The Ketchum Report

[bipedalist]

Has anyone considered that perhaps they are holding on to the real evidence because this would be one of the greatest natural discoveries of our time and that there is a profit to be had from this? I know many think that "profit" is a dirty word, but if they are making calculated moves to increase profitability in this discovery then I think that is a shrewd and forward-thinking way to handle it. There is nothing wrong with doing something great for science and humanity and also making money from your contributions.

I know that if my decision came down to "build anticipation to maximize exposure" or "get it all out there as quickly as possible to satisfy those who are un-satisfiable" then the answer is simple. Let those who think they know everything say as much, and I will conduct my business in the best way I see fit.

Yes, every waking day I log on to this forum and notice a Ketchum or Sierra shooting thread for sure. At this point, if there had not been leaks by bloggers blowing the cover last July.... there would be the Ketchum study thread (s) and probably even more intensive speculation/scrutiny upon it and probably a pretty shriveled up Sierra shootings thread unless the players decided to break cover themselves without the need for corrections/clarifications (unlikely). Heck, maybe we wouldn't even know there was a book in process. And yes I believe "tip of the iceberg" REAL evidence is out there that has been unincluded in the Ketchum study and if and when the study breaks, there will be other revelations..... I didn't say oneupsmanship, I said those reluctant to include their name in any formalized attempts at recognition. It may be their way of "testing the waters" or perhaps, "mining the straits".

Heck it could only happen in the world of Bigfoot after all.

Disclaimer: yes, probably some or all of this post is sarcasm or wishful thinking either one

[southernyahoo]

You are most certainly not alone in that sentiment. If we can't even capture one of the damned things on a camera, then they don't need our help.

So you wouldn't be the least bit interested in bigfoot conservation if proven? I tend to agree that they don't need alot of help, but if they exist, there should definately be laws in place stipulating harsh penalties for poaching.

[Guest Particle Noun]

A few things about the protection initiative. Dr. Ketchum and team have indicated that they are going to do nothing public with this (other than find like minded individuals on a local level to assist) until AFTER the paper is released. There may be some organization already happening behind the scenes, but there is no pre-publication effort at protection or conservation. I've seen a number of posters intimate or outright state that putting out a protection effort before there is any proof is silly, and points toward inauthenticity. Apparently Dr. Ketchum agrees, because she is not doing that either.

Secondly, the reason I think a protection effort might be a good idea (and I think I've already said this so sorry for a retread) is that IF this study provides enough evidence to convince a much larger population that Bigfoot is a reality, then there will be a much much greater concerted effort to find and kill one. I don't think the argument of "well they've done fine so far" holds up. So far we have a few bigfoot enthusiasts, and game hunters, and the chance of random sightings. The activity surrounding finding the creature will become much greater, especially when it ties in nicely with the surge in interest in Finding Bigfoot, which has very high ratings. And the lure of fame and money. If suddenly you have it on scientific authority that this creature is not a myth, but is really out there, and yet no body has been recovered, millions of dollars will be on the line for the first to recover a body. That millions will probably come from some media or entertainment organization. If hundreds of thousands are spent for photographs of celebrity newborns, then I think the bounty on a body would be very high.

Having a protection effort/public awareness campaign seems to me to be a prudent move especially in the immediate aftermath of the release of a paper such as this.

Is there a reason those who feel that bigfoot has done fine so far don't think there will be any extra activity around the capture/kill of the creature once it's taken out of the book of myth and into the realm of the possible?

[Guest]

particle noun nice post on protection. I agree and do feel "protection/study" makes sense and many do. I also take it as a positive sign that she expects publication and significant acceptance of her work to justify efforts in adance of publication. I have seen others argue it is b/c she "won't get it published" she is doing so...I don't think so, but I haven't a clue. I am hopeful it will,, and wonder how it will be received, and how we will repond in policy.,

Edited March 23, 2012 by apehuman

[ShadowBorn]

Protection study for them well that is a joke.I believe the protection will be for those trying to hunt the creatures, cause once they know that they are being hunted there will be no stopping their actions.They will will go further into the wilderness and those who follow to hunt them will die plain and simple.Do you think that they will just allow a body to be given up just like that,the protection is not for them but for us. We are the ones cuasing their night mare and they own this realm of forest or domain.We are very naive to believe that we can hunt them down when they know the true value of freedom.By us taking them in to our world is like inprising them and do we really believe that this is what they want?We have the DNA what more do we need ,this DNA is the key to life and there is no need to retrieve no body.All the body is going to do is bring grief upon them and maybe anger.If they are a people or a race of people then why the hell are talking about killing one.Just so that we can please a few people and maybe show them what they look like and disect them.It is wrong and we should move away from this thinking and just leave them alone.As far as I know they do not want nothing from us except from the chosen few.They are the owners of their own destiny and if they choose to destory it they will do so on their terms.Call me an advocate but some one needs to be a voice for them.

