Thom Powell Drinks the Ketchum Kool-Aid
Posted by: Guy Edwards on March 27th, 2013
Thom offers up a tasting of the Ketchum Kool-Aid
“If that makes me a “Ketchum supporter” then, yes, I guess I drank the Kool-Aid. All I can say is, it was delicious.”— Thom Powell
There is no doubt that Bigfoot Lunch Club is a friend of Bigfoot author, Thom Powell. Heck I even illustrated the cover of his best selling Bigfoot book Shady Neighbors. I am also a huge fan of his previous must-have book The Locals.
Due to Thom Powell’s books he is on record for reporting many of the Bigfoot phenomena before they became mainstream conversations–mainstream among bigfooters anyway. While not everybody “bought” into these topics we still discuss them; topics like infrasound, cover-ups, habituation and yes, even Bigfoot DNA. Thom Powell is no hack when it comes to the topic, he has given a lot of thought to it and clearly has made his own conclusions.
Thom and I talked about the topic of his recent post, “Bigfoot DNA Evidence Redux” a full week before he posted it. We didn’t agree much over the phone, but if I’m honest, his blog post affords him greater ability to make his points. Points of which I still disagree with, but I do have some favorite parts. I loved his synopsis. Find out what kind of Kool-Aid Thom is serving and where he and I disagree (and agree) at Bigfoot Lunch Club.
About Guy Edwards
Psychology reduces to biology, all biology to chemistry, chemistry to physics, and finally physics to mathematical logic.
Guy Edwards is host of the Portland, OR event HopsSquatch.com.
I agree. Besides, I would not be so bold as to discount Dr. Ketchum’s research so soon. There remains another shoe to yet hit the floor. If Dr. Sykes’ research returns a finding of a novel haploid DNA strand, along with human mDNA, well…..what would we say then? I know what I would say.
I prefer to reserve the drinks for toasting the proof.
No matter what comes back from a DNA test, bigfoot isn’t proven to me until you point to a big guy and say: this came from that one there.
DNA is a signature we accept as proof – of a species for which there is a type specimen. (Yes, in a murder trial should you ever be so fortunate, that type specimen is you.)
I would rather sip battery acid.
Regardless of any opinions, I love that photo! And if Thom approved the use of that photo, whether doctored or not, I have to applaud him. I can applaud anyone with a sense of humor, even if it is self-deprecating humor.
As with any good DNA drama… it all boils down to, “Who’s the daddy?”. Some very interesting implications there, creating possibly yet another hurdle to scientific acceptance.
Mainstream science has a tendency to discard the novel out of hand. Quite the common practice to simply throw out/ flat out ignore data that falls outside the parameters of all other accepted phenomena. (ie : We’ve never seen that before, so we’re going to ignore that until such time as the number of observed instances increases.)
“I also fully understood that the community of self-anointed ‘bigfoot researchers’ is highly competitive, even back-stabbing. Vocal individuals in that community could be counted on to attack and devour anyone’s claim to scientific progress since it is always seen as a threat to the stature of the other self-important personalities who feel that the media attention is rightfully theirs. Then the ‘group-think’ kicks in. An underappreciated person with a recognizable name becomes critical and launches a blistering attack. The unexamined tribalism of a larger group, who are all in constant contact via the internet and Facebook groups march in lockstep disdain, comfortable in the belief that their collective criticism of the new evidence or new thinking is protected by the umbrella of group consensus, which emboldens the group in the near term but eventually turns out to be based on somebody’s logical fallacy.”
Well, he certainly nailed that one.
alamo:
“Mainstream science has a tendency to discard the novel out of hand. Quite the common practice to simply throw out/ flat out ignore data that falls outside the parameters of all other accepted phenomena. (ie : We’ve never seen that before, so we’re going to ignore that until such time as the number of observed instances increases.)”
This is good, actually. To an extent.
I have my mind open on Nessie, Ogopogo, Champ, etc. If there is a scientist doing in-depth research on those topics, more power to him/her. (Note to grammarians: this is too a good place for “them.” Do you really like “him/her”? And yes, I could have started: “If there are scientists…” but…um, sorry…)
But I don’t think the evidence supports lake monsters being what they are cracked up to be. Which is why I’m not pushing the mainstream to get interested.
When I start large-scale Hair Removal With Fists is when scientists with relevant training assess the evidence; pronounce positively upon it; provide cogent arguments that should appeal directly to the scientific mind; make the arguments public…and the mainstream’s comments reveal no indication that they are even aware of them.
That’s what is going on with hairy hominoids.
chewbaccalacca: he certainly did, particularly
“…the belief that their collective criticism of the new evidence or new thinking is protected by the umbrella of group consensus, which emboldens the group in the near term but eventually turns out to be based on somebody’s logical fallacy.”
That is a perfect capsule description of the mainstream consensus to which bigfoot skeptics point as confirmation of their stance. It’s not a stance based on analysis. It’s a stance based on groupthink and risk avoidance. It’s the scientific equivalent of comfort food.
Granted DWA, it wouldn’t be the ring-the-bell level of proof we’d like to see. What peer reviewed and duplicated data miiiiight do though is kick this issue into the arena of legitimate scientific inquiry, where we agree it is long overdue to be placed. I’d settle for that. As I’ve said before, the day I can at least open a Nat Geo and find a serious article on the idea of Sasquatch is the day I will accept we are giving this the attention it deserves. If a DNA study grabs that attention, that is all I’d expect it to accomplish.
Ploughboy: indeed.
I’m looking for anything that piques the interest of people who can supply missing pieces of the puzzle. (Even “Finding Bigfoot.” Some kids who love that show will, count on it, become primatologists. OK, I’d like sasquatch to be confirned by then. But still.) Don’t know what Ketchumflap has accomplished. But Sykes has a more big-league resume, and may raise some relevant eyebrows.
I should look at Patty and go, there. That’s what a bigfoot looks like. Because the evidence says Patty’s the real thing. But the film has been poisoned for me, unfairly and irrationally but there it is, by the reception it got. Not only that, but Patty could be a member of only one of several non-human North American primate species. We won’t know until …well, until Nat Geo is publishing pictures that we know are sasquatch, beyond doubt.