The Ketchum Report (Part 3)

[Guest DWA]

[crickets]

Is there any one else on this forum other than DWA to whom this post makes any sense? I would be interested to know.

[Guest Llawgoch]

You should have waited more than five minutes before pointing out that nobody thinks you make any sense, it's not being fair on yourself.  I'm sure you'll go back and edit your post after my reply like you do to all the others though.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Llawgoch

[Guest Cervelo]

Is there any one else on this forum other than DWA to whom this post makes any sense? I would be interested to know.

The silence actually means the fourm agrees with you one would logically think.....

[Guest SDBigfooter]

It makes sense to me.

[Guest Llawgoch]

It makes sense to me.

 

Really?  Can you explain to me then how I need to offer proof for an alternative explanation for a phenomenon, when he has previously asserted that his unsupported  explanation is the only possible one?  Note that I am not saying my explanation is the correct one, simply that it is another possibility.  He is the only one claiming his explanation is correct.

 

Do you also deny that people following what they have read is a possible explanation for consistency in Bigfoot reports?  If so, why?

 

And also tell me how this means "I am a sceptic so I can say what I like".

Edited September 18, 2013 by Llawgoch

[Sunflower]

 

There comes a point when repeatability trumps alternate explanations. You saw that already.

Andy1867, The samples come from multiple individuals with more than a passing interest in the subject. Some of the samples were tested outside of this study, which also used outsourced labs, they all found the human DNA.

My own sample had numerous indications of being deposited by a mammal that lives in the wild, yet did produce human DNA according to this study.

So it's not one source for the samples , or one lab testing them. But alas, this is the Ketchum thread, so Ketchum has to take all the criticism for this communities lack of ability to provide one single sample that produces a non-human ape mitochondria.

 

Some of us know the people that contributed samples and those people know full well how to collect samples.  It just takes a lot of common sense, the right utensils and the correct storage system.   

 

Besides something like hair is washed completely before it is used for testing.  At least, that's what I've read here and elsewhere.  I'm more impressed with blood and saliva than hair.  In the past, the hairs have come back as unknown primate????

 

That result has never gone any further and that is amazing to me. 

[southernyahoo]

I think the hair samples have come back as unknown primate when morphology was examined, or possibly when the DNA was too fragmented.

 

I would consider results from hair roots to be least likely contaminated and more valuable vs blood and saliva because if any airborne human cells landed in blood or saliva there is no removing it from the mix.

 

Like you said, the hairs and roots can be washed to remove loose cells. Plus there would be morphology linked to the DNA with hair samples which should match the single source donor of the hair. This is where Ketchum says the DNA kept coming up human, while the hair morphology did not match human.

 

This is why I feel there is something to this study, and should repeat on down the line with Sykes.

[Cotter]

Hi Llaw:  A couple comments below in bold:

Really?  Can you explain to me then how I need to offer proof for an alternative explanation for a phenomenon, when he has previously asserted that his unsupported  explanation is the only possible one?  Note that I am not saying my explanation is the correct one, simply that it is another possibility.  He is the only one claiming his explanation is correct.

 

I don't think you CAN offer proof (undisputable) of this alternative explanation, but an example of a person that has done this would add a touch of weight.  (But you and I both know how reliable VERBAL testimony is as well when it comes to this stuff, so it won't add much weight).  And I agree, I would even go as far to say that without a doubt, this indeed happens.  But this is where investigating the reports is critical.  I find reports more compelling from folks that have no (claim to) previous exposure to things BF related....but again, that is hard to determine as well.  Regarding DWA's explanation, that could be it as well.  I would be interested to see how pre-90's reports compare to post 90's reports (approx advent of the internet) and how those reports compare to printed reports pre-90's.  That would be monumental data scrubbing exercise, so I'm not holding my breath that I'll summon the motivation to compile and evaluate those.  But, long story short, both of your explanations are possible, is one explanation more correct than others?  Well, that's what is being discussed and I don't have enough info to make that call.

 

Do you also deny that people following what they have read is a possible explanation for consistency in Bigfoot reports?  If so, why?

 

Nope, not at all, like I said above, I would guarantee that this has happened.  But I would also bet that it does not cover 100% of the reports that describe a similar animal.

[WSA]

Is there any one else on this forum other than DWA to whom this post makes any sense? I would be interested to know.

Well, yes, there is.

 

If one proposes, as has been proposed, that the internal consistencies found in the BFRO reports are solely attributable to collusion, it would be incumbent then on the proposer to cite some evidence of that.  Underlying any such similar proposal is merely the premise of: "Bigfoot doesn't exist." Those of that inclination evidently feel this premise gives license to just pull arguments out of their.....ambient atmosphere.

 

Moreover, accusing a cross-section of the population of lies and collusion is a habit I find more easily facilitated here in an anonymous forum, and I for one require a little more certainty before I toss out such offhand accusations. This holds especially true when the subject of my accusations might be, (as many indeed are) highly respected and credible members of communities such as first responders, local constabulary and ex-armed forces members.  I would warrant most who blithely libel with offensive characterizations like this would never slander these witnessess  in a person-to-person situation, and for good reason too.

[Guest Llawgoch]

Response to Cotter:

 

Cheers.  Nice to have a rational and logical response.

 

The only thing is, we are not arguing about which one of those explanations is more correct than the other.  We are arguing about the fact that DWA claims that without 'proof' of mine, only his can be considered, whether he supplies any proof for it or not.

 

I quite agree that what you say would help if somebody wishes to establish that the consistency is down to reporting a genuine animal rather than simply copying what has already been seen.  I'd add that another thing to examine would be trends, where something (odour, quadrupedal movement) has a 'vogue' of being reported then tails off - this would suggest (not empirically prove, just suggest) that  people were repeating stories rather than observing an actual behaviour.

 

I of course don't have the time and inclination to do this either.  But anyone who wants to go any way towards proving that consistency is down to one thing or the other has to do this, and not claim that their explanation is true by assertion unless somebody else 'proves' them wrong.

Well, yes, there is.

 

If one proposes, as has been proposed, that the internal consistencies found in the BFRO reports are solely attributable to collusion, it would be incumbent then on the proposer to cite some evidence of that.  Underlying any such similar proposal is merely the premise of: "Bigfoot doesn't exist." Those of that inclination evidently feel this premise gives license to just pull arguments out of their.....ambient atmosphere.

 

Moreover, accusing a cross-section of the population of lies and collusion is a habit I find more easily facilitated here in an anonymous forum, and I for one require a little more certainty before I toss out such offhand accusations. This holds especially true when the subject of my accusations might be, (as many indeed are) highly respected and credible members of communities such as first responders, local constabulary and ex-armed forces members.  I would warrant most who blithely libel with offensive characterizations like this would never slander these witnessess  in a person-to-person situation, and for good reason too.

 

Why is it not incumbent on someone suggesting the consistency must be down to it being an actual animal to provide any evidence of that?  Again, I am not saying something is the case, only DWA is.  I am offering alternative possibilities.

 

Nobody has mentioned collusion.  You don't have to collude to copy something you read on the internet, or in a book.

 

With regard to your as expected "Are you calling me a liar?" response, DWA regularly makes it clear what he thinks of the stories of those who claim to habituate BF, or maintain that they behave in a human like way. What evidence does he have to slander them so? Yet you have no problem with this, it seems.  

 

And if you can reference me to the reports that have names and checkable identities that relate to local constabulary and armed forces members, I'd be interested to see them.  If someone anonymously claims to be a police officer, not so much.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Llawgoch

[WSA]

No, unless I'm mistaken, DWA is requesting there only be evidence of collusion, not proof. (And yes, collusion is what you call it.) He has  a stack of reports...biologically consistent, some of them contemporaneous, with the same/near locations over spans of years and many, many that are objectively plausible, but only IF you remove the "Bigfoot isn't real" lenses. And on the other side....?

 

As for identify of the reporters. I tend to believe what folks tell me about themselves, unless I see some glaring inconsistencies....I guess I'm just a chump in that regard, but I do find it makes life a whole lot easier and spares me a lot of unecessary research. Makes cocktails with strangers a little less stressful too.  Despite the meme here in BF Skeptic Land, most people are not that nefarious. Almost none are in fact.

[Guest Llawgoch]

Collusion:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collusion

 

Requires communication and agreement.  That's not important though.  Also, for a man requesting evidence, he uses the word 'proof' a lot.

 

On the other side is the fact that if these reports are publicly available, the people making the newer reports might well have seen the older reports.  The people making the reports might never have been to the places they claim to have made the reports in.  Does DWA have any more information on these reports than is publicly available?

