georgerm Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) 'Derekfoot' timestamp='1310835128' post='81241']Here's another point some are overlooking. The primary benefactor for the OP is Wally Hersome. Wally has more money than most people will ever see in their lifetime. Wally is an amazing man, and one of my true heros. The shooter knows all about Wally. Don't you think that if the shooter was keeping the bodies for financial gain that he would have approached Wally at this point and tried to make a deal? Seriously, think about it. Derekfoot, I hope your work pays off, and you get the proof. Many have hope knowing you guys and gals are on the path of discovery, and that Wally has a vision and confidence. I hope this shooter incident helps pave the way for proof and doesn't backfire. Many bigfooters know the great value of a BF body if one plays their cards right. Maybe the shooter is not up on BF and really hasn't considered the value. In this case he probably left the bodies behind as he claims. On the other hand, if the shooter knows the value, then altering the story is necessary so he can retain the BFs. If the bodies are hidden away in a freezer, why do you need a partner? Partners can talk and want money. Talk leads to state police who confiscate illegal game which BF could be proven to be. The shooter knows this, so one would store the 'legal' prize off the property in a freezer. The problem is selling the BF in the US and taking a chance on confiscation. Selling it out of the county to Mexico or China will require expensive transportation, attorneys, and contracts. Is this plan legal? Probalby not. Does Wally want to be involved with this 'legal' problem? Maybe Wally can finance legal help so the BF can be sold in the US. It's a gamble. Is profiting from a good find ethical? ....probably....if it leads to BF proof and ends future shootings. Wild animals are a joy to see, and I hate to think about how many BFs get shot each year. They wander around with wounds and infections then die a slow death. No wonder they scream and run when they see a human. Most of my life has been in semirural Oregon since 1947, and many of us rednecks know about a small percentage of hunters that shoot anything that walks. With strict BF protection, many BF shootings will stop. After some time, the big ones might greet us in the forest and hang out! Go Derekfoot and Melba and get the proof. Edited July 17, 2011 by georgerm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 I'm confused given that the NABS organization has all but declared Bigfoot human and believe their view will be vindicated by Dr. Ketchum's research. We are given the account of a bear hunter killing two sasquatch, and his description of the creatures are oddly unlike humans. (Even the adult traveled on all fours at times, and the juveniles were described as looking like bear/ape hybrids). Am I the only one wishing some of this information were being issued by NON-enthusiasts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 I'm confused given that the NABS organization has all but declared Bigfoot human and believe their view will be vindicated by Dr. Ketchum's research. We are given the account of a bear hunter killing two sasquatch, and his description of the creatures are oddly unlike humans. (Even the adult traveled on all fours at times, and the juveniles were described as looking like bear/ape hybrids). Am I the only one wishing some of this information were being issued by NON-enthusiasts? Mitichondrial DNA testing shows BF has human genes mixed with BF genes. Nuclear DNA will probably show BF is about half way between a Chimp and human. BF are closer to humans than chimps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Melba wasn't involved in the BF experience until they contacted her to do the DNA work, was she? Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Melba wasn't involved in the BF experience until they contacted her to do the DNA work, was she? Tim B. She was not, correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 So she wasn't a "believer" when she took on the assignment. At least that's how I read it. Fairly objective- I think people are assigning her a place in the Bigfoot "spectrum" because she's become psuedo-familiar to everyone on this forum. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nona Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 I'm confused given that the NABS organization has all but declared Bigfoot human and believe their view will be vindicated by Dr. Ketchum's research. We are given the account of a bear hunter killing two sasquatch, and his description of the creatures are oddly unlike humans. (Even the adult traveled on all fours at times, and the juveniles were described as looking like bear/ape hybrids). Am I the only one wishing some of this information were being issued by NON-enthusiasts? Everything surrounding this story make very little sense, if any at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 So she wasn't a "believer" when she took on the assignment. At least that's how I read it. Fairly objective- I think people are assigning her a place in the Bigfoot "spectrum" because she's become psuedo-familiar to everyone on this forum. Tim B. Yes, she was actually a skeptic, a non-believer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Yes, she was actually a skeptic, a non-believer. Not that it should make one bit of difference. The only thing that should matter is the quality of her work and her credentials. She could be the most raging, out there, cheer-leading booster for the existence of BF and it should not in any way shape or form disqualify her opinion if it is based on accurate and sound work. I'm sick of certain parties (who shall remain Skeptics) dismissing the scientific opinions and findings of perfectly legitimate scientists because they don't like their conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) Everything surrounding this story make very little sense, if any at all. In my opinion, someone had access to a human body that was overly hairy. They never said just how hairy the thigh cutting was. Granted, an overly hairy person is not common, but its not as rare as, say, a 8 foot half man/half ape that is apparently all over the world, but has somehow eluded evidential proof for 60 years. LOL. The human thigh cutting also explains why Ketchum's DNA results came back human. They then took a piece of the thigh, and then built this story around it. But back to the story.. To look for the body after Lindsey's urging, they go back, dig through the snow for hours, and find only a piece of flesh, but nothing else. Now wouldn't an animal(s) that scavenged the body be more likely to take the flesh and leave the bones? They left a piece of meat (steak, to be exact) out there, but carried off all of the rest? This again supports the idea that this is a fabricated story that was built around a cutting from a human thigh. The story, and the results of the test, both, lead me to believe its nonsense. Again, my opinion. But I hope those who researchers who state that they fully believe this *shooter*, from merely talking to him on the phone, don't get their legit reputation damaged too much when its all proven to be bullS**t. No offense, but I call Bull***t with a capitol B. Edited July 17, 2011 by Biggest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 In my opinion, someone had access to a human body that was overly hairy. They never said just how hairy the thigh cutting was. Granted, an overly hairy person is not common, but its not as rare as, say, a 8 foot half man/half ape that is apparently all over the world, but has somehow eluded evidential proof for 60 years. LOL. The human thigh cutting also explains why Ketchum's DNA results came back human. They then took a piece of the thigh, and then built this story around it. But back to the story.. To look for the body after Lindsey's urging, they go back, dig through the snow for hours, and find only a piece of flesh, but nothing else. Now wouldn't an animal(s) that scavenged the body be more likely to take the flesh and leave the bones? They left a piece of meat (steak, to be exact) out there, but carried off all of the rest? This again supports the idea that this is a fabricated story that was built around a cutting from a human thigh. The story, and the results of the test, both, lead me to believe its nonsense. Again, my opinion. But I hope those who researchers who state that they fully believe this *shooter*, from merely talking to him on the phone, don't get their legit reputation damaged too much when its all proven to be bullS**t. No offense, but I call Bull***t with a capitol B. I'm not following this. Why would someone cut anything from a human dead body and submit it to a DNA lab as a possible bigfoot specimen? If someone had committed a nefarious crime of some sort related to an incident that had nothing to do with bear hunting, wouldn't you just remove the evidence to a very remote spot and let nature take its course? I do agree that tissue in a snowbank makes no sense because I always thought direct contact with ice destroyed tissue. Maybe they were able to salvage cells that were deeper in the specimen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Why would someone cut anything from a human dead body and submit it to a DNA lab as a possible bigfoot specimen? Because it was overly hairy. There are some real wackjob people out there, dying for attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) Because it was overly hairy. There are some real wackjob people out there, dying for attention. So it's perfectly feasible to you that some whacko cut a steak off of a "hairy" dead person (we'll leave how they came in possession of the hairy body to the imagination) just to turn it in as a BF sample, because they thought it would be a funny inside joke that he could share with nobody? It's a good thing you are too smart to consider something unbelievable like it might be from a Bigfoot! Edited for better wording. Edited July 17, 2011 by NiceGuyJon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Because it was overly hairy. There are some real wackjob people out there, dying for attention. How do you know it was overly hairy? If this is all BS, aren't you just choosing your facts here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 How do you know it was overly hairy? If this is all BS, aren't you just choosing your facts here? I think all involved said it was hairy. But that is not where the legitimacy lies, its with Ketchum, in my book.I think it is reasonable to assume, given that Ketchum DID in fact test it, that it was hairy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts