BigfootWeekend September Expedition

Monday, February 18, 2013

Dr. Melba Ketchum Quotes a Real Ph.D. on Her Study


Here's one of the first Ph.D.s to step up to the plate and defend Dr. Melba Ketchum's recently published paper that's been rejected by mainstream science. Ketchum posted this statement on Facebook by Biochemist, David H. Swenson of Green Resources Redux, Inc. regarding her Bigfoot DNA paper:

Brien Foerster, Jeff Kart, and other interested parties. I went over the manuscript by Melba Ketchum on Bigfoot genomics. My desktop had difficulty with a blast analysis of the consensus sequences. It helped me understand more about the project. This collaborative venture has done a huge project that taxes me to fully grasp. I see interesting homology with a standard human sequence with 99% match for mitochondria. From my abbreviated study, the nuclear genome seems to have human and nonhuman sequences.

My opinion of the creature is that it is a hybrid of a human mother and an unknown hominid male, Just as reported. For all practical purposes, it should be treated as human and protected under law.

Brien, selection of Melba's lab for your studies is a very good call.

Sasquatch is real, as proven by genetic analysis.

This latest statement suggest that there may be something to Ketchum's study and she may have indeed discovered a new species of humans. Is Swenson's statement just the beginning? Will we see more brave scientists come forward to defend Ketchum? Only time will tell and it can only get better if the independent analysis validates her study.

196 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. 100% modern human DNA folks. YCMTSU.

      Delete
    2. I see a family of Bigfoot regularly so to prove it I'm gonna do a 5 year DNA study.

      Delete
    3. This just in: Humans are humans.

      Stay tuned, for further developments.

      Delete
    4. BREAKING NEWS: Humans discovered in north America.

      Delete
    5. Her samples will always be questionable in the works if science. It's far too easy to fake or alter them to get the results that you want. The problem is and always will be her samples unless she can provide concrete evidence that they did indeed come from an authentic Bigfoot and were not contaminated in anyway.

      Delete
    6. What she says she is looking for and what she is really looking for are two different things. If she wanted an independent analysis - meaning independent from her - she would upload her results to genbank for all to see. She doesn't want that. She is seeking experts that agree with her, that the DNA is bifoot DNA. She has been hunting in the forest to spot this elusive scientist for five years, and wants five more. They don't exist Melba, so pack it up.

      Delete
    7. ^^Why does she need to hunt for them in the forest? She has nine of them on her property.

      Delete
    8. Melba's monkeys are coming home to roost.

      Delete
    9. Yep of course the samples weren't contaminated! They were all collected by trained professionals with PHDs using bacon grease!

      Delete
    10. Why no good film? This would help. Its been since 1967 and not ONE good picture or film of these bigfoot creatures exist.

      I can't believe that not one stinking picture or film can't be taking of the mythical creatures.

      Since 1958 when bigfoot tracks were found on "go roads" where loggers were working there have been "trackers" looking for these creatures (some of these trackers can find anything if its alive and moving. To this date no tracker has found bigfoot.

      Why? You cannot track a creature that does not exist (I was told by a native american retired army green beret)it is a myth an ex-army tracker told me. He said, bigfoot legends go back to the 1800's with "verbal stories" passed on to off spring. He said, nothing more nothing less.

      There will never be a bigfoot found he said until you find the dragon he's riding.

      Delete
    11. ^^Until it's accepted that Bigfoots have paranormal abilities, people like you will never be able to come to terms with their existence...sad, but true.

      Delete
    12. Quoting Dr Pepper doesn't prove that bigfoot is real.

      Delete
    13. Oh there are plenty of pics and hd-vids....but no one can ever see them due to licensing issues, protection of the species, etc. so go ahead, film this elusive species but dont ever share your evidence to prove they exist!!!

      Footer logic ; )

      Delete
    14. I have close-up HD video of Bigfoot, but I won't release it. No one will believe it anyway, no matter how good it is.

      Delete
    15. Skeptard logic: the paper will never be released.

      It was.

      Skeptard logic: HD vid will never be released.

      It will be.

      Another Skeptard frustrated that the study was released as Ketchum stated it would be.

      You skeptards aren't looking especially credible about now, in light of, oh, you know, the release of the paper which you said for five years would never be released.

      Ooh, it hurts.

      Tard on.

      Delete
    16. All that this piece of crap wad proves is that you still ain't got shit troll.

      Delete
    17. Your REALLY dumb huh.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You can't fake DNA.

      She got something, over and over, from different labs.

      It is NOT contaminated, and it is not in the Genebank. Understand -- new Species.

      It's simple ----- You simpletons.

      BIGFOOT IIIISSSSSSSSS REAL!!!!!!

      Delete
    18. He's as real as you want to beleive he is. Just like kids with santa

      Delete
    19. The PGF is fake, DNA is fake, HD video is fake and bodies on the slab are fake. But I'm happy to change my mind the instant any credible evidence slaps me upside the head. Say like Bigfoot's dick for instance. But only if the lights are on and I can see the sweat on his balls.

      Delete
    20. How bout bigfoots' dick in your ass, would that do it for ya? You mean only is you can taste the sweat on his balls, homersexual. I think you are fake.

      Delete
  2. Dear god! This crap must be all true!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are people, just bigger, hairier and still they love their families. They are just trying to make a living like the rest of us. They are very aware that we have weapons and that we are a threat. The little ones however, can be curious which is difficult for the adults to keep them under control at times.

      Delete
    2. That's some good comedy there! Brightened up my day no end! Lol

      Delete
    3. Leaftalker from BFF at 4:40. Batshit crazy just doesn't do it justice.

      Delete
    4. I found two sticks laying in a T formation, so the next day I set out a complete tea set and blueberry scones for the darlings. My reward: a turd-sized lump of asphalt.

      Delete
    5. Bigfoots know that police carry guns. That's why they stay away from them.

      I've been tracking Sasquatches for 25 years.

      Delete
  3. Lets see its day four and she finally has a supporter other then ronbin lynn and a bunch of freaks.

    This is it! The hybrid lives!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the beginning, I had only five Bigfoots on my property. I now have nine and they are quite a handfull.

      If I have nine, you all must at least have a few, wandering around in your back yard.
      Accept them, embrace them and welcome them into your home. Give them some cookies.

      Vulva Scratchum

      Delete
    2. I embraced them, they gave me fleas :(

      Delete
  4. boiled, fried, BBQ, ROASTED, stir-fry. eat that crow trolls!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poached is best. Gets rid of a lot of the fowl taste.

      Delete
    2. So far she has proved that she can identify mtDNA from humans.....so yeah, all us skeptics are on the edge of our seats.

      If Disotell reviews her data and says "yeah, this seems reasonable", I will believe it. This is similar to the "team ow well know PHDs" she kept referring to, and its obvious several of them didnt even know they were her co-authors!!

      Nothing real or concrete yet beeelevers.....

      Delete
    3. Bigfoot is PEOPLE!


      Hairy people...


      BIG hairy people...


      With glowing headlight eyes...

      Delete
  5. I would imagine within a week we will have a lot more answers. More and more people are getting word of it and reading the report. It will be really interesting when the proof of peer review, rejection, and publishing etc gets out. If it gets out. Add in the second review and it means we might have a new species.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Big Jim, you will hear a lot about not being published in a recognized journal. Even Jeff M made this criticism. However, I think that was below the belt, as he established a journal quite recently himself (ostensibly because of difficulties publishing in more 'mainstream' publications).

      The theory that Melba is perpetrating some gargantuan hoax is laughable at best. Many of the co-authors have successful forensics / DNA businesses. They have put their necks on the line, especially as many make considerable money as 'expert witnesses'.

      The issue with GenBank is also a spurious one. Essentially, GenBank is filled to the brim with inadequacies, anomalies and DNA noise. Open source yes, but I have never seen the point and have only complied as it tends to be a requirement of many publications.

      The findings, from my reading, appear largely sound. As Melba has said, DNA does not lie. However interpretation is key and this occurs within probabilities (e.g. 95% confidence interval etc.). Every possibility can occur (even, although improbable, contamination). Replication is the key.

      Delete
    2. What is not spurious is the continued and totally incorrect handling of this affair by Melba.

      90% non homologous for human DNA. How do you reconcile that with a human hybrid? It would be our closest relative and in reality much closer to us in DNA than a Chimpanzee.

      How do you reconcile the centerpiece of the study being proven to be bear and human by other labs?

      What about this entire Ketchum affair seems to come off as legit and above board?

      1 The timing?
      2 The data?
      3 The scientific method?
      4 The Transparency?
      5 The sample submitters?
      6 The cost?
      7 The video footage?
      8 The website?
      9 The provenance of samples?
      10 The renown and credibility of her scientific associates?

      Stop enabling Melba Ketchum. Put your belief away and use your mind for something besides being a vessel.

      VVVV

      Delete
    3. Why has she addressed her supporters on a paranormal radio show (C2C)? Please comment on this, Melba supporters...

      Delete
    4. 3.05
      What you perceived as "incorrect handling" by Ketchum was in fact the result of "incorrect handling" by magazines and scientists, and even "bigfooters".
      It was NOT REALLY proven to be "bear and human" by other "labs" - inform yourself.
      1-10: answered or irrelevant or arrogant. The "cost"!?!?!

      3.07:
      Important question - but for editors of "reputable" science magazines, not for us here or M.K.

      Delete
    5. Do you see the position you speak from? You are speaking as if MK did something right at any stage in this. Everyone else screwed up but her. Mulder already has that job on lockdown so you might wanna watch your back =)

      She was financed. After years she releases non peer reviewed claims. We hear $500k being discussed when the actual testing on the number of purported samples should be less than $100k.

      "It was NOT REALLY proven to be "bear and human" by other "labs" - inform yourself."

      So Melba has a paper that is better scientifically on the analysis of Smeja's sample? Where does one go to "inform ones self"?

      Empty the kool aid from your vessel?

      VVVV

      Delete
    6. Ok let's see if I can remember these all. First we need to just accept what Dr Ketchum has said. Not the paper and the data, what has been said. That includes her paper was rejected by all journals except one. It was peer reviewed. One of the peer review journals leaked her paper and publicly trashed her. Peer reviews refused to even read it.

      So when she tried explaining the process takes time, she got trashed. When we finally get word it passed peer review, it stops. Turns out the legal team said don't publish. So she buys journal to keep peer review and puts it out there.

      Now the data is there. It is being looked at and other specialist are backing her claims. We are waiting for the first to show how she screwed up and it is not correct. So far we have only heard it seems wrong but no one has proven her wrong.

      That is what this boils down to. Let the data speak for itself. Who cares who paid for her to do the work? That is between them. If the data is correct is all that should matter. Everyone needs to focus on the data. Not what the wrapper looks like, if some rich guy paid for it, or any of the other lame excuses to ignore looking at the data.

      Now unless you have the degrees needed to read this paper and can put proof of that up for us, you should shut up. I make no claims on her data. That is what will say one way or another if bigfoot exists. If you can't take that data and prove it wrong, you are no different from the rest of us bumping our gums about stuff we can't support. It is time to put up or shut up on this paper.

      Delete
    7. Trent: vast majority of DNA unaccounted for; small "bear" percentage best explained as contamination; mDNA analysis only. Ketchum: BF is in the nDNA. To inform yourself, go back to the start of the paragraph.

      Your concern for the money of sponsors with "discussed" and "should be" is just touching.

      Delete
    8. So do not speak out unless I am qualified? How is Melba qualified to test and identify new species Big Jim?

      She has zero experience. A degree not relevant to her report "human DNA" and a business reputation that has been soiled not by her involvement with BF but by her lack of customer service and paying of taxes.

      What exactly about Melba Ketchum engenders this kind of faith that she is the doing her best against all odds? How is it most people see it as a scam to get money?

      How do you guys get past that fact that almost all samples are hair and come back as human? Where in the report are you seeing good provenance, nuclear DNA providing samples?

      Trents independent analysis on the Smeja sample is false? Misleading? Incomplete?
      Free for everyone to see? Nothing like the Ketchum Report?

      "Your concern for the money of sponsors with "discussed" and "should be" is just touching."

      You would like to sweep the logistics under the rug? You realize that sound zealous? This is not a matter of faith anymore. Time for logic and science to have their say.

      Come back in a month to gloat over the success of the Ketchum report making BF real too please. I am sure you can flay me with all the reviewed and confirmed goodness overlooked initially by "real" science.

      VVVV








      Delete
    9. Go back to the article and face it.

      Delete
    10. To "VVVV", virtually everything you've said above @5:44,is untrue, and spoken like a tabloid.
      **You say MK has zero experience, untrue and incredibly stupid to say.
      **You imply that Trent U's ONE sample results is more credible that the 110 of Ketchum's study, verified by many different labs (all of which have tons of experience in dna testing).
      **You say most people think Ketchum has run a scan....completely and totally untrue. She's lost money so far, and taken a big hit to her reputation because of people like you that haven't seen the data, and don't have the expertise to judge it if they did, of course that doesn't stop you and others like you from rendering their prejudiced opinions.

      The one correct thing you did say "time for logic and science to have their say". That will happen, no thanks to you.

      Delete
    11. ^^^
      "This collaborative venture has done a huge project that taxes me to fully grasp"

      Human hair = human hair
      Nuclear DNA has human sequences but we have no samples of submitter/handler DNA to compare against for contamination.

      Conclusion: Bigfoot is Human hybrid, yeah... facing that kind of science... I am out of my depth. It is clearly rock solid and the problem it faces are with us and not it.

      I will say here and now that end game for Melba was some kind of non profit organization that gets recognition and money to "protect" this new species. Clothing sales funding "research" and "protection" efforts as well as securing tenure for all upcoming BF conventions, conferences, TV shows and more...

      A reinforcing and virtually validating network has formed. Here is an example. Rick Dyer is a BF hoaxer. Chris Noel is the habituation guru. Noel validates Dyer. Noel is himself validated by a well known habituator who was validated by Ketchum and in return validates Ketchum.

      Face that and digest what it means.

      VVVV

      Delete
    12. For fuck's sake, the paper's not been rejected you morons, not on grounds of the data which is fine only fear or direct force drove them to not accept it for publication. But that's the flat earthers for you. What we need is good scientists to come forward and defend her now.

      Delete
    13. ^^Crickets is what you'll get.

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    15. Repeat:
      Oh, I finally got it what "VVVV" means.
      It's teeth.

      Delete
    16. The Melba Ketchum Foundation: To protect the forest people.


      https://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/understanding-and-supporting-sasquatch-protection/

      That is the ending she wants to see before "game over". I think anyone who followed this can see what she was after. She did aim for the stars to place her self up there.


      VVVV

      Delete
    17. No, it's Va Va Va Voom

      Or, Vicious Vietnamese Vaingloriously Vanishes

      Or, Vapid Vanuatuan Visibly Vacuous

      Or, Vanquished Venezuelan Vainly Vamooses

      Or, Vagrant Virginian Vacates Vocation

      I have many more.

      Delete
    18. It is a pictograph. Teeth, Trees, 4 V's, 2 W's

      Vereor Veritas Vel Vaco


      VVVV

      Delete
  6. Ha, so that's a scientific endorsement is it? Ketchum's struggling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess so. He actually posted this directly on her wall. She then copied it to repost. He has a good back ground in a lot of areas. There is a link under the coast to coast post I left with a link to his current project and Bio. Or just google him. I am sure some will try to call him whatever but he is respected by many.

      Delete
    2. I have no doubt on his credibility. Swenson admits he doesn't "fully grasp" the study - not exactly a comprehensive scientific endorsement. It seems slightly desperate to post it all on FB.

      Delete
    3. I see you are beginning to choke on your own sour grapes.

      Delete
    4. in a couple weeks he'll be doing more than just choking!

      Delete
    5. I seen nine big Boogers at my house.

      Delete
    6. Why would I have sour grapes? I want someone to prove Bigfoot exists. Ketchum won't, it's that simple.

      Delete
    7. Mark don't worry about those Americans they are too busy eating McDonalds.

      Delete
    8. And seeing ten foot tall monster mans.

      Delete
    9. That are real. Unlike that annoying piece of troll shit called Mark.

      Delete
    10. Most of the UK's women get mistaken for sasquatch.. Ugly, hairy, bad teeth, and a fowl smell of not washing thier downstairs mixup. Fact

      Delete
    11. So you've no answers for Mark's logic and all you can do is name call and he's the troll? Sad, very sad

      Delete
    12. Most of the UK's women get mistaken for sasquatch.. Ugly, hairy, bad teeth, and a fowl smell of not washing thier downstairs mixup. Fact

      Delete
    13. @ Jim, Swenson is an oncologist. He is not an evolutionary scientist, nor does it appear that he has any experience in that field - all of his work has been as a chemist, toxicologist, or oncologist. Moreover, he does not say whether he attempted to determine whether the non-human sequences were bear, possum, etc. or what programs and/or methods he used to evaluate the data.

      Delete
    14. I am sorry, I was not going to post on here anymore, but I have to because of post from the Brits above. Majority of the British people think all Americans are fat, lazy uneducated Neanderthal like humans. You Brits should be eternally grateful for what our Parents or Grandparents have done for you in the past. How many fat, lazy uneducated Americans died to come to your aid?!?! Show some respect, if it weren't for my Grandfather and many other people's Grandfather's or Father's on here you would be speaking German now.

      Big Jim and Jay, just wanted to say "Hello".

      Erik

      Delete
    15. Sorry we all forget how you single handedly won WW2

      Delete
    16. At least your pompous ass recognizes that.

      Delete
    17. It was sarcasm idiot, read some real history instead of what you've seen in the movies

      Delete
    18. I've done my fair share of research. (Yes, I am one of the few Americans that know how to read, lol). I kind of jumped the gun with my comment. You Brits or your forefathers suffered tremendously. I apologize for my comments above. Erik

      Delete
  7. Yep, seen one! been screamed at by one, and got a tree knock responce. Thier real. We been trying to tell you dumbasses!

    Where that Bigfoot is BS????????

    SNOWBALL, SNOWBALL?????? JUST SUBSTITUTE CROW IN YOUR TURTLE SOUP! I LIKE TURTLES!



    HA H AH AHA HA AH HA HAH AH AH AH AHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH AH AHAHH AH HA HA NH AH AH AHHAA HA AH AH A HA.

    I TOLD YOU SO! There, I feel better now! Sorry!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. You got a tree knock response. It had to be a bf.

      Delete
    2. Or maybe a deer or a fox?

      Delete
    3. Leon is a schizophrenic retard,(or a liar) nothing he says has any merit. so ignore him.


      this paper has been debunked by CWB on the JREF.You cult members might want to learn a bit about how DNA works by popping in the and asking calwaterbear to explain it to you.

      Delete
    4. Whaaaaaa, whaaaaaa, em, em em
      whaa, whaaa, whaaaaa ----Quit your sniviling.

      The ONLY thing you have seen me get wrong---------- the election. I wasn't wrong about the commy.

      As far as bigfoot, ---------------------------------------------------------------------I'm your daddy! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

      Delete
    5. Oh and my spelling, you have seen me SPEL lots of things wrong.

      Delete
    6. The Commy???? You mean who Obama?? Lol as if !

      Delete
    7. LeonWMonday wrote

      "Yep, seen one! been screamed at by one, and got a tree knock responce. Thier real."


      It's not "their", it's "they're". I'll overlook responce.

      Delete
  8. Melba sounded great on C2C. I am now convinced of her claims and that the paper is legit!

    ReplyDelete
  9. First of all, Ketchum and others in her team are ALSO REAL PhDs.

    The rest is just a logical chain of events, from rejection, via smearing, to vindication. It's actually going fast, if you think about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hopefully the remaining PhDs step up soon. Now that Swenson has spoken up in support, others may give their opinion/backing

      Delete
    2. But there's still only Melba's word on this rejection oh sorry she showed the clown presenting the lame AM radio show lol

      Delete
    3. ^^That was her press conference, dontcha know.

      Delete
    4. Actually, Melba doesn't have a Ph.D. She has a Dv.M. It's a big difference.

      Delete
  10. Hi everyone. I have been considering joining the BFF for about 3 months. Can I have some advice about this? It seems like the posters here VS the BFF forums posters.
    Shouldn't we all work together?
    The people on here seem more aggressive and insulting towards legit questions

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A very astute observation. I am a Sceptic myself, and while I do believe there is more to this than meets the eye, I require a body, Dead or Alive, that is the only acceptable proof.

      The other "Sceptics" on this site?, Well, you really have to question the emotional stability and intellect of those spending so much of their time on a site devoted to, in their opinion, a fictional creature.

      Which is the more deluded mind?, the one that believes in the eye witness testimony of 10's of thousands of others and comes here searching for some hard evidence, or the mind who doesn't believe yet comes here anyway?

      I think we can all answer that for ourselves.

      Delete
    2. A lot of us have been banned from the BFF. If you upset the wrong person they will report bully you into submission or banning.

      The BFF coddles the habituator and believer but not the field researcher. I tried to use the BFF to get my evidence noticed and tested.

      One of the big dogs of the BFF lives in my home town. She doesn't give evidence in her home forest the time of day. Wood apes in Oklahoma? She is all over that.

      Even when called on the carpet for ignoring evidence and witnesses from Central Californa... I still get silence and nothing more. This is someone who saw me on an almost daily basis for nearly 2 years...

      VVVV








      Delete
    3. The bff is a dangerous cult.

      Delete
    4. LOL, it wasn't long ago that people on the BFF were calling the BFRO a dangerous cult. Now here we are on BFE and getting the exact same response against the BFF. I just find it funny. ;)

      Delete
    5. @4:06.....humans are dangerous. Bigfoots are not. Remember Edison tried to portray Tesla's alternating current as dangerous, to be avoided at every opportunity. The "AC cult", was right on, and took over the world. Bigfoot are real, it's a no-brainer at this point. The people that know this, and those that believe it, are tenacious and relentless, because it's true. The bigfoot might be here to teach us a lesson, or they might just be the most perfectly adapted animal ever to take a breath on this planet.

      Delete
    6. Anon 6:34 where is any of the evidence to support your conclusions?

      Delete
    7. I think we need more cut and paste from the BFF habituation thread. Some severely damaged individuals posting there.

      Delete
    8. ^^Well have at it, nobody's stopping you.

      Delete
  11. Nice response in return of this question with firm
    arguments and telling all about that.

    Also visit my web site; what is root Canal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why nobody will talk to this guy?

      Delete
  12. The problem is the conclusion that this genotype is a hybrid between a human and some unknown hominid. That's just nonsense. What is know of human evolution says that, after separation from the great apes some 6.5 to 7 million years ago, bipeds radiated into a variety of species and subspecies over the ensuing 4 million years. It is out of that species radiation that Homo sapiens evolved. Therefore, the far more logical conclusion is that the evidence suggest there are still surviving members to that pre-human species radiation of bipeds, and that Sasquatch might be one of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Data don't need to be logical. They are what they are. It would have been easier to accept if Sasquatch was just one of the ancient bipedals, and I'm sure Ketchum would have been happier and in less trouble, but... It is what it is. For the pleasure of your logic, think about the father – probably Siberian yeti meeting native American women.

      Delete
    2. That could very well be it, yes. I think there are stories from Tibet about Yetis taking women there and there's the Zena story from Russia. The whole idea makes a lot of sense of course those willing to suppress the truth see it differently.

      Delete
    3. You simply need to have a very open mind and of course, be able to ignore facts.

      Delete
    4. Degnostik, if that is the case then why does Ketchum have DNA from other humans like Europeans, Africans etc. For your theory to be correct it would only show mDNA from Native Americans. Plus somewhere out there in America there must be a pure Squatch with only Bugfoot mDNA and nucleotide DNA as it would be stupid to think that only one Squatch came over and surely there must have been female Bigfoot's too? Where in this 111 samples or whatever are the pure Squatches? Also why is everyone just taking Ketchum's word that these journals blackballed her study? Where are the emails or rejection letters which have people's names on we can fact check with? Why would a journal like Nature who has published other works that challenge the accepted view of linear human evolution and have an editor who believes in Orang Pendek not be interested in Ketchum's study? Are we just supposed to believe it's because it's Bigfoot? Surely if she has the evidence and DNA doesn't lie they'd be interested?

      Delete
    5. Oh, it's you again, Anonymous.
      The word is "haplotype", and it's complicated.
      "Pure Squatch" is probably in Asia. Maybe it's extinct? Weird things happen in nature... http://www.pnas.org/content/107/25/11447

      He does not truly believe in Orang Pendek, he's just being "open minded" on a safer ground.

      Delete
    6. Well then surely he'd be open minded to Sasquatch no? And yes it is haplotype and complicated maybe you could take the time to explain it as you understand it? Yes weird things do happen in nature that is true but what would be really weird is only one Squatch coming over from Asia with out any female Squatches in tow not only that but this hybridisation event happening not just the once but obviously some 16 different times across all races? Plus why is it only Sasquatch mating with human women why no couplings between man and Sasquatch woman?

      Delete

    7. Lets face it sas females are probably ugly and even if a man wanted to rape a sas he would probably end up in pieces..lol

      Delete
    8. Well a horrific act like that wouldn't happen if Degnostik gets his way and the Sasquatch finally gets it's right to vote and pay taxes.

      Delete
    9. Although he denies it I still suspect that Degnostik is Mulder from the BFF - maybe not but if it walks like a duck and talks like a Mulder . . . I hope he realizes that anonymous is more than just one person debating him but think what he will. I do know that his statement that he has never been over to the BFF site is a bold-faced lie. He uses ever talking point that has been said over there.

      Data may not need to be logical but it does need to be ACCURATE to form a correct conclusion. There are questions of qualifications, interpretation, contamination and replication all dealing with her findings. Let the raw data be completely reviewed by geneticists who are COMPLETELY qualified to pass judgment. If they all give their approval I will happily come on board. Oh yeah - that's right they are all completely biased from the start. What a pathetic excuse! Well, that is what she will need before gaining acceptance - like it or not.

      Yeah - it's "complicated".

      Delete
    10. Yeah, in his defense he recognised me from debating with him on another thread as I keep asking the same tough questions about Ketchum that he can't answer or defend her on. He'll keep debating with me for a while then it'll get tough and he goes AWOL and will pop up on another thread, those comments bout voting rights are true I went to his blog :) We were debating on the Melba does Coast to Coast thread yesterday

      Delete
    11. Hahaha!
      I have never been to BFF, actually I googled it right now to see what it is! I know it's hard to believe, but remember: it was hard to believe M.K. would prove BF as a hybrid human, and voila! Here it is!
      I am not Mulder, though I'm now beginning to be jealous...But, you know, Mulder is like The Phantom - one falls, another is born... If he was saying the same things, well… hopefully, smart people are many, on both sides.
      And sorry if I made you think I'm a expert on haplotypes etc - I'm not - it was explained to me and I'm not able to repeat it for you, hehe.
      One more thing - English is a foreign language to me and my time zone is probably at odds with that of the majority of you, and I'm a busy man, so please don't raise your hoped too high that I will replace Mulder I see you truly miss.

      Now, on with the discussion:
      I agree completely with several comments above.
      Appalling.

      Delete
  13. As usual BE promotes their own Ketchum witch hunt by stating in the header the paper's been rejected by manistream science, it has not, a journal backed out when caring more about its reputation in the field than the truth. Thet were probably adviced by government contacts. The data however is 100% rock solid good, to say differently means you have an anti bigfoot bias agenda and refuse to accept facts.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Data can be utter nonsense, but as long as you believe it to be "logical", you can run with.

    By the way, where is this data everyone is talking about? How can a person find it and view it for themselves?

    I believe Ketchum believes what she is saying, but some folks would like to see the data, just out of curiosity, you know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's dead certain that within reasonable time we shall all see the data it'll all be out worldwide eventually.

      Delete
    2. Lol as if! If the data is published it will be the end for her, if she does publish it then she really believes she has something if she doesn't then she's in Dyer's club.

      Delete
    3. Pretty sure the data will come out. She's come this far, I doubt she will not see this through.

      She and everyone involved has basically put their professional reputations on the line.

      I still don't get the animosity that is directed toward her. Let's play devils advocate here for a second and believe all the unsubstantiated rumors and dirt flinging are all true.

      Guess what, every other outspoken BF community member is guilty of the same "hoaxing" as none of them have any hard evidence to back up their own claims.

      They all claim to be "experts" and pushing "the field" (I use that term loosely) forward. Yet all they do is post nonsensical youtube videos with themselves talking to themselves on camera stating their own biased opinions based on no real hard evidence.

      At least in Melba's instance, we can actually look at the data that she is presenting and come to our own conclusions. And on top of all that, we can actually verify her other claims about the journals.

      Delete
  15. I still think that this paper is sketchy. All 111 samples were Bigfoot, even though some were proven to be known animals by other analysis? The fact that she doesn't list the editors of the paper (which she apparently bought or created) makes me doubtful also.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's precisely because it's all good science that it's taking so long, they're laying everything public when it's ready to be presented with as many academics involved to support as possible.

      Delete
    2. ^^Did she already published her paper, or no? I'm cuffuzed?

      Oh wait, maybe she only published part of her paper, yes that has got to be it.

      Delete
    3. Anon 6:36 are you high? She did list the editors at one point then some one on JREF exposed them as being Ketchum's right hand and protector of the Forest People Robin Haynes lol Think she altered the website after that :) This whole study is full of red flags and Melba's intentions shady.

      Delete
    4. I wonder if Ketchum may have had DNA of something but Habituators convinced her to come to a different conclusion than what she had. She shouldn't have been so heavily involved with them and other people who so badly wanted the samples to come back as humans.

