Rhettman Mullis Brags On C2C About Knowing The Results Of Bigfoot DNA Study


Last night's interview with Bigfootology's Rhettman Mullis didn't reveal much about the ongoing DNA study at the University of Oxford, but one interesting statement he made was that he is confident in some of the results. Mullis believes that the conclusion is going to be in the history books once it's out:

"I already know what one of the outcomes are and I'm not at liberty to discuss that. But it's a very exciting conclusion. And so, what we're hoping is, now that we have that answer, let's see what Dr. Sykes comes up with and let's see how they compare, because he's the one that's going to put this in the history books and put this in the biology books as fact," Mullis said last night on the Coast To Coast AM Radio show.

Mullis and his team claims they are the only people using a true scientific method to conduct Bigfoot research in North America. They're working closely with Bryan Sykes, former professor of Human Genetics at University of Oxford, who is also conducting DNA research on Bigfoot hair samples at Lausanne Museum of Zoology in Switzerland.

[via www.examiner.com]

Comments

  1. So, basically what this man is saying is: That him and a few other are the true guts and glory behind bigfoot research? Not the people that went out and gathered samples? Not the people that were brave enough to write a report and speak about their experiences publicly facing all of the ridicule and judgement?
    Just these people huh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Typical Bigfoot, fame and fortune. The truth is, Bigfoot is a human, that will be known for sure.

      Delete
    2. What you are reading above are not his words, but the words of a reporter describing his interview. So before you believe that he said actually said this, I suggest listening to the radio transcript itself.

      Journalism in this country is essentially dead. We now have "opinionators" that write without much thought on what they are writing. The Examiner is a blog; articles are not written by journalists who are trained to fact-find before publishing. The examiner is NOT a good source for facts.

      Delete
    3. I beg your pardon, Anonymous. I am a trained journalist and if I use quotation marks then you can bet your ass that's what was actually said.

      Of course, sweeping, uneducated generalizations are to be expected by someone who goes by the name, Anonymous, so I'm just going to consider the source

      Delete
    4. Donna, Will this report be out this year, or even sooner than that? They have DNA and hair samples from around the world, don't they? This is so amazing, and hopefully we will see exactly how the Sasquatch are all related.

      Delete
    5. What I meant by sooner than the end of the year is will they be releasing news really soon, like a month or 2 from now? What are the restrictions that Dr. Skyes is working under? Is he able to discuss his findings?

      Delete
    6. would it not be better to address these questions to Rhettman.

      Delete
    7. Anon 5:03, Are you addressing my question?

      Delete
    8. Hi Linda,

      So far, all I know is that Sykes plans to publish his findings in December of 2012 and he's put that in writing.

      I really have no idea what the process is for publication of this sort. However, Ketchum makes it seem like there are an awful lot of hoops you have to jump through.

      I would think that Sykes would know whether or not it's possible before he promises December, though. So basically... your guess is as good as mine at this point! LOL Sorry I can't be more helpful.

      Delete
    9. Well Donna, Anon 4:09 here and I (nor the post before) was referring to your quoted statements, but rather to this sentence in your article: 'Mullis and his team claims they are the only people using a true scientific method to conduct Bigfoot research in North America'

      Did he say that and if so, why no quotes? Since you did use quoted text in your article, unquoted text is usually writer interpretation. That's a bold proclamation - that his team is the ONLY ones using true scientific method - and if he really said that, then he is either uninformed or rude. But I was telling the prior poster to read the broadcast transcript because it is unclear from the article construct. Because you are a journalist doesn't mean you are above reproach.

      Delete
    10. Donna Anderson:
      Your bio on examiner just states that you are a freelance writer. If you are a trained journalist, why not share this in your bio? Do you expect your readers to do extensive web researches of your credentials? I assumed you were a blogger because that is the information you provide.

      I'm pretty certain had I posted my name your tone in response would have been greatly different. Posting anonymously is one way to assess the true nature of a professional - can they remain gracious and take the higher road even when they are uncertain with whom they are speaking?

      Thank you for your response; I will try not to classify your attitude toward readers, no matter what their name or position in life, as a sweeping uneducated generalization.

      Delete
    11. 'Sweeping, uneducated generalizations' as opposed to those pesky 'sweeping, educated generalizations'.....hate it when those happen.

      Delete
    12. Isn't it great how some still want to smear everything, who cares what Mullis meant about who searches and how many. We know many that do, the point he made I think is that science will take it from here just like Krantz suggested. But of course there'll still be use for local area knowledge and guides, etc. Bigfooting will still have a future, all genuine info is welcome.

      Delete
    13. He DID say that his group is the only scientifically-based bigfoot group. BFRO makes a similar claim.

      Delete
  2. I told you so, this guy is fake as hell.

    "Uhhh i know the secret about bigfoot... but I wont tell ya!"

    LOL what a douchebag

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what is your contribution? Are you hanging your ass out on the airwaves knowing that any lies will come back to knock you down?

      No.

      All you posters who constantly put down others who have the balls to use their real name to stand up and make statements - you all are douchebags.

      Yes, I know I'm Anon too, but I don't know this guy for squat so I'm not going to judge him based on some bloggers post.

      Delete
    2. You are anon too, dude? So before you judge other for not using there real name, start yourselves. looser.

      My contribution is nothing. I contribute with my opinion, that this guy is only in this for the fame and fortune he can get. Anyone can say that they know something, but they can't tell it.

      But to you my friend.. Look at the mirror, before you judge my pointless posts!

      Delete
  3. "Last's night interview" OR "last night's interview" LOL

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Mullis and his team claims they are the only people using a true scientific method to conduct Bigfoot research in North America."

    HAHAHA, bullshit!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They actually may be the only people using a true scientific method. There's all kinds of ways to screw up research.

      Delete
    2. Who cares how he put it geeks just relax will ya, you can still search can't ya. LOL

      Delete
  5. ketchum will be upset if this study comes out before hers, maybe this will move things along

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Ketchum's DNA study, which is **PEER** reviewed, will be out this year proving the reality of this species.

      Delete
    2. The 2 projects will support each other.

      Delete
    3. You say "peer reviewed" Does that mean a group of veterinarians?

      Delete
    4. In reply to anon @ 7:21 am PDT:
      Dr Ketchum's peer group includes other Ph.D's who specialize in animal husbandry and thus are experts in all things DNA,so these specialized Vets (such as Melba) are 100% included in this group of reviewers, plus heads of university departments of medicine and science are also in the group of peer reviewers. Melba's choice of "peers" is a well respected group of scientists and academia's well above reproach.

      Delete
    5. Exactly Linda. Once all studies are ready they should consult each other and compare results maybe even co-present.

      Delete
    6. Ketchum told Mullis her results. He knows, but promised not to tell. He has leaked a few things which have been rather interesting, such as Ketchum's belief that the Nephilim are in the mix.

      Delete
  6. Shawn, thanks for the link back and I love your blog. Sorry for slamming your reader up there but I can't stand pompous jerks who hide behind Anonymous.

    Anyway, I received that same Facebook message from Ketchum that you blogged about the other day. Very weird, too. I replied to her - on Facebook - and now I can't seem to find her again.

    Kudos to you. You do a great job of covering all the Bigfoot news here. Writing for Examiner I'm only allowed to cover what happens on Coast to Coast so I don't always hear "the rest of the story". But I know you'll keep me informed! :) Ciao!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very nice write up on examiner Donna. Love your style :)

      Delete
    2. Shawn, Where can I locate more news and info about this project? Dual DNA projects obtaining the same results will support the reality of this unique species.

      Delete
    3. Yikes, Donna, I should have asked you. Where can I read about the Skyes project, and when we may see it released?

      Delete
    4. Hi again, Linda :)

      Rhettman Mullis has some information on the homepage of his blog at bigfootology.com.

      "SAMPLE SUBMISSION PHASE May – September 2012
      DNA ANALYSIS PHASE September – November 2012
      PUBLICATION PHASE November – December 2012"

      Delete
  7. "Rhettman Mullis Brags On C2C About Knowing The Results Of Bigfoot DNA Study"

    Ok, but which one ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good question! The supposed certified, totally to be believed journalist here is hardy in a profession that is covering itself in glory at the moment, so maybe it is time to stay off the high horse. As far as someone knowing the results when the study is not even close to being finished is seemingly blowing so much hot air. I am inclined to dismiss this bravado as just so much disinformation and he can join the Lindsay camp for all I care in that regard. Ever heard the expression "doofus"? Come back when you have something to put in the ring that has some substance to it rather than sound off like a legend in your own mind. This article does no one any good. And just for you Donna, I am signing this as Anon rather than some made up name. If someone using "any name" rather than "anon" is the basis by which you judge whether to take an opinion seriously or not, then you have some weird standards. But then again you are a journalist, for better or worse.

      Delete
    2. Surely Mullis means the Ketchum study.

      Delete
    3. And there lies the problem, if the grapevine is to be believed there are other individuals that have submitted material to independent labs, Richard Stubstad is one that comes to mind, he has already published mitochondrial results and can be found here :

      http://www.sciencealivenews.com/

      He was supposed to be on the trail of nuclear although I have not noticed any news of that to date, so it does not necessarily have to be the Ketchum one, thats why I was seeking clarification but I guess the source of his knowledge is a secret as well.

      Delete
    4. The source is Ketchum herself. Stubstad worked with Ketchum earlier in the project.

      Delete
  8. I know something you don't know, and the color of it is...Bigfoot. Pay no attention to the fact that I'm obese and look disgusting. Just be aware that I know the results and I'm not going to tell you what they are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bigfooting is just like the movie 'groundhog day'. Same sh!t over and over and over.

      Delete
    2. Then maybe you two clowns should find another hobby. Hmmm ?

      Delete
    3. Maybe we are fascinated by delusional people like yourself and as it is with a bad accident, we can't look away.

      Delete
    4. I'm more fascinated by you closet bleevers pretending not to believe.

      Delete
    5. Hypocrites precisely. LOL

      Delete
  9. my cat's breath smells like cat food

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nicely written article.

    “I already know what one of the outcomes are and I'm not at liberty to discuss that. But it's a very exciting conclusion. And so, what we're hoping is, now that we have that answer, let's see what Dr. Sykes comes up with and let's see how they compare, because he's the one that's going to put this in the history books and put this in the biology books as fact.”

    I find this quote very interesting. He knows the results but can't discuss it. I get that. Answers and exciting conclusions. I get that as well.
    The rest of the quote can be open to interpretation depending on how one reads it.

    Besides, I've given up on The Ketchum Show. I'm looking forward to reading more about the Sykes study.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I've given up on Ketchum too. I'm ready for a new study with people that tease everyone for years. Is Mullis the new Randles.

      Delete
    2. From what I've read, the Sykes study has a timeline and it isn't years away. I also think Mr. Sykes has far more experience than Ketchum does.
      I'm trying to be optimistic with this one.

      Delete
    3. A decision based on what exactly. Both will use independent labs to do the DNA analysis. Both have undeclared objectives. Are they trying just for mtDNA or the whole genome? To write either off or accept either you need a bit more than a "I am tired of waiting" attitude to make a decision. As for experience, you have NO WAY to know who is involved in either study, based just on who heads the study. I have NEVER heard such bloody nonsensical statements in my life. What do you say if Ketchum's study turns out to have had her results thoroughly and carefully checked by the best in US institutions. I don't know and you don't know, so give us all a bit break and stop painting yourself into a corner. Then again, never let facts get in the way of a good story, hey! Problem is that we have few facts to base any opinion on, so we are back to a waiting game, and that is no competition between these two studies. They will be done when they are done. All we have seen is a wide range of self proclaimed experts and so called knowledgeable people offering up "real deal" information, 100% of which have proved to be groundless or simply wrong. I am not even sure why I am wasting my time addressing this matter but it is time for everyone to just back off and let all the scientists do what they are trying to do. Sure, you can have opinions, but please don't make a fool of yourself in the process.

      Delete
    4. Oh spare everyone the bullshit. Ketchum has been so overdramatic and sensationalistic during this process that she deserves every bit of the stuff dished out to her. Not only has she done those things but she has made some courageous claims in the process: habituating a family of 5 Sasquatch; a Squatch braids her horses hair; passing off a stick structure as UNDENIABLE evidence that Bigfoot made it even though she didn't witness it; she's routinely been preaching protection YET she refuses to get the proof of all her claims which could prove they exist and thus get them the protection she's so adamant about. It just doesn't make sense. Not only does she have all that baggage above but her DNA business is graded as a big fat "F" rating by the Better Business Bureau. Therefore, spare us the bullshit defense of Ketchums study being "all that". People have every right to think her work will be crap (based off the BBB alone) and that the Oxford study will be the saving grace.

      Delete
    5. ^^^^^^^Stupid autocorrect. courageous (lol) was supposed to be outrageous.

      Delete
    6. Anon @ 5:05- You sure took liberties in interpreting what I said. Take your anger out on someone else.
      Mr. Sykes is easily more qualified than Ketchum is and that's a fact.
      And yes, I am entitled to my opinions, just as you are.

      Delete
    7. You guys will be very surprised by the Ketchum study once it's out, I wouldn't be so cocky right now it'll come back like a boomerang to haunt you.

      Delete
    8. SasquaiNation - can you name any of the istitutions that are/were involved in the Ketchum study. Can you name those involved in the Sykes study. Like all of us outside the loop I would suggest the answer is a resounding NO. It makes little difference who heads up a study, so how can anyone judge the relative qualifications of those involved in the important DNA analysis. To make a decision, based on an information blackhole, is, with considerable respect, not very clever. All I am suggesting is that taking a premature position before all the facts are on the table is likely to attract considerable egg on your face when the studies are out. I am not angry at you but I do strongly question why people make it hard for themselves when they do not have all the facts. Why not wait to see what both studies reveal before forming an opinion about both. I expect and hope that they will compliment and support each other and that will be terrific. The big issue is that no one on the outside has a bloody clue what is in the papers.

      Delete
    9. Once again, you read all of that in to what I wrote.

      I said Bryan Sykes has far more experience than Melba Ketchum, and that is correct.

      Bryan Sykes: MA PhD DSc
      Melba Ketchum: VMD

      Both run DNA labs.

      Sykes has a timeline
      Ketchum does not

      Sykes has written books on genetics
      Ketchum has not.


      I never ever stated that I knew which institutions were doing work for either one of them.
      You have put words in my mouth that I didn't say.
      As you say, we'll have to wait and see who comes out with what, and in which journals these studies will be published in.

      I stand by my opinion and I don't state it as fact. It's my opinion, just as your opinion is your own.
      If I'm wrong you won't need to hunt me down. I'll be one of the first apologize.

      Delete
    10. Experience doesn't mean squat in this squatch search.

      Delete
  11. Now Mr. Rhettman Mullis statement was untrue. There are plenty of scientists in the field of Sasquatch research and many of them have several degrees and some with their Doctorates. I will have to have a talk with Dr. Sykes about this matter and see what he would like to do, so we are not part of arguments

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Before you "have a talk with Dr.Sykes" go ahead and take your medication,K?

      Delete
    2. 2 squatch's walk into a changing room after working out, one Squatch says holy shit man you are getting a big belly,when is the last time you could look down and see your Pecker?the other Squatch says I dont know but its been a while. So the first Squatch says why dont you diet? so the 2nd Squatch says why what color is it now?

      Delete
  12. Mullis is a douchebag. Look at that fat-body pretending he's smart. He couldn't get laid in a whore house with a $100.00 bill stuck to his forehead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I bet the 8th grade was the best 10 years of your life.

      Delete
    2. Anon 6:48,

      You sucking Mullis off doesn't count.

      Delete
    3. Agreed he is a douche! Fake

      Delete
    4. Agreed you're all jealous trolls who know he's right, isn't it sad how it's all over for your old world views soon. Start dealing with that crow diner reservation seat now.

      Delete
  13. Patty was a BIG Squatch!!! How...big...was she? She was so BIG,for a tampon she had to use a role of Bounty and a rope.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Patty was a BIG Squatch!!! how....big... was she? She was so BIG we took her to a five star restaurant,the waiter says would you like to see a menu? we said no a f@$#in estimate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Duh....how many bigfoots does it take to change a light bulb?????? a role of Bounty? really?

      Delete
  15. Rectum Mullets is completely full of shit, and everyone who has dealt with him personally knows that.

    Don't believe the hype.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Eustace Mullins info. would be a better 30 mins.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haeAuRFqwcY&feature=related

    Afterwards, look to your right at the other ones.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi theгe, I log on to your blog геgularly.
    Үоuг writing ѕtyle is witty, keeρ doing what
    you're doing!
    Also visit my web site - how to stop snoring

    ReplyDelete
  18. A fascinating ԁiѕcussion is worth comment.

    I do thinκ that you neеd to ρublіѕh mοгe оn this ѕubjеct matter, it mіght nοt be a taboo mаttеr
    but tyρically fоlks dоn't talk about these subjects. To the next! Best wishes!!
    my web site > 1 month loan

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm really impressed with your writing skills as well as with the layout on your weblog. Is this a paid theme or did you modify it yourself? Either way keep up the excellent quality writing, it's гаre to see a nicе blog like thіѕ one nowaԁays.


    Also viѕit my ρage :: payday loans

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wow! At lаѕt I gοt a ωeb sitе from ωhere I
    knoω hoω to trulу get helpful dаta cοncerning my
    study and knоwleԁge.

    my blog :: instant cash loans

    ReplyDelete
  21. We're a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your website provided us with helpful info to work on. You have done an impressive activity and our entire group will be thankful to you.

    My web blog ... same day loans

    ReplyDelete
  22. Heya i'm for the primary time here. I found this board and I in finding It truly useful & it helped me out a lot. I hope to present one thing back and help others like you helped me.

    Here is my blog; payday loan

    ReplyDelete
  23. Gгeetings! Very helpful advіce іn thiѕ partіcular article!
    It is thе little chаnges thаt will maκe thе most important changes.
    Thanks a lot foг sharing!

    My web-site payday loans

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thаnks foг ѕhаring your infо.
    І truly aρpreсіatе your
    effοгts and I will be ωaіting for yοur furthег
    poѕt thank you oncе аgaіn.


    Also ѵisit my page; payday loans uk

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ιf you wish for to obtain much from this parаgraph
    thеn you have to apply such techniques tο уour won blog.


    Feel fгеe to visіt mу web-site; Same Day Payday Loans

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ι am sure this рost haѕ touched all the internet
    pеople, its rеаlly геally fastidious post on builԁing up nеω wеbsite.


    Also visit mу web page ... New Bingo Sites

    ReplyDelete
  27. Νice respοnd in return of thіs question with rеal
    argumentѕ and describing all about that.

    Here iѕ my web ѕite New Bingo Sites

    ReplyDelete
  28. Eхcellent blog right here! Additіοnallу уоur wеb site rather a lot up very fast!
    Whаt web host are yοu using? Can I get youг affilіate
    link fоr уοur host? I deѕire my ωeb ѕite loaded up as fast as yours
    lol

    Fееl free to ѵisit my blog - payday loans

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story