[Guest]

There's already lots of money to be made if you're the first person to bag a sasquatch - no need for Ketchum's paper to come out first for someone interested in doing this.

I think anyone who's concerned that the woods will be crawling with people carrying guns once Ketchum's paper comes out have little understanding of how this continent was explored and settled. Hint: everybody had a gun, and they shot everything. That was the case from about the 16th Century to the middle of the 20th.

[Guest Particle Noun]

Saskeptic, for a huge majority of people out there, Bigfoot is a fantasy, a myth. A lot of people I know, when I talk about Bigfoot, actually think I mean ONE SINGLE MYTHICAL BEAST roaming the Pac northwest, not a possible species.

And I would counter that for those who think the woods won't be crawling with people, as 'that was how our continent was explored and settled', you might not be as in touch with the insanity that has become popular culture, the desire for fame, and the ease with which that fame can be acquired simply by doing something of this magnitude. Publications, reality TV, psuedo-journalistic TV, etc...all of these will be vying to be the first to get a body. The ratings would be huge. These people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for celebrity photos. You don't think the reward would be bigger for bigfoot? And yes, they would probably pay that now, but there are only a handful of people out there looking. The number who would go looking if it were declared real would be exponential, in my opinion. That's in relation to today's current culture, not a historical culture that really has little in common with how we behave now.

And perhaps they won't, in the end need our protection. Maybe they will be able to continue to allude everyone. If so, then what is the harm in pursuing the effort of protection anyway? Is there any negative side to that? Raising public awareness? I don't see how that effects anyone negatively.

[Guest]

"Do you think that they will just allow a body to be given up just like that,the protection is not for them but for us. DNA is the key to life and there is no need to retrieve no body..Call me an advocate but some one needs to be a voice for them." -srry lost the quote tags in response:

I agree we don't need a body. I agree BFs have free will. Not sure if you are saying we need protection (those who hunt I guess only?) or BFs? Seems if they are forced to retreat that is a bummer, a reduced habitat...so

Study doesn't have to mean "harvet for study"" in my mind, and so the need for "protection." now, at the onset of "more studies."

As an advocate also..I think a "right to life" type bill should be passed...something basic like the Great Ape Project mission, as many countries have (and we are working closer to that in the US ).

Can we as a people create a movement that grants them the legal right to be free from capture, killing, or torture? And to be legally represented by our courts for any violation of their right? That's my idea of protection.....for a free willed "people."

I don't know the answer, it is not terrilbly simple, and our republic will dictate. But, your ideas aren't uncommon among BF advocates.

Contrast the "right to live" with placing them on an "endangered species" track....an agency/study/wildlife approach....

The DNA/proof shall inform of which choice makes sense. It may end up being a combination, in that to protect an individual BF's right to his habitat an agency must monitor and study habitat with that in mind, much as we do in the ESA... I can't say. I hope many minds adress these questions deeply and not with just money in mind.

Edited March 23, 2012 by apehuman

[southernyahoo]

A few things about the protection initiative. Dr. Ketchum and team have indicated that they are going to do nothing public with this (other than find like minded individuals on a local level to assist) until AFTER the paper is released. There may be some organization already happening behind the scenes, but there is no pre-publication effort at protection or conservation. I've seen a number of posters intimate or outright state that putting out a protection effort before there is any proof is silly, and points toward inauthenticity. Apparently Dr. Ketchum agrees, because she is not doing that either.

Secondly, the reason I think a protection effort might be a good idea (and I think I've already said this so sorry for a retread) is that IF this study provides enough evidence to convince a much larger population that Bigfoot is a reality, then there will be a much much greater concerted effort to find and kill one. I don't think the argument of "well they've done fine so far" holds up. So far we have a few bigfoot enthusiasts, and game hunters, and the chance of random sightings. The activity surrounding finding the creature will become much greater, especially when it ties in nicely with the surge in interest in Finding Bigfoot, which has very high ratings. And the lure of fame and money. If suddenly you have it on scientific authority that this creature is not a myth, but is really out there, and yet no body has been recovered, millions of dollars will be on the line for the first to recover a body. That millions will probably come from some media or entertainment organization. If hundreds of thousands are spent for photographs of celebrity newborns, then I think the bounty on a body would be very high.

