Feeling in the dark? Probably not, with meteors lighting the daylight skies, now and then. But how about that Bigfoot paper?
Ah the weekend is here. So, let’s spend a moment to reflect on what has happened in the wake of Dr. Melba Ketchum’s release of her DNA thoughts on February 13, 2013.
Virtually nothing.
First off, it did not become a widely distributed mass media story. That’s probably great, since the ridicule possible from this not really being a scientific paper is potentially enormous. Considering the platform of the publication was one that Dr. Ketchum (and her associates) had purchased, one has to ask, is it no more than a vanity publication?
Although Huffington Post carried a story on the Bigfoot news, most mainstream outlets appear to have decided to stay away from the Ketchum Facebook and new website postings. Also, it got to be confusing with the press releases that were posted, deleted, edited, and reposted.
Additionally, there was no interest after the fiasco of wall-to-wall coverage by CNN trying to melodramatically make the Carnival cruise ship toilet problems into major news, and that most journalists were discussing the Valentine’s Day murder melodrama and outer space happenings (meteor explosions and an asteroid flyby) last week. Others paid more attention to speculation about the next Pope than the next press release from Dr. Ketchum.
Yes, science writers had their hands full, but with Meteor Friday, not Bigfoot Wednesday.
What was in the paper, anyway? Highly technical material that even the geneticists don’t agree on what it means, and conclusions registered without a fully revealed methodological accounting.
Are Dr. Ketchum’s analyses linked to any firm foundation explanations? It is time to understand Ketchum, not just criticize the methods in which her message is being transmitted. What are the reasons for some of her conclusions? How is it tied to her hard data? Let’s start there.
For example, there’s the minor matter of her dates for the mating event between Sasquatch and a female human. Why did Ketchum’s paper theorize that a human relative arose approximately 13,000 years ago? I found that an intriguing event horizon for her to refer to, since 13,000 years B.P. seemed extremely familiar, being straight from the discovery news of Homo floresiensis. Was there the hint of a hobbit put in the timeline to make this paper more credible? To place an allusion within the text to the gnome in the genome? (Remember, the early writings of J. R. R. Tolkien made use of the word “gnome,” before he revised it to “hobbit.”)
Or maybe she knows about the theory that a giant asteroid hit Earth 13,000 years ago. Or does this have something to do with Clovis points being dated to approximately 13,000 years, too. Where did she come up with that specific “approximate date”? Is it in her data? If so, how about linking her theories to the results of her forensic analysis?
Credit: Red Ice Creations
Considering what we have seen from this paper, I see no reason to move from my position, which I call the “No data, no discovery,” stance, in honor of John Hawks’ comment on the matter late in 2012.
Look, I hope she has the goods. I want to line up and be one of the first to shake her hand, but I need some help to understand what she is saying is linked to what she found.
If you want to read some opinions on the so-called “Bigfoot DNA paper,” I recommend the following for general pro and con views.
Ketchum press release: “Researchers Sequence Sasquatch Genome, Novel Hominins Extant in North America.”
Robert Lindsay’s “A copy of Dr. Melba Ketchum’s paper has been obtained!”
Robert Lindsay’s “Dr. Melba Ketchum Bigfoot DNA is good.”
Jim Timmer’s “Bigfoot Genome Paper ‘Conclusively Proves’ That Sasquatch Is Real.”
Jon Downes’ “Melba Ketchum’s Novel Hominins: And the beat goes on.”
PZ Myer’s “Sasquatch Is Ill-Served.”
Sharon Hill’s “Ketchum Bigfoot DNA paper released: Problems with questionable publication.”
Daniel Loxton’s “Quick Bigfoot DNA Update.”
My first posting on the published paper can be found here.
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.
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.
There was this story:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/17/bigfoot-dna-study-seeks-yeti-rights/
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.
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.
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.
[...] 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 [...]
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…)