The Rush to Judgment

Well I’ve let the Ketchum Study press release go for a couple of days to sit back and watch the Bigfoot research community, knock it back and forth.

From outright denial to acceptance.

Here’s my take,

We only have what the statement says. And while it is tantalizing to draw quick to the world of skeptics and say, “See!” I’d advise a word of caution.

What we have is a statement. We have yet to see the scientific results.

A press release, news release, media release, press statement or video release is a written or recorded communication directed at members of the news media for the purpose of announcing something ostensibly newsworthy. – Wikipedia Definition.

Now what are we missing?

Well we are missing the Procedure and method, the data, observations. All we have is the conclusion.

We are also missing the peer review.

“Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper’s suitability for publication.” – Wikipedia Definition

As much as I like to use the argument that science has long since believed many falsities such as the world being the center of the universe, or being flat, as to the blind eye science has given to the Sasquatch, we must use the same air of caution here, although encouraging.

Because much of the community believes in the existence of Sasquatch, does not mean we should let our belief so blindly guide us to accepting without seeing the “fine print.”

Encouraging, yes but let us not behave with the same arrogance and vitriol that science has shown us for years, let science take its course.

The one thing to be cautious of is engaging those in the skeptic community who are of course, and partly so, writing about the unprofessional manner in which this information was released.

This is due to the highly unusual manner in which the information came out. In reality press releases made about scientific discoveries are made after peer review, often in conjunction with publication.

To argue with them is moot, because we are missing elements ourselves from the study to have the foothold for the high ground in the argument.

People must understand, that Dr. Ketchum’s statement, stated the study was conducted by a team of experts in genetics, forensics, imaging and pathology.

Privately she has told folks she has worked with three different labs to reach the conclusions.

All of this is probably true, however, if she’s not willing to name names, at this juncture, I’m not buying into until the entire project is published or the information of the complete study comes forth.

But the lack of disclosure can be viewed as red flags, and they are to the skeptics and some of the main stream press, whom we often know often only get half of the story straight.

However when Skeptical Enquirer, Benjamin Radford speaks I tend to listen, as he has shown to be open to the possibility, just not convinced with the evidence submitted thus far,

“So where’s the evidence? Well, there is none. Not yet, anyway: Ketchum’s research has not appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and there’s no indication when that might happen. If the data are good and the science is sound, any reputable science journal would jump at the chance to be the first to publish this groundbreaking information. Until then, Ketchum has refused to let anyone else see her evidence….

…Because Ketchum has released no information at all about her findings (nor have they been examined by outside experts), it’s impossible to evaluate the validity of her conclusions. But an important clue can be found in her statement that "Sasquatch mtDNA is identical to modern Homo sapiens…’

There is, however, another, simpler interpretation of such results: The samples were contaminated. Whatever the sample originally was — Bigfoot, bear, human or something else — it’s possible that the people who collected and handled the specimens accidentally introduced their DNA into the sample, which can easily occur with something as innocent as a spit, sneeze or cough. No one outside of Ketchum’s team knows how this alleged Bigfoot DNA was collected, from where or by whom. It could have been collected by the world’s top forensics experts, or by a pair of amateur Bigfoot buffs with no evidence-gathering training.

How did the team definitively determine that the samples were from a Bigfoot? Did they take a blood or saliva sample from a living Bigfoot ? If so, how did they get that close, and why didn’t they simply capture it or photograph it? If the samples were found in the wild, how do they know it wasn’t left by another animal — or possibly even a hunter, hiker or camper who left human genetic material?

Previous alleged Bigfoot samples subjected to DNA analysis have been deemed "unknown" or "unidentified." However, "unknown" or "unidentified" results do not mean "Bigfoot." There are many reasons why a DNA sample might come back unknown, including that it was contaminated or too degraded by environmental conditions. Or it could simply mean that the animal it came from was not among the reference samples that the laboratory used for comparison. There is no reference sample of Bigfoot DNA to compare it with, so by definition, there cannot be a conclusive match.”

