Leaderboard

Wait... Whaaa? Does that last statement not strike anyone else as odd? Where did this "Bigfoot control sample" come from, and why not use it to prove bigfoot's existence?

And Ketchum is? To be honest, I find it incredibly amazing that anyone can support Ketchum or believe a word she says! I followed every step of the whole fiasco and read every post of the Ketchum threads. There were others here (who are authorities on genetics) who debunked her findings - it's all there in the threads. I think we should just wait to hear from Dr. Hart. And wait to hear from the labs who are supposed to be validating her findings. If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it.

If Dr. Hart does join the conversation he needs to be aware that sample 26 that Bart Cutino had tested, that turned up black bear, is not the same sample 26 that Dr. Ketchum tested because her sample had a completely different haplotype. The source of sample 26 was the same person, Justin Smeja, but the sample he gave Cutino was not the same as what Dr. Ketchum tested. There are conspiracy theories surrounding that, that Smeja was fearful of being prosecuted for murder if it turned out to be human and that he sabotaged it. As far as some of the samples turning out to be known animals, Dr. Ketchum did preliminary tests on lots of samples that were matched to GenBank to see if they were known animals before preceding with more in depth testing. According to her study, the three entire genomes that were sequenced are from an unknown hominin species. For those interested here is a break down of sample 26. http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/p/ketchum-dna-study-sample-26.html Dr. Hart's is basing his finding from from Ketchum's sample 26, not the sample that Bart Cutino had tested. He took the information straight from Ketchum's study, iirc. Or, it was Ketchum claiming these things as part of the damage control. Either way, it doesn't matter. Dr. Hart is not referring to the sample Cutino had tested.

I think this whole argument is a giant black hole. Some people believe, some don't, neither one will ever convince the other of their position. Think for yourself and believe the way you wish and let others do the same.

Again, I'm curious if you know if sample 26 was one of the samples used for any of the three entire genomes that Dr. Ketchum had sequenced?

