Well I don't know about the rest of you out there, but as a result of the Ketchum "Study" delivering the death knell on Bigfoot being taken seriously in the Scientific Community and the non-Bigfoot believing population in general, I feel like I am done even trying. If Dr. Sykes fails to have success coming up with anything unequivocally verifiable and replicable by other legitimate scientists, because that is how peer review is supposed to work dear people, then I am afraid there never will be the kind of proof we need in order to be taken seriously. Yes there is always the slight chance that a body might be obtained some day, by accidental means or happenstance hopefully, because I certainly am not a proponent of killing one just so we can study them, but since that has not happened historically I am fairly dubious it is going to happen now. Will 2013 be "The Year Of The Bigfoot"? Probably not, just as 2012, 2011, 2010,..... were not. But if Sykes does hit a home run and deliver the goods then I guess we are going to be dealing with a whole new ball game. Until then I have grown weary of the pictures of blobs, the transparent hoaxers and liars, the egos and posturing, and most especially those who want to continue believing in something that has clearly failed, in the face of all the facts that it has clearly failed, and are now ludicrously insisting that those of us who understand that it has clearly failed are the ones who have closed our minds and are not "facing reality". Good luck with that mentality in the real world. The realilty is that there is no data backing up anything Ketchum is claiming. All she produced after 5 years of taking other peoples hard earned samples and money were a few small sections of mixed up snippets from known species. The entire genomes of 3 individual members of a novel species? Where is that Dr. Ketchum? If it exists please do share........
So yes some of you may have noticed that I have shut down my Facebook account, I am enjoying the peace and quiet and drama free existence out here in the real world right now. Well if not drama-free then at least it is real drama and not the never ending round of misunderstood meanings and words and hurt feelings and bruised egos of the cyber world. I am starting some exciting new projects out here including finishing up the classes I have been taking, a new job and a move back to the Davis/Sacramento area that I consider home. So for right now I have no plans to reactivate my Facebook. Maybe in a few weeks or months I may, it all depends on how I feel and what I want to do. So to those of you in the Cyber Bigfoot World who I do consider real and true friends, take care and I will pop in once in awhile to say hi. Keep on fighting the good fight for truth and reality in Bigfoot research, but only do so if YOU are enjoying yourself and getting something out of it. Because once you no longer are it is not worth the effort. If you need to contact me you can do so here. There will always be those who just want to deny or accuse or dismiss the facts in favor of whatever their fantastical belief of the moment is, and for whatever motivation they have for holding onto that belief. Facts are facts despite someone's belief otherwise. Beliefs are fine, as long as the person who holds them is not expecting others to accept them as irrefutable reality, with no actual proof or data to back them up. Once a person starts expecting that, and dictating that anyone who questions those beliefs or asks for proof of them is "being disrespectful and must be shut down", then all you have is a cult. A cult of belief that will not accept any fact that disputes that belief, and will dismiss any evidence to the contrary as part of the "conspiracy of the closed minded big brother establishment". That is the argument of people with no data to back up their claims. That is the argument of those not dealing with reality in the real world. Belief is fine as long as you acknowledge that it is your own personal paradigm that makes you feel happy, but don't try to force others to go along with it or attack them for having proof that your particular belief is flawed. I am an open minded person. In fact I think it is entirely possible that the creatures we call Bigfoot, whatever they are, could have abilities and senses that we currently have no understanding of. I am most fascinated by this possibility and it is one of the reasons I became interested in this mystery. I find a lot of the stories from people who have experienced these unexplainable phenomena very believable. I BELIEVE that they believe what they experienced really happened. But my belief and their belief can not be considered proof or evidence at this time. Those experiences and stories should be collected and documented however because at some time in the future we may be able to understand and explain them. Everything in the Universe has an explanation, even if we do not understand what that is at the moment. But none of that changes the facts that the Ketchum Study failed, and failed in all the worst ways. It was never a transparent or above board process, but was mired in misinformation, lies and subterfuge if you honestly look at the history of the last 5 years. It failed to adhere to the principals of real science and when advised how to do so by those reviewing it, it failed to realign itself within those principles despite have many years to do so. It was clearly driven by the agenda and egos of two less than qualified or objective members of the community, whose goals as evidenced by the back-story of websites set in place before any scientific findings had even been found, was to propel their personal beliefs and to profit from that belief.
So until something worth discussing manages to surface in the Bigfoot world I will be doing the thing that I actually enjoy about Bigfooting, getting out into the beauty of nature with friends and fellow researchers and trying to figure something out for myself. If I do figure anything out I will be sure to let you all know, but I guarantee that I will not be making any claims of indisputable fact about it unless I have the data to back it up !Until that time all we can do is to share and document our anecdotal "evidence" in the hopes that it will someday lead to our actual understanding of what this great mystery is all about. Because in the end it is that mystery that brought us all here in the first place! I am not interested in "hits" or "views" or making money from Bigfoot. I am interested in the truth. The truth is out there, whatever that truth may be....................
"For those of you who think the "Angel DNA" conversation with Dr. Melba Ketchum released yesterday is photoshopped, here's the truth from the person who released it. Bigfootology.com's
Rhetman Mullis had urged Dr. Melba Ketchum to "do the right thing" and
collaborate with other scientists such as Dr. Sykes to ensure her
methodology and science was sound. In early 2012, after submitting
samples and having long conversations with Ketchum, Rhetman realized
that there was a problem and found Ketchum's conclusions highly
"questionable". Here's a statement from Rhettman Mullis regarding Dr.
Melba Ketchum and why he chose to release his conversations with her:"
I
was privy to this information shortly after it happened and it is one
of the main reasons many of us had so many doubts about her credibility
before her self-publication of unsubstantiated "data" took place 2
months ago.
The complete Report on the Sierra Site Sample now in! History of “Sierra Kills” Tissue Submission & Testing (Frozen & Salt-Cured Tissue) - By Bart Cutino
"As I’ve stated previously in my summary attachment to our Trent
University report regarding the “circumstantial” Sierras tissue, our
objective and responsibility to the public, fellow researchers, the
hunter/submitters and frankly ourselves, was to independently contract
multiple labs to screen this sample as a precautionary measure and
hopefully rule out “all” potential North American mammalian candidate
contributors." Continue Here 2-26-13 UPDATE II:
Breaking News! Real Geneticist who has analyzed the available Ketchum
"Sequencing" says it is a combination of human chromosome 11, cat, dog
and panda bear, amongst other things, and is the result of
contamination/mixing and poor technique. Watch 6 real Scientists
discuss all aspects of her self publication here:
UPDATE: Many of you have been citing the small sequences of genomic data that Ketchum included in one of her "supplements" as the sequencing I am calling for. This is just a small amount which she has removed from the whole genomic context, an amount far too small to prove her claims of having completed the entire genomic sequencing on several individuals of a new species, individuals who supposedly differ enough from all other known species to be a new, or hybrid one, but which resemble each other enough to be considered the same "novel species". The small nucleotide region/s she has included do not prove what she is asserting. As an example it would be like someone saying their address is 123, so they must be the person who lives at 123 Street Name, City, State, Zip Code, without showing that the person does indeed live at the same street, city, and state. Small sequences could just be a mutation/difference in one individual, but which would not make them a new species. We all have these differences, that is why each individual's DNA is like a fingerprint, no two are exactly alike except in the case of identical twins, as they derive from the same egg/sperm combination so their DNA is shared before they split from one another. This is why DNA evidence is taken so seriously in a court of law. She needs to turn over these full sequencing genomes to qualified geneticists to have them confirmed. Dr. Meldrum and Dr. Sykes would be glad to assist with this I am sure, so her argument that she can't do so because the "mainstream" does not take her seriously is a clear fallacy. I have added some new articles below as well! A review of the latest opinions on the DNA Results, including the Sierras Evidence Initiative's disclosure on their sample which was included in the Ketchum study! (See Below)
Well
for all of you who have been trying to keep up with everything
surrounding the release of the Ketchum "Paper", below are links to many of the
latest evaluations by credible sources. Once I am all moved and have
gotten settled into my new job I am hoping that Ketchum herself will
have finally released the "Amazing Data" related to her supposed Bigfoot
Genome Sequencing. Then at last some real analysis can begin on whether or
not she has succeeded, as her non-peer reviewed self-publication has
claimed. It is 12 days now since her paper was self-published and still
no sign of that actual new "genomic" data.
