Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 So it's perfectly feasible to you that some whacko cut a steak off of a "hairy" dead person because they thought it would be a funny inside joke that he could share with nobody? . Certainly. People do things for all sorts of reasons. There were obviously some sort of motives for all of the hoaxes down through the decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 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. Your theory now involves an extremely sick mortitian, to have had access to such an unusual person and in keeping with the DNA being 100% human, though we haven't heard this straight from Dr. Ketchum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 17, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 17, 2011 Having auburn or gray hair on a thigh in a thick pattern if it is as described by SilverFox would be a huge stretch coming out of a morgue on a human cadaver I should think. How does one infer it was a thigh steak in the first place from all of this talk.....maybe it is gluteal tissue (or a forearm) for all they know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) No one has said so explicitly but it's pretty obvious the flesh passed Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA test. In his recent account of the shooting on the Olympic Project page, Derek says he can't reveal the DNA results but he 100% believes the story. This, followed by "Read into that what you will". I don't think he would be wasting time with the guy if the steak came back as anything other than sasquatch. That means Ketchum is either misinterpreting the results, hoaxing Derek or...wait for it, confirming the central premise of the story. Edited July 17, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 17, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 17, 2011 To look for the body after Lindsey's urging I somehow can't think this entered into the equation..... even in a remote sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Having auburn or gray hair on a thigh in a thick pattern if it is as described by SilverFox would be a huge stretch coming out of a morgue on a human cadaver I should think. How does one infer it was a thigh steak in the first place from all of this talk.....maybe it is gluteal tissue (or a forearm) for all they know. Ketchum stated that it looked like it had been cut off of a thigh of a cadaver. Why she thought it came from a thigh, I don't know. But a DVM is almost an MD if I'm not mistaken. I suppose they can differentiate one type of tissue from another. Based on the description, I don't think it could have come off of a human. I don't think humans get that hairy unless they have some disease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Your theory now involves an extremely sick mortitian, to have had access to such an unusual person and in keeping with the DNA being 100% human, though we haven't heard this straight from Dr. Ketchum. The 100% human probably just means the MtDNA test, but we don't know that for sure. I know that Ketchum thought it came from the Bigfoot killings. She thought it was from a BF, not a person, when it first came in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox 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. There are people out there who think that the shooter just hoaxed this whole thing to cover up for the fact that he shot a mother bear and her cub. Then he hoaxed Randles of the Olympic Project into believing his story. Then he got access to a hairy human cadaver and somehow accessed a slice off the thigh and sent it in to Ketchum. That's the "Shooter Hoaxed It" theory in a nutshell. I don't go along with it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 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. There is another big reason why the finding the steak in the snowbank is dubious. According to Ketchum, the steak appeared to have been cleanly cut off of a cadaver or body with a knife or some sort of a tool. If that is true, the piece sent in to Ketchum could not possibly have been the same leftover mess found in the snowbank. It implies that the shooter somehow sliced the sample off the body of the dead BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 It could have something to do with the spacing of hair folicles. A patch of skin from a human scalp would be dense with long hair but would also have cut ends on the hairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) Okay the guy is afraid of being prosecuted for the killings...how can you be charged with killing an animal that the goverment wont acknowledge? Edited July 17, 2011 by NFLbigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Okay the guy is afraid of being prosecuted for the killings...how can you be charged with killing an animal that the goverment wont acknowledge? I'd say that the shooter can't prove he shot one without the DNA proof. So all he can do is get the story straight with what ever provenance of who, what, where and when, then wait on the published DNA results. The story of fear of prosecution comes from their percieved humanity in appearance. Thats something that has repeated in accounts of shooting one. I would expect to see some photos of the place where these samples were collected along with what physical evidence was found there, but not until the DNA can be shared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 From what I've read, this piece of hairy flesh is but one of 100s of samples being tested. It's quite possible that this sample is insignificant, compared to other samples. For all we know, there could have been a whole head submitted by someone. It seems to me that everyone is speculating about this sample, as if it's the only thing out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 From what I've read, this piece of hairy flesh is but one of 100s of samples being tested. It's quite possible that this sample is insignificant, compared to other samples. For all we know, there could have been a whole head submitted by someone. It seems to me that everyone is speculating about this sample, as if it's the only thing out there. Indeed it is just one sample, but the flesh is the richest source of DNA and could provide enough to sequence the entire genome. Ketchums study will likely identify the unique targets that could tie the rest of the samples together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 There is another big reason why the finding the steak in the snowbank is dubious. According to Ketchum, the steak appeared to have been cleanly cut off of a cadaver or body with a knife or some sort of a tool. If that is true, the piece sent in to Ketchum could not possibly have been the same leftover mess found in the snowbank. It implies that the shooter somehow sliced the sample off the body of the dead BF. Or sliced it off a human cadaver, hence, the DNA results that said *human*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts