Why is (almost) Everyone Giving Dr. Melba Ketchum a Hard Time?

Listened to some of last night's Coast to Coast with host George Knapp and guest Dr. Ketchum. And if what she says is true, as to her diligence with testing, then why is she getting so much flack from many in Bigfoot Land? Such flack from science, well, sadly that's no surprise. Sciences' blindness to the existence of Bigfoot and the data is horribly frustrating and a mystery but, to be expected.  Why, though, are some in the Bigfoot world attacking her? I think she's been coy in the past, a bit, but overall, look. She's trying to do something. She's sent samples out to several labs. She's looking at the DNA. She's used blind studies. She has a variety of samples, not just one strand of elk hair. All this costs money, a lot of money. Finding labs to do the work is a huge job. Scientists have turned her down once they get wind that her research is Bigfoot research. According to Ketchum, one scientist threatened to sue her and her team if they used his findings; that's how angry he was over the subject of her research -- and how afraid he remains of being associated in any way with Bigfoot research.


Knapp asked her about her insistence that those she's discussed her research with sign disclosure statements. (Knapp himself signed one.) Ketchum explained that it's important to keep the data as uncontaminated as possible.

Then there's the infamous "peer reviewed" journal citation that gives any researcher the cred they need to be accepted in mainstream science and academia. It's a crazy loop: you have to be accepted by the very types of individuals who think you're nuts to be doing this kind of research in the first place, so you're not going to be accepted. Not having been accepted, your research is nothing. If her research isn't accepted into an accepted scientific journal, she's out. So is the star of this thing: Bigfoot.

So, given all this, why is Dr. Melba Ketchum --despite her possible missteps involving communication or style -- being treated badly by some in cryptozoology?

One possible answer to that is the uneasiness among some researchers that Bigfoot might be human, or far more human like, than those researchers have presumed. Some Bigfoot researchers have no problem with promoting a kill -- "for science" they tell us -- or thinking of Bigfoot as a big ape. Or some kind of animal. (Forgetting that we, too are animals.) Bigfoot is intelligent, very cool, what a find! but in the end, "just" an animal.

Many witnesses who've encountered Bigfoot speak of the eerie human qualities of the "creature" and as we know, many have tales to tell of spiritual and paranormal events within those encounters. These aspects of Bigfoot encounters sometimes don't go over very well with the more pragmatic Bigfoot researcher. Are they afraid that somewhere along the line, Ketchum's research presents clues or evidence of "more" here?

Ketchum said in last night's interview that if she is rejected by peer reviewed journals she'll put it out to the public. That would be fantastic, but also a cruelly frustrating gift, since it will be ignored by science.

On JREF: 'Bigfoot and Racoons', and the Assumption of Bigfoot's Limited Awareness

New Bigfoot thread on the JREF, bringing the total of Bigfoot threads over there to something like twenty-two million, about the OP's "hunt" for a rabid raccoon. Prefacing his adventure with his limited experience with hunting, tracking, and being a "city boy" even though he lives in a rural area, he asks why Bigfoot can't be found by experienced hunters and woodspeople:

So my question is, how can these people, who by and large are " Trained" in some way shape or form to find animals ( at the very least they have done some research into how to track, i am positive. ) , not be able to find a much, much bigger animal.

And here's the assumption, made of course by skeptoids and anti-Bigfooters, but many a Bigfoot hunter, that Sasquatch/Bigfoot is basically a "big, dumb ape" or some other animal; whatever, Bigfoot is nothing more than an oversized brainless bear, monkey, ape, ... put firmly in the category of less than us. Many humans don't even call themselves animals, and get insulted if you use the term animal inclusively. This is a world view of separation between us humans from other creatures, held by academics, scientists and the hoi polli alike. The arrogance and stubbornness inherent in that view insists we have souls, we have language, we have tools, we build things, we think about non-concrete things. That makes us different, and that makes us better. Of course none of that is true but it's still the assumption being passed off as fact.

Okay so I got off on a bit of a tangent. The point is, Bigfoot has eluded us because Bigfoot is highly intelligent and sensitive to its environment. And very possibly, paranormaly (for lack of a better term) so. That last idea is too fantastic for an uber-skeptic to consider, so I don't expect that. (It's also too wacky for many a flesh and blood Bigfoot researcher to accept.)

I know I make this comparison often, but there are many similarities to Bigfoot research and UFO research. And I don't mean, in this context, the subject of a UFO-Bigfoot connection. I mean the parallels to research methods, assumptions about the phenomena, and the rejection of the ... otherworldly. Paranormal, esoteric, supertnatual, not sure what word fits, but it's obvious in both areas there are those elements that transcend flesh and blood (Bigfoot) theories, and nuts and bolts (UFOs) theories.

New Bigfoot Thread on JREF: "Mormon Bigfoot Genesis Theory"

The JREF (James Randi Educational Forum) has a new thread on Bigfoot; this one is titled "Mormon Bigfoot Genesis Theory." I stopped counting long ago how many Bigfoot threads there are on the JREF but at last estimation, it was around sixty. Sixty seperate threads on a "skeptic" site about a creature the majority of posters don't believe exists.

Interesting thread, on the Mormon folklore about Sasquatch. And, about UFOs. Not connected, according to the OP, and I'm not that familiar with Mormon doctrine. But it is an interesting juxtaposition.

Naturally, the skeptoids scoff at this; because it's Bigfoot, because it's religion. (The only valid point made by the OP is the potential racism inherent in this folklore -- kind of like David Icke's and other Illuminati loving theorists, who disguise their anti-Semitism with code phrases like reptilians, world bankers, etc.)

But in reading about Mormon founder Joseph Smith's experiences, it's clear he had contact with something that is very close to alien/UFO encounters. And in reading the book of Mormon, with different tribes stealing chests full of DNA, -- it reads like a sci fi novel. Parallels are clear, as Biblical/religious text UFO researchers know.

JREF Bigfoot Thread Watch

This topic almost deserves a blog of its own.

Anyway, in the "What was that again, cognitive dissonance, irony calling" statement of the day, comes this comment from a BF thread over there titled 'Calling All Skeptics! Help Kitakaze End PGF Controversy - Pitch to Discovery Channel' certainly a long winded title. Thread starts off with the somberly serious self-congratulatory and yet endearingly naive plan to make a BF documentary that will forever silence BF believers and gratify skeptics. Then the thread devolves into fights amongst the debunkers themselves, namely William Parcher. But anyway, on the issue of why so many damn BF threads about something that doesn't exist by people who don't think it exists, this statement by "Blackdog":

I think people are wasting their time in the woods chasing BF but I don't think it's a waste of time to discuss it.

I love it. Just a delicious example of debunkers and their evil ways of moving goal posts, contradicting themselves, general dishonesty, and utterly oblivious to their own surreal exhibitions of humor.

So; going out and actually doing physical research and investigation in hopes of finding physical evidence, proof even, hopefully vs. staying at home and typing on your computer endless non-productive arguments about how something you don't believe exists, doesn't' t exist.

Sounds rational to me!

Linda Newton-Perry's Bigfoot Ballyhoo Blog

(You can also find this post over at my Western Oregon blog on the L.O.W.F.I. site.)

A Bigfoot blog that I've recently become aware of is Linda Newton-Perry's Bigfoot Ballyhoo. A lot of activity there, the latest concerning news of Bigfoot sightings in the coastal areas of Waldport, Siletz, etc. Exciting for me personally (I live vorcariously) since I often travel through those areas, in fact I hope to relocate there soon.

Newton-Perry is an author who writes a couple of Bigfoot related columns for local newspapers, and has written a few children's books about Bigfoot.


About the above sightings in that area; aside from the Bigfoot sighting reports themselves, is the discussion about the treatment of reports and witnesses from the local police, which is very negative, even heavy handed. I find that interesting; why are the police (and other authorities in the area) so reluctant to accept such reports, and why are they going so far as to be rude, almost libelous, in their treatment of witnesses?

Cool Beans: Links to Moi on the JREF

A Trickster's Realm column I wrote awhile back on the JREF threads on Bigfoot, as well as this blog, got the notice of one of the more snarly skeptics over there.

On Blogsquatcher: All in our minds?

The Blogsquatcher has an interesting post: Giving the "It's all in yer mind" theory some ammo You know how uber skeptics like to say, in complete seriousness, that Bigfoot is simply all in our minds? Blogsquatcher thinks it's ridiculous too, but he takes this idea in a different direction, even while acknowledging he isn't exactly in agreement with it. He is however, willing to explore the idea and put it out there, which I appreciate;too many BF as well as UFO writers don't like to stray too far from their comfort zones.

Blogsquatcher discusses Jung, archtypes; quotes from a Daily Grail review of Benny Shannon's The Anitpodes of the Mind and asks some intriguing questions,and asks if we might share a knowing of "half man half animal" even within our minds. The use of consciousness shifting drugs takes explorers, or psychonauts into these realms, but more specifically, shared imagery regardless of culture.

If Bigfoot is a paranormal creature and not just a big hairy ape, maybe a fairy or damion, as Patrick Harpur (Damonic Reality) or Lisa Shiel (Backyard Bigfoot) suggest, it's possible we can access a place where Bigfoot resides; a place where our minds are able to travel to, aided by substances such as ayahuasca.

I'm not sure what to think of this either, but it is very interesting, and, like the subject of UFOs and encounters with that phenomena while having ingested psychotropic drugs, it isn't all just a case of simple hallucinations and general tripping. Work done by Hancock, McKenna, Lily, Lear, Pinchbeck, tell us that it isn't that simplistic.

Related items:

Feeling a Lack of Control? Bigfoot Can Help

Fairies, Bigfoot, and Hauntings

Read about the McMinnville UFO gossip and more!

Nick Redfern Responds: Burn, Nick, Burn!

Recently Nick Redfern shared his thoughts about paranormal Bigfoot; specifically, about a case from 1985 involving a Ouija board and the subsequent apparition of a Bigfoot like creature in his article A Paranormal Bigfoot. In Bigfoot Fundamentalists: Burn Nick Burn! Redfern writes on the Mania.com site about the comments he received about that article. Redfern received more e-mails than usual in response to that article, some o which bordered, as he writes, on the psychotic:

But what angers me more than anything else, are those who champion the “Bigfoot is just a giant ape” scenario with a definitively rabid (and, at time, vaguely threatening) zeal of a type that would make any, and all, religious fundamentalists (whether from the Deep South or the Middle East) glowingly proud.

But, what interests me most of all is the rabid (and, indeed, almost psychotic) approach that such commentators occasionally display in their e-mails.

It’s not that one may disagree about the nature of Bigfoot; debate is a given, disagreement on what BF is, or is not, is to be expected. But it’s the shrill, over the top, fanatical and downright hateful reaction to the idea that some consider Bigfoot a paranormal creature.

As Nick asks:

So what if I proclaim that Bigfoot may be paranormal? So what if I don’t accept the notion that Bigfoot is just an ape of unknown origins and/or type?

Should that result in vitriolic e-mails to me from a variety of Bigfoot researchers displaying a self-righteous zeal that any stance beyond that of “Bigfoot is an ape,” is somehow dangerous and wrong?

The same can be said of many UFO researchers who have similar reactions when it comes to different theories. And these often nasty responses come from within; we expect them from the uber-skeptic fundie-debunker faux-skeptic crowd, but from fellow explorers of the Fortean realms?

I’ll end with what Nick says about BF being paranormal, or, not:

And here’s the thing I find most baffling of all: why should it even matter if Bigfoot is flesh-and-blood or paranormal? The answer is: it shouldn’t. Only the facts and a determination to get to the truth – whatever that may be - should ultimately matter. But, it does apparently matter – to some, at least.

Exactly. IF the truth is the goal, then we go where the data takes us. And a lot of that data, like it or not, includes encounters that clearly go beyond the “flesh and blood big ape” idea.

Bigfoot in a Freezer: Don't Get So Excited

I have this posted as my Rant of the Day at Snarly Skepticism, thought I'd repost it here. . .


Bigfoot in a Freezer: Don't Get So Excited;
A Word to the Skeptoid Crowd

Uber sketpics are currently undergoing a false series of euphoric episodes. Elated at the idea the Bigfoot community has been duped, fooled, and shown to be the nutjobs and gullible morons they believe them (us, sure, I'll throw myself in there) to be, they're pontificating en mass about the latest Bigfoot hoax.

Namely, Biscardi and company. Rickmat. The Geogia hunters. The cop with the bandaged hand. Those guys. As if we didn't know.

So calm down mega-skepties, it's not the joyful day you think it is. No one that counts in Bigfoot research believed this for a second, though some held out hope -- an extremely thin, almost invisible slice of hope -- that it could be for real. How about that; reserving judgement until the results are in? What a concept.

I admit I clung for a few hours to that nebulous bit of hope myself, only because someone I trust -- Micah Hanks -- has a personal relationship with Biscardi.

Even if some Bigfoot researchers naively held out for a bit that, well, it could be the real thing, could be, maybe, couldn't it? --- that doesn't mean Bigfoot researchers are dumb, stupid, lame, idiots, or any of the other insults you can't resist flinging.

And it certainly doesn't mean Bigfoot doesn't exist. All this has done is make it harder for everyone genuine, everyone sincere and honest, to get back to work.

The good thing about this is a reminder that Trickster is alive and well in all that is Forteana (something uber storage skeptoids don't get -- at all) and we should have expected this. Even me, who was, and is, disgusted. The whole thing put me in a bad mood; I'm still not over it. (Meaning the whole sordid thing to begin with, not that "Bigfoot isn't real." Calm down.)

It's also a little reminder that skepticism is a good thing. Don't fall down in a fainting fit yet; I mean real skepticism, not the brand the klassturian pathological skeptics wear so proudly on their little dried beans they call hearts.

Get over it. No one got fooled, Bigfoot isn't "dead," -- nothing to see here. You can put the keg and tiki lights away; there's no party tonight.

New BF Thread On JREF: "Did The Skeptics Kill Bigfoot?"

This makes 19, or maybe 20, threads on the James Randi forum (JREF) about Bigfoot. This time they think the perceived lack of Bigfoot interest and reports is due to their hard work in skepticism. Oy.

Bigfoot Kisses Santa: More Bigfoot Threads on JREF

As if five, or however many it is, Bigfoot threads on the James Randi Forum aren't enough, here are three more that have cropped up recently:

Creekfreak’s Bigfoot hair samples and other non-photo related claims.

Native American Myths/Traditions Support Bigfoot? A critical look

I Saw Bigfoot Kissing Santa Claus

Culture of Contact: Jeremy Vaeni Interview

Do I come out and finally acknowledge I've been abducted? Do I sound like Minnie Mouse or Ertha Kitt? Find out on Culture of Contact!

Peter Guttilla’s Bigfoot Files

A must have book for any true esoteric or Bigfoot researcher.

I just finished this book, and enjoyed it very much. It’s full of accounts of Bigfoot sightings (and a few other weird beings) of the stranger kind. UFOs, orbs, and much more high strangeness encounters in connection with Bigfoot are related in this book.

I’ll share some of the sightings from this book, as well as others, later on; these encounters include the three toed tracks, webbed prints, and creatures with red or orange glowing eyes.

Aside from the juicy collection of really weird things, is Peter Guttilla himself. I love his attitude. These accounts exist, and he has no patience with those researchers who continue to ignore, dismiss, or mock such encounters. Guttilla doesn’t have any patience with the skeptical camp either. Good for him. Enough is enough; now let’s get on with the investigations, and stop debating if there’s anything to investigate. (The same can be said of UFOs.)

Craig Woolheater on Hostile Deniers

A good entry by Craig Woolheater of Cryptomundo, about those “skeptics” or those in denial about Bigfoot. Woolheater gives a lot of talks on Bigfoot; and while he has overwhelming positive responses, there are the more hostile ones as well.

One point that struck me was the following, where Woolheater discusses the anger and hostility of one skeptic, which seemed to go beyond just disagreement:

My friend was perplexed by the anger displayed by someone who was obviously highly-educated, yet extremely unreasonable.

I’ve experienced this many times myself. (This weird anger has, in a couple of cases, gone so far as these kinds of so-called “skeptics” harassing me, “cyber stalking” me, threats, etc.)

It’s a highly interesting phenomena, this over the top hostility that often comes with discussing “fringe” topics.

Seeing Bigfoot From Space?

I was going to title this "Bigfoot From Space" then I realized that'd give the wrong impression. This time I'm not talking about the idea of Bigfoot coming from space, but seeing Bigfoot from space, as well as other cryptids.

Benjamin Radford is an arch skeptic. He’s one of the standards that appears on UFO, Bigfoot and other Fortean documentaries; like Michael Shermer and Joe Nickell, Radford appears on these programs to offer us their reasons on why bigfoot, or UFOs, or abductions, etc. don’t exist.

Radford’s recent article for Live Science: Satellite Searches Could Spot Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, offers the suggestion that satellites could prove these creatures existence.

He acknowledge the difficulty of finding a Bigfoot in “heavily wooded areas” but comments that:

While satellites would be of limited use in heavily wooded areas, Bigfoot creatures have been reported in many places with relatively little forest, including Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Texas and Arizona. A single 12-foot Bigfoot may or may not be hard to spot, but a family of them would be easier to find

He then makes a weird turn on the logic train:

Of course, if such searches are done and still reveal no solid proof of the monsters' existence, few minds will be changed. Diehard believers can always claim that all the monstrous beasts somehow hid undetected or are masters at camouflage. Or the searchers didn't look long enough or in the right places. It only takes one live or dead Bigfoot or lake monster to forever prove that they exist, but no amount of failed searches will ever prove they don't.

Well, if a satellite search doesn’t turn up a Sasquatch -- “twelve foot” tall or not -- that doesn’t prove anything. It’s only data: a search was done by satellites, nothing found. The conclusion that “there is no Bigfoot” is merely interpretation of that data. An assumption that none exists. It isn't proof it doesn't exist.

I recall seeing footage of some kind of giant snake (anacondas?) on some documentary af few years ago. They were filmed from the air, and these things were huge. There they were; on film, and even so, denial of exactly what they were, how big they “really” were, and so on, continued. Pretty amazing stuff, this footage, and yet it slowly sank from the cultural milieu. Now if you bring up “giant anaconda’s” you’re treated like a kook. (We also have film footage of Big Cats and there's still debate on that.)

So, if we spend the money on satellite searches for Bigfoot and other cryptids, and we do get images of these creatures then what?

Will further argument about their existence cease? Will all the thousands of witnesses be vindicated? Will the pathological skeptics and debunkers apologize to those they’ve insulted, and worse, once it’s shown there “really is” a Bigfoot?

I’m not against any kind of satellite search for these creatures. I just don’t care. For those that have seen them, they have the proof. For others, like myself who’ve never seen a cryptid, that’s okay. I’m fine with it. I tend to think they exist, but if it’s somehow proven they don’t (and how can that ever be proven?) okay. And if it’s proven they do, I’ll have mixed emotions.

On the one hand, it’ll be nice to know, and everyone can relax. But it will also lead to all kinds of issues about protection of the species and its environment. We’ll also have questions and controversies surrounding the new question: “Okay, we know it exists, but just what exactly is it? Which leads to the possibility of killing one for study, something I am absolutely against.

I find it a little topsy turvy that an industrial strength skeptic like Radford would urge satellite searches for Bigfoot and other cryptids. On the one hand, he dismisses such “beliefs” with typical scofftoid aplomb. On the other, he considers using high technology to search for the things. What does he want to do with such knowledge if one of these cryptids is found? Would he be okay with further study, including expeditions to kill one?

