David Paulides Says Bigfoot DNA Is Like Nothing Else In The World
How special is Bigfoot DNA? According to the mastermind behind the Ketchum Bigfoot DNA study, the "DNA is like nothing else in the world." It's unclear what he means by this, but what's clear is that Ketchum's study has discovered a previously unknown species. Paulides claims his research group has collected hundreds of samples of DNA evidence, including strands of hair which the study has shown to be from Sasquatch. What's even more revealing is the fact that these creatures are not animals, but a subspecies of human says Paulides. He believes there could be as many as 50,000 Bigfoots in the wilderness.
[via denver.cbslocal.com]
Am I the real fatty?
ReplyDeleteThe announcer says it perfectly: "well its fun to talk about, isnt it. Ha Ha Ha Ha".
DeleteJump on the bandwagon Dave!
#looneytoons #crackpot #notplayingwithafulldeck #delusional #mulderesque #fruitloops #dumb #seekmedicalhelp
DeleteI gotta admit, I am addicted to this site. Driving this Ketchum crap through the heart of believers is the biggest thrill of all!
DeleteWithin a couple days the tables will be turned on all sceptics, I assure you.
DeleteAs always BiBS is steeped gloriously in denial and talking out her ass never realizing it's her getting ass raped here daily by just posting those dumb comments.
DeleteWe are all waiting. Believe me. If Ketchum actually had decent hd video why not just release that ? Why bother releasing a paper that scientists reject to try to prove it? Release the video and be done with it and then all us skeptics will happily eat crow.
DeleteBibs is a chick?
DeleteIsn't that what she's been saying that she's female.
DeleteI think the videos they have are very close to getting released now, they need something to go with the paper.
DeleteCat fished
DeleteIt will take some time for the vidoe to come out... might have a Memorial Day sale with a price slashing event, $24.95 for the paper and an additional 10 seconds of the breathing rug.
DeleteYou Footards really know how to pick them!!!
Hey Bibs,you know there are a lot of "bleevers" that think Ketchum is a fraud. Your not driving anything through their heart.
DeleteBiBS iS a chick that posts at JREF. Probably why she such a bitch but doesnt make Bigfoot real!
DeleteBeelevers got screwed by their hero Ketchum and Paulides held them down!!!
You guys sure Dyer doesnt have a dead one? Just saying a bunch of people have seen it.
DeleteOh sure, and Smeja's driver saw his, even tried to talk him off the trigger and Carl Olinselot and Ro Sabehi all saw one there and Curtino got definitive FLIR video...so it MUST be true and not just a bear, right? People have seen all this "evidence" right?hen there's Dyer and Biscardi's hoax from '08...remember the dentures LOL?
DeleteI'm still waiting on that full video of matilda...people have seen that too correct? It isnt just a purple rug and will transform me from hardened sceptic to blind loyalist to the Squatch cause?
^^You do not matter to them. They are looking for the lowest common denominator, to believe their bullshit.
Deletepurple rug LOL
DeleteIs bibs hot?
DeleteActually, I've seen Cutino's footage and presentation and as someone on the fence I'm shaking my head. Can't explain it and am looking forward to release so it's fullscreen.
DeleteYes I am a girl. Yes I am hot, click my pic. Come and see me at doubtfulnews.com where we have made a career out of doubting all.
DeleteI Doubt It ;)
DeleteThe hell with the hair and tissue samples start extracting blood from blood suckers like leeches, mosquitoes and ticks in sighting areas, natures dna collectors.
I doubt thats you BS
Delete
DeleteBut how could we know for certain, BS is just one of many pseudonyms used in that characters multiple personality disorder
@939 IMPOSTER, you only wish your intellect could standup to the challenge of arguing with the mentally-inferior who believe all the Foot hoaxes. What a joke, and I am a little better looking than your weird tinfoil hat girl......
DeleteI'm a 100% bigfoot believer. I saw one 7 years ago. But even I know that this whole Ketchum thing is a gigantic crock of crap. It gives the skeptics every reason to make fun of us for buying into this crap.
DeleteThe doubtfulnews.com girl is hot.
DeleteThen you truly know shit, Travis.
DeleteMaybe I should write and publish my own DNA analysis, I'm probably just about as qualified as she is. Although I've never been mind raped by a sasquatch.
DeleteWhy, If most of you are not even interested in the bigfoot subject and you don't believe it's possible-are you here on this evidence promotion site? Get a frickin life weirdo's you give bigfoot eyewitnesses a good nam, at least they've had some reason to be involved here.
DeleteI already hate being first.
ReplyDeleteThank goodness!
ReplyDeleteI already hate being first.
ReplyDeleteIs that Burt Reynolds ??
ReplyDeleteCannonball run yeah baby
He's like a walking advertisement for Just For Men hair dye!
DeleteEnoch ya!
DeletePaulides is an absolute disgrace.
