norseman

Ketchum DNA report revisited

207 posts in this topic

I'm a believer but when it is argued that Matilda looks just like a known Chewbacca mask because George Lucas had a sighting...and was able to get a costume designer to identically copy his sighting from childhood to a Hollywood costume years later.....seems a little far fetched, doesn't it?

 

It's arguments like these where I think we lose a little credibility in the eyes of the skeptics.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 hours ago, NatFoot said:

I'm a believer but when it is argued that Matilda looks just like a known Chewbacca mask because George Lucas had a sighting...and was able to get a costume designer to identically copy his sighting from childhood to a Hollywood costume years later.....seems a little far fetched, doesn't it?

 

It's arguments like these where I think we lose a little credibility in the eyes of the skeptics.

Far fetched? Why? Lucas did not have a single sighting. He had multiple encounters as a little boy. He would spend hours on end, many nights in a row, in the company of the BF. I don't think it's at all surprising that such intense, prolonged experiences would indelibly imprint upon his mind the image of their faces.

 

As for losing credibility in the eyes of a skeptic, I'm at a loss as to why anyone would care about that. Why would you let people who are less knowledgeable than yourself, and certainly less open-minded or curious about the world, dictate what you say or think about that world, or pass judgments on your experiences of it? That's a kind of enslavement. It's not a good idea to limit, confine, or distort your own opinions and explorations because of somebody else's incapacity. Don't hide your light under a bushel! Sing out. Shine on. :)

 

On 8/20/2017 at 9:41 PM, hiflier said:

It is intriguing at the very least. Now here is an article that I found herehttp://www.oregonbigfoot.com/melba-ketchum-Bigfoot-DNA-study_2011.php  and I'm sure many have already come across it but there is a point to make so I'll go ahead and post it. The bolded, italicized, and underlined text is mine.:

 

"April, 2001:

A British expedition team is led to a hollow cedar tree in the Kingdom of Bhutan, in the eastern Himalayas by Sonam Dhendup, the King of Bhutan's official yeti hunter. A long black hair was found and DNA analysis was conducted by Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at the Institute of Molecular Medicine in Oxford. “We found some DNA in it, but we don’t know what it is... It’s not a human, not a bear or anything else we have so far been able to identify. It’s a mystery and I never thought this would end in a mystery. We have never encountered DNA that we couldn’t recognize before.” Sykes was the first scientist to extract DNA from archaeological bone specimens. Analysis completed after the media release, however, clearly showed that the samples were from the Brown Bear and the Asiatic Black Bear.

hiflier, your entire post was very interesting, but I was especially intrigued by the part I've quoted here. It didn't make sense to me that Sykes would make a statement so definitive -- the sample was "not a human, not a bear or anything else we have so far been able to identify" -- and then decide somehow that it WAS from a bear. So I decided to do some legwork of my own.

 

I have to report that I can find nothing to support the sentence at the end of that post you found (the sentence you bolded). I can't imagine where the writer got that information. 

 

I did, however, find the documentary from which that Sykes quote was taken (and many people have referred to it since).

 

Here's a link to the relevant snippet of the documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bok3PXOen7E

 

And here's a link to the documentary in its entirety (it's called "Yeti: Hunt for the Wildman"):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idw0JbSYwlA

 

Nowhere can I find anything that says that, subsequent to the airing of that documentary, further study was done on that particular hair sample, and the hair was found to be from a bear.  (The description below the documentary snippet mentions an earlier study of a different sample that DID return that result; but the sample that Sykes thought was so mysterious did not, from what I can tell, ever get identified as "bear".)

 

I'm not sure what any of this means, but I thought I would throw that out there.

 

I know that Sykes started 'down-voting' many other samples more recently, in the past few years; I just can't find any evidence that he ever definitively 'down-voted' this particular one. 

Edited by LeafTalker
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, norseman said:

The inspiration for Chewbacca was none other than Lucas's own Malemute dog.

 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/56801/15-chewbacca-facts-honor-peter-mayhews-birthday

 

CORRECT! And I think I post5ed a link to Wiki's "Chewbacca" that supports what you've linked very well. George Lucas never had encounters even as a child as much as LeafTalker might think otherwise. I would however like to read any link that says otherwise :) 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LeafTalker, I will see if I can find anything to support what you quoted from the article I posted regarding Dr. Sykes switch in his conclusions on the hair sample he tested. Thank you for pointing it out ;)

 

 

Before I go any further into this everyone needs to get up to speed on the topic of this thread. And no one needs to wory about any attempts by me to slant this topic. I will not do it! Mainly because I am after the truth. There is much to tear apart still but before that happens a thorough going over of the Ketchum study side needs to come first. This is a very long article but it contains everything in one place that one could hope to find by only researching snippets across the web.

 

 

I have some serious road time ahead of me and won't be able to dig further for a couple of days. So please take the time to go through this as it will educate you on everything that was done, thought of, and does a fairly good job of breaking down most arguments regarding just how the supposed Sasquatch samples were approached and processed along with results from the different labs. It will be well worth one's time for a couple of days going through the article once or twice and will help greatly in understanding DNA and what exactly was looked for during the various testing phases:

 

http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/p/the-dna-study-in-nutshell.html

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome, hiflier! Glad you're keepin' on keepin' on.

 

And I will try to find that MK Davis interview for you. George Lucas' emails were not the focus of the interview, so it will be hard to find, but I'll keep looking.

 

As for Chewbaca being based on Lucas' Alaskan Malamute, the article cited up-thread indicates that the dog's behavior influenced the Chewbaca character, not its appearance.