      Delete
    5. It think she came into this out of curiosity wanting to know what people were seeing out there and once she realised how deep Wally's pockets were and how desperate to believe some people were she suddenly became a believer. Then she took Wally for as much as she could by overcharging and stretching it out as long as possible and when people called her on it she produced this as a hasty endgame and now she's stuck because if she shows the raw data or up loads to GenBank it'll be game over for her. What's next? Oh another peer review of course! Then the asking for funds and selling of merchandise....

      Delete
    6. I agree with that idea, Anon 7:08. I'n sure she received a good amount of coaxing from habituators to have the conclusion be that these are people.

      Delete
    7. Nah think this is a long con Jay, she's telling these habituaters and believers what they want to hear. Bigfoot are people, check, my science is being suppressed by the establishment, check, Bigfoot need protection, check etc... Come on now she's opening her own foundation! Lol. Why hasn't she produced her raw data and lied about GenBank? it's because the game will be up!
      He's a question I asked yesterday Jay that no one answered. I was listening to the Squatcher's Lounge podcast and the guys were talking about how strong Bigfoot must be and one of them said that an Orangutan could rip off a man's arm. I've no doubt that could be true and I've seen the footage and aftermath of a chimp attack but my understanding was our ape cousins were that strong as they primarily travel through the jungle using their arms. These apes are very top heavy and muscular because of this and we (humans) lost a lot of this strength when we became bipeds as we no longer needed it. Why then is Bigfoot so big? If he's a biped why would he be like 8ft tall and be a mass of muscle, wouldn't that be an awful strain on it's lower body? Why would it have evolved this way and how could it's build and size be a positive especially if it likes to stay hidden? While we're talking if it was possible that Bigfoot and a human female mated it's obvious that with Sasquatch DNA involved the child would have been bigger than a regular baby so how would the mother be able to carry it to term? Also if these creatures are hybrids only then how big must Sasquatch have been in the first place as if it also has human DNA that must have reduced the species size some what as we are clearly smaller? Wouldn't our puny human DNA have resulted in this hybrid that's slightly smaller than a Squatch yet bigger that a regular person ? I mean this would work with other animals and mixing sizes and breeds etc is why we have the variety we do in dogs so as mammals we'd follow suit wouldn't we? Just asking because I know you're a budding zoologist! Thanks

      Delete
    8. "She did list the editors at one point then some one on JREF exposed them as being Ketchum's right hand and protector of the Forest People Robin Haynes"

      JREF...now there's a credible source LMAO

      Delete
    9. Anon 10:41—Well, not exactly. It all depends on the phenotype of the offspring, which can be quite different. However, I am really doubtful that the animal that is being reported could be such a hybrid. There would be alot of inbreeding going on, and I doubt that many Homo sapien females would be mating with non-sapiens Hominins. One of the main features that defines us as humans is the crafting and use of stone tools and other material culture. I have yet to hear of a report which describes a Sasquatch as using fire or stone weapons, and this is what you would expect if these things are half Homo sapiens.

      Delete
    10. Yeah my thinking exactly, if they too were a human species then why haven't they evolved more socially or learned how to use simple tools or make fire like we were already doing at the time of this supposed hybridisation event? Especially if they were essentially half human also wouldn 't there be full pure Squatches out there who are descended from pure Squatch parents from before this hybridisation? Why would a hybrid only possess the physical traits of one of the parent species too?

      Delete
    11. Yes, and she's trying to say that the hominin involved must be a member of the genus Homo. Sasquatch are reported as very ape like. If a Homo sapiens and another member of Homo mated, it wouldn't result in a giant bipedal ape, it would result in a very cultural hominin.

      Delete
    12. I thought that too Jay, plus we've all ready interbred with Nethanderals as if you're of European descent you will have 3-4% Nethanderal DNA. Surely if Squatch did interbreed with us then the amount of human mDNA would only be a couple of percent in Sasquatch? I still don't see why Bigfoot is supposedly so big any ideas Jay?

      Delete
    13. Well I'm very skeptical of Ketchum's conclusion. I think that Dr. Sykes will show that these are descendants of an ape which evolved parallel to hominids. If this ape is Gigantopithecus, then
      It would explain the size.

      Delete
    14. I just don't get why it would have evolved to that size in an environment that doesn't really require it? Even if they were Gigantopithicus they must have been in America for how long? Hundreds of thousands of years? How long have they been bipedal? In all this time do you not think they might have changed to suit their environment more and lost some mass like we did when we became bipeds?

      Delete
    15. There large size allowed them to be the top predators of the ecosystem. Gigantopithecus likely evolved bipedalism to inhabit a niche similar to that of Hominins. They could have simply migrated from Asia to North America through the land bridge (which was actually not an icy wasteland, but rather a continuous ecosystem). Bipedalism, the midtarsal break, and long and powerful toes that these apes had would help them very much in the mountainous ecosystem of North America.

      Delete
    16. Having such an overdeveloped upper body must put a strain on them, carrying round all that bulk supported only by two legs? I mean they're supposedly as big as a black bear who supports it's size on four legs but Sasquatch just has the two surely a design fault? Wouldn't giganto be at least an omnivore if not a herbivore as other primates are? In the habitats that Squatch inhabits wouldn't it be better to move through the trees like chimps or Orangutans and be more like an Orang Pendek size and build than a big hulking 8ft plus animal walking on two legs? Our niche was to fit in with the deserts and scrub lands of Africa where there are few trees and we changed to being bipeds so we could walk long distances to find food and water. Why did Bigfoot either not loose the bulk and height and use the trees like other primates or why not stay on four legs to support it's size, if it is giganto wouldn't it more than likely be a quadruped or why if it's mainly a woodland creature would it have ever evolved to walk on two legs?

      Delete
    17. Well no, bipedalism would be perfectly fine for a large primate. Gigantopithecus tooth wear suggests a diet similar to chimpanzees, which would be an omnivorous diet (which many apes have). Gigantopithecus had adapted to that niche and so it would make the best of its adaptations. Bipedalism would be a great advantage for a Gigantopithecus in North America. Tracks indicate that they have strong toes, more flexible feet, and large buttocks, thus allowing them to navigate rough terrain with ease.

      Delete
  16. if it's true I can understand why she had troubles getting the paper taken seriously by science. She could have made a breakthrough finding...if true

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm very excited about all of this. What is BEST about it is that it makes Rick Dyer's lies and the backing up OF those lies by his online minions all a moot (non) point. Who would YOU believe some redneck proven huckster who thinks he's smarter than everybody else or a scientist with the DNA PROOF?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why must you believe any of them? Dumbass

      Delete
    2. Yea the thousands and thousands of people who have seen them, along with the proven science reports mean that everybody but you and your stupid little friends who have nothing better to do than to troll message boards are the only ones who KNOW truth...dick head

      Delete
    3. What proven science reports? What evidence except for plaster casts, blobsquatches and hoaxes have we got? Come on what is there? What eye witnesses, come on people are easily mistaken and more to the point they lie! What have you got? Nothing but insults for people who disagree because you're incapable of rational debate so sink to the level of "I don't like what he's saying" like some lame jock in an 80s movie lol

      Delete

    4. Is that "jock" or "joke" and if it is "jock" what does it represent, a foreshortening of jockey which would probably involve some kind of mount like a horse or maybe an astronaut or disc jockey, perhaps you are refering to someone from Scotland who have been called "jocks" in the past, are "jocks" only specific to the 80.s contextually.

      Delete
    5. Actually, I think you'll find it's an American slang term, it relates to a teenage make who is very good at sport often this activity is all they are good at. The term perhaps comes from an item of sports protection which covers the male genitalia commonly known as a "cup" or pheraps a "jockstrap". Often in teen centre films of the 80s and even through to present day the "sports jock" was often seen as a one dimensional bully character inflicting verbal insults and physical pain on other characters. This would normally be inflicted on those of a so called "nerdy" disposition, one who has intelligence but little physical strength or social abilities maybe seen by they're peers as strange of even physically inferior. The jock would often taunt a character with some form of derogatory nick name and threaten them will physical violence as a way of coping with their own inadequences like limeted intelligence or often they were the victims of domestic violence themselves lashing out at those physically weaker to feel stronger themselves.
      The comment I made earlier was to compare one of the anons to basically a school yard bully who didn't like what the other person said and his only reflex was to verbally lash out. I was commenting that this could be because of a lack of understanding or intelligence and this anon's desire to feel good about himself by putting the other person down. Hope that clears this up a little.

      Delete
    6. I'm Scottish. I'm a Jock. Not lame however and as far as I'm aware I've never starred in movie made in the 80's.

      I do however know that Dogmen are real and much better than shy, retiring BF's.

      MMG

      Delete

    7. @8:12, Ahh, thanks you for that erudite explanation, jock strap eh, that would make perfect sense.

      Delete
    8. I always thought it was because they were an irritation like jock itch

      Delete
  18. Why no good film? This would help. Its been since 1967 and not ONE good picture or film of these bigfoot creatures exist.

    I can't believe that not one stinking picture or film can't be taking of the mythical creatures.

    Since 1958 when bigfoot tracks were found on "go roads" where loggers were working there have been "trackers" looking for these creatures (some of these trackers can fid anything if its alive and moving. To this date no tracker has found bigfoot.

    Why? You cannot track a creature that does not exist (I was told by a native american retired army green beret)it is a myth an ex-army tracker told me. He said, bigfoot legends go back to the 1800's with "verbal stories" passed on to off spring. He said, nothing more nothing less.

    There will never be a bigfoot found he said until you find the dragon he's riding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bigfoot is just a bit of fun. Campfire stories and scaring the kids with monster stories. Not even the believers actually believe it's real. Once you realise that it all makes sense.

      Delete
    2. Correction, it used to be fun. Then a bunch of nutjobs went and took it seriously and ruined it for everybody.

      Delete
    3. Yes, talked to a couple of trackers back in the 90's (these guys can find anything)They said, with just the right amount of funding and pre-arranged drop sites(for supplies etc..) if there was a creature out there they could find it (or evidence of a clan of themp-using sensors like they placed in Nam and basic tracking Native america's do)but alas, no body wanted to fund these guys.

      Delete
    4. They weren't called Quantra were they?

      Delete
    5. I would not be surprised if there is authentic film out there. However I think that the owners of such a film/video would be afraid of the ridicule they would receive,

      bf is a hair-covered being, obviously, in some ways, it will look as though it is a man in a suit, to a certain extent.

      What do you guys think? (seriously)

      Delete
    6. If there was authentic film out there why can't they release it anonymously ? They not heard of YouTube? Or couldn't they give it to National Geographic or something and tell them they don't want to be named and if interviewed they want to have their face blocked out and voice changed? This fear of ridicule thing can be got round and if they had some truely amazing footage the financial rewards would no doubt change their minds?

      Delete
    7. I guess that makes sense. Do you really believe BFRO has a "mountain" of evidence? Or that Wally/Olympic project has tons of video footage?

      I wonder. Probably just more BS

      Where is the pancake video, lol, I need to see that one please....anyone?

      Delete
    8. That's the problem. The BF community have created a culture of distrust. They constantly perpetuate hoaxes, still give air play to known hoaxers and have become habitually used to uncovering hoaxes.

      Heck, they have developed their own terms like "red flag".

      Even if legitimate footage is out there and if someone anonymously posted it, the so called "big foot investigators" would look at it and find it to be a hoax unless the person who posted the video came forward, at which point they would proceed to crucify that individual as being a hoaxer.

      Delete
    9. True, very true but "red flags" is a generic term used outside Bigfooting :) It would be funny if someone did actually have something and we all called hoax!

      Delete
    10. Yes, "red flags" is a generic term. But honestly, I have never heard it used so much in my entire life, until I found BFE and other BF blogs.

      It seems it's become one of those "cool" words they like to use to make themselves sound "cool". Part of their vernacular if you will.