                                                                  -Benjamin Radford via MSNBC

As you can see, the acceptance in the scientific community of this study is going to be a long hard journey which may not be won, unless some of these points Radford brings up are satisfied.

I am encouraged, I am hopeful, but there’s a long bumpy road that may lead people whom buy into it 100%, at least for now, to self destruction, depression and whole lot of ridicule.

It is my greatest hope that the study will proceed successfully yet I see many obstacles. This is a process that may take many more months and years.

The one bolster to it could be the Sykes Study.

Keep the faith my friends, and keep on keeping on!!!

AND REMEMBER NEVER STOP ASKING QUESTIONS!

Till Next Time,

Squatch-D

A little confusion in the community

I’ve been reading blogs and posts the last few days concerning the NY DEC statements.

For some reason many think that since the DEC Biologist said Sasquatch does not exist, it has become open season on the Sasquatch. That NYS has condoned the killing and hunting of Sasquatch.

Absolutely false and to the contrary.

THIS IS WHAT DEC STATED IN THE OFFICIAL CLARIFICATION:

 

…the DEC does not recognize the occurrence of Big Foot in the state, therefore it is not addressed directly in our hunting regulations. Because it is not addressed there is no open season on Big Foot and they may not be taken. We are confident that the current laws and regulations afford adequate protect for Big Foot if one were to be found in NY.

    Under the current laws and regulations you and others are free to pursue Big Foot for the purpose of documenting their existence provided none are harmed and you abide by the laws and regulations pertaining to trespass on private property and use of public lands.

Mark Kandel (August 13th, 2012)

Regional Wildlife Manager

NYSDEC – Region 9

That being said, it is clear from the DEC’s standpoint that if an animal or creature is yet to be discovered, in New York State, it IS, protected.

What Batcheller said was in regards to his opinion on the Sasquatch, and that in his opinion it does not warrant study by the DEC. Batcheller stated nothing about the laws and regulations, and truthfully, he is a Biologist, not the DEC’s arm of the law enforcement division which Mark Kandel is the authority in Region 9.

I hope everyone had a bountiful and blessed Thanksgiving yesterday, and my wish to you is for many more!

Till Next Time,

Squatch-D

Open Letter to the N.Y.D.E.C

As a resident of New York State I am outraged at the close-mindedness of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s Chief Biologist, Gordon Batcheller.

In a statement to New York businessman Peter Weimer, Dr. Batcheller insulted the hundreds, perhaps higher, New York State residents by stating the following,

 “This mythical animal does not exist in nature or otherwise. I understand, however, that some well organized hoaxes or pranks have occurred, leading some people to believe that such an animal does live.

   However, the simple truth of the matter is that there is no such animal anywhere in the World.

   I am sorry to disappoint you.  However, no program or action in relation to mythical animals is warranted.”

Gordon R. Batcheller

Chief Wildlife Biologist, NYS DEC

I would like to know, what evidence Dr. Batcheller has to support this to summarily dismiss this, when there are other qualified biologists that speak to the contrary?

Is this another NYS DEC whitewash, to deny without investigation. The manner in which Dr. Batcheller has displayed his disdain was insulting to the people of this state and lack of scientific evidence or examples of his claims were even more disrespectful.

Well organized hoaxes or pranks? Can Dr. Batcheller provide some examples of such in New York State that could be attributable for the hundreds of sightings over the last 200 years?

(Yes let’s include the Roger’s Rangers incident of 1754, as Vermont was officially part of New York State at that time.)

Or is this a closed minded opinion not steeped in science but rather opinion which is weighted because he sat in a class, rather than doing an actual investigation of a legitimate sighting report?

We have no doubt, that there have been pranks and hoaxes, ( I’ve exposed some myself) and misidentifications in New York, but that cannot represent the entire witness census. It is the ones that cannot so easily be explained that warrant investigation.

But it is hard to dispute this statement from the Glens Falls Post Star dated August 30th, 1976;

“Whitehall Police, New York State Police and a Washington County Deputy all responded to the scene (in regards to an incident where three men had seen the creature) and searched the area, but were only able to spot the creature from a distance.”

But if the State’s environmental agency does not wish to perform what they were mandated to do, should we be so surprised in a State that has long been mired with a slow-to-react or not-to-react mentality that Governor Cuomo is trying hard to turn around, should give us a smarmy answer such as this?

I can assure you Dr. Batcheller, the evidence I and my team have collected, nor the sightings, three of which were in New York State, was neither the result of a hoax nor the result of someone playing a prank or misidentification for that matter.

My suggestion is take five days next year out of your busy schedule and accompany me and my team into the field on five separate occasions. Take an additional two days to sit with witnesses that have observed the creature, then tell me you, with a clear conscience and being obliged to science that the creature is just a myth or what Dr. Jane Goodall says is a possibility.

Sincerely,

Steve Kulls

Founder/Director, Squatchdetective.com

Host, Squatchdetective Radio

Author, “What Would Sasquatch Do? Using Primate Behavior to Validate the Bigfoot Mystery”

Stand by for today’s breaking news…

Well it looks like “Tricky Ricky” has sent The Bigfoot Evidence Blog a Cease and Desist letter.  Since it names me specifically, I’d figure I’d better weigh in.

Of course I’m going to weigh in BIG TIME here…so buckle up!

We are still awaiting confirmation from Shawn over at the blog to verify how this cease and desist letter came into his possession, although unconfirmed, we are suspecting email.

 

 

We’ve reviewed the “Cease & Desist” Letter and we’ve come up with some legal and circumstantial evidence that indicates that the “letter” is actually a fraud. (Coming from Rick… who would have thought.)

First it was sent (we’re assuming) by email.

Is Sending An Email A Legal Way To Send A Cease and Desist Letter?

Yes, however, if the matter is serious and you really will take further legal action if your cease and desist order is ignored, do not send an email.

A letter sent via certified, return-receipt will carry more weight in a court than a letter sent without a signature requirement. Emails can be doctored, backdated, and altered.

It can be difficult for a judge to decide which email version is for real: yours or the one the defendant says is different (and may have doctored.)

Source: http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/copyrightlaws/a/Can-Send-Email-Cease-Desist-Order-Letter.htm

Second, the cease and desist letter claims there are 3 elements to defamation.

CEASE AND DESIST ALL DEFAMATION OF
Rick Dyer CHARACTER AND REPUTATION.
Rick Dyer has learned that you have engaged in spreading false, destructive, and defamatory rumors about him and or his organization.
Under California Law , it is unlawful to engage in defamation of another’s character and reputation. Defamation consists of
(1) a statement that tends to injure reputation;
(2) communicated to another; and
(3) that the speaker knew or should have known was false.

Source: http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/11/cease-and-desist-all-defamation-of-rick.html

 

Defamation law in California is defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 45a, hmm, is it a coincidence that a letter from an alleged attorney would neglect to actually mention the section of law they were claiming?

Further, what the letter lacks is any definitive examples of such a defamation. The letter claims defamation but lacks the element of definition and very poorly tries to argue Fair Use, stating the “ Tent Video,” has been used improperly.

So what kind of Cease and Desist Letter is this, Fair Use or Defamation?

 

In fact there are five elements of defamation in California.

California Elements of Defamation

Defamation, which consists of both libel and slander, is defined by case law and statute in California. See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 44, 45a, and 46.

The elements of a defamation claim are:

1. publication of a statement of fact
2. that is false,
3. unprivileged,
4. has a natural tendency to injure or which causes "special damage," and
5. the defendant‘s fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence.

Source: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/california-defamation-law

But you see..Ricky has to get up earlier in the morning to fool us here…

In MINNESOTA, there are 3 elements of Defamation.

And how do we know that?