I
had hoped wholeheartedly over the last 2 years that she would
accomplish what she had been promising, despite all the behind the
scenes stories I was hearing from my friends and colleagues who were
working with her, and who were becoming very concerned with her
credibility. Not only because of the way she seemed to be milking her study for cash, but because of the bizarre religious connotations she was making about what her study would prove. These claims changed depending on who she was talking to and what they wanted to hear, but some of the claims where that "they" had either alien or angelic DNA present.......The last we heard from her on Coast to Coast Radio was that she was abandoning her DNA work to do further research at her "Habituation Site" (should be right around 52min 25sec in the Interview).
Personally I don't care what Sasquatch turn out to be or where they actually fit into our family tree, I just want to know the TRUTH about what they are. I was hoping we would see some real science to back up all
the witness reports and personal experiences which make up the current
circumstantial evidence for the likely existence of the Sasquatch
species, whatever that species turns out to be. Sadly no one has yet to accomplish this feat, and I can only keep on hoping that Dr. Skyes at Oxford does produce irrefutable data that we can all celebrate in it's accuracy and legitimacy!
You can read about the Scientific Process here, and hopefully get an idea of how and why the Ketchum study has so far failed to adhere to these standards, let alone release the actual sequencing data, leading to the grave disappointment of so many of us who understand why it should have been so important to do so: What Is Science And Is It Important To Bigfoot?. After all she has circumvented the actual Journalistic Peer Review Process by publishing her own data (Sorry folks but there is no evidence of the legitimate Journal she claims to have bought, and why would she do that and then obliterate all record of it's pastpublications and Academic Review Board????), yet she is now claiming she can't release her sequencing due to Genbank's discrepancies not her own, so why not just Self-Publish your Sequencing data too Dr. Ketchum? Show us the "Meat" that your claims are based on, or perhaps I should say "Steak"......
I still hold out some hope that something can be salvaged from all this, as so many good and legitimate people were involved in the sample collection and funding of this project. But until her actual sequencing data is seen I remain unconvinced of anything but her lack of professionalism, which is all that the news stories quoted below have had to base their opinions on as well:
2-14-13
Dr.
Meldrum's first statement on how the DNA paper was released:
[JEFF
SPEAKING] The journal was created on a GoDaddy template on Feb 4, by a
third party, with a one-year contract. There is no information about who
is editing the "journal" or who the members of an editorial board might
be. I queried the contact feature on this matter but have received no
reply. This does not appear to be a refereed journal. It appears to
merely be a front for a self-published report. The sequences have not
been uploaded to Genbank. Project Sasquatch
2-14-13
“It’s clearly a fake Vanity Journal with lots
of ShutterStock pictures, misspellings and it was only created on
2/4/13. I’ve only read the abstract and conclusion and neither makes any
sense.”
"She remained silent for the last two months
before finally posting a link to her paper on an online journal called
‘Denovo Scientific Journal.' The only problem is the journal did not
exist before 9 days ago! It was literally created to self-publish
her material, basically circumventing the peer-review process. She
later explained her reason for doing this was because of "scientific
bias" among the journals she submitted to. So, instead of sending
complementary copies to genetic specialists to garner some kind of
credibility, she has opted to send them to independent Bigfoot
researchers--the direct opposite of peer-review. That's like giving
cotton candy to a child; of course they are going to like it. Everyone
else who wants to read the paper has to pay her $30. Most journals
charge "per article" prices for those without a university proxy, but
what I find most troubling about the situation is that Ketchum's DNA
sequencing company is tanking. It currently has a rating of "F" from the
Better Business Bureau. This has led some people to speculate that she
dreamed the paper up to rake in cash from Bigfoot enthusiasts."
On behalf of myself and The Olympic Project,
I'd really like to clarify a few things about the Ketchum paper and the
Denovo Journal. Let me make this very clear. Our role in this effort was
simply to provide samples for this study. We did indeed supply many
samples including hair, tissue and saliva. I have been in support of her
effort since the beginning because I was extremely happy that someone
stood up and was willing to take this on with hopes of bettering BF
research. Our part in this was simple. We gathered samples, submitted
them and sat back with high hopes. Beyond that, we have nothing to do
with the way the paper came out, and we have nothing to do with how it's
structured. We are simply submitters. I have been receiving many phone
calls and pm messages with a large variety of questions and inquiries.
Folks, I can't answer all these questions. They are not my questions to
answer, please refer to Melbas team. My personal submission was the
Sierra sample. Genome sequencing was performed on this sample at Texas
university. It's my hope that the test results from this analysis can
now be looked at by qualified eyes in the scientific community and more
can be learned about it.
"It would be a huge story if all the work done by Ketchum and her team
ultimately leads to scientific confirmation of the reality of Sasquatch.
But at this point, the new wrinkles about the DeNovo Science Journal
have only added to the credibility issues by a foot or two -- a Bigfoot."
"However, geneticists who have seen the paper are not impressed. “To
state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way
support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or
human-primate hybrid," Leonid Kruglyak of Princeton University told the Houston Chronicle. “Instead, analyses either come back as 100 percent human, or fail in ways that suggest technical artifacts.” More at "The Scientist"
2-19-13
"To make an end-run around the process by erecting a facade in the form
of a so-called new journal and allege that it is edited and reviewed,
without providing any of that information on the public web page, it
appears that she has undertaken an effort to self-publish, just to get
it out there," Meldrum told The Huffington Post. "And, to boot, she's
charging $30 a pop for a copy of the paper."
"The issue(s) as I see it is the way the study has been conducted and
presented. Science has no room for cloak and dagger behind the curtain
secrecy. There have been numerous inconsistencies, if not flat out lies,
obvious signs of an agenda being pushed, and now what seems to be
profiteering taking place. NDA's, copyrights for book and film deals,
viewing fees, teaser clips of videos, business contracts, financial
partnerships, I fail to see how these are normal and acceptable parts of
a non-biased scientific inquiry."
"The DeNovo Scientific Journal has no other studies, articles, papers or reviews, and only Ketchum’s paper has been “published” by the journal, NBC News
pointed out. It also is not subscribed to by any major library or
university, and its website apparently didn’t exist until three weeks
ago. In the words of LiveScience’s Benjamin Radford, “It is not an existing, known or respected journal in any sense of the word.” More at Time Magazine
2-23-13 The Sierras Initiative Information Release:
The
Sierras Site Initiative led by Bart Cutino posts a statement about why
they felt the need to do independent testing of the circumstantial Smeja
sample: Thank you Justin Smeja for respecting Wally Hersom's wishes that you not speak out about your experience with Ketchum until after she had taken her study to it's conclusion.
2-24-13 "It couldn’t be that the paper STARTED with
the premise that Sasquatch is real and the data she collected now PROVES
that. There are lines of evidence that show she had already come up
with her hypothesis long before she was able to “confirm” it through
these nuDNA results. That would be sham inquiry to me – when you already have the answer in mind and work backwards. It’s not good science." "Science is a tough gauntlet to run. She complained about the time it
took, how picky everyone was, the skepticism she got. I don’t have much
sympathy. That’s how it goes. It’s not the best system but it’s the best
one we have right now to weed out all the trash. If you want the
respect from the scientific community, you must do these annoying and
tedious things. And squarely face your critics. Instead, Melba has
chosen to plead her case to the sympathetic pro-Bigfoot audience, like
the audience of Coast to Coast AM. Twice. Some advice: that is exactly
the LAST thing you should be doing to gain credibility. Science isn’t
done on late night radio and Facebook. It doesn’t take a scientist to
tell you that. But many Bigfooters can see that this is certainly NOT
what they hoped from the promises of this DNA study." Read more at Doubtful News 2-24-13 "Ketchum referenced the Milinkovitch paper as circumstantial evidence of
Sasquatch across the modern world for centuries and the referenced
literature is incontrovertible proof of their existence.
