I am so thankful that I found this thread and website. Having read the opinions regarding the Ketchum Hokum, I had thought critical thinking was dead. There are so many inconsistencies and half-truths regarding the supposed DNA, it is hard to believe anything coming from their camp via the highly regarded Facebook (held in high regards as a means of conveying the latest in scientific thinking). It has all been hashed over here, and I am sure the revelations coming from their camp will continue to entertain. Thank goodness real science is not conducted the way the Ketchum Hokum has been undertaken.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Bigfoot DNA
- Thread starter GT/CS
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot dna ed smith melba ketchum
- Status
The Shrike
Philosopher
Welcome to the JREF, TheJackal!
TheJackal:
Hard to find skeptic sites, isn't it?
I recall reading that there are something over 200 bigfoot believer websites though I'm not sure who came up with that number. It might seem high to those who think that believing in a mythical creature is like a hobby. It isn't. It is an irrational belief system with elements of the bizarre, much like some religions. When an individual commits to such a belief system, the need for social support drives the individual to seek "links" to other believers and to proselytize. The internet is thus a terrific enabler for the growth of cults.
welcome to JREF.
as far as Ramey is concerned, she seems to be trying to build a fan base for Ketchum through use of social media. The goal would seem to be to commercialize Ketchum and her bigfoot work; whether she is doing that successfully I can't say. That may not be the best idea for someone in Ketchum's position, but I do not underestimate the monetary value of becoming a brand name in bigfootery. I don't think she is terribly familiar with the "internals" of scientific research or journal relations with scientists.
p.
Hard to find skeptic sites, isn't it?
I recall reading that there are something over 200 bigfoot believer websites though I'm not sure who came up with that number. It might seem high to those who think that believing in a mythical creature is like a hobby. It isn't. It is an irrational belief system with elements of the bizarre, much like some religions. When an individual commits to such a belief system, the need for social support drives the individual to seek "links" to other believers and to proselytize. The internet is thus a terrific enabler for the growth of cults.
welcome to JREF.
as far as Ramey is concerned, she seems to be trying to build a fan base for Ketchum through use of social media. The goal would seem to be to commercialize Ketchum and her bigfoot work; whether she is doing that successfully I can't say. That may not be the best idea for someone in Ketchum's position, but I do not underestimate the monetary value of becoming a brand name in bigfootery. I don't think she is terribly familiar with the "internals" of scientific research or journal relations with scientists.
p.
Last edited:
I am an engineer by education and profession, and the thing that galls me more than anything is the passing off of "evidence" as scientific proof of existence. I agree with your assessment that it is a cult like belief, because there really is no concrete proof that would stand scientific scrutiny. I read the Munn's report on the Patterson-Gimlin hoax, and he can determine that it is not a human in a suit due to fat rolls and an armpit crease. I see neither. I see an ill fitting suit on someone who is really 5'-3", just like his calculations show. The rest of it to me is trying to baffle people with BS. Produce a bunch of calculations that no one will take the time to verify, make it look scientific, and you have proof. I am sure this is exactly how the DNA evidence will play out. There will be a bunch of DNA mumbo-jumbo with some lame statistical calculations to show that there is a strong probability the DNA can be extrapolated out to be a Sasquatch. None of the believers will take five minutes to actually examine the evidence, and there will be a bunch of pretty graphs and big words to make it seem technical. Then we will have to endure the arguments of proof based upon a flawed DNA analysis. I can hardly wait.
TabletSmudge
New Blood
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2012
- Messages
- 21
The way they are handling PR is so bizarre to me. It seems they want you to know there might be someone who thinks he his their deepthroat out there. OMG someone is posting rumors again but we cant comment on anything. Please dont read what he is saying or throw Burr Sasquatch into the briar patch.
