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

[Guest]

@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.

Then the plot thickens . . .

[Guest]

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.

No, those are just co-authors. As for assuming things, isn't that what all of this Ketchum discussion has been based for several months now? Until there's a paper in print somewhere we really don't know what's in it, who wrote it, etc.

[Guest]

Why is bigfoot lectures only credible when given to biologists?

Why, are they bigger believers than laymen?

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

I don't get the biologist/laymen dichotomy you're setting up here. I've given presentations to people who've asked me to give them. Those people have been biologists. I'm not suggesting that my presentations are any more valuable than whatever Ketchum might be planning to present. Nor am I suggesting that there's anything wrong with her engaging in the community of interested "laymen." The issue I've raised is the timing.

If Ketchum is trying to establish her "sci-cred" in advance (or immediately on the heels) of her startling bigfoot DNA evidence being revealed, then a high-profile presentation at the Honobia Bigfoot Conference is exactly the wrong way to do that. She's either pathologically naive, has gotten some seriously bad advice, or there's something else going on.

[Guest]

Got a reply from another source. Waiting for response to follow up questions before I post. Hope to have it up by tonight.

[Guest]

dup.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Saskeptic

[BobbyO]

If Ketchum is trying to establish her "sci-cred" in advance (or immediately on the heels) of her startling bigfoot DNA evidence being revealed, then a high-profile presentation at the Honobia Bigfoot Conference is exactly the wrong way to do that. She's either pathologically naive, has gotten some seriously bad advice, or there's something else going on.

Or, incredibly, she may just want to speak at a Conference regarding the Subject of her work..

[Guest Strick]

Why not Saskeptic? Francis Crick made his announcement in a pub.

The Eagle Pub

"When the university's Cavendish Laboratory was still at its old site at nearby Free School Lane the pub was a popular lunch destination for staff working there. Thus it became the place where Francis Crick interrupted patrons' lunchtime on 28 February 1953 to announce that he and James Watson had "discovered the secret of life" after they had come up with their proposal for the structure of DNA.[2] The anecdote is related in Watson's book The Double Helix [3] and commemorated on a blue plaque next to the entrance."

That's true and a fine pub it is too. Used to go there all the time when I was a teenager back in the 80's and still lived in that neck of the woods.

[Guest]

Or, incredibly, she may just want to speak at a Conference regarding the Subject of her work..

That's fine and she can do whatever she wants. I'm just commenting from the perspective of the scientific community that her appearance at the event undermines her credibility.

[bipedalist]

If Ketchum is trying to establish her "sci-cred" in advance (or immediately on the heels) of her startling bigfoot DNA evidence being revealed, then a high-profile presentation at the Honobia Bigfoot Conference is exactly the wrong way to do that. She's either pathologically naive, has gotten some seriously bad advice, or there's something else going on.

How about Oklahoma is close to Texas, a quick hit that doesn't require alot of time away from the job. She can kill two birds with one stone, get her feet wet in practicing for a pressie with presentation and promotion while at the same time talk about some general prospects of one of her subjects of study and maybe even an implication or two and what the future may portend for the subject matter.

[Guest gershake]

That's fine and she can do whatever she wants. I'm just commenting from the perspective of the scientific community that her appearance at the event undermines her credibility.

If she has nothing, who cares about any conference she's gone to? I certainly don't care which bigfoot conferences the Georgia Boys attended. If she does have proof of sasquatch, won't it have been a really cool move in retrospect? À la "I'll show all the parnassi in the world what I think of them, the people who have been waiting for this for so long get to hear it first".

Or are you saying it's bad for the peer review process? I thought the facts would have to speak for themselves either way. Are peers going to dismiss it just because she went to the conference, if her paper is otherwise fine?

Edited August 16, 2011 by gershake

[Guest]

That's fine and she can do whatever she wants. I'm just commenting from the perspective of the scientific community that her appearance at the event undermines her credibility.

Well then fortunately for us it's a good thing you are only one voice among many in the "scientific community". Very much overlooked has been the idea she's just going because someone asked her and is spending some time with friends?? For all we know she's attending the wedding. Nothing to do with the BF DNA issue. The woman has a personal life after all.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=153376

In an aside, funding is "pushing" science more & more, sadly the days of absolute ethics in science is coming to an end.

[Guest]

Update on Dr. Ketchum’s scheduled appearance at Honobia Bigfoot Festival and Conference

The responses I got are what you probably expect them to be.

[Guest]

Or are you saying it's bad for the peer review process? I thought the facts would have to speak for themselves either way. Are peers going to dismiss it just because she went to the conference, if her paper is otherwise fine?

"Just because?" No, probably not. But see post #50. This is what I was trying to address in that post.

Folks, I have nothing invested in Dr. Ketchum's work, and I am fully confident that there is no bigfoot to leave its DNA for anyone to find. I know a lot of you, however, really are hopeful that this time, this time, you'll be vindicated and the world will have to finally acknowledge the existence of these creatures. A lot of people here have a lot riding on Dr. Ketchum. If I was among that group, I'd be very concerned that anything she does that is outside the scientific mainstream is an indication that she really doesn't have any data capable of swimming in that stream. If she did, understanding the gravity of the find and the controversial aspect of it, she wouldn't be going to Honobia to dish out high-fives or autograph footprint casts, she'd be meeting with top regulatory authorities in Washington, NSF program officers, etc. There'd be plenty of time to celebrate after it was firmly established and accepted that there was anything to celebrate.

[BobbyO]

That's fine and she can do whatever she wants. I'm just commenting from the perspective of the scientific community that her appearance at the event undermines her credibility.

If true Sas, then more fool them in my opinion for having an outlook on things in that way..

If speaking at a Conference regarding a Subject that MK has just done a Project on regarding it's DNA and has obtained Results in undermines her credibility, then that says more about the Scientific Community than it does MK.

Edited August 16, 2011 by BobbyO

[Guest]

If she did, understanding the gravity of the find and the controversial aspect of it, she wouldn't be going to Honobia to dish out high-fives or autograph footprint casts, she'd be meeting with top regulatory authorities in Washington, NSF program officers, etc. There'd be plenty of time to celebrate after it was firmly established and accepted that there was anything to celebrate.

I repeat:

No offense, but suggesting that she should be scheduling a press conference with the Secretary of the Interior and the UN (or top regulatory authorities in Washington, NSF program officers, etc) is a tad misguided. They'd balk, laugh, sneer, roll their eyes, (choose your own description of derision and insert here) at the very idea. The mainstream has so successfully marginalized Bigfoot and turned it into a fringe topic that any official would be ostracized for even considering getting involved with the announcement of a study proving Bigfoot actually exists. The dust would have to settle and public opinion would have to be carefully gauged before they "bravely" jump into the the fray.

Take you as an example. You're dismissing her findings on Bigfoot because she's speaking at a conference about Bigfoot. If that doesn't suggest there's extreme prejudice against the subject, I don't know what does.