Dr. Melba Ketchum Schedule To Speak About Sasquatch Dna On October 1, 2011

[Guest]

Straw man. How many times do I have to write "speculation." really. This board is 98 or so percent speculation woven around a light sprinkling of facts.

I've gone over this several times. It's connect the dots. Snelgrove Lake fiasco. Population genetics. Paulides statements. Paulides books, and Paulides- Ketchum internet radio show. Ketchum statements. Ketchums background. PaUlides background. The odds of suddenly obtaining multiple samples from across the country of a very very hard to find animal. The marketability of the "Bigfoot is human" story within the target demographic. Certain connections I have within the scientific community. The apparently truthful statement that at least two samples of mtDNA are human. The nonsensical "I had Bigfoots baby"/hybrid theories. A conviction that whatever Bigfoot is or isn't, it isn't a human.

( incidentally I do agree with Paulides that the NA legends and early newspaper accounts of wild men were describing modern humans.)

I may be completely off base. So may everyone else.

This is like the Friday night poker game. Everybody gets to make their bets before the hands are revealed. Some players think they can spot some "tells", and others play the odds. In the end somebody is right. The others say shut up and deal.

It was a legitimate question Parn, what has this got to do with straw men? I know you are speculating with the rest of us, but I wanted to hear why you have your opinions. What you wrote above is a bunch of gibberish mess but if you don't feel like telling it again that's fine.

[Guest Forbig]

HairyMan, I heard him as well and i believe he said it was to be submitted for peer review soon........but don't quote me. lol

Maybe I'm too inquisitive but what's the significance of October? Why is everything in October? Patterson, Jacobs, Ketchum all October.

[Guest]

Because it's Halloween and it's a cool date to announce the existence of a real live monster?

[Guest]

Maybe I'm too inquisitive but what's the significance of October? Why is everything in October? Patterson, Jacobs, Ketchum all October.

I don't know Forbig, I don't recall anyone on Coast To Coast last night mentioning October. But then I was driveing during the interview and might have missed something. I know "A watched pot never boils" but I hope to see DNA study results soon.

[Guest gershake]

i believe he said it was to be submitted for peer review soon

If this is true, I'm going to gnash my teeth, pull my hair out, and scream.

Edited August 27, 2011 by gershake
edited to conform to the forum rules

[Guest]

They are all over the place on submission. It has been submitted. It hasn't been submitted. It has. It hasn't. I'm so confused.

[Guest parnassus]

Parn, I need to understand something here.

1)You are saying that there is categorically no chance that there is a Bigfoot in any way, shape, or form, correct?

2)Even if there is some revelation from this DNA it was either purposely hoaxed or fraudulent through human error?

I do not find the evidence for a giant non human primate in America to be convincing and I find the evidence for hoaxing and error to be much more convincing. I grew up a country boy and I trust my experience and that of my friends and family. I was trained in science and subscribe to that.

It would be really cool if someone with cred like Todd Disotell came out with a new American Primate. Really cool. The odds of that after 400 years are about the same as all the oxygen molecules in this room suddenly flying up into a corner. Its a stochastic argument. So I would never take any action based on the idea. But that is reversible.

I'm not sure I understand your second question.

If there is a publication I'll read it like I read a lot of papers. Every paper I have ever read has issues. Sometimes they smack in the face they are so obvious. Sometimes they are subtle enough or far enough from my areas of expertise that I don't recognize them. Sometimes people make stuff up. As Saskeptic has so clearly posted, publication is not proof. In many cases it's a target painted on your back because it turns out to be WRONG.

What if the paper says Bigfoot is human or a hybrid. I'll laugh and so will the great majority of the scientific community, and the journal will receive several letters as will the author requesting the data and or specimens. A claim of hybrid of the form human mtDNA and some other nuDNA would very likely lead to charges of a hoax. A claim of human might also, but would more likely be shown to be a haplotype characteristic of some lineage not widely found in the US but certainly modern human eg isolated tribes.

The only finding that would make me think there might be something to it would be a non human (not just an unusual haplotype) that can be located in a new place somewhere on the primate tree.

At that point somebody else has to run the samples. A Todd Disotell.

Of course there may be other possibilities.

Let me clarify that I am in no way accusing anyone of anything. I am concerned that i don't know that anyone with a high level of expertise in primate DNA and human population genetics has been involved. I am concerned with the way this has been handled from the get go.

Edited August 26, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest]

To set the record straight: a previous post of mine contrasted the views of two skeptics, Parnassus and myself. I admire Parnassus and his contributions to BFF. He would be a "hard" skeptic to my "soft" skeptic. I probably should not have set out his ideas, as I perceived them, because folks may confuse my perceptions with Parnassus' actual views, which may or may not be one and the same.

