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

[Guest]

Sorry, this announcement tells me that she's really enjoying being the darling of the bigfoot community, and that's about it. I'm thinking about it from the perspective of one of my colleagues who has never heard of her or this research. I imagine that generic colleague reading a headline like "Veterinarian discusses analysis of bigfoot DNA at the Honobia Bigfoot Festival." Hilarity and/or yawning ensue.

Then they aren't true scientists. The data is ALL, is it not? If she has the data, and the data checks out, what difference does it make if she presents at the Smithsonian in a business suit(for example), or in downtown Oshkosh in a pink tutu?

By the way, would your "colleagues" be the same ones who have ignored this subject (save to heap scorn upon it) for 40+ years? Would they be the same "colleagues" who have tried to intimidate researchers like Dr Meldrum by threatening his academic standing?

Why should I give one rat's keister what such "colleagues" think or don't think?

[Guest]

Please stop saying things like this. My BF-fanboyism can only carry me so far, and in the back of my mind I know that this makes a lot of sense.

It makes no sense whatsoever...unlike some, I credit people with a modicum of intelligence, barring reason to think otherwise. Dr Ketchum knows that such a presentation is going to be carefully scrutinized. For that matter, she would have known going in what a botched paper would mean both for her personally, and for the field in general.

That she has persevered despite the nattering and nit-picking of the Saskeptics of the world tells me that she is highly confident that she has something significant to report (if she is indeed going to discuss the actual report at Honobia).

[Guest]

It makes no sense whatsoever...unlike some, I credit people with a modicum of intelligence, barring reason to think otherwise. Dr Ketchum knows that such a presentation is going to be carefully scrutinized. For that matter, she would have known going in what a botched paper would mean both for her personally, and for the field in general.

That she has persevered despite the nattering and nit-picking of the Saskeptics of the world tells me that she is highly confident that she has something significant to report (if she is indeed going to discuss the actual report at Honobia).

I get the idea that if the science is sound, then nothing else matters. It will be enough for you and I. It will probably be enough for many people. However, science does have a process, and discussing your results at the Honobia Bigfoot Festival before the paper is released is not part of that process. If the results are undeniable then they are undeniable; nothing you can do about people who have already decided to preemptively dismiss them. She's just not helping matters by doing this (unless, of course, the paper is released beforehand, which would be AWESOME)

[southernyahoo]

That flushing sound is her scientific credibility.

Seriously, we're led to believe that this woman is the lead scientist on a discovery arguably on par with Watson and Crick's, and before her initial paper on that work is even published, she's going to discuss it at the Honobia Bigfoot Festival?

I think the schedule is still tentative.

I take it you'd never consider inviting her to one of "your" bigfoot presentations to your peers with published paper in hand even?. You know, the ones you tried to forwarn that legal suits might affect their work in the future? What was that about again? And what reason would you even give a presentation on bigfoot ? Your peers would have nothing to worry about nor would there be any reason to give a talk on bigfoot , if it didn't exist. Who's done the most talk on bigfoot here? What are the motives? Don't you feel a bit silly talking to your peers about this nonsense, especially bringing up legal issues on a subject that is no different than fairies and witches?

I'll grant you this, her talk at the honobia conference wouldn't be for her peers or yours, and won't be one much to do about the quality of the science where peer review is concerned. She would be talking over everyones head to just present the dry science.

[Guest]

But the data don't speak for themselves in this case. The data, as far as I have heard, confirm as Homo sapiens. The kicker is that Ketchum will apparently be making the case that these human data come from a creature that doesn't look very much at all like any of us participating in this thread. That part of the story comes from Ketchum's interpretation of alleged evidence we haven't really discussed. That's the part that makes the story interesting. Who cares that she has samples of tissue from all over the country that contained human DNA? Last time I checked, there are humans all over the country leaving their DNA in various places.

Also, whether the paper appears in print before or after her triumphant presentation in Honobia is immaterial. Lots of things get published that ultimately don't pan out. In the short term, it's generally not until some result gets replicated a few times before anyone puts any real stock in it. So the year or so after her paper is published will still be a crucial time to determine its real scientific impact. If she does things that potentially call her objectivity into question (I'd include pandering to fans at a bigfoot conference as one of those things), it could lead to a lot of people simply dismissing her paper as some fluke that squeaked through the peer-review process and there might be very little interest in anyone trying to replicate it.

If I was in her shoes (my feet would be sore), I'd be distancing myself from anything bigfooty until well after the paper was out in print and I'd be doing everything I could to engage the scientific community in my results. The fact that she (apparently) hasn't done that speaks volumes to me.

Here's an analogy. Let's say I do some research on mountaintop mining and its effects on native wildlife. There are some truly wonderful people who really want me to find that the effects of this practice are really bad, in the hopes that the practice can be stopped. Let's say I've just completed a project and am ready to try and publish the results. I wouldn't dream of discussing those results with people on either side of the conflict (e.g., mining or anti-mining lobbies) until the work actually was published. If my results indicated something really controversial (say, 10 species would go extinct if such and such a place was mined as planned), I'd be even more cautious about my behavior creating the slightest hint of subjective bias. I'd expect the same from any of my scientific colleagues.

[Guest]

Has anyone called her yet for answers?

Come on guys, we have lots of important researchers here who would deserve respect by their name alone if they were to call her office!

If I had any standing at all in this field I would call, but I don't.

But we do have people here who can call and be acknowledged as a respected researcher and qualified to ask pertinent questions.

[Guest]

I take it you'd never consider inviting her to one of "your" bigfoot presentations to your peers with published paper in hand even?.

