HOLDMYBEER Posted July 28, 2013 Share Posted July 28, 2013 This was correspondence pre-Ketchum study when an organization called AEGIS was being formed, post Kentucky videos and Matilda. My point is only that a true video of a sasquatch sleeping on the ground should have led to the parallel discovery of sasquatch DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted July 28, 2013 Share Posted July 28, 2013 Melba also says this about Matilda: Melba Ketchum The hi def video is good. Her tongue is moist and gray. People don't have gray tongues. She also has a bad tooth.. The reason that they think it is a mask is that she does look like a wookie. I understand that George Lucas designed Chewbacca after a BF sighting he had as a child. Some of them do have fully haired faces. Some do not. This is the reason that video won't prove it. The DNA from Matilda was absolutely genuine. https://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum?fref=ts But Lucas says this: According to an interview with creator George Lucas, the inspiration for the Wookiee was Lucas' dog, Indiana (whose name is used in the Lucas-inspired Indiana Jones movies). "He was the prototype for the Wookiee. He always sat beside me in the car. He was big, a big bear of a dog."[this quote needs a citation] During the climactic chase scene in THX 1138, one of the robotic cops, voiced by actor Terry McGovern, says: "I think I ran over a Wookiee back there", and thus the word was born.[1][2][3][4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wookiee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 28, 2013 Share Posted July 28, 2013 The wookie also has a black nose, and something Moneymaker says is a sure sign of legitimacy. That's one of the strangest things I've heard him say on finding bigfoot and am skeptical about that. The BFRO was involved early on with the Kentucky property if memory serves. I have to wonder if there is something more to that. This was correspondence pre-Ketchum study when an organization called AEGIS was being formed, post Kentucky videos and Matilda. My point is only that a true video of a sasquatch sleeping on the ground should have led to the parallel discovery of sasquatch DNA. I simply can't be sure it didn't result in obtaining sasquatch DNA. If Disotell, paleo labs and Ketchum got human DNA from the same samples then thats what it is, So it would be on Leila Hadj-Chikh to provide the provenance on it and why it was prospectively sasquatch in origin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted July 29, 2013 Share Posted July 29, 2013 Well, yes, I agree completely. To my point, it hasn't been done, at least in a manner that is open for review. Until those documents are disclosed, any investigator would hold that evidence short of passing vet at any standard, let alone to a standard of probability. Unvetted evidence does not, can not, should not, bolster the credibility of other questioned evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 29, 2013 Share Posted July 29, 2013 This was correspondence pre-Ketchum study when an organization called AEGIS was being formed, post Kentucky videos and Matilda. So... if there was corro it's documented - is the document available for review? Otherwise... well, you know what your sig line says. You mentioned you vetted the material Ketchum has essentially said to have vetted, and that your vet trumps her vet, so is your vet available for vetting? Also, I note your passion for vetting, which is an important and often overlooked part of research (along with 'chain of custody' procedures) - have you given any though to laying out a bit of a "Rough Guide to Vetting" and posting it on here somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted July 29, 2013 Share Posted July 29, 2013 No, I have vetted nothing. I have reviewed some vetting documents tied to the Ketchum study but certainly not all of them. What I have seen does not indicate the respective samples likely evidence of what is called sasquatch. I have been calling for their release of the documentation of the study such that I and others can review the standard to which they were examined. The correspondence referred to is not available for review as I am not proffering any evidence for consideration. I am asking for documentation that backs the statement given by Ketchum in the earlier post. As for a rough guide let me look for an earlier post and I will link it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted July 29, 2013 Share Posted July 29, 2013 This is not at all comprehensive but only an attempt to be responsive to Tyler H's thread about dealing with evidence. I am not an authority. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/36854-things-to-consider-when-you-have-physical-evidence-to-process/#entry704606 Tomorrow I will be traveling to an area that is not allowed access to BFF so please understand I am not ignoring your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Yeah no worries, and thanks for that link, there's some great info in there. I agree with your point about people operating under different ideas of just what vetting is. On an associated issue, I think that some of the info that you would include in your level of vetting would actually benefit someone like Stubstad who wasn't as concerned with those details, because those details themselves can contribute useful info about morphologies and behaviours. Thanks, FG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Its sad. Although Iam in no way into genetics, I dont think that Dr Ketchum´s work is that flawed as some sceptics argue. And Iam still wondering whats up with the Smeja sample. The steak was said to not have been human, should bee easy to check for any lab. So how does Human DNA got into it at all? Simple contamination should have been identified by Ketchum with ease. I dont know her, but there is no reason for her to jump to her conclusion based on simply contaminated dna. If the sceptics stop testing after finding human MtDna, they not try to replicate at all. Anyway, is the paper + DNA results freely available anywhere now? Surely not a cashcow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Everyone is missing the boat again. She designed the test to show human because that was what was in her best interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Everyone is missing the boat again. She designed the test to show human because that was what was in her best interests. You say she "bent" the results of contaminated or degraded animal DNA to the point where they appeared to be human? To fit her assumed idea? Now where is that from? Didnt even Disotel test positive for human mtDNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 If you aren't aware of this already you have some reading to do. She began with the end in mind and that end was "human". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Where did she say she had human in mind? She got human results because human was there. It's the only ape result anywhere in all BF results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 SY have you not been paying attention over the last several years???? The endgame was always for BF to be human. Always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 It's the only ape result anywhere in all BF results. Sorry SY, but you lost me on this one as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts