Leaderboard

While not precisely contamination, consider her attempt to get Justin Smeja to destroy the rest of the "steak" with bleach so it could not be tested to refute her claim it was sasquatch. Instead, with a little help, he had it tested by Trent University where it was conclusively shown to be black bear. This demonstrates Ketchum's fraud. MIB

She is a joke with no credibility. I do feel sorry for the researchers who sent her samples though.

Let's face it, Indian tribes were slaughtering each other long before Europeans ever set foot on this continent. The notion of Indians being a peaceful, caring group who lived in harmony with nature, and loved everyone, is absolutely wrong. During tribal wars, they raided villages, killed, took other Indians as slaves, or would kill everyone including women and children. They would behead, cut out tongues, cut off limbs, and more. Gentle and sweet folks. Read about the Crow Creek massacre. It will curl your hair.

Winchester 1873 repeating rifles appeared ~380 years after the European invasion. Apples to oranges except the Cheyenne and Lakota used them to great effect upon the barbarian, George Armstrong Custer. Many have seen the PBS documentary, Guns, Germs & Steel and are fully aware of the biological warfare engaged upon the First Americans. All I will say about that part of our history is....karma will be a real bitch. IMO, Sasquatch probably observed this interaction between FA's & the European invaders and likely decided discretion was the best course of action. Face it, white people have a history of belligerent behavior toward any others they encounter especially if they look, act and live different from themselves. This is therefore a predictable reaction toward all things Sasquatch. It therefore, begs the question of WHO is really the savage as technology alone does not make one a real human being. It's something far more salient and requires something inside a person that some are sorely lacking thereof.

There has been a ton of criticism in the past regarding Human "contamination" of samples. Samples that were processed under known and accepted cleaning techniques and yet still come back Human. The result was a lot of finger pointing and calls for mishandling in spite of documented procedures that showed otherwise. What I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with what's going on in that photo. It's not a sterile lab and isn't meant to be one and doesn't need to be one at this stage of the game. If a Human hair drops onto the nest it will match Human perfectly all the way through the genome. If it's Sasquatch it will not show Human all the way. The nuclear DNA will turn out like previous samples have turned out. Human and something else. The mitochondrial will be ALL Human though. What I'm getting at is that folks will eventually come around to the point that Sasquatch is MOSTLY Human. But the element in the nuclear DNA that isn't will be present. But since there's no genome to match it against it will get tossed as being contaminated by Humans. Even though the tests will show a Human maternal lineage and a not quite 100% Human paternal lineage. The techniques used in washing the sample means I could pick up a Sasquatch hair with my fingers and it wouldn't matter. The nuclear DNA in the hair should still show something not quite Human. The problem people have is with the Human part of this equation. They throw the test out as soon as they read Human even though there are elements that say NOT Human. Not talking porcupine or bear hair or any other known animal here either. Talking about that tiny part of the nuclear DNA that is not of those things, nor is it Human even though most of the nuclear DNA IS Human. In other words, it shows an odd daddy somewhere in the history of the nuclear DNA lineage.

Hiflier, IMO, you basically laid out the story as I understood it from not only the original source but others with access to the facts and circumstances as well. In looking through several threads found here the majority of published "evidence" against Ketchum comes from Skeptic/Skofftic sources and/or blogspots that aren't usually good anecdotal information, even on a good day with hyperbole being accepted as a form of evidence, not a good format. This excerpt speaks volumes: ..."Truth is, once again, the ossified groupthink in bigfootville does not allow the researcher tribe to consider the possibility that bigfoot is not the ape that John Green, Peter Byrne, and Rene Dahinden always said it was. I believe it was Rene Dahinden’s quotation that lives in infamy, “It’s nothing but a ****, dirty ape!” Sadly that phrase still echoes in the halls of bigfootville and it has done lasting damage to the intellectual integrity with which the competing hypotheses have been considered by bigfoot researchers to this day"... BTW, am not a card-carrying Ketchum defender as IMO, she succumbed to the profit motive partially driven by financial stresses however, am aware that some of her work was of the quality to stand on it's own but the cultish ambience so endemic in both the academic community as well as Sasquatchery, went to war on her almost from the get-go. Yep, those dam n trees always seem to be getting in the way.

"One" could review the discussion here on BFF in the Ketchum threads. "One" **might** be able to locate interviews and "testimony" via vids on youtube. I don't expect you to make the effort, I expect you to attempt to manipulate me into doing your due diligence for you, then dismiss it because it's not what you want to hear, so I'm going to .. up front .. tell you not to waste my time, either find it yourself or don't. MIB