The Ketchum Report

[Guest HucksterFoot]

well good for him if he doesn't; I hope he doesn't give in to the "humaners." But I bet he will. We shall see.

his efforts to lecture on DNA are comical.

Here is some Pie to fling

[Guest]

Thanks,

On the matter of belief, perhaps some know, and logicly , once someone knows through personal experience, there's not much science can do to change that. For the life of me, I don't understand how some people can't recognize that as the main perpetuating mechanism. Without the persistent witnesses , and occasional compelling pieces of evidence, nobody would be investigatiing this, and no fumagation would ever take place, or likely be needed.

Thumbs up on the bolded part. That best fits my speculation as well, but accompanied with Ericksons videos, which I haven't seen. I'm in the cautiously optimistic camp.

Personal experience does not necessarily translate to general acceptance.

"The main perpetuating mechanism" for Bigfoot belief is the largely uncritical accepting of information from pro-Bigfoot outlets and sources. (Obviously, since most pro-Bigfoot proponents do not experience sightings or other evidence directly). Did a Bigfoot hunter really shoot a Bigfoot in Oklahoma recently? If I'm a Bigfoot believer I'll go with the story ---- even though, like most such cases, the event was underinvestigated (i.e., investigated primarily by fellow believing Bigfooters) and presented to the public only through pro-Bigfoot information dissemination.

Consider this: on one website that accumulates Bigfoot sightings there are listed two Bigfoot sightings only a 45 minutes ride up the freeway from where I am sitting right this moment. I'm located virtually in the middle of a major metropolitan area.

Even prominent Bigfoot believers will say that a majority of sightings are misidentifications or hoaxes. I'm beginning to wonder if something else is in play. Consider this website again. http://treepeekers.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/bus-stop-prints/ What do you make of this? Is this the next step in believing Bigfootery?

About the DNA report. I don't think Parn is merely saying that the report will say Bigfoot DNA is 100% human. Instead, it will claim the DNA shows some small divergence from Gen Bank 100% human, but that this will be an eventually indefensible position and others will conclude the DNA samples are 100% human and that the report mistaken.

[Guest mxav]

Tell you what, parn...I'll stop calling Skeptic arguments "intellectually dishonest" when Skeptics stop making intellectually dishonest arguements, m'kay?

Skeptics might be biased to a point but intellectually dishonest, not so much. WHat's intellectual dishonest, if not flatly delusion is blind belief, emphasis on blind. Parroting legend meets science, and it's alledged experts does not an opinion make.

[Guest Jodie]

I think you are making assumptions here. How can it be blind belief if you have been a bigfoot witness?

[Guest mxav]

I think you are making assumptions here. How can it be blind belief if you have been a bigfoot witness?

I was referring to the constant drawing from Legend meets Science and it's so called experts as if this is absolute truth. Btw, being an eyewitness doesn't make you immune to misidentification. Many aspects of LMS are very fallible if not dubious as are claims made by those would be experts.

[Guest Jodie]

I agree with you unless it was a close encounter. Then either they saw what they say they saw, they are lying, or they are dellusional, those are your 3 choices.Not all sightings like that make it into a database so it'ld be hard to guess the percentage that are probably the latter two choices. I can't speak for Mulder, just snagged on the "blind belief" phrase.

[Guest]

Skeptics might be biased to a point but intellectually dishonest, not so much. WHat's intellectual dishonest, if not flatly delusion is blind belief, emphasis on blind. Parroting legend meets science, and it's alledged experts does not an opinion make.

C'mon, there's a little bit of "allegiance to theorem" happening on both sides of the debate. Skeptics blindly quote talking points circulated and tested in communities like JREF and other organizations created to debunk what they consider junk science. Honest debunking is always needed, but the problem is that Skeptics are just as prone to abandon reason in favor of proving a point as proponents of BF have been accused of doing. There is what's known as an investment of intellect going on in the Skeptic community that renders their opinions almost as suspect as hoaxers’ “evidence.†That is to say Skeptics have committed their entire base of knowledge on proving that BF does not exist. That is their sole identity either in certain communities or, in some cases, it is their primary identity in life in general. They may have even built careers on their Skeptic persona. Their personal and professional reputations are built on their investment of intellect. If BF is proven to exist, they lose their investment. Their reputation, both professional and personal, is lost.

Using Parn as an example since he is one of the most vocal Skeptics in this community. If the DNA evidence is made up of samples from an unknown primate that is not modern human, then all his views on science will immediately come into question. I don't know what his profession is, but if it is in a scientific field, that's a huge hit. It's not that anyone would think Parn isn't smart enough to evaluate the data. He's clearly a very bright individual. What it will demonstrate is his inability to examine the data without prejudice. One could logically assume it is a pattern he repeats in his daily life. That is the danger of approaching discovery with a closed mind.

There would be far greater damage to the Skeptic community if BF is proven to exist than the damage that would be done to the BF community if the DNA evidence turns out to be pure nonsense. Proponents of BF are literally in a nothing to lose situation. The Skeptic community has very effectively painted us as kooks and delusional, and presented themselves as the only sane purveyors of true knowledge. That is a much coveted gate to keep. Letting someone crash it with proof of something outside of the Skeptics’ stated truths would cost them their position and everything that comes with it. The only way to defend the gate and hold their position is to beat back any all evidence by any means necessary.

What is intellectually dishonest is to assume that Skeptics are above bias. It is literally impossible to have an opinion without bias because once you have adopted an opinion you have demonstrated bias. Now this is where you distinguish between informed bias and blind bias. And again, I submit that there are both types of bias on both sides of the debate and there are both types of bias in the individual who has adopted an opinion on a matter. That is just the nature of being human.

I am a BF proponent. I have a bias that the existence of such a creature is possible. I’m not going to hide from it. It is not a blind bias. It is an informed bias. What I know is that I don’t know everything. I don’t have all the answers. Keeping an open mind to the existence of BF allows me to ask questions and examine evidence that Skeptics dismiss without serious consideration. Our history is full of impossibilities that have been summarily dismissed. Earth used to be the center of the solar system. Gravity couldn’t possibly bend light. It was impossible to do surgery on the heart. Wood bison had gone extinct. The list goes on. Decrying evidence based on preconceived notions of what’s possible does not an open mind make.

[Guest mxav]

What is intellectually dishonest is to assume that Skeptics are above bias. It is literally impossible to have an opinion without bias because once you have adopted an opinion you have demonstrated bias. Now this is where you distinguish between informed bias and blind bias. And again, I submit that there are both types of bias on both sides of the debate and there are both types of bias in the individual who has adopted an opinion on a matter. That is just the nature of being human.

Nope, it works both ways, and yes the skeptics are guilty of to. For the record you weren't who I was referring to, I was pointing to Mulder. His bias is an example of one that is not informed, it is BLIND. Blind belief in Legend Meets Science, he quotes the thing almost every post. There are parts of it that are quite dubious. He quotes the Credentialled experts of LMS" over and over, and sorry, I've seen LMS. Some of it is **** dubious as are claims made by some of the "experts" he clearly idolizes. Having a credential doesnt mean infallability, but in reading a good deal of his posts, here you have in someone a BLIND belief. If you disagree with him, you're a skeptic and the enemy. It's not even the same having an opinion, it's being a parrot to the opinions of those you idolize. And if the veracity of fighting everyone else, its form of bullying and does damage balanced discussion here.

[southernyahoo]

Personal experience does not necessarily translate to general acceptance.

"The main perpetuating mechanism" for Bigfoot belief is the largely uncritical accepting of information from pro-Bigfoot outlets and sources. (Obviously, since most pro-Bigfoot proponents do not experience sightings or other evidence directly). Did a Bigfoot hunter really shoot a Bigfoot in Oklahoma recently? If I'm a Bigfoot believer I'll go with the story ---- even though, like most such cases, the event was underinvestigated (i.e., investigated primarily by fellow believing Bigfooters) and presented to the public only through pro-Bigfoot information dissemination.

Consider this: on one website that accumulates Bigfoot sightings there are listed two Bigfoot sightings only a 45 minutes ride up the freeway from where I am sitting right this moment. I'm located virtually in the middle of a major metropolitan area.

Even prominent Bigfoot believers will say that a majority of sightings are misidentifications or hoaxes. I'm beginning to wonder if something else is in play. Consider this website again. http://treepeekers.w...us-stop-prints/ What do you make of this? Is this the next step in believing Bigfootery?

About the DNA report. I don't think Parn is merely saying that the report will say Bigfoot DNA is 100% human. Instead, it will claim the DNA shows some small divergence from Gen Bank 100% human, but that this will be an eventually indefensible position and others will conclude the DNA samples are 100% human and that the report mistaken.

Jerry, you seem to be making broad generalizations about hypothetical people and testifying to their state of mind or level of acceptance without actually considering what their experiences may be. it is the epitomy of a strawman argument. please refer to rwridelys and jodies post above, i intend to plus both of them.

[JDL]

This is tedious.

By definition, the most that a skeptic is able to accept without a "body", or some equally convincing proof, is that bigfoot MIGHT exist. Therefore the most tolerant that a skeptic can be toward a witness is to allow that the witness MIGHT have seen bigfoot.

It seems, however, that the temptation to trot out all of the possible explanations for misidentification and misperception is irresistible. So every other week, we endure the same old arguments anew.

Are there those who have misperceived something mundane as bigfoot? Certainly. We all understand this.

Are there those who have had a close distance, prolonged interaction (not simply a sighting), in daylight, under a clear sky, with no intervening cover? From personal experience, yes.

Are there also those who have seen bigfoot and have misperceived it as human or otherwise mundane? Since bigfoot is human-like (or, for the skeptic's benefit, if bigfoot exists and is humanlike), how could this not be?

So, for the benefit of the skeptic: Even those of us who have had unmistakable encounters and those of us who are otherwise convinced, are skeptics to a greater or lesser degree. We don't accept every tidbit of information or every report as fact. We always look at the likelihood of misperception or hoax. We are probably even less tolerant of bad information than some skeptics.

We don't, however, start from the presumption that all sightings and reports can be attributed to misperception. As a result, there are reports that we immediately discard (quite a few); there are reports that fall within the range of possible, that are not fully convincing, or fully unconvincing; and there are reports that are consistent and can be traced back to the observing party so that the observer can be evaluated along with the observation. They are all data points. They all go into our informal personal databases (figuratively speaking), and each data element is accompanied by a note regarding its probable reliability.

The only question is whether or not one is willing to accept that bigfoot MIGHT exist. If so, then an objective investigator, while acknowledging that many reports are false for a variety of reasons, must consider that some reports MIGHT be true. This level of objectivity is inconsistent with arguments that even the most consistent of reports from the most trustworthy of observers must be considered false due to assumed misperception.

[Guest]

There would be far greater damage to the Skeptic community if BF is proven to exist than the damage that would be done to the BF community if the DNA evidence turns out to be pure nonsense.

Here are some examples of this so-called "damage" and how it might affect me personally if bigfoot was proven to exist:

1) I'd get to share in the joy of an amazing new discovery, and that joy would be a serious "Christmas morning as a kid" kind of joy.

2) I'd be able to carry the hope with me that I might in fact encounter a bigfoot firsthand while doing field work. This would thrill me immeasurably.

3) Given my knowledge of the subject, I could rather easily cast myself as something of an expert on the topic.

4) Grant money would become rapidly and abundantly available to study such creatures, and I'd be in excellent position to be awarded competitive grants to do such studies.

5) My field research and scholarly interest in bigfoot would lead to peer-reviewed publications of high impact, which are the most important professional currency in my profession.

6) On the wave of my bigfoot work, I would easily be promoted to full professor, and enjoy many a back-slap from my colleagues who will sheepishly admit that I was right to have been paying attention to this bigfoot stuff all those years.

7) My "lost" bet with Huntster would mean that I would have to "endure" an Alaskan vacation and treat one of my most entertaining and thoughtful intellectual foes to a prime rib dinner.

So this would be a bad thing for me exactly how? I ain't seeing the downside of a bigfoot discovery . . .

[JDL]

+ 1

[Guest RedRatSnake]

+ 1

It would be so cool if BF was out there.

Tim ~

[ShadowBorn]

Skeptic community

I believe to the Skeptic community as a whole has alot to loose Saskeptic.In your case you have alot to gain if it turns out that they exist.It is your lively hood that will value the most.As wittnesses though we also will gain some too that we were not crazy after all and that we were actually seeing a living entity.Whether it being a human/ape or human/? but it will be proven to to most that we have seen some thing that is flesh and blood and that we were not losing our minds on what we encountered.No matter how we look at it it will be a win win for all except for the hard core skeptics.

I truely believe that even if they had a body that this core of hard core skeptics would have a hard time accepting that. Even if there was a body laying in front of them they would still be in denial of their existance.Could this be that they are so close to us as being ?/human.Well untill that happens we will never know what that out come will be and until this report is out everything is just speculative.

[JDL]

It will be fun to watch what happens to society in general after "discovery".

This is a potential source of scholarly articles in and of itself.

Edited December 12, 2011 by JDL