 

You believe everything people tell you about themselves in an anonymous context?  I don't, and I am quite happy to say that.  Lots of people lie when filing fake reports of things on the internet.  What is the provenance of DWA's stack of reports?  Provenance is hugely important.  If he is taking them third and fourth hand, anonymously,  from books and the internet, he really should be taking them with a pinch of salt.  if he is taking them first hand from identifiable sources, that has more merit.  Yet he claims I, and everybody else, should accept the existence of Bigfoot based on what?  Reports passed to us third and fourth hand anonymously.  That makes no sense.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Llawgoch

[WSA]

Think of it this way Llawgoch, if you by any chance are a poker player, you'll get this.  DWA is saying, "I have three of a kind." (Or, to state it in terms you might agree with more, "I have an Ace high")  Your saying, "No, you don't" won't even call his hand, let alone take the pot. He is asking for you to show your cards. You hold no cards is all we can assume. 

 

You say folks are copying one another in their sighting reports? Give us an example of where/how/when this has ever happened. Failing to do that = no cards.

 

With the criteria you are advocating, you would be free to theorize anything you want to propose, limited only by your imagination. The "BF Doesn't Exist" lenses make it very, very hard to get any inkling of theoretical truth from sighting reports. You could even go so far as to shut yourself off from even reading them. Umm....am I to guess you don't, you know, actually read them? Well, there you go.

 

And too, I've never heard DWA state you or anyone else should accept the existence of BF. He is saying, as I have said many times, the evidence points to more probable than not and should be pursued. It is the whole "pursuit" thing we don't ever get much help on from the skoftics. To give the evidence no value, as you apparently do, is, no matter how many times I encounter it, genuinely remarkable.

 

I have to say, you obviously are much more sophisticated in your approach to discerning the credibility of others than I am. You'd think after questioning people under oath for 35 years I'd know better. Some people, huh? Yep, that's me all over, Mr. Gullible! Whatever you do though, don't tell the wife, she's already threatened to not let me out of the house without supervision.   

[Guest Llawgoch]

Why does the fact that reports can be copied need to be proven when the case that consistency must mean they have seen an animal not need to be proven?

 

 It's indisputable that copying COULD happen, which is all I am saying, but it's also almost certain that this HAS happened as any sensible person would admit - the extent to which it happens is a fair thing to dispute, as Cotter does.

 

Show me one example where two consistent Bigfoot reports are because both of them have seen a Bigfoot.  Can't do that? No cards.

 

Again, I'm not cliaming either case is the reality.  They are two possibilities.  it is you and DWA who are claiming to know which one is the case, or have an Ace high.  I say, ok, I have an Ace High too.   Neither of us have any cards to show.  Cotter has pointed out how he can go about getting cards, if he wants to show them.  I'm just happy to leave both hands on the table.

 

And I don't claim to be able to discern the credibility of others.  I don't know who is telling the truth and who isn't.  I am pretty certain not everybody tells the truth all the time though.  You are the one making judgements as to who is credible; you believe the reports..  I neither believe nor disbelieve, I simply know people might be lying if they can't prove something.  I have been lied to a lot in my life over both trivial and important things.  Sometimes I have known, others not.

 

You've glossed over whether you still think there is collusion required, or maybe you misunderstood the word collusion despite condescendingly trying to tell me I had.  And you have not addressed the issue of why you don't take DWA to task for implying people are liars, as you did to me,  when he disbelieves any stories about human or paranormal Bigfoot.  There's a lot of people claiming to have seen those.

 

In regard to your claim that he is just saying the evidence needs pursuing, consider the statement of his I replied to, which started this whole long drawn out mess 

"People who have seen a bigfoot have described it, in terms so consistent over so many decades that if they're all fake they're all being informed by generations of dedicated seasoned primatologists.  "

 

No ifs buts or maybes.  If all Bigfoot reports are fake they are being informed by generations of seasoned primatologists.  This cannot be the case, ergo, Bigfoot exists and we should all believe in him if we read the reports..  That is the statement I am disputing.  It was and is fallacious.  

Edited September 19, 2013 by Llawgoch

[southernyahoo]

Show me one example where two consistent Bigfoot reports are because both of them have seen a Bigfoot.  Can't do that? No cards.

 

The Ostman account isn't two reports, but he sure didn't read about bigfoot information on the internet. I take he did have some indian guides who told him about wildmen in the mountains who were suppose to be a type of people but covered in hair.. His encounter did have some elements that indicated a spoken language and hand gestures, which tends to fall more in line with the evidence for me than with the bulk of sighting reports, most likely because sightings are so brief. Knowledge of the other apes was available to him, so if he had a real encounter, he would have made a comparison to them where he could.  His encounter seemed to contradict what the mainstream researchers have deemed bigfoot to be ever since then, until more contemporary long term witnesses stepped forward.