ReplyDeleteWas glad to see Cutino and Tammi Murray call him out on his bullshit recently
Most people involved in bigfooting are a disgrace, or have some personal agenda whether it is gaining attention or making money.
DeleteSpeaking of Cutino, when are we going to see that Sierra Kills area video (IR?)?
DeleteCutino is as fake as they come don't be fooled by his cool soft demeanor, BFRO are total FAKES. They're either dumb or they're in denial but they're definitely covering up which is why they don't like to hear what guys like Paulides are saying, it's never funny when the childhood dream ends abruptly so they can't fake their fantasy anymore.
DeleteBow to my monkey, NOW!
DeletePaulides = Just another huckster trying to turn a buck on the foot.
DeleteAmazing that some still cling to the "study". Dumb or a huckster, in his case, both.
Hunter breaks a leg, is immobile and dies from exposure or dehydration, becomes bear snack, must be bigfoot. Woman in a bad marriage hooks up with her lover, they dump her car and move to another city, must be bigfoot.
Anyone who entertains this huckster has no credibility. SJPD figured it out, so should the footers.
As stated above, I'm on the fence about bigfoot but was sent a link from Bart on BFF regarding his footage thermal a month or so ago where he presented somewhere in CAli I believe. I thought it was very compelling and I didn't feel like I was being sold something from bigfooting for the first time which was refreshing. It was actually a little better then he described.
DeleteSorry, I don't see him as fake at all. Him and the other gentlemen got the Sierras sample tested and shared findings as prmised. 3:39 sounds like your very personal and envious to me.
50,000 bigfoot beings?
ReplyDeleteand not one body or decent picture?
That seems unlikely
Not when the research with the goods is always halted from release somehow, there's a pattern there that authorities like Paulides says are afraid of losing control. That is what it's all about and why no serious government funded search has been done. It's the end result they don't like because it's too complicated to now all of a sudden, with hundreds of years delay, have to explain and educate society on what's basically a new human being. Think of what the costs rewriting history means so it keeps getting pushed off to the next guy, always the next guy's future watch.
Delete^^Skeptard troll.
DeleteHuh, being for this study is trolling? LOL Think I hit the nail on the head there.
Delete^^Trying to act like a crazy fringe believer is being a troll.
DeleteSkeptards' MO:
DeleteAVOID & DISMISS
DISMISS & AVOID
It works just super. With that philosophy, you hardly have to face anything in life.
The study doesn't prove anything and it's already being shot down by all the leading geneticists. This is what happens when you attempt to produce science with a religious/political/world agenda.
ReplyDeletePaulides and every other researcher associated with Ketchum are having their reputations shot to pieces. It's sad to see.
Wouldn't say it's sad Mark I'd say they had it coming :)
DeleteShut down? By who? When? How? What fatal flaw they found?
DeleteThe "new magazine" issue (including the poor web design) does not shoot down the study. She said herself it was a desperate move, since nobody wanted to even read the paper and send it for peer review. One of the magazines leaked the data. The last one basically accepted it, when the attorneys advised the editor not to publish it. She said long ago she would do this (just put it on the web one way or the other) if she gets rejected everywhere. Is it hard to imagine a controversial find having trouble being published?
The "can't be true" and "hard to believe" issues do not shoot down the study either.
All that serious academics that claim to have read the paper said so far is that the raw data is needed before any significant conclusion can be made.You know what that REALLY means? It means that the paper itself DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY ERRORS that can be used to shoot it down even without the raw data.
If you can read, that's EXACTLY what Richard Gibbs said.
And even if the paper contained such a flaw, that would mean nothing concerning the raw data.
As for the tech "artifacts" - if the same thing shows up in several independent labs, some of them engaged as "blind" - it can't be an artifact, can it? The only artifact, in that case, is a cognitive obstacle in front of the yet unknown, real data.
There's nothing you can do, guys. It's out, it's desperate, and real. It only takes time.
The raw data will come out soon.
Asking for 30 bucks is a brilliant move, preventing people like you from downloading and spitting all over the paper they don't understand. You really think pros from North Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory; Integrated Forensic Laboratories, Euless, Texas; Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences; Microscopy & Imaging Center at Texas A&M University; Huguley Pathology Consultants, Fort Worth, TX; Wayne State University, Michigan; University of North Texas Health Science Center... are dumbasses that need your 30 bucks to split them in exchange for their integrity?
And there are other things waiting. One by one.
There's noting you can do.
Why no convincing video footage?
DeleteIs there anything other than (possibly contaminated) hair samples?
There should at least be some convincing photographic evidence to accompany such an outlandish subject as this.
How did you think the majority of people would react?
It has been said many times that the agreement with the sponsors is that the study comes first, photo and video later. Also logical, isn't it? I expect the video to be made available in the midst of the scientific debate that has not yet even begun.
