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

[Guest]

I repeat:

And I still disagree. Imagine for a moment that everything we've heard about this research is accurate. Ketchum has rock-solid data that bigfoot is real. That's what we're being led to believe, right? There's a real population of bigfoots wandering around North America (presumably crossing national borders) right now. If this was just a heretofore undescribed species of porcupine, it would still be an enormous deal. But here we're talking about a new species within the genus Homo, right? Undescribed, indigenous humans living in the wilderness of the U.S.? You don't think the Federal government would take notice of that?

[Guest]

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.

Depends on the conference, BobbyO. My understanding of the Honobia gathering is that it's a family-friendly tourist festival of sorts. I'm sure it's a great, fun time. But it's simply not the venue to feature your research if you intend that research to be a scientific game-changer.

[BobbyO]

Depends on the conference, BobbyO. My understanding of the Honobia gathering is that it's a family-friendly tourist festival of sorts. I'm sure it's a great, fun time. But it's simply not the venue to feature your research if you intend that research to be a scientific game-changer.

That will be done by the Paper itself & it's results though won't it Sas, the " game changer " part i mean ??

[Guest bsruther]

Perhaps, while she's at Honobia, one of the Georgia boys will sidle up next to her, for a photo-op.

I think to the Bigfoot world, a pic like that would be the equivalent of when Rosalynn Carter, had her pic taken with John Wayne Gacy.

With all the sniping that's going on lately, I think it would be a very bad choice for her to attend this event...unless of course. the paper is out of review.

[Guest BFSleuth]

I'm not trying to be negative but there isn't any dna and there never will be.

Francis Crick and the Nobel Committee will be very disappointed to know that.....

[Guest]

That will be done by the Paper itself & it's results though won't it Sas, the " game changer " part i mean ??

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.

[BobbyO]

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.

Got ya, thanks Sas..

Kind of backs up my less detailed theory that the Paper won't make much difference anyway as the General Public need more to " touch, feel & see " to accept anything anyway, especially soemthing like this Subject..

But it's not my concern at all though Sas, honestly, the only " Pro " for me in Scientifc Acceptance for this is the selfishness in me that i could say " I told you so " to a few people but i'm not really that selfish so, in all truth, i don't really care one way or the other whatever happens, it won't alter my knowing either way..

[gigantor]

...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.

hey Saskeptic,

Do you think she's trying to do too much with her paper? (if everything we hear is true).

It sounds like she's trying to present an open and shut case, and that's not really the way it works in science.

Edited August 16, 2011 by gigantor

[Guest]

It sounds like she's trying to present an open and shut case, and that's not really the way it works in science.

That could be the case. I mean, she could have a bigfoot head in her collection, in which case she'd have the anatomy and the DNA for anyone to analyze and see is authentic. That would be open and shut. But it would still be a while before we can really say that there is scientific consensus. The first paper opens the case, it'd be the 2 or 3 corroborating papers that shut it.

I, obviously, don't have any information about this story other than what I've read here. If memory serves, I've read statements from Ketchum that she thinks her analysis really is a slam dunk. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Guest]

And I still disagree. Imagine for a moment that everything we've heard about this research is accurate. Ketchum has rock-solid data that bigfoot is real. That's what we're being led to believe, right? There's a real population of bigfoots wandering around North America (presumably crossing national borders) right now. If this was just a heretofore undescribed species of porcupine, it would still be an enormous deal. But here we're talking about a new species within the genus Homo, right? Undescribed, indigenous humans living in the wilderness of the U.S.? You don't think the Federal government would take notice of that?

Not until it's accepted in broader scientific circles and in academia. I don't subscribe to the theory that talking about Bigfoot DNA at a Bigfoot conference is in anyway harmful to her cause, but I do agree that her support will have to bleed into the mainstream. I'm not under the assumption that skeptics will break down in tears and beg for forgiveness. I actually expect them to keep raising the bar on what constitutes as proof.

[southernyahoo]

Not until it's accepted in broader scientific circles and in academia. I don't subscribe to the theory that talking about Bigfoot DNA at a Bigfoot conference is in anyway harmful to her cause, but I do agree that her support will have to bleed into the mainstream. I'm not under the assumption that skeptics will break down in tears and beg for forgiveness. I actually expect them to keep raising the bar on what constitutes as proof.

I'm expecting that too. I'm still seeing this perception though that the results aren't repeated.

Dr. K was effectively doing several studies in one with the blind testing. You can't pin the results on any one tester , or any particular sample, or submitter. Thats best case scenario considering this contentious subject.

[Guest mitchw]

Does Saskeptic think that a strong paper, whose DNA results are repeated by different labs, would lead to more 'respectable' discussions and conferences on Bigfoot? Would funding become available for the further study of the new possible species? What if there is a large body part as well? What objections could be thrown up?

[Guest slimwitless]

Hmmm, does this contain any new information about the Erickson Project? Is Sasquatch out there? It's a puff piece, but the thing I find interesting is it came out on Friday, and it appears to be an interview with Erickson, which to my knowledge he hasn't granted for some time. Are we seeing a publicity build up to the release of the Ketchum report and the Erickson project?

Part 2 is here.

[slabdog]

Does Saskeptic think that a strong paper, whose DNA results are repeated by different labs, would lead to more 'respectable' discussions and conferences on Bigfoot? Would funding become available for the further study of the new possible species? What if there is a large body part as well? What objections could be thrown up?

how 'bout the fact that there's no body?

Just say'n....

And I fear that's what we would hear from many others.

Don't get me wrong....a valid DNA sample would be great and will hopefully open the door much wider for further research, unfortunately though- probably not enough to serve as irrefutable proof in the meantime.

[Guest LAL]

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.

Absolutely.

As I argued a couple of years ago on another matter the proper venue would be a scientific conference, if at all possible, not at a bigfoot festival next to free samples of Jack Links. I sincerely hope she'll reconsider.