There's only one problem with the paper she cited. It's a damn April
jokes from 2004. Apparently, the paper is well-known to many students
and it is often brought up as one of the best known April Fools jokes in
research literature. This is even noted in the paper itself:" Read more at Bigfoot Evidence 2-24-13 "Or, long story short: what happened, in the period immediately
preceding the appearance of the JAMEZ on about Jan. 4, 2013, that could
have suddenly lit a very hot fire under Dr. Ketchum, causing her to
seemingly rush into a bizarre and poorly-executed succession of
“journals” and self-publication?" "On December 26, one Tyler Huggins published, on several sites, the results of independent testing of what has been called the centerpiece of Dr. Ketchum’s paper, sample #26, aka The Sierra Steak, collected by Justin Smeja.
Why, you ask, would this have upset Dr. Ketchum’s often-stated
determined plan to have her paper published in a quality peer-reviewed
scientific journal? Let’s list the ways: Read this extensive list here at Over the line, Smokey! 2-25-13 "We pulled out some of Dr. Kokjohn's questions, but also provided the
email from Dr. Kokjohn so you can see the questions in context.
What happened to the original founder species?
The Hybrids are abundant, yet the founder species is extinct?
How could a hypothetical species so close to modern humans to
interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring not share homology to
the same entities in their extended family?
Where did the sequences not in GenBank originate?
Dr. Kokjohn added, "I am not impressed with the data I have seen, but
from that I draw no conclusions regarding the existence or non-existence
of Bigfoot."
It should be noted we reached out to Dr. Melba
Ketchum to see if she had any insight to any of these questions; we gave
her ample time to respond and she did not have a comment at the time of
this post." Read more at The Bigfoot Lunch Club
Tuesday, February 12th, 2013: Has Ketchum Committed Professional Suicide? Well
Melba Ketchum has just hammered the last nail into the coffin of her
scientific credibility. She has created a website posing as a real
Scientific Journal in order to publish her own paper without any actual
review or corroboration from other members of the Academic Community.
This is not how legitimate data becomes part of our scientific knowledge
base. This is how those who practice Pseudoscience operate. Read
about the announcement here: Bigfoot Evidence
This, "Denovo A Scientific Journal", is a brand new website
with no history of actual publications. I can find no record of this
being a real "Journal" or any past issues or papers from other authors
that have been published by them. She has just created this as a way to fool the
naive into thinking she has been accepted by a real peer reviewed
journal. Anyone can make up a fake Journal on a new Website and publish anything
they want. This proves nothing except that she is the fraud all of us who have been
practicing critical thinking have come to believe she was months
ago......
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, LLC (http://www.godaddy.com/) Domain Name: DENOVOJOURNAL.COM Created on: 04-Feb-13 Expires on: 04-Feb-14 Last Updated on: 04-Feb-13 Ding Dong the Fraud has just committed professional suicide. Long live Dr Sykes..........
Read about pseudoscience and why real peer review is imperative to real science here: What Is Science And Is It Important To Bigfoot? UDATE - The Scientific Community is weighing in: FromSciGuy - A science blog with Eric Berger "If Ketchum really had the goods she would have co-authored the paper
with reputable scientists and gotten the work published in a reputable
scientific journal. Instead she’s playing to an audience that doesn’t
understand how science works, that wants to believe Bigfoot exists and
is willing to send her some cash to further their delusions." ________________________________________________________________________ From scienceblogs.com "How did she get it published? Well, she says she bought an existing journal and renamed it (the Journal of Cosmology was on the market, and I hoped most fervently that that was it…but no, JoC is still online). So she owns the journal. It’s now called De Novo. Then she came out with a special edition. It’s Volume 1, Issue 1. It contains precisely one paper, hers. You should be laughing by this point." ________________________________________________________________________ From Doubtful News: "We finally see the other authors, at least. Note that none are academics, but forensic specialists. Problem one.
Problem two: This is a brand new journal.
Was it launched JUST for this paper? Well, this is an interesting and
HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS twist. We do not know what the standards are for
review. There are no rules for starting up your own journal and calling
it “peer reviewed”. And, indeed, that’s what was done Problem three: The paper costs $30 to download. No academic
institution is going to have access to a new journal site so they will
have to pay to review it. Some Bigfoot bloggers have received embargoed
copies. Bigfoot bloggers. With NO scientific qualifications. I have yet
to see any genetic specialists comment on the paper but it’s very early
and I expect some will. I have requested access to the paper.
Problem four: Excuses. Check this out from the Sasquatch Genome Project page My initial opinions of this latest news? It’s a fiasco. It’s
unprofessional and disappointing. The websites are amateurish, the goals
are delusional and it smacks of a self-serving money-making venture.
Melba has positioned herself as a self-named expert with additional
projects set up to collect funds and protect an animal she insists
exists. It has not been confirmed, contrary to her opinion that she has
“proven” it."
In light of the recent claims
regarding the genetic origins of the creature we call Bigfoot, which
have not, to date, been backed up by the release or publication of any
legitimate data or the corroborating opinion of any other scientist privy to this
data, I thought it important to present a little information on how
those of us who work in mainstream science are trained and why any claim
of scientific fact must first stand up to the steps of Scientific Methodology and the Peer Review Process. Is Science even important to Bigfoot?
Well obviously Bigfoot don’t care if what we are doing is scientific or
not, in fact unless we are directly affecting their food, family or
territory, I don’t think they give us a lot of thought at all other than
how to avoid us. But to those of us who spend an unbelievable amount
of time thinking about THEM, especially in the pursuit of evidence or
proof of their existence, it should be very important. I am not going
to talk about the mechanics of fieldwork and sample collection, there
are a lot more experienced people than I who have covered this topic,
instead I am going to attempt to convey why the process of the
“Scientific Method” is paramount to any attempt at moving this pursuit
into the world of mainstream society and academia. Of course if you are
only concerned with your own personal encounter/s or experience/s,
whatever those may entail, then you are not interested in the scientific
process. But if you want to share your experiences with others
specifically to try to convince them of the reality of this species, or
to make claims of fact about them, then you need to understand why many
are not just going to take your word for it without something
substantial to back up your stories. Because without proper
documentation or evidence even the most honest and believable person is
left with only their word, which may prove compelling but is still only
going to amount to a story. We may believe you as a person or a friend,
and your stories could become valuable to the record of anecdotal
evidence, but when it comes to proving anything to the skeptics or the
professional academic community, someone’s word or belief is simply not
going to cut it.
So what is "Science"? The process of science is iterative:
Meaning that it is a repetitive process designed to allow one to reach a
goal or result by going back and building upon what one has already
uncovered in order to dig further and further until everything that is
possible to be known has been revealed. “Science
circles back on itself so that useful ideas are built upon and used to
learn even more about the natural world. This often means that
successive investigations of a topic lead back to the same question, but
at deeper and deeper levels.”
The process of science is not predetermined:
One can not embark on experiments or research with a goal of revealing
the truth with one’s mind already made up about what the answer is going
to be. That would only lead to the dismissal of anything that did not
fit into one's predetermined belief no matter how clearly it reveals
itself to be the true answer. A true scientist is open to any
possibility and is ready to go where the facts may lead. “Any
point in the process leads to many possible next steps, and where that
next step leads could be a surprise. For example, instead of leading to a
conclusion about tectonic movement, testing an idea about plate
tectonics could lead to an observation of an unexpected rock layer. And
that rock layer could trigger an interest in marine extinctions, which
could spark a question about the dinosaur extinction — which might take
the investigator off in an entirely new direction.”(How Science Works) At the heart of the process of science is testing.
