at Northwestern University's Department of Cell, Molecular and Structural Biology for a short while in 1993 before joining the faculty of Idaho State University where he currently teaches."

That's one guy linked to 5 institutions. (He's got me beat - I've only got 4.)

How 'bout this guy?

"Wolf-Henrich (Henner) Fahrenbach, Ph.D., was born in Berlin, Germany, in 1932. He earned a Ph.D. in zoology at the University of Washington in 1961, followed by a postdoctoral fellowship in the Department of Anatomy at the Harvard Medical School in Boston, MA, from 1961 to 1963. He served as the head of the Laboratory of Electron Microscopy at the Oregon Regional Primate Center in Beaverton, OR, from 1967 to 1997, and as a Clinical Affiliate Professor in the Department of Integrative Biosciences at the Oregon Health & Sciences University’s School of Dentistry in Portland, OR, from 1987 to 2007. Professional memberships include(d) the American Association of Anatomists, American Society for Cell Biology, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Sigma Xi, and others. He served on the Editorial Boards of the International Journal of Insect Morphology and Embryology (1978-1982) and Zeitschrift für vergleichende Physiologie (1977-1982)."

That's 4 for Henner (not including his professional memberships and editorial boards or his undergrad institution).

Let's try one more:

"Schaller received his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Alaska in 1955, and went on to the University of Wisconsin–Madison to obtain his Ph.D. in 1962.[9][10] From 1962 to 1963, he was a fellow at the Behavioral Sciences department of Stanford University. From 1963 to 1966, Schaller served as research associate for the Johns Hopkins University Pathobiology department, and from 1966 to 1972, served as the Rockefeller University's and New York Zoological Society's research associate in research and animal behavior.[11] He later served as Director of the New York Zoological Society's International Conservation Program from 1979 to 1988.[3]"

Ooh, Schaller is a gold mine - 6 or 7, depending on how you count his different hats worn for the New York Zoological Society. Check out his "notable awards" too:

"National Geographic Lifetime Achievement Award[4]

Guggenheim Fellowship

World Wildlife Fund Gold Medal

International Cosmos Prize

Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement

National Book Award

Indianapolis Prize"

That's at the very least ties to 15 different institutions from just three people you listed as not institutional scientists.

[Guest]

Is Meldrum's paper the one in American Journal of Physical Anthropology? If so then isn't it being taken seriously by science as an institution? Of course I only read the abstract to Meldrum's work. This paper seems to have some ready use in anthropology, paleontology, and animal medicine perhaps so I would imagine it's been read by more scientists in these fields.

I'm honestly not sure if that's the one or not, but I know it hasn't been even considered by institutional science as BF evidence in any serious way.

Fahrenbach's data appears to be of interest only to bigfoot enthusiasts at the moment. All of the sites I looked up that were linked to it were BF sites. Do you know where this paper or these statements were originally published? I managed to read the paper that was listed immediately at the top of the list and it doesn't really read like Meldrum's paper seems to. Interesting reading though.

Fahrenbach's work is very overlooked, even in the BF community it seems sometimes.

As for the skookum cast, I was under the impression that it was determined to be an elk wallow.

No, Skeptics kept on yelling about it being an "elk wallow" despite the evidence to the contrary contained IN the impression itself. One of the scientists (Dr Schaller, IIRC), who examined a cast taken from the impression mold has expertise in both primatology AND ungulates (which includes elk). He determined the material he examined to be trace evidence of a large primate, NOT an elk.

For me one compelling bit is the distribution curve for the BF footprints. I can't reach a conclusion based on it beyond "something is interesting here" but it is (to me) encouraging information. This graph looks a lot like the same kind of graphs for human footprints. excepting for the sizes of course. I find it difficult to believe that hoaxers could create such an appearance.

That's exactly the point. The Bell Curve Distribution is the hallmark of ANY body of legitimate living creature traits. The closer Fahrenbach's results map to that curve, the more likely they are to be legitimate evidence of a living critter. It would take a large number of well informed hoaxers operating in concert over many years and many miles to even attempt such a sophisticated endeavor. They would require a high degree of technical education (to get the traces that mark the sample tracks as Sas tracks, the artistic skill to duplicate those traces, a high degree of discipline (to ensure that each hoaxer performed to standard), and the network of communication to make sure all participants were working in synch and on task.

VERY unlikely to the point of being a virtual non-starter as an alternate hypothesis.

So their doctorates came from Cracker Jack boxes? C'mon Mulder, this guy is not an institutional scientist?

"Meldrum received his B.S. in zoology specializing in vertebrate locomotion at Brigham Young University (BYU) in 1982, his M.S. at BYU in 1984 and a Ph.D. in anatomical sciences, with an emphasis in biological anthropology, from State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1989. He held the position of postdoctoral visiting assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center from 1989 to 1991. Meldrum worked at Northwestern University's Department of Cell, Molecular and Structural Biology for a short while in 1993 before joining the faculty of Idaho State University where he currently teaches."

