Leaderboard

They are not you human they are priamte of some sort. Public safety?? With all the local crime rates world turmoil and highly doubt Sasquatch's need to be grouped in with safety to the public

To add to poignant's comment: A sleeping squatch that was breathing laboriously. In fact: It looked as thought it was told "Hey make sure we can see you breathing"

Prove it first, then worry about the rest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tearST_J7Uc

I'll tell you what I thought about the NDA. I knew when I signed it I was signing on with a "study" not a paid for "testing" of a single sample. I knew I didn't have the funds to pay for the level of testing my sample would need "if it was from BF". The result of "human" was all too common, and if it wasn't even primate, I felt Ketchums lab and other's would catch that fact, and call no joy. With her blinded labs responding to her with questions about what the samples were because the data wouldn't blast in genbank, I figure the issue of getting the ID of the samples right, doesn't fall solely on her.

IMO, what keeps getting lost in the hoopla is the fact that a number of hairs were tested by several forensic labs and determined to be from something other than a human or a known animal species, yet tested as human or near human through various DNA examinations. Saying they were contaminated by human DNA, or saying they were from humans in the first place ignores the consistant morphology to the contrary. The study seems more inteseting when you focus on the resulting data and ignore the Hss involved.

Fox "News" is an oxymoron. Nevertheless even they said if she has the goods other scientists will accept it. Other scienticists have attempted to comment responsibly and have been criticized in blog land. People, slow down, be logical and above all be patient. If what she found was Giganto the skeptics would be just as vocal. The is a logical reason why all previous attempts at DNA analysis of purported Sasquatch samples came back human and it is not that all were contaminated or were not from Sasquatch. And you can take it to the bank that if dr Sykes has real Sasquatch samples to analyze his nuclear DNA findings will confirm Dr Ketchum's. It will take time to go through each the analysis of each sample to understand where it came from and how it was gathered. Is it likely that it was hoaxed? Did it come from a hunter, vagrant, etc who happened to be deep in an uninhibited forest naked leaving footprints, hair, saliva, blood feces, toenails and shows up on hd video being impossibly big, hairy, formidable and real? I think not. Remember when you were a kid and the wait from Thanksgiving to Xmas was an eternity? You still had to wait and voila, Christmas did eventually arrive. Believers, just wait a little longer. real skeptics, your analysis is welcomed and considered. Trolls, prepare to go back under the bridge.

I've followed this story silently for over a year. I would say I can't express my disappointment at what I've heard about the report so far, but I'm sure there are several members here who may be feeling the same way. One positive thing that I have been able to salvage from my experience here has been the chance to read so many of the comments (...and 700 pages is a lot of commentary, I know). There are a number of writers who have shared their expertise and experiences so articulately, that I've never felt I had anything to add. I'm writing now because I know I'm experiencing some version of those classic stages of grief. However, if this report is as bad as some are warning it is, I am glad to hear it from some of the very well intentioned members here, and not from a snarky commentator who might use the occasion to gloat. That would only add fury to my disappointment. I've never had any experiences that have proven to me that sasquatches exist. I was born and raised in the Pacific Northwest, and for some gut reason I believe they do. I should add that the posts of certain members here have only strengthened my belief. Now, If this report is shabby science, it does not make their existence less of a reality. I don't have to feel foolish for my belief, even if the Ketchum Report proves to be something foolish (and I wouldn't dare say that it is. I am the last one with the expertise to make that call) Anyway, thanks to all of you. Based on what I've read here, I've been given me a heads up on the possibile shortcomings of one report. Although it's been an agony of waiting and the report's conclusions may be stillborn, this is only one report, one effort. As they say, this is one battle, not the war.

@Theagenes: I wrote as I did to keep it from being personal, so don't assume that it was. What I see so far in practical terms: The study isn't considered conclusive. The study does advance the ball with regard to the scientific debate. More scientists will be asking if perhaps there isn't something out there. We're closer to eventual recognition of the species than we were before the study came out. If it bothers anyone that I speak as if it is a foregone conclusion that bigfoot exist that's your problem, not mine. I've already had my "Is this thing going to rip our heads off or not?" experience. For me, that experience establishes what we call in the engineering profession, a boundary condition. For example, a container cannot have a negative volume and the amount of matter that it contains cannot be less than zero. So, since I, and the two other people with me at the time, have faced one, they do exist. It's a matter of certainty, and that remains true no matter how many people choose not to believe it is so. I will say that the study's conclusion that they are a near-human species is consistent with what I have observed.

I pulled the link down from a Facebook page but immediately noted the sunken cheeks under the high cheekbone as being part of the issue. It was a done deal for me thereafter.