This morning, after a little mousing around, I found the template, (including a gender change cited in BFE Blog here) Ricky used.

Here’s the downloadable template (for Minnesota) found on the web:

CEASE AND DESIST
[DATE]
By Certified Mail
Ms. Jane Doe
[STREET ADDRESS]
[CITY], [STATE] [ZIP]

Dear Ms. Doe:
This law firm represents [CLIENT NAME]. If you are represented by legal counsel, please direct
this letter to your attorney immediately and have your attorney notify us of such representation.
You are hereby directed to

CEASE AND DESIST ALL DEFAMATION OF
[CLIENT NAME]’S CHARACTER AND REPUTATION.

[CLIENT NAME] is an educated, respected professional in the community. She has spent years
serving the community in her profession and building a positive reputation. [CLIENT NAME] has
learned that you have engaged in spreading false, destructive, and defamatory rumors about her.

Under Minnesota law, it is unlawful to engage in defamation of another’s character and
reputation. Defamation consists of
(1) a statement that tends to injure reputation;
(2) communicated to another; and
(3) that the speaker knew or should have known was false.

Your defamatory statements involved [CIRCUMSTANCES AND/OR DESCRIPTION OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS].
Accordingly, we demand that you (A) immediately cease and desist your unlawful defamation of
[CLIENT NAME] and (B) provide us with prompt written assurance within ten (10) days that you will cease and desist from further defamation of [CLIENT NAME]’s character and reputation.

If you do not comply with this cease and desist demand within this time period, [CLIENT NAME] is entitled to seek monetary damages and equitable relief for your defamation.

In the event you fail to meet this demand, please be advised that [CLIENT NAME] has asked us to communicate to you that she will pursue all available legal remedies, including seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, and an order that you pay court costs and attorney’s fees. Your liability and exposure under such legal action could be considerable.

Before taking these steps, however, my client wished to give you one opportunity to discontinue your illegal conduct by complying with this demand within ten (10) days. Accordingly, please sign and return the attached Defamation Settlement Agreement within ten (10) days to

[FIRM NAME][FIRM ADDRESS]
[FIRM CITY, STATE, ZIP]

I recommend that you consult with an attorney regarding this matter. If you or your attorney have any questions, please contact me directly.

Sincerely,
[NAME]

Source: http://www.aaronhall.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/DefamationCeaseandDesist-2.pdf

Now let’s look at Ricky’s Cease & Desist… with the gender change in yellow, and we’ve highlighted in blue the same verbiage used in the template. (You be the judge but it looks like the same cut and paste one we found!)

 

CEASE AND DESIST
11/19/2012
Bigfoot Evidence
Sacramento ,CA 94203

Dear To whom it may concern

You are here by directed to

CEASE AND DESIST ALL DEFAMATION OF
”Ricky”**CHARACTER AND REPUTATION.

“Ricky”**has learned that you have engaged in spreading false, destructive, and defamatory rumors about him and or his organization.

Under California Law , it is unlawful to engage in defamation of another’s character and reputation. Defamation consists of (1) a statement that tends to injure reputation; (2) communicated to another; and (3) that the speaker knew or should have known was false.

Your defamatory statements involved false statements, Spreading false Statements by you and or others ( Steve Kulls,TTBF, ECT.)

Accordingly, we demand that you (A) immediately cease and desist your unlawful defamation of “Ricky”**and (B) provide us with prompt written assurance within 24 Hrs that you will cease and desist from further defamation of “Ricky”**character and reputation.

If you do not comply with this cease and desist demand within this time period, “Ricky”**is entitled to seek monetary damages and equitable relief for your defamation($250,000). In the event you fail to meet this demand, please be advised that “Ricky”**has asked us to communicate to you that she will pursue all available legal remedies, including seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, and an order that you pay court costs and attorney’s fees. Your liability and exposure under such legal action could be considerable.

Before taking these steps, however, my client wished to give you one opportunity to discontinue and remove your illegal conduct by complying with this demand within 24 Hrs.

