Leaderboard

A bit of both. Not just skeptics, though, but also proponents (including "knowers" like me). On semantics, a science paper has a very rigid format for presenting the information. Ketchum has an advanced degree. She has followed that format many, likely hundreds, of times, else she wouldn't have gotten her degree. And yet she refused to do it with something this important .. why? The main breakdown was that the conclusion for the paper has to reflect and interpret the experimental results. She flatly failed to connect those dots. Her conclusion was a rambling opinion piece without substantive connection to the rest of the paper. On evidence, on paper content, she fell flat in two ways. First, she claimed to provide data for full genomes. She presented less than 10% enough volume of data to represent a full genome. There is no way around this simple fact. She is truly a subject matter expert, she cannot NOT know this. She did it anyway which gives the appearance of deliberate deception .. scientific fraud. In the second way, there was something flawed in her methodology. She came up with gibberish data by using the "next gen" sequencing on DNA sequences that were too short to correctly assemble. She ignored what should have been red flags regarding her intermediate results and rather than back up to reconsider her methods, she plowed forward putting forth irrational assessments of the data. I truly wish Ketchum had been right in concept and forthright in presentation. She was not. I would love to have a private confab with her to see if there is some way I'm overlooking something. I wouldn't expect it to turn out well. So far, when confronted with these seemingly irrefutable facts, rather than address the substance of the question she has attacked the questioner. That is the behavior of a sociopath and narcissist, not a scientist. In the end, bigfoot is still out there to be discovered. What Ketchum accomplished, rather than providing the protection she said she was trying for, she made proof of existence almost inseparable from putting one or more on a slab. DNA and pictures might have been enough before her. They no longer are. If you want to prove existence, you're going to have to kill one. Thanks, Doc. Thanks. MIB

Clearing roads today on ranch. I found top of a skull. I think I had a cow abort. But maybe it’s a yearling whitetail. It’s small.

I fully accept aspects of sasquatches abducting homo sapiens, especially women and children. Such behavior has been common throughout primitive human history. I can also accept cases of occasional sasquatch predation on homo sapiens. That, too, is an occasional reality. But I have to wonder about cases like Albert Ostman and Muchalat Harry. Why would a sasquatch abduct a grown man? Within the homo sapien family, the only reason that occurs is slavery/bondage...........or hostage taking. I suppose curiosity might be another motive.

Seems a bit early for snakes. But I'm in snow anus deep to a tall giraffe here. I guess that's why there are no snakes here.

Only if it is correct. If it is as wrong as my experiences tell me it is, you're hopelessly off track wasting your time. MIB