      IE: Police officers investigate crimes and questions criminals on a daily basis, but I don't hear them constantly saying, that rose a lot of "red flags" for us when we questioned him.

      Delete
    11. Dunno, they do on cop shows lol I think it's just in vogue at the moment on here like you suggest.

      Delete
  19. "ON her study?" will you ever proofread before you post something?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Attack that MAN!!!

    Get him!!!

    James Randi

    ReplyDelete
  21. Some one just get a body already.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The National Bigfoot Bigot Coalition would like to thank all of our anonymous members for executing our mission statement of sewing seeds of doubt and spreading disinformation to all corners of our country. This thread represents a splendid example of how organized we have become. We shall strive to keep the opposition divided so that they can be conquered. Even though Bigfoot is evolving from eating humans to trying to get along with humans, we as humans must continue to progress backwards into complete ignorance of their existence. We can wipe out all Bigfoot knowledge. This goal can only be achieved through this nationwide spread of propoganda that the DNA study was flawed somehow. The strategy of casting doubt on the intricacies of the study, appears to be working. We have the opposition running around like chickens with their heads cut off. They have turned against each other and will ultimately devour themselves. And one more thing, your paychecks are in the mail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are the most annoying troll on here! Since when is using your brain to look at all the evidence instead of just taking someone's word for it stupid? Since when is not believing every stupid story or bs hoax retarded? You are seriously dumb.

      Delete
    2. And sadly, representing the believers. Nutjobs like 8:37 only add to the impression of the overall BF world being populated by kooks.

      Delete
    3. Yep 9:06 and to think he expects you believers to give him a pat on the back for job well done because he is obviously superior in every way to pretty much any one on this (or any other) planets!

      Delete
    4. It's not fear of disbelief from skeptics that keeps people from reporting an encounter. It's fear of being lumped together with and labeled a conspiracy freak like 8:37 or a redneck crazy like Rick Dyer.

      Delete
    5. The more people that claim to see it, the less I believe. There would have to be more physical evidence if that many people are seeing it.
      And 8:37 is the poster boy for Three Zagnuts up his Taterhole Crazy.

      Delete
    6. 8:37 tries so hard . . . and fails so miserably. Someday he might even get a chuckle for his efforts.

      Delete
    7. Well, I thought what 8:37 said was interesting...

      Delete
  23. Fax the coalition at 424-268-2716, if you do not receive your check.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Great as if their wasnt enough Looney Tunes on the list..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I gotta soot. It fits reel good. Its full o' mussle an' DNA like crazy. I ware it lots. I iz good smart guy.

      Delete
  25. Based on his CV, this man does not appear qualified to evaluate such a genetic study. His written statement here further supports that conclusion. In science, we seek to have our work evaluated by experts on the subject - those who would be most likely to find an error. Not those who will agree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh for God's sake, yes of course you do. I'll believe that when the little pink porkers begin to fly.

      Delete
    2. I agree. Not all PhDs are created equal. He does not have the expertise to comprehend the research --- and states this!

      The only positive thing that can come of this study is to put the raw data in the hands of geneticists who know what they are doing.

      Delete
    3. Ketchum won't allow that to happen tho

      Delete
    4. And that is what is wrong with this whole picture. The point of journal requirements to upload data to GenBank is to make it available to other researchers. Buying her own journal, ie. re-writing the rules, avoids this. I'm not convinced of the so-called documentation that GenBank refused the upload, but let's say that is true and they won't accept. Then NOTHING should stop her from sharing the data with other researchers ... preferably some with the RIGHT credentials and who are willing to be public and not anonymous.

      Delete

    5. Get a grip man she has already said she would :

      "If their findings are the same, they will go public. So, please be patient. They also will assure upload to GenBank and they can make that happen. - Dr. Melba Ketchum"

      Delete
    6. Until there are names and applicable credentials, there is no reason to believe this.

      Delete
    7. be patient! It's only been 5 years, but she did deliver the goods eventually!
      She will be vindicated!!

      Delete
    8. The existing BF community hasn't delivered any definitive proof in over 50 years, yet we can wait.

      But we can't wait 5 years for a DNA study that can actually be evaluated??!?

      Delete
    9. If you won't believe it until you see it then you have no choice other then to wait along with everybody else...oh wait there is another choice walk away and forget it ever happened.

      Delete
  26. Being a PhD does not mean you're smart. It just means you decided to stay in school and be another asshole teacher instead of actually having a REAL FUCKIN JOB! Dumb as shit, Mother-Fuckers!!!
    Most dog turds have more common sense than most PhD's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I bet even PhDs can figure out you are wrong. Dog turds do not have any senses at all.

      Delete
    2. Actually, this guy hasn't been a professional academic, so far as I can tell. He's mostly worked for Big Pharma.

      Delete
  27. Excuse me, folks, but I have a question...

    Have any of you actually read her paper? If so, do you have the scientific background to accurately understand the DNA sequencing process?

    If the entire paper is available to the public, could someone please tell me where I can read it?

    I don't have a dog in this fight. Ketchum could be completely accurate in her claimed findings, or she could be just another huckster. I simply do not know and am unafraid to admit that.

    Have any of the professional journals said WHY they refused to publish Ketchum's paper? If so, what was their reason?

    I see this battle raging back and forth between apparently honest and decent people. The trolls will troll and are to be ignored here as they are in any comments section on any subject in every blog. They're merely static in the signal. Pretty pathetic static, at that.

    What I am asking for are the facts. Have you read the paper? Are you qualified to comment on it? I am not so qualified, and publicly admit it. Personally, I could read the paper a dozen times and have no idea of the validity of its claims, so allow me to settle that question right now.

    From this layman's POV, it seems as if people have drawn both lines in the sand--and their daggers--with absolutely no knowledge of what the research says regardless of any "publication" or not. This is worse than mere foolishness, it's inexcusably stupid, sheer ghost-chasing or witch hunting on a par with the Middle Ages.

    What does the paper say, and who can explain it in enough detail to either prove or disprove it? That's all I want to know.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Melba Ketchum has no morals and is only looking for the spotlight. She saw an opportunity in someone else's work.

    ReplyDelete