“Ricky’s Website”** 849 Mantis Way Suit #4
Las Vegas, NV 89110
702-460-4296

We are prepared to retain
Murphy, Campbell, Guthrie & Alliston
8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 230
Sacramento, CA 95826
(916) 400-2300

Murphy,Campbell, Guthrie & Alliston   
8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suit 230
Sacramento, CA 95826
916-400-2300

CEASE AND DESIST ALL USE OF THE CAMPER/TENT VIDEO
Also we have secured a copyright for (Ricky’s phony video) from the Liberty of Congress Copyright office on 11/14/2012. This video does not fall under Title 17 of the U.S. Code, (fair use act).

Murphy, Campbell, Guthrie & Alliston
8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 230
Sacramento, CA 95826
(916) 400-2300

Murphy, Campbell, Guthrie & Alliston
8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 230
Sacramento, CA 95826
(916) 400-2300

** Note…we have removed Ricky’s name and website from the article, because we do not want to give more infamy to Ricky’s already infamous reputation.

Source: http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/11/cease-and-desist-all-defamation-of-rick.html

Wow, it doesn’t bear a formal address to a person nor does it have a specific person it was written by… can we all together say, “Paralegal Faux Pas”

Speaking of Faux Pas…did anyone notice his address…

^{849 Mantis Way Suit #4}

Now if Ricky did this letter up implicating in several places, that it was written by the law firm, he may be in for a defamation suit of his own given the legal prowess exhibited.

Since Ricky lives in Nevada now he better watch what he posts too because in NEVADA, libelous claims can be considered CRIMINAL:

The legal definition of "libel" in Las Vegas, Nevada, is "a malicious defamation, expressed by printing, writing, signs, pictures or the like, tending to blacken the memory of the dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation, or to publish the natural defects of a living person or persons, or community of persons, or association of persons, and thereby to expose them to public hatred, contempt or ridicule." (NRS 200.510)

Libel can occur through any publishing medium such as newspapers, books, billboards, websites, social media such as Facebook or Twitter, and even emails. Also note that editors who knowingly publish libel face the same criminal liability as the writer(s) who fabricated the lies to begin with.

Alleged violations of Las Vegas libel law under NRS 200.510 are prosecuted as agross misdemeanor in Nevada. The punishment includes:

• up to 1 year in jail, and/or
• up to $2,000 in fines

Source: http://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/libel.html

In short, the Nevada crime of libel occurs when all of the following conditions are met:

• the defendant publishes untruths about someone else
• the defendant acted intentionally
• these untruths cast the person in a negative light

It appears Ricky’s copying and pasting skills are a bit amiss, when he copied and pasted the same address twice from the attorney’s website, when he probably meant to paste it like this:

 

Enough on Ricky’s lack of internet, copy and paste finesse.

If you parse the letter carefully, you see that it states, if it is NOT done he will retain the above attorney, however a web search reveals that the law office does not handle this type of dispute.  But in the “copyright” section they state, “we have secured.” See liars can never keep their story straight.

Funny, usually an attorney has to actually take a case before you can start throwing his name. I wonder how they felt if they received a phone call from interested parties, wondering if they are Ricky’s attorneys, and if they wrote the “Cease and Desist” letter. Could this result in Ricky getting a “Cease and Desist” of his own?

BTW… as to the copyright thing, he lost, even if he did copyright it. He posted it publicly under a false name, later admitting it was him, BEFORE APPLYING FOR THE COPYRIGHT. So he may have grounds if he really did copyright it, provided it was posted after the copyright date.

Let’s look at the “Fair Use Doctrine:”

17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Now we must ask the following questions:

• Has the film been legitimately copyrighted?
• If so, shouldn’t any cease & desist letter should contain the copyright number which can be verified?
• Was the use, used for criticism, comment and news reporting? (YES)
• Was the use used for education and research? (YES)
• Isn’t the video linked to someone else’s account (FB/FB)?
• Doesn’t it seem biased how he doesn’t demand the only positive review of the film by FB/FB to be removed?
• This letter, since it implies it is from an attorney at least in the copyright, considered to be harassment if it is proven to be false? (And all we need to do is make a phone call to check on the validity.)

Weak grounds Ricky…very weak.

Now back to the defamation….

Unfortunately, for Ricky, thanks to his stunt in 2008, he has become what California considers a “person of notoriety” or “public figure.” There’s enough evidence of that with pictures we have of his vehicles stating, “As Seen on TV,” amongst the other various networks he claimed to be on.

 

In New York it is very clear that Ricky is a Limited Purpose Public Figure:

Limited-Purpose Public Figures

The second category of public figures is called "limited-purpose" public figures. These are individuals who "have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974). They are the individuals who deliberately shape debate on particular public issues, especially those who use the media to influence that debate.

Source: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence#limitedPublicFigures

In New York it even goes on to say this about public figures, limited or otherwise:

New York courts rely heavily on the "vortex" notion of a limited-purpose public figure. See James v. Gannett Co., Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 415 (N.Y. 1976) ("The essential element underlying the category of public figures is that the publicized person has taken an affirmative step to attract public attention.").

Source:  http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/new-york-defamation-law

In a Limited-Purpose Public Figure, defamation would be limited to the following two grounds:

Actual Malice

In a legal sense, "actual malice" has nothing to do with ill will or disliking someone and wishing him harm. Rather, courts have defined "actual malice" in the defamation context as publishing a statement while either

• knowing that it is false; or
• acting with reckless disregard for the statement’s truth or falsity.

Source: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence

That’s why we cite sources for our conclusions here! Our question of why does he do this, is a valid question to be explored relevant to the controversies Ricky puts himself in.

This significantly decreases the likelihood of a successful defamation suit in the United States… you see… the backing of the definition comes from a U.S. Appellate Court.

Till Next Time…

Squatch-D

2012? (Satire)

Okay folks, as we end the year 2012 it is time for my usual year end wit to come about.

As we know thanks to the Mayan Calendar, we all know life is supposed end as we know it by 12/21/12.

Guess what…it is!!!  The Scholars misinterpreted what the prediction said. See the scholars once thought it meant the universe was going to end because of the reference to the original Mayan song, “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star.”

The prediction said the Twinkle would end by 12/21/12.

What they didn’t realize was that the Mayan letter “L” actually was an “I”. The song was actually supposed to be, “Twinkie, Twinkie, Little Star.”

The prediction would be the Twinkie would end by 12/21/12.

Mystery Solved!

By December 21st this year we will no longer have Twinkies, Ho-Ho’s, Ding Dongs or Donettes on the shelf.

For all you doomsday survivalist’s, the fine baking products with ten year shelf lives will no longer be in supply..so stock up while you still can!!!

 

But yet an even more insidious plot has been discovered.

Yes the culprits behind the demise of the failure of baking giant Hostess has been revealed…. The Keebler Elves strike again!

 

Ernie, the evil plotter of the Hostess downfall.

Those innocent looking, yet sinister Keebler elves who’ve spelled the demise of the Smurfs in the late 80’s. Even though by definition, the Smurfs were not elves, they posed an early threat to the Keebler Collective and thanks to there campaign of slander, all but eradicated the Smurfs presence from the air waves with the exception of some small syndicated television markets and a movie which bombed at the box office.

But much earlier came the reduction of Christmas Elves to only to non-baking positions, hence why they work for slave wages at the North Pole. Ever wonder why Santa wears red??? (Hint: Commissar Claus!)

 

                      

                          The Keebler Elves’ past victims.

Think about it people, it Chips Deluxe and Wheatables along with Fudge Stripes and Town House Crackers we are left with unless Lil Debbie can hold out…

 

Our last, best hope for cheap baked products!

Till Next Time…

Squatch-D