Leaderboard

Bill Munns broke Matilda as a hoax. Ketchum was directly involved with the Erickson project and told quite a few stories about interacting with "forest people". http://weekinweird.com/2013/02/25/clear-face-bigfoot-screens-secretive-sasquatch-project-leak/ What makes her any different than Dyer or Standing? How is Matilda any different than Hank or Muppet heads!!?? Here is what is different.....she is SUPPOSE to a scientist!!! Therefore she should be held to a higher standard than con men. I find it super hard to believe that Melba is a naive, idiot that was duped into all this. I could be wrong about this, but not likely given her actions up to this point. Including her willingness to allow people to take pity on her and her shoddy work and woe is me attitude...., Versus having some backbone as a scientist and standing up and saying " After consulting the most respected primate genetistics on earth, I realize that my study is flawed and my conclusions are wrong....here is why." Instead? Like some high school popularity contest she publicly appeals to people like Hiflier to save her. The meanie heads in academia are after me! Help! Save me! Its a conspiracy! None of this matters....either we, her, they, us, whomever HAS the goods? OR we dont! And if any of us are caught trying to cash in or make a name for ourselves or dupe the public WITHOUT the goods? I hope they are eviscerated publicly...... Its not about belief, its about what we can prove. And if it pisses people off that Melba Ketchum is attacked and her character is called into question? Too dang bad!!! She is reaping what she has sown. People like her are the exact reason nobody takes this subject seriously.

Hi everyone, I was being very careful with things before bring this here but I am now informing you that the subject in the Patterson Gimlin Film is a real female Sasquatch. I was on the fence for years but still gave the creature's existence a 51%-49% possibility. Now it's 100%. There is no doubt in my mind that what Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin captured on film back on October 20, 1967 was the real deal. This opens up a lot of things on many levels, especially for me, and is the end of a long and arduous look at all of the evidence from the first moment I arrived on this Forum up until even today. I know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Well I have that now and will go into how this happened in the next post. I apologize for the delay but I have been sitting here absorbing this for several hours now to make sure it's a solid case. We've all been strung along so often and I certainly never wanted to be one of those who said something and, I the end had nothing. I'm glad to say that that isn't the case here. I'm working out how to present this in the best way possible so everyone can follow the process and understand how things came about. Be patient- it's been 50 years so a few more minutes or an hour or so shouldn't matter. Talk soon, I promise.

By Jeff Meldrum https://beta.capeia.com/zoology/2017/10/20/on-the-plausibility-of-another-bipedal-primate-species-existing-in-north-america As I knelt beside the 38 cm footprint, one of several dozen distinctly impressed in the muddy side road in the foothills of the Blue Mountains of southeastern Washington, the hair literally stood up on my neck with the incredulous sensation that a sasquatch may indeed have passed by here just hours earlier. The clarity of detail and dynamic signatures left no ambiguity, no room for misidentification. These footprints were either a very clever hoax or the track of an unknown living creature. The spontaneity, variation and animation of the footprints tipped the scales decidedly in favor of the latter option. But what were the implications of that conclusion? As a budding physical anthropologist, I had essentially shelved my youthful curiosity about Bigfoot and assumed that the passage of decades without any physical evidence justified a skeptical indictment of the subject as nothing more than folklore and legend. Here, on an overcast afternoon in February 1996, was stark evidence to the contrary. Of course it was not definitive, as in the form of a specimen, a type to establish conclusively the existence of a novel hominoid species. And short of that, I was to learn, there was no accommodating by the anthropological discipline of even the proposition of such a species, regardless of the accumulating affirmative evidence. It is one matter to address the theoretical possibility of a relict species of hominoid in North America, and the obligate shift in paradigm to accommodate it, but there must also be something substantial to place within that revised framework. There must be essential evidence to lend weight to the hypotheses, and counter the critics’ various aspersions. I was once confronted by a colleague, who declared, “After all, these are just stories.” My response: “Stories that apparently leave tracks, shed hair, void scat, vocalize, are observed and described by reliable experienced witnesses. Hardly just stories.” Others mock the notion as “pseudoscience,” but fail to explain their justification for that label, let alone provide a defensible rationale for their pat disqualification of the evidence at hand. Then there is the now popularized statement by ideological skeptic Michael Shermer, which eventually became the basis of a column in Scientific American, 2003 – “The science starts once you have a body.” On the contrary, most serious investigators would contend that the science starts once you have a question, followed by observation, and the accumulation of data. Each of these detractions begs the question of evidentiary substance that motivates investigation, and instead either off-handedly dismisses all evidence, or demands conclusive proof up front, a priori. That is hardly the method or process of explorative science. Many remain skeptical of the premise simply due to what they assume to be an exceptionally low probability that such creatures could remain undetected and unacknowledged today by modern science, especially within the continental United States. It has been pointed out that there is no history of known hominoids　 in North America. Indeed the original primates to have ever inhabited North America were squirrel-sized to cat-sized Eocene prosimian primates, most closely related to modern lemurs and lorises, not apes or hominins　. South and Central America would subsequently be colonized by platyrrhine primates, a diverse radiation now represented by marmosets to spider monkeys. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Further discussion in the article: What would be the source of a giant relict hominoid in North America? Why is there no fossil record of sasquatch in North America? Where are any recent physical remains? How would a relict hominoid make a living in a temperate forest habitat? Footprint evidence And more, in the article by Dr. Meldrum. Enjoy!

Here, spend some time with this. All of it: http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_18.html

Norseman, you cannot prove that Dr. Ketchum knew that Matilda was the hoax that it's purported to be. If he's not a 'proven' hoaxer then you can't put him in the line up. Ketchum isn't a proven hoaxer so you shouldn't put her in the line up at all. And BTW, your momma said it correctly. . And kinda uncalled for, Twist. Prove Dr. Ketchum was a hoaxer and I'll agree with you though, and be the first to tell you I was wrong.

Pissed off? Nope. Not me. And Dr. Ketchum never reached out or appealed to me for anything and neither has anyone else for that matter. In addition, none of what you said addresses the fact that at this point in time there is no legal battles going on, no proof of intentional hoaxing or deception nor any other nefarious deeds, purposely contrived by her or not. Hoaxing implies intent, deception implies intent. Can you or anyone else prove that there was any intention by Dr. Ketchum to do any of those things? No, you cannot. So all of the venom, all of the foul attitudes, all of the anger and hate bestowed upon her has no basis in fact. We like facts on this Forum. Argue for truth. And dig as far as we can to prove a hoax. You yourself have been stalwart and valuable to everyone here just for that reason. But you can't prove hoaxing on Ketchum's part. So the most reasonable thing is to say there wasn't a hoax, or even an intention to hoax UNTIL YOU FIND OUT OTHERWISE AND CAN PROVE IT. And that goes for everyone else on this Forum as well. The witch hunt and trashing of Melba Ketchum is over unless there is rock solid proof, beyond just opinion, that she did anything underhanded. I can accept naïve and I can accept misinterpreting data even because of a preconceived notion that may or may not be a result of being hosed by others. I don't know either way on that. But until hard proof is found then there should be a truce drawn on Dr. Ketchum- by this community at least. We do not chase shadows here. We look for real answers and in Ketchum's case regarding proof of her intent to deceive? there are no shadows to be had. Go look for yourself but I'm sure that if there was anything in the way of hard evidence showing intentional hoaxing you would have found it, or someone would have, years ago. There is a fine line between suspected hoaxing and proof of intentional hoaxing. It is all of our responsibility to make sure that that line doesn't get blurred. Yes, it's principle, but an extremely important one if we are to maintain this Forum's integrity. Regarding your last comment, no one out there has taken this subject seriously for a long time. Long before Dr. Ketchum was ever heard of. So no more scapegoating, calling her a nut case or anything else. She made mistakes, yes, but nothing concrete that would, or should, damn her the way that she's been damned.

hiflier, you ROCK!!!!!!! I am so impressed by the research you've done, your command of the facts, and your tireless advocacy for the truth. Enjoy a well-deserved vacation from the thread.

I honestly think I'm talking to myself here. Page 11 had such a disconnect with anything I was saying regarding confidentiality agreements, lack of lawsuits, lack of professional reprisals, and no evidence that any SGP team member thought there was anything wrong with the study then or now. No evidence whatsoever that anyone associated with the project either financially or professionally saw or reported any improprieties technically or scientifically. No one, except for one PR person who is NOT a scientist, geneticist or even a lab tech and did not financially invest into the study. All of that- with no legal or criminal indications of any kind and no action taken at any time against Dr. Ketchum- at all. So. What? I'm just making this up? "Get a clue hiflier" is the response to this entire line of thinking? After asking that personal jabs not be issued I get a jab anyway? That paragraph above has merit whether anyone likes it or not. No one can refute it but rather that agree or find some alternate reason that explains what I said in that paragraph? I'm told to stick a fork in it. Seriously, if there is a darned good reason or reasons that provide another avenue of thinking for discussing why Dr. Ketchum has been virtually untouched legally for her accused misconduct then I would honestly like to hear it. And I mean that. I would like to hear it. For the sake of emphasis I will repeat the paragraph: "Page 11 had such a disconnect with anything I was saying regarding confidentiality agreements, lack of lawsuits, lack of professional reprisals, and no evidence that any SGP team member thought there was anything wrong with the study then or now. No evidence whatsoever that anyone associated with the project either financially or professionally saw or reported any improprieties technically or scientifically. No one, except for one PR person who is NOT a scientist, geneticist or even a lab tech and did not financially invest into the study. All of that- with no legal or criminal indications of any kind and no action taken at any time against Dr. Ketchum- at all." None of you can address these things. If you could you would instead of side stepping every point I've brought up. I'm about to rest this case because I have see no direct or relevant rebuttals for at least two pages. When none of her colleagues from the study broke the non-disclosure/confidentiality agreement because they found something fraudulent or deceptive- because they didn't find or see anything fraudulent or deceptive even after the fact and after the paper went public. Nothing. No attacks, no mutinies, no cries of foul or foul play. So yes, I'm nearly done here and not because I've somehow vindicated Dr. Melba Ketchum of any wrong doing. It's more because I see no one who is willing to step up and actually look at that bolded paragraph and understand what it really is saying. Melba Ketchum doesn't need vindication from wrong doing- that's what it's saying. There is nothing in that paragraph that indicts her. No action taken against her means no action taken against her. And not one of you is willing enough to even say why that would be after all the things she has been publicly accused of doing. No action taken against her by ANYONE. Just how could that be possible after all the supposed fraud and deceit and stealing other people's money through this scam she is alleged to have hatched and run? No reprisals for all the bad evil things. Lots to think about now folks, so get to it. And NOW, I'm done here.

I have yet to to see or hear anyone suggest the very logical reason the clump of bear hair may have been found at the site where Justin thought he had concealed the BF.. It was cold weather. Bear country. Bear working hard to find and eat enough to get them through the winter. They can smell dead animals from miles away. A bear finds the hidden body, another bear tries to steal it, and a knock-down drag-out ensues, One bear loses the fight, along with a clump of hide and hair. The winner drags the Bigfoot body of to a good place eat and guard it. If there had been a bear killed and/or cleaned at that location by a legal or illegal hunter, there would have undoubtedly been more evidence of such a kill at that site, especially if was an illegal kill. There is absolutely no reason that bear hair would have to be subjected to DNA analyses to determine the source animal. Somewhere down the line someone either messed with that clump of hair, or its analysis. It is my understanding that Dr. S made at least one, and maybe two trips to the F&W DNA lab in Ashland before he presented his "findings" to Justin and the others. Why? So the folks there could explain what they were obligated to do by "little o's" memo. Since it was a sample from the USA, Dr. S was under the gun, big time!