Dr. Ketchum's Report And Explanation Of Sykes Dna Study

[clownboy]

I have a question(s) for Darrell. While I can see you are basing you conclusion on the final proof alone ( a body), I'm curious what your explantion is for thousands of people across centuries and of all races seem to see the same exact creature time after time? If BF was a figment of their imagination, then would'nt there be the same number of Unicorn sightings? Or Leprachauns for that matter. What causes all these people to see the same thing with similar behavior patterns and vocalizations? Would'nt the Vocals alone be wildly sporatic if everyone was making them up?

 

What's leaving all those footprints with dermal ridges that Jimmy Chilcut examined and proclaimed to be so realistic, no one but an expert in primate prints could even hope to fake? Is everyone who is faking prints that good? Why do people find prints in areas 100's of miles from any town or city. Random pranksters wasting time and money to lay them out in the middle of nowhere?

 

 And last of all, the thing that really bugs me, when people say that sightings are just a bear being mistaken for BF. If you take your 5 year old to the zoo and he looks in the Gorrilla pen and shouts "bear" , I think you're in a load of trouble. Any kindergartner can tell the difference easily. I find that claim to be the most insulting to even the most basic intelligence if you get my drift.

 

Anyway's I see your point about ultimate proof, I'm just curious how you explain these things away as nothing. I'm trying to write this with a neutral tone so we can explore both sides of the fence. My mind is still open so give me good reasons why you have reached your conclusion.

[roguefooter]

Is it unbecoming of a scientist to sell casts at Comic-con?

 

I guess that would depend on where your research money comes from. I'm sure those grants don't last forever.

 

I really don't have a problem with people selling anything, as long as it's not their primary function. Without people selling casts most people would never have access to them.

 

 

I have a question(s) for Darrell. While I can see you are basing you conclusion on the final proof alone ( a body), I'm curious what your explantion is for thousands of people across centuries and of all races seem to see the same exact creature time after time? If BF was a figment of their imagination, then would'nt there be the same number of Unicorn sightings? Or Leprachauns for that matter. What causes all these people to see the same thing with similar behavior patterns and vocalizations? Would'nt the Vocals alone be wildly sporatic if everyone was making them up?

 

What's leaving all those footprints with dermal ridges that Jimmy Chilcut examined and proclaimed to be so realistic, no one but an expert in primate prints could even hope to fake? Is everyone who is faking prints that good? Why do people find prints in areas 100's of miles from any town or city. Random pranksters wasting time and money to lay them out in the middle of nowhere?

 

 And last of all, the thing that really bugs me, when people say that sightings are just a bear being mistaken for BF. If you take your 5 year old to the zoo and he looks in the Gorrilla pen and shouts "bear" , I think you're in a load of trouble. Any kindergartner can tell the difference easily. I find that claim to be the most insulting to even the most basic intelligence if you get my drift.

 

I could give you my take on these.

 

1. First off you have to remember how old leprechauns and unicorns are- there have been centuries of sightings of both all the way to today. I'd be willing to bet they outnumber Bigfoot sightings ten fold.

 

2. Dermal ridges have been reproduced as casting artifacts. When plaster is poured into the track it can create what looks like dermal ridges. There's a website that shows how it happens, I just don't know what it is.

 

3. Seeing a normal healthy bear is one thing- seeing a bear with severe malnutrition or mange is another. They basically look like different animals. There have already been a few sightings posted on this forum that were concluded as a bear.

 

Bears can also make "whoop" sounds which I don't think is a coincidence. It's apparently how they call each other-

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tDyhmJ6N8Q

Edited July 15, 2014 by roguefooter

[sheri]

Roguefooter, the noise that bear made was not a whoop.

[wiiawiwb]

No proof. None. Read 'em and weep.

 

Why on earth would somebody weep? 

 

Bears can also make "whoop" sounds which I don't think is a coincidence. It's apparently how they call each other-

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tDyhmJ6N8Q

 

 

You think that sounds like a whoop? Wow.

Edited July 15, 2014 by wiiawiwb

[roguefooter]

Roguefooter, the noise that bear made was not a whoop.

 

^Sure sounds like a whoop to me. Should I think differently now that you said so?

 

Granted they're from a cub I'm sure an adult would be more pronounced, but the clip shows that bears (as well as other animals) are capable of making 'whoops'. Just add forest echo.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Around midway through the Ketchum saga my instincts told me that there were too many red flags popping up.  It had lost the aura of science and took on more of a tabloid vibe.  My posts throughout it will indicate this.  At this point I don't think there is an opening that will encourage pure science to step into the bigfoot issue.  It is one thing to have those Georgia boys doing fun and games with this but it is another to have a credentialed professional have work end in either dispute or outright bad science.  That is 20 times more damaging than things like the Georgia boys.  As of 2014 there isn't anyone I've seen that I trust can do bullet proof science on this.

[sheri]

LOl, sounds nothing like a whoop.

[roguefooter]

^You must be under the impression that there is a distinct Bigfoot 'whoop'. There's not.

 

Had that bear been recorded from a distance by a Bigfoot researcher it would have ended up on YouTube like all the others. There is no certain kind of whoop that's associated with Bigfoot- they're all Bigfoot.

[roguefooter]

I have been a fan of this mess since 1970. I have a library of over 20 volumes of bigfoot publishings. Met Grover Krantz once in the Early 80's, visited with peter Bryne at his old Bigfoot Information Center in The Dalles, OR, and listened to a lecture Meldrum gave a number of years ago at UoI. Please do not assume that, because I am a skeptic, or skoftic, or whatever you all think we are, that I am not educated regarding the phenomena. My views are based on a calculated opinion of the evidence and I dont feel there is an actual creature. In fact, I am going to put all this bigfoot drivel behind me soon. If anyone is interested in my bigfoot book collection i will be selling it off soon.

 

 

I've always liked the idea of Bigfoot being a real creature- no matter how slim the chance. I also like the idea that Bigfoot is just a tongue in cheek figure that people have fun with. Like if you go to Willow Creek you'll find people that take it seriously and others who just have fun with it like some sort of local mascot. I like both the serious documentaries and the Jack Links commercials. Either way I'm fine with the outcome being real or fake, or if it never happens.

 

I hate to see people be disillusioned and then toss everything but I guess it's all how we view things coming into it.

Edited July 15, 2014 by roguefooter

[dmaker]

^^ A question for you rogue. I notice that most of your posts tend to be pretty skeptical, except for topics dealing with the pgf. I get the impression that most of your "slim chance" for bigfoot being real rests upon Pattys shoulders? Is that a correct assumption? Without the pgf, would you still give bigfoot any kind of consideration as potentially a real animal?

[Guest]

^You must be under the impression that there is a distinct Bigfoot 'whoop'. There's not.

 

Had that bear been recorded from a distance by a Bigfoot researcher it would have ended up on YouTube like all the others. There is no certain kind of whoop that's associated with Bigfoot- they're all Bigfoot.

Yep.  If you want to hear BF - there's a good chance you will hear something that sounds like BF.

 

You know what else makes whoop sounds in the woods?  Bigfooters. 

 

To answer one of clownboy's questions above - many people have reported leprechauns.  Just go to Mobile, and bring your Leprechaun flute.

 

Here is an article of a government entity confirming unicorns:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/30/unicorns-existence-proven-says-north-korea/

 

Or you could visit the Fairy forums here:

http://www.realfairies.net/forum

 

Also, the sightings that everyone claims as such solid evidence, are not nearly as consistent as I would like to see.  Some wear furs/hides in a clothes like fashion, many don't.  Some are reported as apes, some are reported as human-like.  Footprints have varying numbers of toes, and some even have a divergent big toe.  Some have snouts, some don't.  Too much variation. 

[Guest]

I must say that if I had seen a long snouted BF it would likely invoke great fear in me, and probably because it would fit the mold of the werewolf monsters in scary movies. It would be extraordinarily difficult to explain how it could be bipedal and have a dog/wolf head. It just wouldn't fit what we know about canines and bipedal apes in terms of evolution and their incompatibility biologically.

The typical bigfoot is more plausible, because it fits better with what we know atleast once existed in the past. According to science.

I don't remember the head having any type of an odd shape, it just had a snout instead of a normal mouth. Someone here explained what I had witnessed because I thought I saw a BF. I did not even know that there really was a Dogman type creature at that time.

[southernyahoo]

^You must be under the impression that there is a distinct Bigfoot 'whoop'. There's not.

 

Had that bear been recorded from a distance by a Bigfoot researcher it would have ended up on YouTube like all the others. There is no certain kind of whoop that's associated with Bigfoot- they're all Bigfoot.

 

I think the whoops do vary a bit, and I would expect the size and voice of a bigfoot or wildman to vary as well. The invariable element is that when the most serious researchers in this community get close enough to collect these sounds, we find that they are closest to what humans do for the most part. Then enters the potential to hoax them. Since most bigfoot skeptics here don't get out with the footers to witness the sounds for themselves or the method of collection and benefit from full knowledge of the circumstances, I don't expect them to get past this.

[roguefooter]

^^ A question for you rogue. I notice that most of your posts tend to be pretty skeptical, except for topics dealing with the pgf. I get the impression that most of your "slim chance" for bigfoot being real rests upon Pattys shoulders? Is that a correct assumption? Without the pgf, would you still give bigfoot any kind of consideration as potentially a real animal?

 

Pretty much. Hoaxes have been relatively easy to debunk over the years, same with misidentifications. The PGF though is different- there is nothing simple about any aspect of it, even down to the tiniest details. If it's a hoax then it couldn't have been any more thorough and perfect with no loose ends, even by today's standards. It's come down to the source being the only ones who can debunk it and that is pretty amazing.

 

Outside of the PGF there is very little that I would consider compelling at all. I also find the Yeti DNA results to be really interesting. Just because it's not what we expected it to be doesn't mean it's not a unique creature thought not to exist.

[Guest]

I am beyond ready for something to happen to prove the reality of this species to

1) inform and thus protect the public

2) Protect the BF from humans hunting it to extinction.

 

Why do you think the public needs to be protected from bigfoots?

 

Why do you think bigfoots are being hunted to extinction?

 

Awfully hard to be threatened by or to threaten an animal that can't be found.