 

chew_plus_malamute.png

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It LOOKED like a person sitting next to Lucas in the car!! Read it again.

 

Of course they dont look the same. But at 55 mph and a quick glance on the highway?

 

Sure explains the dog nose and canine teeth of chewbacca tho.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaf,

 

Not going to quote the entire post....but you should strive to have some credibility in the eyes of everyone, even skeptics, in the event you ever have any evidence to present yourself.

 

Just my opinion!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't someone driving past Lucas' car at 55 mph who created the Chewbaca character. It was Lucas who created the Chewbaca character. And Lucas KNOWS what his own dog looks like. He knows his own dog looks like an Alaskan Malamute -- not the Wookie character he 'designed'.

 

I don't understand you, Norseman.

 

But you go. You do what you have to do!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If George Lucas himself claims it was his dog that inspired the character, what is the argument?  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no argument. Of course Lucas can be believed when he says his dog inspired the character; but artists draw from many places. It could be both his dog, and it could be something else that inspired him. Both/and. Not either/or.

 

If you're asking why there's a question about the other possible sources of inspiration for Chewbaca, besides his dog, it's because there are reasons to think there could be other sources of inspiration. There is now video (well, old video, at this point), in the form of the Matilda material, that shows an individual that looks just like the Chewbaca character. And there are others who have had encounters and have said the individuals they've seen look just like the Chewbaca character.

 

I'm sorry I have no links for you to comments about Chewbaca's similarities to what people have seen. I have watched many, many YouTube videos in the 5 years I've been immersing myself in this subject, and a lot of information comes from the comments in the comments section. For many people, it's safe to talk there. Many witnesses have been bullied and intimidated into silence by the sniggers (or outright threats) of people afraid of this whole phenomenon, so the comments section of many YouTube videos become a kind of haven for people to open up about their encounters.

 

And then there are the hundreds of hours of interviews with witnesses I've listened to. I'm sure some of those contained references to Chewbaca-like individuals, too; but I didn't write down which ones contained that information. I can't see the future, so I didn't know this would surface as an issue on the Bigfoot Forums somewhere years down the road -- at a point where I would be paying attention to it, anyway.

 

So again, I'm sorry I have no links to this information about others' encounters with Chewbaca-like individuals. You will have to either dive as deep as I have to find the information yourself, or discard what I and others say. It's totally your choice.

Sorry, NatFoot, didn't see your post; and sorry to have to disagree.

 

I have lots of evidence. It is my personal property; I understand its significance; and I have no desire to share it with anyone who would be so arrogant as to dismiss it, just because they didn't collect it, and I did.

 

Credibility is not permanent or universal, have you noticed? The moment someone in this 'arena' is widely acknowledged to be 'credible' is the moment when the people who fight against this information ever surfacing as real mobilize to tear that person down.

 

Good luck bullet-proofing your credibility. It cannot be done. You have only your own word to stand by, and your efforts to conduct yourself with integrity. YOU must be pleased with what you have to offer; you cannot expect anyone else to be.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Everyone just take a deep breath here and try to stay on track, OK? There are a half dozen BFRO reports that describe Sasquatch as looking like Chewbacca so 'Matilda' even as the hoax it's purported to be does not account for the other reports and Chewbacca comparisons. BFRO report numbers 856, 2995, 6643, 7519, 9315, and 21850. Read up and see for yourselves that according to these reports Chewbacca LIVES ;) 

 

And now, back to your regularly scheduled program :) (Writing this while sitting in a beautiful state park in northern Indiana and looking up reports in a couple of databases for the area. Gotta stay sharp ya know)

Edited by hiflier
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeafTalker said:

There is no argument. Of course Lucas can be believed when he says his dog inspired the character; but artists draw from many places. It could be both his dog, and it could be something else that inspired him. Both/and. Not either/or.

 

 

I'd like to see it if you do come up with a link pertaining to Lucas and possible BF experiences or even claiming it was a basis for Chewey.  Not to further discuss it here but because I'm a bit of a Star Wars nerd.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

33 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Everyone just take a deep breath here and try to stay on track, OK? There are a half dozen BFRO reports that describe Sasquatch as looking like Chewbacca so 'Matilda' even as the hoax it's purported to be does not account for the other reports and Chewbacca comparisons. BFRO report numbers 856, 2995, 6643, 7519, 9315, and 21850. Read up and see for yourselves that according to these reports Chewbacca LIVES ;) 

 

And now, back to your regularly scheduled program :) (Writing this while sitting in a beautiful state park in northern Indiana and looking up reports in a couple of databases for the area. Gotta stay sharp ya know)

WOOHOO!!! Nice going, hiflier! Why didn't I think to do that? Dang.

 

Very jealous of your current surroundings! Have a blast. 

 

24 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

I'd like to see it if you do come up with a link pertaining to Lucas and possible BF experiences or even claiming it was a basis for Chewey.  Not to further discuss it here but because I'm a bit of a Star Wars nerd.

I would love to find that interview, but it will take a while.... Because of what hiflier uncovered so easily, I do think, however, that it's kind of a slam-dunk that sightings of one or more Sasquatch persons WERE part of Lucas' inspiration. It's either that, or Lucas was just plugged into the Zeitgeist. It's one or the other.   :)

Edited by LeafTalker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or a tall hairy hominid has basically the look....of a tall hairy hominid.  

 

I may take take a look for that info, always interested in new Star Wars info, especially regarding the original trilogy.  If not Twist, my name on here would have been Star Wars related. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites