7 Responses

  1. drjon
    drjon February 17, 2013 at 10:55 pm |

    Personally, i think it would have made a much bigger splash if the rumoured footage that expanded on the video included with the paper had been released.

  2. wzolotovskaya
    wzolotovskaya February 18, 2013 at 9:40 am |

    This is what I love about your posts! Lots of good points and I really appreciate the links to other articles. After reading all of that, I really don’t know what to think of all this. Was she forced to publish her work in a journal she purchased because no one would take her seriously or because it was a terrible paper? I keep wondering what we don’t know about Ketchum and her work (good or bad). Part of me wonders why their hasn’t been any mainstream coverage of the release of the paper when the media have had no problem, in the past, reporting on every terrible Bigfoot story ever. This is all so strange, now I’m off to find more information on DNA and genetics so I can maybe better understand how she reached her conclusions. If there are any recommendations, I would gladly follow them.

  3. mandors
    mandors February 18, 2013 at 11:53 am |

    There was this story:


    I’m guessing the 13,000 number might from some mitochondrial calculation which are somewhere between the I Chang and a divining rod, scientifically (sorry to the dowsers out there). Regardless, I love how (pseudo) scientists start acting like CSI detectives. “Not really a valid publication,” “you have to pay $X to read it,” BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. Read the paper, make a valid argument, or shut up. One could just as easily dismiss the “scientists,” because they’re all geeks and dorks. That at least, by and large, is the truth.

  4. slappy
    slappy February 18, 2013 at 7:37 pm |

    the cries of ‘elitism’, ‘sexism’, and a host of other -isms against ketchum and her paper were totally predictable. if the paper’s science and conclusions were sound, then those blindly believing it proves the existence of bigfoot would be shouting ‘i-told-you-so’ from the treetops. since it was widely panned as amateurish and lacking in anything resembling data that could prove the hypothesis, those criticizing it must have some sort of evil ulterior motive.

    i could be entertained by these exchanges, but the ad hominem attacks against percieved ad hominem attacks are more sad than comical.

  5. Tria MacLeod
    Tria MacLeod February 18, 2013 at 9:57 pm |

    I’m actually relieved this didn’t get more press coverage. Whether her research is good or bad the whole self publication, $30 a pop, unprofessional looking and recently registered website makes her actions look shady. Add into the mix that show on AP and it really does make it look as though anyone truly interested in Sasquatch or any possibility of a large unidentified mammal in North America look like a loon.

    Many sites that I visit point out the omissions or lack of follow up on several key points of her paper. Even more opine that if this is truly ground breaking, irrefutable evidence why not release it widely for free. The return on the investment, speaking fees, and the professional accolades would more than make up for any loss of revenue.

    I still remain hopeful that one day we’ll find good, solid proof that something we have yet to scientifically catalog is roaming (bipedally) about, but this isn’t that day.

  6. Bigfoot News February 18, 2013 | Beyond Highbrow – Robert Lindsay

    [...] Loren Coleman. I have uttered some unkind words about Coleman in the past and vice versa, but with this writeup here, I think he has done a fine job. There is some excellent criticism of Ketchum’s work (which [...]

  7. MullettMan
    MullettMan February 19, 2013 at 12:34 pm |

    It’s almost maddening! The website she put together looks amateurish and there are valid arguments against some of her methodology, but then I hear her on Coast 2 Coast and she sounds perfectly credible and sane. I’m still unconvinced, but undecidedly so. (If that makes sense…)

Comments are closed.