Leaderboard

Wow, hiflier!! My respect for you just went WAY up! I know Melba, and she was 100% honest in every part of that study. I think the more you learn about it, the more you will admire her for the sacrifices she has made and the persecution she has endured.

H, Succinct and spot on, lad. IMO, Nature's reaction to the original presentation of Ketchum's work clearly defined their (and probably most of other such entities) kowtow to the altar of PC'ness. Subsequently, did the offensive to deride and discredit her work become necessary as her isolation and vilification was requisite in order to CYA? As Americans, we have a historical record of challenging authority and status quo as after all, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights pretty much lay all that out rather plainly. The disconnect is many take scientific publications as purely scientific in nature and decline to acknowledge/question the political undertones and other gambits that may be lying just underneath the surface. Am am in no way concluding Ketchum is infallible however, the ferocity of her detractors does give reason to consider, did they really have something to fear from the findings she brought to light?

After much time spent I've come to the realization that I'm in no way better to debate this than the historical record. I have run across much that I was unaware of but the things is all it has done, believe it or not, is show the alignment against peer review and its dialogue. A dialogue that IMHO had constantly moved the goal post for acceptance of the paper. Goal posts that when confronted and met with compliance were yet moved again and again. There were unethical actions taken by the peer reviewers and strong attempts to undermine Ketchum's study as time after time criteria for acceptance was issued and met by the Sasquatch Genome Projects team- only to have publishing the paper thwarted by yet more and more demands in the face expert support of the process and technology used and the results obtained. In other words folks, there was NO WAY this paper was going to be published no matter what hoops the team jumped through or what suggestions and criteria they satisfied. Period. Sure, call me a conspiracy crackpot or whatever you like, the fact of the matter is that study was NEVER going to be allowed to be published. NEVER. And there is no possibility that I could ever cite everything and every example in just this one post. Tomorrow I'm hitting the road for a two month trip cross country; something I and my spouse have never done. I will have WI-FI most of the time so will try my darnedest to stay with this. Suffice it to say for the moment, I will stick with the mtDNA results and the procedures used to gain those results which will include everything regarding the quality of the samples. I will attempt to stay as far away from opinion as possible and try to stay with only the science. The science and how it was obtained via standard operation procedures will speak for itself. And since I am not an expert I will have to rely on source arguments pro and con to arrive at a consensus beyond what I or any of you may think regarding this topic. I will do my objective best to present the arguments and counter arguments that have surrounded this study. In the end it may change my own mind about things and I say this because I want the truth of it all for myself gained from my own research and not just through rumor, hearsay, or the opinion of others. Personally, I do not think there is a better way for me to approach this. Your opinions are welcome of course but until I research and review every inch of this they will probably matter little. Taking a hiatus to delve deeper into this may even be the avenue I should take but for now I'm here and so will at least try to get a scientific pros and cons from you members. This is going to be interesting.

A lot of dialogue across the various threads on this Forum over the years since the study came out would say, yes. But, then too, I haven't run a cross a consistent thread of dialogue that hasn't been broken up by venomous opinion and constant strafeing by skeptics. Something against odds that I would like to see not happen here. For the record, I already do simply on the basis of her strength to fight the battle for years. But saying that it in no way impacts the actual science. And as much as I admire people with that kind of focus they are not perfect. That's why even their opinions on whatever it is they are debating cannot be taken into account. Facts are facts. And no one should consider those opinions as a sway in what ones thinks. I'm a Human also with opinions which will be the hardest thing for me to ignore, but ignore I must. And I don't care how this turns out no one will ever see a snarky remark from me one way or another. There's simply no room for attitude when science and methodology is more important to impartially address. I thank you and Yuchi1 for the encouragement. I'm very much looking forward to this. Enough said because where to begin is going to take some figuring out because confusion cannot be allowed to enter into this anywhere. It needs a clean logical start and timeline simply for readability- never mind for truth. That comes at the end and for proponents it could be for good or for bad.

W, Nowhere did I say NA's were "better human beings", rather the Europeans were worse human beings by virtue of how they dealt with people possessing less technology. Just as professional persons are held to a higher standard of accountability than lay persons, so should those with more advanced technology be so held. That's Human Rights 101. N, IMO, the correlation of treatment for NA's (historically) and Sasquatch (today) has a parallel that is clearly evident. What are you going to say/do when after forensic examination of the body you brought in (with a bullet hole in it) reveals the "human DNA contamination" excuse is not really contamination after all? Dr. Ketchum's work and words would then prove prophetic and "bite" quite a few people in their smug arses, Food for thought.

I see no correlation between Bigfoot and American Indians. With that said, I definitely see the injustices done to the American Indian, even to this day. In a way? They are still POW's in a war they lost. Hostile tribes are often shoved onto the same reservation or adjoining ones. Most tribes do not reside in ancestoral home lands. And through treaty after treaty their reservations have been whittled down to nothing. A example is the northern Cheyenne and Crow in SE Montana. The Crow acted as scouts for the US cavalry and the Cheyenne fought with the Sioux against the Crow and US. I dont agree with some modern Indian practices like gill netting or shooting 10 deer when you only need 2. But ultimately they were here first, and I do respect that. I also respect their right to their own culture and beliefs. And they were an amazing people to start in the Stone Age and within a couple of hundred years advance to the space age. It has only been a little over 100 years since Ishi walked out of the forest. Amazing!

W, The Europeans "won" because they had better technology (guns) and the biological edge (immunity to the diseases they deployed upon NA's) however, their historical behavior certainly illustrated they were not better human beings. Instead, they were just more technologically advanced predators and as such should not be surprised when they are eventually conquered and supplanted. The continuing march of tribal sovereignty in this country as well as the same for Aboriginal rights in Australia indicates this process is taking more of a legal path instead of military force option as the Europeans originally chose.

Which I think solidifies the mindset that both the convoluted DNA results and Matilda was a premeditated hoax from the get go. Interestingly enough her first act after releasing the hoax was parallel to Standing. She tried to introduce legislation to protect the species. If either of them ever truly proved the species to be real? I would support it 200%!