That's one guy linked to 5 institutions. (He's got me beat - I've only got 4.)

How 'bout this guy?

"Wolf-Henrich (Henner) Fahrenbach, Ph.D., was born in Berlin, Germany, in 1932. He earned a Ph.D. in zoology at the University of Washington in 1961, followed by a postdoctoral fellowship in the Department of Anatomy at the Harvard Medical School in Boston, MA, from 1961 to 1963. He served as the head of the Laboratory of Electron Microscopy at the Oregon Regional Primate Center in Beaverton, OR, from 1967 to 1997, and as a Clinical Affiliate Professor in the Department of Integrative Biosciences at the Oregon Health & Sciences University’s School of Dentistry in Portland, OR, from 1987 to 2007. Professional memberships include(d) the American Association of Anatomists, American Society for Cell Biology, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Sigma Xi, and others. He served on the Editorial Boards of the International Journal of Insect Morphology and Embryology (1978-1982) and Zeitschrift für vergleichende Physiologie (1977-1982)."

That's 4 for Henner (not including his professional memberships and editorial boards or his undergrad institution).

Let's try one more:

"Schaller received his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Alaska in 1955, and went on to the University of Wisconsin–Madison to obtain his Ph.D. in 1962.[9][10] From 1962 to 1963, he was a fellow at the Behavioral Sciences department of Stanford University. From 1963 to 1966, Schaller served as research associate for the Johns Hopkins University Pathobiology department, and from 1966 to 1972, served as the Rockefeller University's and New York Zoological Society's research associate in research and animal behavior.[11] He later served as Director of the New York Zoological Society's International Conservation Program from 1979 to 1988.[3]"

Ooh, Schaller is a gold mine - 6 or 7, depending on how you count his different hats worn for the New York Zoological Society. Check out his "notable awards" too:

"National Geographic Lifetime Achievement Award[4]

Guggenheim Fellowship

World Wildlife Fund Gold Medal

International Cosmos Prize

Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement

National Book Award

Indianapolis Prize"

That's at the very least ties to 15 different institutions from just three people you listed as not institutional scientists.

They are definitely NOT "institutional scientists", as they do not subscribe to the institutional science position on the existence of BF. Nor do their supposed colleagues consider them to be within the mainstream of science on this issue.

That is my point. They can write and speak from here till Doomsday and their colleagues will continue to ignore what they have to say and show, and continue to insist there is no "scientific evidence for BF" despite the data that Meldrum et al have presented.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest]

For me one compelling bit is the distribution curve for the BF footprints. I can't reach a conclusion based on it beyond "something is interesting here" but it is (to me) encouraging information. This graph looks a lot like the same kind of graphs for human footprints. excepting for the sizes of course. I find it difficult to believe that hoaxers could create such an appearance.

This has been discussed in many threads at BFF 1.0 and 2.0, so I want to be careful not to derail this one. Suffice it to say that I interpret those data (for which Fahrenbach provides very little information on provenance of the prints he included in the analysis) quite differently than others do. The distribution is actually quite peaked, with most observations in the range of 14–16" in length. That could be the range of footprint lengths for real bigfoots, but it's also exactly what we'd expect from independent hoaxers making impressions that could be affixed to their own shoes and worn while walking around in the woods. Much smaller than 14" overlaps human prints too closely; much bigger than 16" gets more difficult to walk around with.

Of course, there are bigger prints in that dataset - some exceeding 20" - and some smaller ones that some assume must be from baby bigfoots. While it's unlikely that someone would hoax little bigfoot prints, the problem with the little ones is that they overlap the size of human and black bear prints. The big ones are fun to consider, but wearing a snowshoe-style form isn't the only way to fake a bigfoot print, and some of those big ones really are pretty cartoonish.

So the big ones could be hoaxed, the typical ones could be hoaxed, the little ones could be explained by barefoot humans and black bears, and having all of these in a single dataset could result in a strongly peaked distribution, with zero coordination or advanced knowledge among some secret society of Ninja hoaxers. Amid all of that there could be some real bigfoot prints in the data, but we can't tell from the distribution itself. There is nothing statistically revealed in that distribution that establishes any one of those footprints as having come from a real bigfoot.

I'll write no more on that issue in this thread.

They are definitely NOT "institutional scientists",

Whatever you say, Mulder . . .

[Guest Blackdog]

I find it more than a little ironic that Mulder gets to decide what is and what is not scientific evidence for bigfoot and who is and who is not a good scientist.

Maybe Mulder is actually an "institutional scientist", it seems he matches his own description pretty well.

[bipedalist]

......and then again, maybe you work for Canadian customs......... ?