Having a protection effort/public awareness campaign seems to me to be a prudent move especially in the immediate aftermath of the release of a paper such as this.

Is there a reason those who feel that bigfoot has done fine so far don't think there will be any extra activity around the capture/kill of the creature once it's taken out of the book of myth and into the realm of the possible?

There could be a flurry of interest, most of those newly interested would exhaust their resources before they actually find a bigfoot. There are things you can do legally about a bounty too. Eliminate the reward, and there will be no big hunt. Ofcoarse, science could declare that a body shall not be curated even if found, that would do it for the glory hunters.

[Guest Particle Noun]

There are things you can do legally about a bounty too. Eliminate the reward, and there will be no big hunt. Ofcoarse, science could declare that a body shall not be curated even if found, that would do it for the glory hunters.

I agree! I think any protection effort, in my mind, is really a short term one. Something to educate and put in place some penalty, perhaps, up front, to discourage the rush of interest this will generate. Over time it will die down as it just becomes part of the background noise of the nation. But that first wave *could* be nuts. Maybe it won't be. I don't see how Dr. Ketchum's preparations in this regard are anything but admirable and good. (not directed at you Southernyahoo).

You comment out science saying no body would be curated even if a body is found misses the target I'm really afraid of. I'm actually not concerned that scientists will want to kill one. Firstly because I'm pretty convinced this is not going to be an animal species but a hominid species, a close close cousin. But in any event, the bounties that worry me are the entertainment bounties. People wouldn't want to bag one for science, they would want to bag one to get on TV, and get real paid.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Particle Noun

[Guest parnassus]

It the world of baseball metaphors, this is more like a perpetual rain delay, where there are nothing but dark clouds in the sky, and the ump keeps telling everyone that the game will resume in five minutes, but keeps having to repeat it every five minutes because it doesn't stop raining. Better off just waiting until the rain breaks to yell 'play ball'.

...

Natural forces ("rain") has nothing to do with it. It's more like one team showed up with equipment that violates the rules of baseball.

[Guest slimwitless]

Has anyone noticed the conjecture about modern human DNA has died down? Is that because of the preservation effort? After all, you don't need laws to protect human beings, feral or otherwise. Not to mention Dr. Ketchum has taken to using terms like "this species" when referring to what she's found. I'm guessing this is why the critique (in some circles) has shifted from her ability to interpret the data to her credibility.

[Guest parnassus]

There's already lots of money to be made if you're the first person to bag a sasquatch - no need for Ketchum's paper to come out first for someone interested in doing this.

I think anyone who's concerned that the woods will be crawling with people carrying guns once Ketchum's paper comes out have little understanding of how this continent was explored and settled. Hint: everybody had a gun, and they shot everything. That was the case from about the 16th Century to the middle of the 20th.

went to a talk the other night about the Castroville mammoth. These suckers were so big they could have kept the African elephant as a house pet. This is the third or fourth mammoth to be unearthed in the Bay Area. Apparently these monsters, and mastadons, were living amongst the pipples in this area some 12,000 years ago. We're still here, they aren't.

when the guy says "These were what was on the menu." Edited March 23, 2012 by parnassus

[Guest]

The number who would go looking if it were declared real would be exponential, in my opinion.

So you think that's all it would take, multiple armed yokels looking for one? Is that all that separates our world of no-bigfoot-on-a-slab today to a world of yes-bigfoot-on-a-slab tomorrow? What about all those heightened senses of bigfoots that keep them even from getting caught on camera traps? Would those suddenly be ineffective against us clumsy humans once we know that bigfoot's really real?

And perhaps they won't, in the end need our protection. . . . If so, then what is the harm in pursuing the effort of protection anyway? Is there any negative side to that?

How do we "get something protected?" Legislation. How does legislation get enacted? Votes. How are votes obtained? Lobbying and awareness campaigns. How are lobbying and awareness campaigns funded? Donations. Where do donations come from? People who are sold the idea that the donations are really important.

Now do you see a problem?

[Guest Particle Noun]

No I don't. I would if donations were being solicited now, before any release of any information. But that isn't happening. If donations are asked for after the paper is released (and I'm satisified with the results) I won't have any problem with it. I certainly don't have a problem donating to the serria club. Should I?

Also, the efforts being put together by the team aren't isolated to legislation. I don't know that I can offer many details as it has been requested that they be kept within the group at present, but local media contacts, local representative contacts, etc, all of that is being pursued.

Again, if all of this was being done pre-publication, if there were a website up asking for donations right now, I'd be highly suspicious. But they aren't.