[Guest]

No, that's what I wrote about in post #50. It's no guarantee that just because she's published a paper she's effectively shifted a paradigm. Just for one high-profile example, if you ask ornithologists if Ivory-billed Woodpeckers are extant in North America today, the vast majority will say "no" despite the high-profile paper claiming so in Science a few years back.

Scientific consensus takes more than the publication of a single paper. That paper needs to be out for a while, other people need to replicate the work (or at least attempt to pursue the next steps), and the sum of all the work on that theme that points to the same inescapable conclusion is what really changes the games.

My concern (not really mine, but what probably should be yours), is that if Ketchum does anything that undermines her credibility related to this research, it'll simply be ignored. Thus, she could end up publishing the paper but the science doesn't really progress.

Sas, That's not fair comparison about the bird vs. BF.

One person saw the one bird once in decades in a secluded swamp!(Perhaps)

How many BF reports do we have about BF?

How many:

Reports from reliable witnesses such as Game Wardens, military men on deployment wood training,Policemen,everyday citizens who are terrified, researchers, and just plain ole folks?

That's way too many people to entirely dismiss, not to mention the pictures from just regular folks.

[southernyahoo]

If there is a publication I'll read it like I read a lot of papers. Every paper I have ever read has issues. Sometimes they smack in the face they are so obvious. Sometimes they are subtle enough or far enough from my areas of expertise that I don't recognize them. Sometimes people make stuff up. As Saskeptic has so clearly posted, publication is not proof. In many cases it's a target painted on your back because it turns out to be WRONG.

I'm sure the paper will be under intense scrutiny, and I can be certain that the DNA work is just the tip of the iceburg of what would be done in the future if there is a new hominid that has been eluding us. In that sense the knowledge could be considered incomplete, but at some point a decision can be made that there is sufficient evidence to publish.

[Guest Forbig]

I'm sure the paper will be under intense scrutiny, and I can be certain that the DNA work is just the tip of the iceburg of what would be done in the future if there is a new hominid that has been eluding us. In that sense the knowledge could be considered incomplete, but at some point a decision can be made that there is sufficient evidence to publish.

The US government will get involved and dump millions of dollars into catching one once there's proof of existence.

[Guest]

The US government will get involved and dump millions of dollars into catching one once there's proof of existence.

And they will succeed.

[Guest parnassus]

It was a legitimate question Parn, what has this got to do with straw men? I know you are speculating with the rest of us, but I wanted to hear why you have your opinions. What you wrote above is a bunch of gibberish mess but if you don't feel like telling it again that's fine.

Jodie,

"straw man" refers to what is commonly called putting words in someone's mouth. When you wrote that I was "so certain" that is a straw man.

I listed the sources that have shaped my thinking. Perhaps I should have put bullets in front of each; would that have made you happy? You may consult them or not as you wish. Your intemperate description is inappropriate. Whether or not you are able to objectively criticize your own posts or the many other posts that are blowing smoke, giving misinformation or actual gibberish, you might consider a more "moderate" approach to posts of those with whom you disagree or towards whom you have some animosity. But frankly, my dear...

[Guest]

Jodie,

"straw man" refers to what is commonly called putting words in someone's mouth. When you wrote that I was "so certain" that is a straw man.

I listed the sources that have shaped my thinking. Perhaps I should have put bullets in front of each; would that have made you happy? You may consult them or not as you wish. Your intemperate description is inappropriate. Whether or not you are able to objectively criticize your own posts or the many other posts that are blowing smoke, giving misinformation or actual gibberish, you might consider a more "moderate" approach to posts of those with whom you disagree or towards whom you have some animosity. But frankly, my dear...

You sure are getting testy for someone who is quoting "Gone With The Wind". I'm not playing Scarlett no matter how much you might want to be Rhett Butler. Don't forget what Mammy said about a "mule in horse harness". :lol:

[Doc Holliday]

The US government will get involved and dump millions of dollars into catching one once there's proof of existence.

maybe, but im not so sure they would.

considering the economic troubles of the US ( & the global economy too)i dont think, imo, that they have the millions to dump into this.

imagine trying to get re-elected running on a pro-BF spending platform, probably a good way to lose votes in the next election.

if the powers that be have put NASA on hold, i doubt they would send major funding towards any BF research .

cheaper to sweep it under the rug, business as usual.

& if you put any stock in the conspiracy angle, then perhaps they already know & mums the word regardless.