I'm, potentially, 12 feet tall. Where are the studies? There is no such thing as "unknown" animal dna, any report would list the animal(s) most closely related/associated with the dna. Unless the scat is properly collected and tested it's just....poop on your desk. I thought that was self evident but apparently I was wrong. I noticed that the link to the facebook page showed sasquatch scat purportedly gathered by cliff barackman back in 1999 - cliff is "pro" researcher; what happened to his sample? He should have had the contacts/resources to have the sample analyzed, no? By the way that last link was interesting but I can't see that Nelson's results were ever replicated or that Nelson ever published his results (using google scholar as the search engine). Once again, I never said that there are studies. I said that there were analyses of scat that did not conform to that of any known animal or humans. I have provided links documenting this. Until bigfoot DNA is available to compare to a sample from the scat that does not conform to any known animal, confirmation is not possible. The point is that you or a buddy claimed that there was no scat or other physical evidence associated with tracks and sightings. Fact is that there is scat collected from sites where bigfoot have been seen and where tracks have been found, and when analyzed, it does not match that of any known animal. I suggest that you also read the following article by an archeologist who has analyzed bigfoot nests to inform yourself of the fact that there is yet more physical evidence. http://www.bfro.net/ref/fieldres/sasquatchnest.asp I am gratified that instead of claiming that such evidence does not exist you are now asking for replicable results. In the military, as one force retreats from one position to another when under pressure, we refer to it as a delaying action. Clearly we are making some headway. It still seems to me, though, that you are more interested in subjectively refuting evidence than in objectively considering it. The point, actually, is that I stated that in all of the trackways claimed by researchers, none of those trackways lead to a den, feeding site, or leave any hair, blood or scat as real animals do. Finding poop in the woods and deciding, apropos of nothing, that the poop is from sasquatch without running tests is just playing make-believe. Tests would NOT show an "unknown animal", that's not how it works. If the dna tested turned out to have come from an animal not listed in genbank the scientist would still be able to determine which animal(s) are most closely related. If the monster is some human hybrid the test would show how long ago the monster split from humans (just as dna can show you or I our lineages). Using the excuse that, because there is no holotype, dna cannot be used to confirm a novel animal in north america is wrong/false. So, no tested scat, blood, hair, teeth, etc. has been associated with trackways/casts. Look, I've stated repeatedly that I'd love to be 100% wrong on this. An undiscovered megafauna being hidden on this continent for this amount of time with the ranges reported would be so amazing that words fail me. That said, the community does itself no favors by making/accepting all these falsehoods/fantastical claims. I know believers get frustrated and that the "desire" for the monster to be real can cloud otherwise rational minds but the community as a whole needs to be on guard for this and needs to police these things so that time/energy/resources are not wasted repeatedly. Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now. Mopar, The PGF isn't even agreed upon by sasquatch believers to be real, never mind the general public. Heck, even "The Bigfoot Show" guys didn't agree that the PGF was the real deal and even the ones who thought the PGF was real didn't buy the idea that there were/was/is more than one animal shown. This is, again, the problem with this field. The believers out there can't BEGIN to agree on much of anything. How frustrating that must be I cannot imagine. I think I understand why most of the scientific community will not touch this stuff though. You know, Bodhi, you've gone around the bend ridiculous. First you guys claim that there are no scat, nests, hair samples or other physical evidence associated with either sightings or tracks. Then we provide documentation of scat, nests, hair samples found in association with sightings and tracks that when analyzed do not match any known animal, but are consistently determined to be most closely identifiable to human or primate samples​, then you claim that the scat and hair tested and found to not be that of any known animal, but still most closely related to human or primate samples, is just random scat and hair with no link to the sightings or footprints. DWA and Norseman are right. You apparently do not read the material that is posted. I can only assume that your goal is to disrupt rather than to debate. I heartily encourage you try to add more value to this forum that you are currently offering. Well, black holes haven't been directly photographed yet but we can see the lensing affect they create as they bend light. That is science. It was an effect predicted by Einstein and further studies proved the theory to be correct. What predictive theories from the sasquatch community have proved to be correct? range/habitat? migration? diet? how many animals in shown in the PGF? What have all those casts that meldrum owns led to; how has whatever information he's gleaned been used to help in the search? You used black holes to make a flippant and disparaging commen,t and I know you aren't to be taken seriously, but still it's a silly comment. The lensing observed as the gravity of supermassive objects been light is far more empirical evidence than has ever been associated with the monster. So black holes are something that we haven't seen, but define based on the secondary evidence that they generate. Perhaps they are a silhouette of something defined by the available evidence too. Why is this logic valid for black holes, but not bigfoot.? Black holes, affect the light which passes in front of them. Black holes "interact" with other matter, sasquatches don't. No scat, no hair, no blood, no bone, no fossils. And - Claiming you have scat that you think is sasquatch may be sufficient evidence for you, it doesn't even approach evidence for me. IF someone ever produces a sample which legit science states is from a primate, even if they find some from a modern primate here in the u.s., that would be interesting. And lastly, thanks for your suggestions. I promise you I will give them all the attention they deserve. Dude, your last statements here have no validity whatsoever. You believe bigfoot doesn't exist, so you state these things as if they are fact. They are nothing more than your own opinion, and happen to once again disclose both your bias and lack of objectivity.

I'm, potentially, 12 feet tall. Where are the studies? There is no such thing as "unknown" animal dna, any report would list the animal(s) most closely related/associated with the dna. Unless the scat is properly collected and tested it's just....poop on your desk. I thought that was self evident but apparently I was wrong. I noticed that the link to the facebook page showed sasquatch scat purportedly gathered by cliff barackman back in 1999 - cliff is "pro" researcher; what happened to his sample? He should have had the contacts/resources to have the sample analyzed, no? By the way that last link was interesting but I can't see that Nelson's results were ever replicated or that Nelson ever published his results (using google scholar as the search engine). Once again, I never said that there are studies. I said that there were analyses of scat that did not conform to that of any known animal or humans. I have provided links documenting this. Until bigfoot DNA is available to compare to a sample from the scat that does not conform to any known animal, confirmation is not possible. The point is that you or a buddy claimed that there was no scat or other physical evidence associated with tracks and sightings. Fact is that there is scat collected from sites where bigfoot have been seen and where tracks have been found, and when analyzed, it does not match that of any known animal. I suggest that you also read the following article by an archeologist who has analyzed bigfoot nests to inform yourself of the fact that there is yet more physical evidence. http://www.bfro.net/ref/fieldres/sasquatchnest.asp I am gratified that instead of claiming that such evidence does not exist you are now asking for replicable results. In the military, as one force retreats from one position to another when under pressure, we refer to it as a delaying action. Clearly we are making some headway. It still seems to me, though, that you are more interested in subjectively refuting evidence than in objectively considering it. The point, actually, is that I stated that in all of the trackways claimed by researchers, none of those trackways lead to a den, feeding site, or leave any hair, blood or scat as real animals do. Finding poop in the woods and deciding, apropos of nothing, that the poop is from sasquatch without running tests is just playing make-believe. Tests would NOT show an "unknown animal", that's not how it works. If the dna tested turned out to have come from an animal not listed in genbank the scientist would still be able to determine which animal(s) are most closely related. If the monster is some human hybrid the test would show how long ago the monster split from humans (just as dna can show you or I our lineages). Using the excuse that, because there is no holotype, dna cannot be used to confirm a novel animal in north america is wrong/false. So, no tested scat, blood, hair, teeth, etc. has been associated with trackways/casts. Look, I've stated repeatedly that I'd love to be 100% wrong on this. An undiscovered megafauna being hidden on this continent for this amount of time with the ranges reported would be so amazing that words fail me. That said, the community does itself no favors by making/accepting all these falsehoods/fantastical claims. I know believers get frustrated and that the "desire" for the monster to be real can cloud otherwise rational minds but the community as a whole needs to be on guard for this and needs to police these things so that time/energy/resources are not wasted repeatedly. Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now. Mopar, The PGF isn't even agreed upon by sasquatch believers to be real, never mind the general public. Heck, even "The Bigfoot Show" guys didn't agree that the PGF was the real deal and even the ones who thought the PGF was real didn't buy the idea that there were/was/is more than one animal shown. This is, again, the problem with this field. The believers out there can't BEGIN to agree on much of anything. How frustrating that must be I cannot imagine. I think I understand why most of the scientific community will not touch this stuff though. You know, Bodhi, you've gone around the bend ridiculous. First you guys claim that there are no scat, nests, hair samples or other physical evidence associated with either sightings or tracks. Then we provide documentation of scat, nests, hair samples found in association with sightings and tracks that when analyzed do not match any known animal, but are consistently determined to be most closely identifiable to human or primate samples​, then you claim that the scat and hair tested and found to not be that of any known animal, but still most closely related to human or primate samples, is just random scat and hair with no link to the sightings or footprints. DWA and Norseman are right. You apparently do not read the material that is posted. I can only assume that your goal is to disrupt rather than to debate. I heartily encourage you try to add more value to this forum that you are currently offering. Well, black holes haven't been directly photographed yet but we can see the lensing affect they create as they bend light. That is science. It was an effect predicted by Einstein and further studies proved the theory to be correct. What predictive theories from the sasquatch community have proved to be correct? range/habitat? migration? diet? how many animals in shown in the PGF? What have all those casts that meldrum owns led to; how has whatever information he's gleaned been used to help in the search? You used black holes to make a flippant and disparaging commen,t and I know you aren't to be taken seriously, but still it's a silly comment. The lensing observed as the gravity of supermassive objects been light is far more empirical evidence than has ever been associated with the monster. So black holes are something that we haven't seen, but define based on the secondary evidence that they generate. Perhaps they are a silhouette of something defined by the available evidence too. Why is this logic valid for black holes, but not bigfoot.? Black holes, affect the light which passes in front of them. Black holes "interact" with other matter, sasquatches don't. No scat, no hair, no blood, no bone, no fossils. And - Claiming you have scat that you think is sasquatch may be sufficient evidence for you, it doesn't even approach evidence for me. IF someone ever produces a sample which legit science states is from a primate, even if they find some from a modern primate here in the u.s., that would be interesting. And lastly, thanks for your suggestions. I promise you I will give them all the attention they deserve.

Sure, it would be great to know more about this, however, when a person remains anonymous this is all you'll ever have. Sure the police know who the caller is, but they are legally bound to not release her name. Also, would this be the first time someone took the time to fabricate such a detailed account if it didn't happen? Some say the PGF is a fabrication. If so, that's pretty time consuming and detailed. This report has too many open questions that will never get answered. I want it to be a true report, I just have my doubts. Would you prefer we take everything at face value and ask no questions or demand no proof? Neither would I.

It is just one report. Standing alone, it is nothing. It doesn't stand alone, as we all know. The Commonwealth has a long and detailed history. It is also where my two, "What the heck WAS that?" encounters took place. I find much more to ponder in the comments to that story than anything else, and it is fairly mirrors a lot of what we get around here on the Forum. Instead of, "Well, wouldn't it be great to know more about this?", we see the usual tired quips and stereotypes regarding witnesses. Of this, let me just say: Do you know anyone who takes the time and effort to fabricate a detailed story like this and then call up law enforcement to elaborate about it? Neither do I. As for anonymous? Nobody can make an anonymous call to a police dispatcher, at least in the sense the phone # is not anonymous and probably the actual identity of the caller isn't as well.

If we're going to personalize it, I find it amazing that some people can only see red on anything related to Dr. Ketchum; so yes, let's see the results of this other lab that is supposed to be validating her findings.

If Gimlin was ever within 25 feet of Patty it was only to help Suit Up.

1. Seriously, when you start throwing the word "fact" around based on speculation, it doesn't do much for your argument. 2. The "multiple tracks" that P&G found were the leftover footprints from the Blue Creek Mountain episode. Hoaxed footprints means the story doesn't support any claim of multiple Bigfoots in the area. Nobody said that they "disprove the existence of sasquatch". 3. Your "breakthrough research" is based on flawed logic that the camera was never stopped. Munns examination of the film frame by frame shows the camera stopped multiple times.

Someday, something more than stories would do wonders to bolster your assertions. More than 9K of the same posting, too.

As far as probabilities goes the greatest odds would be it was a hoax. If bigfoot be real its so rare that its only been captured on camera once. Therefore its far more likely that a couple of dudes pulled a hoax than having captured the real deal. Far easier to hoax a thermal nowadays than hd video. I predict a lot more thermals in bigfoots future.

They exist. You really want a knockdown drag out you need a contender with WOOO written on both gloves : ) . Shadowborn , you did'nt mention on what caused the said "split" . I will not create a macro so you will have to come here and reread this line :0 Everyone of the reports cannot be fake,hoax, misidentification. currently there are 4836 reports on the BFRO and that does not include the ones they keep private. I have read a lot of them and there are more than several that are from what anyone should call reputable people, people that reporting a Sasquatch sighting could possibly have repercussions on their life. Law enforcement officers, wildlife personnell, doctors phsycologists etc. The number above is not all the reports, I know of a half dozen just around me that have never been reported and I am sure I am not alone in that on this forum. There are some of the above as, we all know, hoaxes, mis id's, But for arguments sake sake ( I do not believe no where near this figure) That 99% are fake / mis id's that means just from the "known" BFRO reports that there are at least 48 Sasquatches running around out there. How can anyone look at the number of people that have came face to face with what that person knows was not a human and tell them that they are mistaken or lying. The math adds up in favor of Sasquatch all day long.