Thom Powell Drinks the Ketchum Kool-Aid

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. Click the following link to buy either of his Bigfoot books.

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.

OK, so here it is in a nutshell: 109 samples were obtained from all over North America.
(Obviously, the sasquatch phenomenon is more widespread than most people realize.) Most samples were hair, but not all. Blood, saliva, and even a tissue sample was analyzed. Not all of the work was done by a single lab. Some of it was farmed out to university labs that were not initially given any background about the samples they were asked to examine.

The findings were remarkably consistent: mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA), which is indicative of the female component of the genome, came back as human! The nDNA (nuclear DNA from the male progenitor) was found to be ‘novel’, which is geneticist code for “doesn’t match anything previously extracted.”  Also, large sections of the DNA strands appeared as single strand molecules (haploid), as opposed to the uniformly double-stranded DNA of all human DNA that is not found in sex cells (gametes). This might indicate that the DNA being sequenced was highly degraded DNA, but degraded DNA is found to contain lots of bacteria, and no bacteria was found in conjunction with the DNA that showed single strand configuration.  It was not degraded, but it was single strand DNA in about half of the segments that were sequenced. Multiple labs observed this anomaly, an[d] dutifully reported it to Ketchum.

It is the last sentence that I find troublesome. Does it matter that Ketchum was dutiful?

In another paragraph from his post, Thom and I absolutely agree that Ketchum's study can be vindicated if she allowed other scientist to replicate her work.

I suggested to Dr. Ketchum that vindication of her work will only happen when it is replicated by another study, maybe even more than one. She wholeheartedly agreed. We are told that Dr. Bryan Sykes at Cambridge is already on it. Meanwhile, Ketchum has complete confidence that her methodology and her result will withstand the test of time and scientific scrutiny, if scientists will just look objectively at her work.

There are a few parts where the post seems like a Valentine to Ketchum, but I have been known to fawn over personalities myself; namely Cliff Barackman, Sharon Hill and Thom Powell himself. My biggest concern regarding Thom Powell's post is that people will miss his reference to Chapter 10: “No Stone Left Unturned.” of The Locals.

This is where Thom impresses (and inspires) me most, with his own studies and thoughts compiled from many sources.

There is one final doozy of a stone that is still unturned.  It’s sort of the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room that nobody wants to talk about...

I’m referring to the other half of the sasquatch genome that the Ketchum study identified; the part that isn’t human. The sasquatch genome, according to the Ketchum’s work, is human DNA that interspersed with DNA that is absolutely unknown.  It is neither ape, nor human, not lemur.  Ketchum has no idea what it is, nor does anyone else, but the ‘novel’, single strand, haploid DNA is there for anyone to find who knows how to sequence it. Is it some evolutionary offshoot of humanity that we have yet to identify in the fossil record?  Maybe. But the mysterious sequences are single strand, that is haploid DNA, and all terrestrial DNA in somatic cells (blood, hair, tissue, bone) is diploid unless it is in gametes (sex cells).

OK, so what is the origin of this truly novel DNA that Melba Ketchum found in the sasquatch genome? For one possible answer, check out The Locals, Chapter 10: “No Stone Left Unturned.”  What gave me a chill when I read the Ketchum study is the possibility that I may have written down an answer ten years before I even asked this question.

Read Thom's complete post regarding his thoughts on the Ketchum Study at ThomSquatch. While you are there buy his Bigfoot Books too.

Stay tuned. Tomorrow I will publish a thoughtful letter sent to us from a Ketchum advocate!

If its Monday, it's Thom Powell's ThomSquatch

Full disclosure; Its no secret we are big fans of Thom Powell, but that doesn't mean we can't share what we think makes his blog unique. He seems to have fallen into a regular post on Monday evenings and we thought you would want to know.

Since it's launch, Thom Powell's ThomSquatch.com has had the feeling that it is building up to something. We think it has a lot to do with the continuity from post to post. Unlike other Sasquatch blogs, Thom seems to be telling a continual tale. Similar to the classic Saturday serials, Thom leaves us on the edge of seats as to what he is going to reveal next.

You don't have to take our word for it. Thom seems to be consistently posting on Mondays now, so make sure you tune in each week for something new. Below is a montage of his post so far. Consider the blurbs below theReaders Digest version of ThomSquatch.

Bigfoot Research: Intel not Science (Sun, Dec 12, 2010)
If you consider yourself a "bigfoot researcher" and hold out hope that one day you will gather the evidence that proves the existence of bigfoot creatures, you may be searching the internet for information and advice that will help you succeed. The modern era of bigfoot research began in 1958 when Jerry Crew presented track casts to the Humboldt Times as evidence of mysterious bigfooted creatures. Science requires replication of any successful scientific result as a necessary aspect of a correctly applied scientific methodology. Bigfoot researchers, then, are like the CIA and the spooks at CIA are not utterly focused on unassailable proof when they evaluate the information they gather. Indirect and uncertain sources of information are still valued and exploited. Read the Rest >>

The Future of Bigfoot Research (Tues, Dec 21, 2010)
There are three basic approaches to gathering intelligence: electronic surveillance, inserting trained operatives (spies) into enemy camps, and gathering info from witnesses, captured agents and defectors.
Electronic surveillance is expensive and difficult to install but it produces the most empirical information. Information gathered by our own trained agents is more reliable than the information offered by captives, defectors, or civilian observers, but the latter is much more easily obtained. In my own pursuit of bigfoot research, I don’t do the electronic surveillance much anymore. If nothing else, bigfoot researchers are supporting the economy. Read the Rest >>

Spy vs. Spy (Wed, Dec 29, 2010)
As was suggested in a previous blog post, bigfoot researchers are basically spies. That includes the sasquatch. The biggest surprise of my entire experience in the strange world of bigfoot research was the realization that, while I was attempting to study 'them', they had been studying me...
...The timing was uncanny. Then someone handed me the book, The Mothman Prophecies, by John Keel. First key idea John Keel puts forward: In the study of paranormal matters, the phenomenon you are studying changes in response to your study of it. Read the Rest >>

The Whole Enchilada (Mon, Jan 10, 2011)
If one conducted an investigation of the sasquatch in a very active location, like Mount Ranier for example, that this guy or gal would gather a great deal of human experiences that would be useful toward understanding the phenomenon even though it would be utterly unprovable information. Sometimes, this leads to more unverifiable observations, but this time they are my observations, not somebody else's. I figure I'll concentrate on gathering proof later, and just concentrate gaining a little understanding first. At some point, one does get enough material that it becomes necessary to check with other serious field people to find out whether my observations, tentative conclusions, and suspicions match the stuff they've been getting. I did this by writing everything down in one book, 'The Locals', and got that published in 2003. Read the Rest >>

The Coconut Telegraph (Mon, Jan 24, 2011)
"Okay, Steve, you think you've logged on to some kind of coconut telegraph to the sasquatches. Fine. Here's what you're going to do. You're going to ask them to step in front of the cameras we have up at Allen and April's place up in Washington. Tell 'em we really need them to do that."
Steve thought for a moment. "It would help if I knew more about the area where the cameras are."
"No way, Steve," I insisted. I want to do this scientifically. That means 'double blind' as the researchers say. That means you can't know the location and you can't know the results of the experiment. That way, you cannot be suspected of faking the results. The residents can't know what you're doing either. . That way, they can't be accused of wishful thinking or outright faking, either." Read the Rest >>

Killing the Messenger (Mon, Jan 31, 2011)
I guess if I'm going to be a good little scientists, even in my pursuit of such non-scientific matters as bigfoot, I must go where the path leads me, even if I don't like what I'm finding out. When it comes to my mission of gathering better bigfoot evidence, the problem with John Keel's path is that he leads me right into a friggin' brick wall.
Since I don't like the John Keel's message maybe I'll just tell myself that John Keel wasn't such an authority on bigfoot after all.
If I don't like the message, can't I just kill the messenger, instead? I guess not. He died two years ago. Rest in peace, John Keel. Read the Rest >>

You can count on Thom having a lot more to say. You can visit his weekly posts at thomsquatch.com.

You can also subscribe to his Facebook page Below


Thom's Twitter Account @thomsquatch

EXTERNAL LINKS
ThomSquatch the Blog
Thom's Facebook Page
Thom's Twitter Account

You May Also Like
Powell's 7 Tentative Conclusions
Cliff Barackman's Post on Powell: Trying Something New

Thom Powell: Sasquatch more like Guerrillas, not Gorillas

Thom Powell, author of the successful book, "The Locals," has already begun his social media presence with a quite a lot to say.

His second blog post at ThomSquatch.com Titled, "Bigfoot Research: Intel not Science" goes a long way in shifting paradigms. Below is a very short excerpt.

The key shift involves the recognition that we are essentially spies and these things we are spying on are not dumb apes or wild animals. If they were, we'd have them by now. Overlooking the taxonomic argument that we ourselves are animals and apes, I'm saying the sasquatch have a very misleading appearance. Regardless of their primitive appearance, they are essentially the nocturnal equivalence of us. They are very intelligent and they are also adamantly opposed to being 'discovered.'

Said another way, we should regard them as guerrillas, not gorillas. They're like the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Viet Cong in Viet Nam, or the French Resistance during World War II. They hide from you as you look for them. They have their sentinels, their disguises, their ruses, and their hideouts. Whenever you get too close, they 'roll up the sidewalks' and retreat to those hideouts where you will not find them.

Bigfoot researchers, then, are like the CIA and the spooks at CIA are not utterly focused on unassailable proof when they evaluate the information they gather. I suspect they take spurious and incomplete data sources because sometimes that's all they can get, and they use them to look for recurring observations that suggest suspected patterns of behavior that might have predictive value. Everything they gather is a bit uncertain but this does not justify throwing that data away. It is understood that the quarry is smart enough to cover their tracks. Indirect and uncertain sources of information are still valued and exploited.

You can count on Thom having a lot more to say. You can visit his weekly posts at thomsquatch.com.

You can also subscribe to his Facebook page Below


Thom's Twitter Account @thomsquatch

EXTERNAL LINKS
ThomSquatch the Blog
Thom's Facebook Page
Thom's Twitter Account

You May Also Like
Powell's 7 Tentative Conclusions
Cliff Barackman's Post on Powell: Trying Something New