Why not? I assume I'd enjoy hearing about her research firsthand.

And what reason would you even give a presentation on bigfoot ?

I was asked. If, when asked, I had some amazing bigfoot discovery that I was trying to announce to the world through the scientific literature, I would have declined the invitation to speak.

Don't you feel a bit silly talking to your peers about this nonsense, especially bringing up legal issues on a subject that is no different than fairies and witches?

Yes, but I have given these lectures because real biologists really are interested in learning more about this phenomenon, contrary to the repeated statements of people here on the BFF who are not part of that community. I have shared this information with the BFF precisely because I want to illustrate that real scientists have real interest in bigfoot.

I'll grant you this, her talk at the honobia conference wouldn't be for her peers or yours, and won't be one much to do about the quality of the science where peer review is concerned. She would be talking over everyones head to just present the dry science.

Other than motivating/placating/entertaining a fan base, I can't imagine why she would speak at such a gathering.

[Guest gershake]

@Saskeptic: Every credible (i. e. not counting Lindsay et al.) source we've heard from has confirmed that the nuclear DNA is not homo sapiens.

I just asked her on Facebook about her appearance at the conference. She's always replied to me in the past, although rather generically and pretty much avoiding the questions. But let's see!

[Guest]

Then they aren't true scientists. The data is ALL, is it not? If she has the data, and the data checks out, what difference does it make if she presents at the Smithsonian in a business suit(for example), or in downtown Oshkosh in a pink tutu?

By the way, would your "colleagues" be the same ones who have ignored this subject (save to heap scorn upon it) for 40+ years? Would they be the same "colleagues" who have tried to intimidate researchers like Dr Meldrum by threatening his academic standing?

Why should I give one rat's keister what such "colleagues" think or don't think?

Amen to that Mulder, and well said!

We have evidence, and even science cannot deny real verified proof of a new species.

People may laugh at first, but eventually they will have to realize that BF does exist thanks to the scientific evidence.

I'm sure that many will demand samples to run their own tests, and even that will help our cause when they get the *same* results.

It will take time, but eventually the truth will come out and be accepted scientifically.

[Guest]

I have an email out to someone in the project (not Dr. Ketchum) to see if they can shed any light on her presentation. So between gershake and I, maybe will get some useful information.

I also sent an email to the Department of the Interior concerning the issue of credibility and the criteria for recognizing a new species of animal. Really, I just want to see if they'll bother responding to me and gauge their giggle reflex.

[Guest]

Guys, Did you notice that *after* her presentation there will be a round table discussion with people asking questions and the presenters will answer the questions?!

This happens after her report, and that would be a great time to reveal and verify the truth of BF...and we can ask questions!

[Guest]

I got a reply from the conference chairman. I've asked for his permission to post it on my blog. I'll post a link if he agrees.

[southernyahoo]

If I was in her shoes (my feet would be sore), I'd be distancing myself from anything bigfooty until well after the paper was out in print and I'd be doing everything I could to engage the scientific community in my results. The fact that she (apparently) hasn't done that speaks volumes to me.

I think thats where the multiple authors of the paper come in, along with the repeated results. Apparently you are assuming some facts, and not quite the professional attitude I would want to see in someone who would call themselves a peer among scientists.

[southernyahoo]

Why not? I assume I'd enjoy hearing about her research firsthand.

I don't know if high horses travel to Honobia, but I guess you could try it.

I was asked. If, when asked, I had some amazing bigfoot discovery that I was trying to announce to the world through the scientific literature, I would have declined the invitation to speak.

Why is bigfoot lectures only credible when given to biologists?

Yes, but I have given these lectures because real biologists really are interested in learning more about this phenomenon, contrary to the repeated statements of people here on the BFF who are not part of that community. I have shared this information with the BFF precisely because I want to illustrate that real scientists have real interest in bigfoot.

Why, are they bigger believers than laymen?

Other than motivating/placating/entertaining a fan base, I can't imagine why she would speak at such a gathering.

Laymen have just as much curiosity in the subject and collect way more field data than the biologists are on this critter.

[Guest parnassus]

My sources tell me there is no such publication pending or even a submission, in the major journals, at least. Of course, that is unofficial, and would not necessarily include every journal under the sun. Unless her paper is published somewhere in the next month, it would be irrational to "unveil" positive findings at Honobia, and she certainly knows that. Even a "we 're really close, wink, wink," would be seriously counterproductive.

Of course people can do illogical things.

Now, let me mention another issue which has largely been neglected. Dr. Ketchum has a business to run, it's not about bigfoot, and it depends heavily on credibility. She has already paid a price, when the BBB stuff came out on Cryptomundo. She realizes that and it has to play a role in her decisions.I will leave it at that.

I can only think of one logical reason for her to appear at this point in that forum to discuss that announced topic, and everyone else is speculating, here's my best guess:

She is appearing to announce that results to date show various known animals and humans, and do not warrant a publication, but people are encouraged to send in more specimens, possibly to some other lab. In other words, she is getting out of the Bigfoot business.

I would draw attention to the fact that Paulides has also been added to the schedule. apparently speaking before Ketchum and also speaking about the DNA project:

"9/30-10/1- David Paulides will be presenting information about NABS' latest research, this will be the first public appearance by NABS since nearing the completion of the DNA Project-http://www.bigfootmountain.com/schedule"

I would suggest/speculate that he is going to try to pre-empt Dr. Ketchum, and make the case that the human DNA represents Bigfoot.

Just my guess. I am fascinated.

Edited August 16, 2011 by parnassus