DeleteI'd expect the majority of people to react the same way as you - in this post. No bashing, no insults, just plain skepticism and mind open to possible further data. And majority does, just as Richard Gibbs did. The ugly minded guys here are not the majority of people, and certainly not qualified to "shoot down" anything, or declare it dead.
Just wait for the Ericson footage.
Deletewell thanks for the reply degnostik.
DeleteI seem to get attacked everytime I ask most posters on here any legit questions.
Maybe. Paulides deserves no sympathy, I actually suspect he has been the driving force behind pushing for the conclusion Ketchum has delivered.
DeleteI feel sorry for the people who submitted and supported the study. Their faith hasn't been repaid.
Degnostik seek medical help please.
DeleteYou're welcome :)
DeleteNot that I'm an insider or an expert in genetics...
Mark you're truly dumb as fuck, really embarrassing the pathetic bullshit you utter but all the trash talking on this bias blog won't change the outcome. The study has spoken and it's genuine, it's what we all want from a scientific bigfoot study basically proving the species real, so wtf such resistance, who cares who's behind the study the resluts count you morons and it deserves support not scorn from ignorant clowns hell bent on stopping it.
DeleteThere is no "scientific debate" and there isn't going to be. Not 1 mainstream news organization has picked it up.
DeleteAnon 3:51 payed the $30. Calling someone dumb as fuck when you thinkthe study is genuine is hilarious. You know full well the study is a joke and hasn't been peer reviewed.
DeleteI think the only thing the Ketchum group had left to do was to self publish, so mainstream science (anyone) would take the report as legit evidence. I don't suppose Meldrum and others will post their honest opinions after reading the entire report because they feel she's looney for publicity so far before publishing. Dr. Sykes won't say anything until he's finished IMHO.
DeleteWhen will she release her data. Does that come later too? Is that how it works with magic DNA?
DeleteDegnostik is one of the more intelligent people on this site. Mark UK Is one of the biggest idiots along with BiB and Toons! Mark how is it over there on the other side of the pond? Still using the wifi in sleazy strip joints?
DeleteWhen will she release her data?
DeleteBut a year ago she said it WAS going through peer review, with requests for changes which had been made.
DeleteEveryone knows if you really wanted scientific attention you would release STUNNING video that actually supported your claim. No, this is delay tactics of a coomon hoaxster. They will milk the $30 dollar fee for the paper and the rug video, for all its worth. Then slowly release other short segments of video for further fees. This is about money, not science or Bigfoot. Just hold on, the cash for evidence ride has only just begun.
DeleteFalse dude - this site is about money. Don't you even see, you're feeding the machine yourself by being here with your skeptic pretend bullshit act showeling in dough for Shawn whoever he is. You're a hypocrite like all the other haters.
Delete^^Don't cry.
DeleteWhen will she release her data?
DeleteI like what you posted Degnostik, however you make far to much sense for a lot of the rabble that has found their way to this site over the past 18 months.
DeleteLllegitmi Non Carborundum
Chuck
Anon 5:43 why do you keep asking people on here when she is releasing (data?)? You're a dumbass!
Delete^^Butthurt footer.
DeleteIt's like asking a person on the street when McDonalds is going to change a menu item.
DeleteTo "When will she release her data?" guy:
DeleteGood question.
"When will the paper be published?"
was a good question.
"Is there a paper at all?"
was an excellent question.
"Where will the paper be published?"
That was a brilliant question. Well, we now know that, too.
"When will the STUNNING VIDEO be public?"
Is also a nice, legitimate question, my favorite at the moment, but - compared to the more important question about the raw data - only for entertainment purposes.
Chuck:
Thanks. As for the rubble, none of it originated from MK. Regarding the bagels and the family of five (did originate from her)- what's wrong with seeing normal, existing, living organisms, and having their saliva on a bagel? Bagels exist, that's a scientific fact. Nothing paranormal about them.
If you claim that evidence of Bigfoot must be false because the person providing it says she saw them - isn't that both bias and circular reasoning at the same time?
Degnostik aka Mulder give it up. You are simply a deluded gullible footer. Why is the answer to all of those questions not even close to what the answers to those questions would be for any other actual science papers ever. Self published in a journal created a couple of days earlier, zero data that scientists can take a look at, claims of angel DNA and blueberry bagels, published on a very unprofessional website with some horrendous grammatical blunders. "All rights preserved". You can't make this sh*t up.
DeleteAnon 7:16
DeleteJust typing "angel DNA" makes any communication with you worthless. Go comment on Robert Lindsay's blog.
Though,
"Why is the answer to all of those questions not even close to what the answers to those questions would be for any other actual science papers"
is the best question ever, and editors of several magazines will surely have to answer it some day.
Wow. I've actually started to get haters?! "dumb as fuck" "pathetic" "biggest idiot" keep em coming lads. Why are you getting so agitated about me expressing my OPINION? At least Degnostik can debate rationally.
DeleteI don't claim to be a geneticist, or a bigfoot expert. I just want to see a world where the subject of bigfoot isn't ridiculed as it is today. Ketchum's half-arsed attempt at a study isn't doing anyone any favours.
To begin with, it seems that the paper was roundly rejected by mainstream science journals. “We were even mocked by one reviewer in his peer review,” complained lead author Melba Ketchum. So how did the paper get published? Although Ketchum insists that this fact did not influence the editorial process, it seems she bought the publication. In fact, her paper is the only paper included in the inaugural “Special Issue” of the DeNovo Scientific Journal. Benjamin Radford notes that no libraries or universities subscribe to the newly minted DeNovo, “and the journal and its website apparently did not exist three weeks ago. There’s no indication that the study was peer-reviewed by other knowledgeable scientists to assure quality. It is not an existing, known, or respected journal in any sense of the word." Invertebrate neuroethologist Zen Faulkes notes further that DeNovo lists no editor, no editorial board, no physical address—not even a phone number. “This whole thing looks completely dodgy,” he writes, “with the lack of any identifiable names being the one screaming warning to stay away from this journal. Far, far away.”
DeleteBeyond these irregularities, there are also signs of serious problems with the paper’s data, methods, and conclusions. Ketchum et al found, for example, that all of the mitochondrial DNA recovered from their samples tested as “uniformly consistent with modern humans,” but argued despite this that anomalies in their nuclear DNA analyses “clearly support that these hominins exist as a novel species of primate. The data further suggests that they are human hybrids originating from human females.”. This scenario, in which “Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an unknown primate species” (as publicized in a 2012 press release about the then-unpublished paper). is not especially plausible. As Steven Novella explained, “It is highly doubtful that the offspring of a creature that looks like bigfoot and a human would be fertile. They would almost certainly be as sterile as mules. Humans could not breed with our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees, or any living ape.” Novella added, “The bottom line is this—human DNA plus some anomalies or unknowns does not equal an impossible human-ape hybrid. It equals human DNA plus some anomalies.”. These problems are only multiplying now with the release of Ketchum’s paper and data. Ars Technica Science Editor John Timmer, experienced with genetic research, offers the preliminary opinion that “The best explanation here is contamination.”
As far as the nuclear genome is concerned, the results are a mess. Sometimes the tests picked up human DNA. Other times, they didn’t. Sometimes the tests failed entirely. The products of the DNA amplifications performed on the samples look about like what you’d expect when the reaction didn’t amplify the intended sequence. And electron micrographs of the DNA isolated from these samples show patches of double- and single-stranded DNA intermixed. This is what you might expect if two distantly related species had their DNA mixed—the protein-coding sequences would hybridize, and the intervening sections wouldn’t. All of this suggests…that the sasquatch hunters are working on a mix of human DNA intermingled with that of some other (or several other) mammals.
Time will tell. For more on the story as it develops, may I suggest following the #sasquatchdna hashtag on Twitter? You’ll already see it full of reactions like this tweet from the great Carl Zimmer:
The phylogeny in this #sasquatchgenome paper is incomprehensibly illegible & doesn’t seem to use any method I can recognize.
— carlzimmer (@carlzimmer) February 13, 2013
Mr Mark UK, how on Earth is this "science with a religious/political/world agenda"? I don't think her study has a stake in religion or politics. Since her study was confined to North American samples, I don't think it qualifies as having a world agenda.
DeleteThe regligion, political, and world aspects would be decided by others who study her work, not by her.
How do you know the study was half-arsed? For that opinion you would have had to have read it thoroughly and understand it well enough by now. Did you obtain the paper, or are you assuming it is half-arsed from the opinions of others who also haven't read and studied the paper? The mainstream dismissals and insults are mostly from those who haven't read it, and there has been barely time to actually study it--it's been out for two days?
I can promise you one thing, when the mainstream bends over backwards, hyperventilating and stumbling and tripping over itself, to breathlessly attempt to insult and take down something or someone, the opposite of what they say is usually and possibly always true.
But not in this case, her study is flawed from beginning to end her conclusions are unsupported. Those are the facts you can not change them.
DeleteBigfoot is not real. Seek help get back on your meds. Please stop abusing your children. It's not to late to join the real world. Again!
@Dismissing the Skeptards - It's my speculation, yes. I tend to believe that many in the Ketchum 'camp' are of a non-evolution / creationist type belief and therefore have pushed that agenda from the get-go. That's the agenda, to try and stick a 'scientific' spanner in the evolution theory.
DeleteI did spend the £20 on downloading the study. I'm not a geneticist but even I could tell the data didn't conclusively rule out human contamination (all samples were collected by humans in areas visited by humans). And I give way to the opinions of Carl Zimmer (posted above) in regards to specifics. Including a seconds long clip of a shaggy pile of fur - moving up and down in a bunch of leaves - as some kind of corroboration of a scientific study is laughable. And not releasing all the DNA data is also, at best, half-arsed - all imho.
BTW - I don't consider myself a skeptic (or skeptard as you so eloquently put it) I actually believe in the possibility of bigfoot.
to state it simply, as myself, Carl Zimmer and others have pointed out she has simply human DNA mixed with multiple animal/plant/fungi DNA...she has nothing of value.
DeleteSykes will find human, common animals but instead of proclaiming ignorantly "hybrid primate" and including faked evidence, he will dismiss and destroy the Bigfoot myth, unlike Melba.
If you believe Ketchum after reading her paper there is no hope left for you, period.
Anonymous 9:16:
Delete"To begin with..." (long text, questions already addressed for those genuinely interested in the story, including fertility issues and speciation problems, with lots of "...not especially plausible...", "...highly doubtful..."and "...might expect...", with the PREMISE, NOT CONCLUSION that something's wrong with the data and that our current knowledge is undisputed) "...doesn’t seem to use any method I can recognize."
Weird stuff, isn't it?
Terra incognita, right?
"Bigfoot is BS", you really consider yourself an authentic side in a true dialogue - with that name?
DeleteIf "her study is flawed from beginning to end her conclusions are unsupported", Richard Gibbs wouldn't bother giving it a thought and asking for raw data, would he? I'll stick to him as the authority instead of you (nothing personal).
The way I read it, Zimmer said that "human DNA mixed with..." is the "simple" explanation, as in "more likely". Well, sometimes things are not simple. Sorry.
Anonymous 7:16:
DeleteYou say "horrendous grammatical blunders" in Ketchum's work.
Have you read the National Geographic-affiliated blog on the Ketchum study? The writer couldn't spell "aesthetic". There was at least one other blunder in that blogger's short post.
How can a magazine which pays $2 and up per word for its articles hire a blogger incapable spelling, or spell-checking? We all make mistakes, but one of the world's top magazines should have no such errors on its blog.
That blogger is being showered with massive amounts of money by National Geographic, and he's a poor writer. Then why has he, or she, been hired? What's the connection?
The title of that blog post tells you to laugh at the Ketchum study. Yes I'm laughing--at the National Geographic blogger trying to rip the study with his own fumbling grammatical screw-ups.
I'm sure you'll find other mainstream attacks on her work to be riddled with "horrendous grammatical blunders" too.
Tard on, skeptard, tard on.
Calm down RAGING SKEPTARD ALERT,
Deletethe "horrendous grammatical blunders" and "need raw data" is all they have on the paper, and it's been two days.
He he.
Then why hasn't she put her data on Genebank? She knows as soon as she does her game is over and her $30 scam is up.
DeleteShe could upload the data at any time she hasn't and I bet she never will.
I believe Erickson still controls the video,which it now seems might be needed to prop up the paper.You can call Erickson,he backs Melba and the paper,has she tainted it,hell yes theres no denying that.Don't forget they came up with their own method of distracting dna,they said so.This is hardly the type of study to do things like that.The dna is now out there so I expect Ericksonand some others to start following up with that spectacular footage,if you don't support it now its going to die a quick death,is this what you worked toward or wanted?
DeleteThe tall population of bigfoots that go 8-9 feet tall are on the west coast preferably northern Cali up to Washington. The ones in Ohio to west Virginia are shorter 6 and ahalf to 7 feet tall but are bulkier. How do I know this? Well I've done my own research. I'm not talking til I get paid. The truth is closer than u think!
ReplyDeleteKen:I live in TN, Do we have any Bigfoot? I'm 6-4 are they taller than me?
DeleteWhy lie?
DeleteI'm a researcher and I can tell you no such species exists.
kEN: WHY I ASK, I'm a guide hunter outdoors all the time, never saw a track or a hint. I've tracked for many miles and hours here, nothing.
DeleteYou're a fool 2:25, why lie.
DeleteWhy bleeve?
DeleteThat's bullshit, I saw a ten footer, here in West Virginia.
DeleteThat is absolutely false becuase the study showed that B Foots in WV were a lot shorter and not any taller than 4ft tall becuase the rampant inbreeding in your State.
DeleteSquatch Nuts
That's the people what's like that. We got the biggest Bigfoots.
DeleteSo anon above, you aren't talking till you get paid? Hahahahahh gawd thanks for that laugh. One less voice is welcome.
DeleteWhatever size they are, they should be clubbed to death like baby seals. Blood on the snow and everything. They are vermin who do not belong in our time.
DeleteOkay but we wear the furs
DeleteAs hats and coats and weird stringy scarves. Enoch ya!
DeleteThe study may be shot down, I for one, will not give up my interest in the bigfoot phenomena.
ReplyDeleteI will continue to maintain an optimistic point of view regarding all presented evidence by most hard working (legitimate) field researchers.
They all have my thanks and support.
No one's shot it down just because trolls here say that doesn't mean it's so, doh. The insanity around here is astonishing and it's NOT the bigfooters.
DeleteNo ones shot it down? Dude go read all the comments by actual scientists. They said the study is a joke.
DeleteIt has already crashed and burned on it's own.
DeleteScientists also shot down global warming . Now most are on board after decades. This just came out dude! Any real scientist who shot it down isn't one if they hav'nt read it and if only the second day! Give me a break! Name more than a few anonymous posters on here who claim they are experts and a couple if knee jerk reactions from a couple of ( yet to be named ) scientists. First time the discovered planets it was shot down by almost all intellectuals or if we rotated around the sun. Lol . Second day and all these scientists have ecamined , tested , and reputed it ! Give me a break!
DeleteExamined^
DeleteNo one's shot it down unless they're covering up, we know how mainstream science operates maintaining the status quo. The media were always instructed way back since Roswell really to not report seriously on such subjects, why do you think that idiot anchor laughs so fakingly, there are indications they (mainstream news/press) were plainly told by governments directly to only treat it lightly so it's only fair to guess these sightings are true. It's basically the same going on here, they're counting on the public being too daft to know or care as long as the majority's fed with mindless entertainment and only a minority cares and knows. It's called management or crowd control.
Delete^^step five of the Ketchum hoax.
DeleteAnon 4:43
DeleteI really doubt any REAL scientist of the past or present charged a fee to examine the evidence of their claim! Give us all a break and stop evaluating the legitimacy of this claim with other scientist that worked their ass off for the good of the public and not the good of their own profits.
So what your saying anon 5:18 is that all Real scientists work for free? Sign me up for a science degree ! What a stupid Moron you are!
DeleteScientists don't charge to examine each others work. Typical silly footer semantics.
DeleteAll you have to realize is, the cash for evidence of a Bigfoot is a scam. Which one of you Footards haven't forked over your $30? If you haven't coughed it up, shut up!! Put your money where your yapper is before you come on here and rant about how true and honest this hot bowl of crap is!!
DeleteAnon 8:17:
DeleteYou go buy the paper, study it for a month, and then come back and talk about it.
You have the same MO as all skeptards:
Dismiss & Avoid
That is skeptards' the MO with any Sasquatch evidence or material.
You put your money where your yapper is, put up or shut up, and stop ranting that this study and all evidence is false without studying it.
Congratulations on graduating from the lowly level of skeptard to the grandiose position of Utter Gigantic Supertard.
Tard on, supertard, tard on.
Yeah the sceptics are the tards for not spending $30 for a universally panned and totally flawed study done by an incompetent to part complete wastes of space like yourself from their money. You know why we aren't buying it? It's because we have the intelligence to see a scam and you have the balls to call us the idiots!!! Man the best of you was thrown in the medical waste bin after your sister/mother/aunty gave birth to you, you inbred, backwards, obnoxious p.o.s
DeleteYeah I know who u are anon 1:54. U are the naturalist guy they call Patty Pete. U are credible. U have sold.numerous vids to Wally hersom and randles. Bring it out dude. The evidence needs seen!
ReplyDeleteU got a mill? If u do, we can talk. I've already made the big bucks and the others have made theirs too.
DeleteKen: Ohio is a fine place with fine people, but my yard has almost as much wilderness without people. You can walk in one direction here and not come across a house or person all day, Do we have Bigoot,if is where??
DeleteKEN: iF SO, WHERE?
DeleteKen u need to expand your search in a very thick wet swampy area. The squatches are very intelligent and do cover up their tracks nicely. Try nighttime with thermo and night vision surveillence. If u do decide to bait them. They like sugary stuff. The males tend to eat raw meat while the females and juveniles like fruit. Look for fixtures, huts looked like built out of branches. And just wait. It can be for hours and days and u might never see one. Happy squatch hunting!
DeleteBigfoots love krispy kremes. Put some of those in your gifting basket, they can't resist the delicious goodness.
DeleteYou know a place Ken,you going to try?
DeleteEnoch ya!
DeleteThat chick at the beginning, in the purple sweater. Yeah, her. Most compelling thing in the video. 'nuff said.
ReplyDeleteShawn, I think this would be a good time to post some old pics and articles from the 2008 Georgia Hoax so the newbies can see who they are dealing with while "his" newest hoax attempt shakes out.
ReplyDeleteGeek.
DeleteAnon 3:21 needs a reality check! Why don't you call those experts at all of those labs and call them hoaxers! Your comparing a renegade unknown who put a rubber suit in a freezer to a 5 year study involving a ton of people and good testing ( blind and not). You're truly a Moron!
Delete^^When will she release her data?
Delete^ same person who cried about when she was going to release her paper. Be patient !
Delete^In real science, the data would be released with the manuscript. Magic science works different?
Delete^ shut up you impatient welfare leach!
Delete^^typical footer tactic. When you can't defend your argument, attack the person.
DeleteWhen will she release her data?
When others can do nothing but insult you, it usaully means they have no corrisponding arguement. Pretty typical, when debating science that requires a fee to view their evidence. How much was the fee to view the evidence concerning any ground breaking discovery?
Delete^^ first of all I call it as I see it - you tard! You keep asking the same stupid question over and over when you know damn right we don't have inside information to answer your question . Either you're really stupid and can't comprehend that I'm not going to answer something I'm not privy too or your just a serious Jerk! You pick which one! How do you have a corresponding argument to " When will she release her data"? Why don't you mail her a letter and man up instead of being a babbling fool or wait like the rest of us and STFU!
DeleteClub them like baby seals!
DeleteAll of these people assosiated with Ketchum are complicit in this money making scam to seperate people with an interest in bigfoot from there hard earned money. SWP has been getting it right since the beginning of this debacle. "It's all B.S."
ReplyDeleteHe's an idiot pure and simple, SWP that is.
DeleteIn this field, Douchebaggery seems to be the purest form of flattery.
DeleteMerchant nailed this circus B.S. act a long time ago. It was prophecy. The man is a prophet.
DeleteNo you're not Mikey.
DeleteCan some one keep us up to date with Mulders posts on the bff?
ReplyDeleteMy data is amazing and beautiful, but no one else can see it, it's magical.
ReplyDeleteReally?
DeleteYes, it's magic DNA. Now you see it...now you don't.
DeleteSee how that works?...magic
I like Dave. Jealous of his stach tho. Its up ther with Magnum.... Dave P, bigfoot pi ;)
ReplyDeleteHe looks to me like he has chronic stinky feet.
DeleteI love when people talk about science. Most people on here no nothing about science. Stop saying that is not how science works when you show no data to show the process of how science works.
ReplyDeleteYou mad bro
Shut up. Bigfoot is real. She proved it.
DeleteWhen you are done with someone who has no qualified training in the field of DNA, perhaps you would like to listen to someone who does...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enZ6B1E981I
ReplyDeleteThat guy is a jackwagon and he did that hour+ ramble before ever seeing the study.
DeleteDid Pualides writes this? I couldn't read it when the opening says the study has proven Bigfoot. It has not, and seems to have only proven the gullibility and good will of Bigfoot enthusiasts who funded, supported, and waited for this pile of junk. Sadly some will continue to cite that paper as some kind of proof, and it will embarrass Bigfooters who know better forever. The skeptics will use it to look no further. If I wasn't so tired of the ridiculousness of all this I would be more angry and write a diatribe about Ketchum - a long poem detailing her misadventures and lovers along the way and ending with the painful silence of betrayal.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't read it buttman so how do you know it's junk.
DeleteOnly 50,000 left!?!? Since the Feds estimated the Bigfoot population to be at least at 1,000,000 in the early 60's, then they must be dying out. Somebody should get off of the hind end, and do something!
ReplyDeleteReal Bigfoot population count:
Delete1960 - 0
2013 - 0
Proof?
DeleteNone,except a dna paper,haven't paid for it
DeleteWhat I want to know is when the National Bigfoot Bigots Coalition, is going to activate another one of their Sleeper Cells, in yet another attempt to take out as many big name researchers as they ca, in one fell swoop. I can see here that they can only got about 30% of the posts in their favor. They must have more bullets somewhere. Perhaps they are awaiting a wave of scientific support and discussion, before they activate their sleeper cells. Inquiring minds want to know.
ReplyDeleteidiot^^^^
DeleteEnoch.
DeleteYa.
To begin with, it seems that the paper was roundly rejected by mainstream science journals. “We were even mocked by one reviewer in his peer review,” complained lead author Melba Ketchum. So how did the paper get published? Although Ketchum insists that this fact did not influence the editorial process, it seems she bought the publication. In fact, her paper is the only paper included in the inaugural “Special Issue” of the DeNovo Scientific Journal. Benjamin Radford notes that no libraries or universities subscribe to the newly minted DeNovo, “and the journal and its website apparently did not exist three weeks ago. There’s no indication that the study was peer-reviewed by other knowledgeable scientists to assure quality. It is not an existing, known, or respected journal in any sense of the word." Invertebrate neuroethologist Zen Faulkes notes further that DeNovo lists no editor, no editorial board, no physical address—not even a phone number. “This whole thing looks completely dodgy,” he writes, “with the lack of any identifiable names being the one screaming warning to stay away from this journal. Far, far away.”
ReplyDeleteBeyond these irregularities, there are also signs of serious problems with the paper’s data, methods, and conclusions. Ketchum et al found, for example, that all of the mitochondrial DNA recovered from their samples tested as “uniformly consistent with modern humans,” but argued despite this that anomalies in their nuclear DNA analyses “clearly support that these hominins exist as a novel species of primate. The data further suggests that they are human hybrids originating from human females.”. This scenario, in which “Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an unknown primate species” (as publicized in a 2012 press release about the then-unpublished paper). is not especially plausible. As Steven Novella explained, “It is highly doubtful that the offspring of a creature that looks like bigfoot and a human would be fertile. They would almost certainly be as sterile as mules. Humans could not breed with our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees, or any living ape.” Novella added, “The bottom line is this—human DNA plus some anomalies or unknowns does not equal an impossible human-ape hybrid. It equals human DNA plus some anomalies.”. These problems are only multiplying now with the release of Ketchum’s paper and data. Ars Technica Science Editor John Timmer, experienced with genetic research, offers the preliminary opinion that “The best explanation here is contamination.”
As far as the nuclear genome is concerned, the results are a mess. Sometimes the tests picked up human DNA. Other times, they didn’t. Sometimes the tests failed entirely. The products of the DNA amplifications performed on the samples look about like what you’d expect when the reaction didn’t amplify the intended sequence. And electron micrographs of the DNA isolated from these samples show patches of double- and single-stranded DNA intermixed. This is what you might expect if two distantly related species had their DNA mixed—the protein-coding sequences would hybridize, and the intervening sections wouldn’t. All of this suggests…that the sasquatch hunters are working on a mix of human DNA intermingled with that of some other (or several other) mammals.
Time will tell. For more on the story as it develops, may I suggest following the #sasquatchdna hashtag on Twitter? You’ll already see it full of reactions like this tweet from the great Carl Zimmer:
The phylogeny in this #sasquatchgenome paper is incomprehensibly illegible & doesn’t seem to use any method I can recognize.
— carlzimmer (@carlzimmer) February 13, 2013
Play it again, Sam.
Delete
DeleteI know, let's all copy and paste repeatedly...oh wait that would be spamming.
the guy that calls everyone "skeptard" is seriously butthurt after realising there is no monkey man out there.
DeleteYes there is - you.
DeleteKetchum has been thoroughly dominated by real/credible scientists. They are calling it freakshow worthy.
ReplyDelete50,000 bigfoots in the wild and not a body or single good picture of video to be found. I wonder what it all means?
ReplyDeleteHumans aren't animals? Since when?
ReplyDelete"igor offers to re-enact the bigfoot takedown technique"
ReplyDeletejust catching up with janice carter.. one of the sample submitters... absolutely hilarious stuff.
Delete
DeleteJust finished my dinner......that was a great meal.
Can one of the true believers and Ketchum supporters please explain something to me:
ReplyDeleteWhy in the world would anyone go through 5 years of intensive DNA research to prove the existence of something that is supposedly running around in people's backyards all over the United States? Especially considering that the main 'scientist' has a close friend and co-worker who claims to feed these creatures blueberry bagels on a regular occasion?
well there is that yes
Delete
DeleteOr even the other.
I know that facts are kind of useless but it isn't that unusual for journals to charge for their publications. The Journal of American Medical Association, Educational Digest, and the Journal of Molecular Biology are all publications I have purchased articles from for my work. Either a subscription service, pay for an individual article, or the ability to download the article. I am not saying this makes her conclusions right I am just saying that paying isn't that unusual.
ReplyDeleteRelease results before you release any data that could support your results.
ReplyDeleteDo it in a journal that you created, because no other scentific journal would publish the delusions that you are promoting.
Declare that you can not publish the data to Genebank because you have to have a species listed. This has been proven wrong.
I have spoken to nine (9) footers who know I'm a skeptic and only one maintains a positive position on the paper. Apply that stat to the rest of the Bigfoot community and you see where this is going to end,
Dr Melba Ketchum you are a fraud and a scam artist. Prove me wrong. You can't or more to the point you won't.
DeleteHow many 9 footers ?
I've rubbed a nine incher.
DeleteThe fee she's charging is only part of the outrage. She's publishing it on a website she owns herself and trying to fool people into believing that it's a legitimate scientific journal.
ReplyDeleteJill, here is a link expanding on and supporting you. The price of papers and journals can be very high.
ReplyDeleteScroll to the charts near the bottom to see the numbers but read the whole thing to understand them.
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6725256.html
This is the silliest shit ever...yet I can't stop scanning over it. 50000 creatures never clearly captured on video or photo, given the countries population, I find bigfoot to be just a fantastic fantasy. Unfortunately.
ReplyDelete
DeleteWell at least you find him that must make you a numero uno footer.
I believe that number(50,000) is highly exaggerated. I could understand a few hundred possibly.Maybe a bit more. Was that number drawn out of a hat? Where is the evidence to support this statement?
ReplyDelete