I think those skeptics who dismiss the possible reality of Bigfoot and other creatures, yet suggest ways to look for the things (like the use of satellites and so on) need to take another step forward and tell us what they think they'll do with such knowledge, er, "proof" if one is ever found. It'd be interesting to know where they stand on such issues. Do they support a kill policy? Work towards protection of habitats? That's a good question for all concerened, skeptic or not.

Thanks to Lisa Shiel of Bigfoot Quest and Nick Redfern, There’s Something in the Woods. Lisa has a poll right now about science searching for Bigfoot.

Longest Running Thread? Bigfoot Debate on JREF

I long ago quit "debating" with pathological skeptics and the like, but I do lurk. The thread on Bigfoot over at JREF (James Randi's message board) -- Patterson-Gimlin footage in particular -- is still going! I wonder what the record is for longest thread arguing about something no one agrees on? Whatever is the point dahlings?

A Jeer for Sasquatch Believers

In Jeers: Why do the Sasquatch believers keep on keeping on?

Last week, according to The Associated Press, about 45 members of the Bigfoot Field Research Organization spent two days in the Uintah Mountains of Utah searching for the legendary apelike critter, emphasis on "legendary."

They used sophisticated equipment such as parabolic microphones and night-vision goggles.

Here's a shocker: A Forest Service District Ranger there said he was not aware of any sighting and that campers should be more worried about bears. Nevertheless, there are apparent true believers, including Scott Taylor of Tacoma, who said he saw Bigfoot in 2005 while deer hunting on the Washington coast.

Funny, that despite the occasional "sightings" and despite all the digital and cell-phone cameras everyone seems to carry these days, no one ever gets a bona fide picture or video of Sasquatch.

First saw the link for this item in the Clark County, Washington’s The Columbian by way of Cryptomundo.

As with UFO investigations, you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t, when it comes to skeptwoos. If BF researchers didn’t use equipment of any kind, they’d be chided for not being “scientific,” or serious, etc. When they do use equipment, they’re mocked. (well, either way, they’re mocked.)

Just the usual knee jerk skeptoid stuff, but I always wonder at the mindset that won’t allow for a witnesses’s experience; in this case, Scott Taylor. Does the reporter think Taylor is lying? Mentally ill? Simply mistaken? It’d be refreshing to see someone take responsibility for what they say; in this case, the reporter’s glib dismissal of the experience is an example. Say why you think it’s worth mocking.

There’s also the flawed reasoning that, since a ranger hasn’t heard any reports of a BF, then there aren’t any BF.

By the way, the Uintah region is well known for its history of UFO sightings, as well as Bigfoot type or “shape shifting” type creatures. Read Hunt for the Skinwalker: Science: Confronts the Unexplained at a Remote Ranch in Utah,
by Colm A. Kelleher and George Knapp, and The Utah UFO Display, by F.B. Salisbury. I believe the latter is out of print but you can find it on amazon.com, ebay, etc. That’s where I found my used copy. There’s also interesting material on Utah’s UFO Ranch.

On Cryptomundo: To Kill or Not to Kill?

Cryptomundo blog once again brings up the question of kill or no kill.

Agreed that only a dead body will satisfy science. The issue is, for myself, is one whether "cares" if science gets it or not. For those who have seen Bigfoot, they have proof. For others, it will have to remain a mystery, a question, and that's all right. I haven't seen a Bigfoot myself, so I can't say for a fact it exists. I don't have proof. I am of the opinion it exists, based on the data. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. If I'm right -- that being determined by my either seeing a Bigfoot with my own eyes, or, sadly, a dead body - then I'm right. (there is a third option; that of a witness very close to me, who had a Bigfoot encounter. Do you believe that person or not?)

As always, this discussion is interesting.

One Long Thread

It goes without saying that skeptwoos don't "believe" in Bigfoot; that BF doesn't exist. Paranormal or flesh and blood. So why has there been an active thread since July, 2005, about BF on the JREF (James Randi) forum? It boggles the mind. I don't have the patience or desire to get involved, but if you're so inclined, you can join the fray here.