“In
science, all ideas are tested with evidence from the natural world,
which may take many different approaches. You can't move through the
process of science without examining how that evidence reflects on your
ideas about how the world works — even if that means giving up a
favorite hypothesis.”(How Science Works)
Trying to disprove one's own theory or conclusion is as important in
true science as it is to prove that it is true, one must be ready to
address any outcome that can prove a previous conclusion false. And testing is done by working within the frame of the Scientific Method. “The
Scientific Method is a logical and rational order of steps by which
scientists come to conclusions about the world around them. The
Scientific Method helps to organize thoughts and procedures so that
scientists can be confident in the answers they find.” (Science Made Simple)
The
Scientific Method is a general problem solving methodology that can be
used by anyone. There are five basic steps in most versions of the
Scientific Method:
Observation/Question – “The question
can refer to the explanation of a specific observation, as in "Why is
the sky blue?", but can also be open-ended, as in "Does sound travel
faster in air than in water?" or "How can I design a drug to cure this
particular disease?"
Research – “This stage also involves
looking up and evaluating previous evidence from other scientists, as
well as considering one's own experience. If the answer is already
known, a different question that builds on the previous evidence can be
posed.”
Hypothesis–
“An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on the knowledge obtained while
formulating the question, that may explain an observed behavior of a
part of our universe. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might
be broad” Sometimes a Null Hypothesis is used for statistical
comparison of the hypothesis, or to show that there is no relationship
between two objects of study.
Experimentation – “The purpose of an experiment is to determine
whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the
predictions derived from an hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the
hypothesis increases; otherwise, it decreases. Agreement does not
assure that the hypothesis is true; future experiments may reveal
problems.”
Conclusion – “This involves determining what
the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to
take. If the evidence has falsified the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is
required; if the experiment supports the hypothesis but the evidence is
not strong enough for high confidence, other predictions from the
hypothesis must be tested. Once a hypothesis is strongly supported by
evidence, a new question can be asked to provide further insight on the
same topic. Evidence from other scientists and one's own experience can
be incorporated at any stage in the process.” (The Scientific Method) “Frequently
the scientific method is employed not only by a single person, but also
by several people cooperating directly or indirectly. Such cooperation
can be regarded as one of the defining elements of a scientific
community. Various techniques have been developed to ensure the
integrity of scientific methodology within such an environment.” One of the most important of these techniques is peer review.
Peer Review: In
order to present novel data and discoveries to the rest of the
scientific community scientists rely on the process of publication in a Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal.
Every field of science has at least one Journal that serves as a record
for the research that has taken place in the past as well as all
ongoing contributions taking place today. Frontiers in Zoology
is an example of one of the most prominent journals in the field of
Zoology. These journals then use the process of peer review to evaluate
the validity of the work in question. A group of usually one to three
anonymous fellow scientists, in the same or a similar area of research
will evaluate the work for the editors of the journal. “The referees
may or may not recommend publication, publication with suggested
modifications, or, sometimes, publication in another journal. This
serves to keep the scientific literature free of unscientific or
pseudoscientific work, to help cut down on obvious errors, and generally
otherwise to improve the quality of the material. One drawback of peer
review is that is can “have limitations when considering research
outside the conventional scientific paradigm: problems of "groupthink"
can interfere with open and fair deliberation of some new research.” This "drawback" has affected the ability of those with possibly valid evidence of Bigfoot from being taken seriously in the past, but now with outlets like Dr. Meldrum's Relict Hominoid Inquiry, a legitimate peer reviewed journal, and the current study underway by Dr. Sykes Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project the options are opening up. (The Scientific Method)
Some Of The Aspects Important To The Peer Review Process Are:
Reproducibility: Scientists
are human and prone to mistakes along the way just like everyone, or
once in awhile one may even be responsible for the purposeful
falsification of data and results. Therefore, experiments are commonly
repeated several times, including by other scientists, to make sure the
original finding can be duplicated, thus validating the results.
Archiving: Because
of the importance of reproducibility scientists and their research
associates are required to keep notebooks with detailed and accurate
documentation of their procedures and methods, raw data, and analysis,
which comply to the standards set by the Journal, Grant Funding Agency,
FDA or other Government Agency which oversee their area of work. This
is done in order to “provide evidence of the effectiveness and integrity of the procedure and assist in reproduction." (The Scientific Method)
Data Sharing:This
is important so other scientists or peer reviewer can replicate the
work and thus validate its’ authenticity and reproducibility.
Researchers are expected to provide this in a timely manner and if they
do not provide their data “an appeal can be made to the journal editors who published the study or to the institution which funded the research.” (The Scientific Method) Abominable Snowman Merton's Norms: “In 1942, Robert K. Merton identified a small set of "norms" which characterized what makes a "real" science.”
The violation of one or more of these norms resulted in a determination
of non-science or pseudoscience for that particular claim.
Merton's norms are defined as:
Originality: The tests and research done must present something new to the scientific community.
Detachment:
The scientists' reasons for practicing this science must be simply for
the expansion of their knowledge. The scientists should not have
personal reasons to expect certain results.
Universality:
No person should be able to more easily obtain the information of a test
than another person. Social class, religion, ethnicity, or any other
personal factors should not be factors in someone's ability to receive
or perform a type of science.
Skepticism: Scientific facts
must not be based solely on faith. One should always question every
case and argument and constantly check for errors or invalid claims.
Public accessibility:
Any scientific knowledge one obtains should be made available to
everyone. The results of any research should be openly published and
shared with the scientific community. (The Scientific Method) So since we have had a look at what constitutes Legitimate Science, let’s take a look at the definition of Pseudoscience:
“Pseudoscience
is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but
does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence
or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks
scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of
vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance
on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of
openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of
systematic processes to rationally develop theories.”
“A field,
practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific
when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific
research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms. Science is
also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that
it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research
and testing. Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the
criteria of science. "Pop" science may blur the divide between science
and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science
fiction. Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among public
school science teachers and newspaper reporters.
The demarcation
problem between science and pseudoscience has ethical political
implications, as well as philosophical and scientific issues.
Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in
the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and
science education. Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from
pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, medical
quackery, and occult beliefs combined with scientific concepts, is part
of science education and scientific literacy.” In 1978, Paul Thagard proposed
that pseudoscience is primarily distinguishable from science when it is
less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time,
and its proponents fail to acknowledge or address problems with the
theory"(Pseudoscience) In
my observation those who practice pseudoscience have a marked habit of
relying on blanket dismissals for why their belief or work is not
accepted by mainstream academia. For example: the government does not
want this information known or it would produce mass hysteria or limit
their control over us”; or “other scientists will not accept this data
because they are jealous", or "if admitted this was true it would force
mainstream science to start all over again”, instead of actually
bothering to provide reproducible and valid proof for what they are
proposing. You will find a lot of what qualifies as pseudoscience
amongst those who are fond of conspiracy theories, ancient alien
theories and those trying to defend their particular spiritual or
religious belief. Here is a great new article discussing one of the fallacies pseudoscientists use to excuse their lack of legitimate data to back up their claims: Ketchum’s Galileo Gambit Pseudoscience
tends to refuse to acknowledge problems within their theory and quite
often relies on a circular argument to defend their point. “Circular
reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the
statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason
given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as
the reason for the conclusion.” (Circular Reasoning) Back to Bigfoot: So
now that we have taken a look at what "Science" actually is and isn't,
our next step can be to look at some examples of claims regarding
Bigfoot that can and can not be made scientifically. This will be the
subject of an upcoming article, but until then try to keep some of the above
points in mind the next time someone makes a statement of absolute fact
regarding Bigfoot without being willing to share the evidence, or
perhaps even having any to back it up.
Here are the latest updates for the Ketchum DNA Study in the News, a study which so far has exhibeted classic PseudoScience in action:Please Show Us The Sequencing Data!
Until that time all we can do is to share and document our anecdotal "evidence" in the hopes that it will someday lead to our actual understanding of what this great mystery is all about. Because in the end it is that mystery that brought us all here in the first place! 