For me, it's more like the trailer for a new book or movie, than it is anticipation for a pending scientific paper. For me, it's follow the money. The Ketchum Hokum has downplayed the copyright filing as a place holder that has expired, but I think it is the smoking gun. They are going to get the paper published in a fringe journal, and before real scientists have a chance to discredit the findings, they will release a book/DVD/website or something along those lines asking the true believers to buy the backstory to the paper, and donate to the ongoing "research" into the DNA study. This would explain all the embargo, secret, hush-hush talk coming from the Ketchum Hokum. They can't talk about it, because they don't want to miss out on a chance to sell something. Hence the pandering to the "community" and all the "thanks for the patience" stuff coming out on Facebook. Why else would you try to lobby a group of people for an upcoming technical paper that they have no technical expertise to understand?
Last edited:
RayG
Master Poster
This much I know -- she found it "professionally offensive" that I referred to PR people as 'spin doctors'.
I guess she's never heard the phrase before, or visited the wiki page about it. Even the wiki page about Public relations has a section on 'Spin'.
She sounds like another bigfoot proponent who hasn't heard of things they should have heard about, given their background. Like nature film producer Doug Hajicek, cameraman in tow, following but failing to FILM immense, crisp, clear, detailed, and enormous humanlike footprints with distinct toes that they supposedly found in the early 90's. Dr. Meldrum gives a Hajicek a pass on his oversight by saying that Hajicek was "unfamiliar with sasquatch".
Say whaaaaa????????
RayG
He was probably also unfamiliar with their apparent dislike of electronic equipment which apparently effects the ability to film footprints. The Squatchi must have honed fine EM detection as part of their evolution. Or maybe they want us to buy the "stealing the soul" fear of cameras ? Regardless, how does one hire a guide to take them to a "family unit" of Squatchi, the most elusive creature on the planet, AFTER you did a DNA study to prove their existence ? This is like my son who has told a lie and it has spun out of control, to the point you can't control the outcome.
Pretty much my take. Her pal Paulides says he has a book coming out in April so I imagine that is their first monetization.
I do wonder where the "paper" will be published. I don't imagine anyone in the US outside of a veterinary buddy would print it in a form resembling what we saw in the copyright document. Even Meldrum's new online journal would probably not take it unless Disotell resigned from the board. I am starting to think maybe it will be one of those Far East journals that have begun to print in English, or perhaps a Russian journal.
p.
Last edited:
TabletSmudge
New Blood
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2012
- Messages
- 21
This should spawn a few competing luddite research organizations.
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,341
I think we are establishing what anyone can repeat, just like footprints, knocks, and calls: If Bigfoot is human, then anyone can collect bigfoot DNA.
So it isn't an idea she can capitalize on for long. You have to get DNA from someone without a military or criminal record when you submit your samples to a lab, folks.
So it isn't an idea she can capitalize on for long. You have to get DNA from someone without a military or criminal record when you submit your samples to a lab, folks.
possibly. They have published some pretty squirrelly stuff including some bigfootery. If you read the titles of the articles, you just have to laugh. I mean, would you want your big paper wedged in between "three children who remember past lives," and "The astrology of time twins?" Probably wouldn't bother the footers, though.
I will make my pick soon.
TabletSmudge
New Blood
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2012
- Messages
- 21
I hope it is printed in a Chinese journal with no English translation offered. Myths that have to be interpreted from another language are the best.
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 453
It is possible there was never any intention to puiblish a paper in a scientific journal. Ketchum is either an idiot, or is very much aware there is no bigfoot and is planning on milking the suckers.
Ketchum may self publish a book detailing her DNA results and her "studies" of BF, which she will then sell to the suckers. This whole thing reeks of a con/hoax from the begining, with the probable motive fleecing the bleevers of their $.
Well, we will find out soon enough, because I think Paulides is putting out a book very soon, and we will see whether Ketchum is a co author.
The funny thing is, I think that about 67% of what Paulides is saying is correct: the Native American legends are about human beings from other tribes or white men, not about monsters, and the DNA has always been human or known animals. The 33% difference is, he thinks these humans are strange looking, with big feet, and living in the woods, and I don't. I believe that us humans go out in the woods to work or recreate, sometimes we scare people inadvertently or on purpose, and we leave DNA around, and then we go home and watch the Simpsons.
In other words, he thinks there is a bigfoot, and I don't.
p.
Last edited:
Kilaak Kommander
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 343
It sounds more like a progressive rock album than a scientific journal.
River
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,962
- Status