Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) 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. As you, RL(sliverfox) yourself said, why would it have a clean sliced edge if it were dug out of a snowbank? That makes the whole thing even harder to swallow, in light of the other contradictory *facts* to the story. I think the wacko who did this first had access to a hairy human body part, then he sliced off a chunk of skin and flesh knowing he could *cause a stir* with it, given that it was too hairy to appear human, and also knowing the half human/ape correlation to bigfoot. Then he built the story around it and sent it to Ketchum. I doubt any bear shooting was even a factor. Why would it have to be? I see it as nonsense fabricated just to cause a stir and get a laugh out of all the controversy he has caused. Which seems to be a very prominent motivation for hoaxing. Just my opinion, though. Edited July 17, 2011 by Biggest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 17, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 17, 2011 but not until the DNA can be shared. SY, don't you mean the DNA results or sequence has been shared/elucidated? I assume the fleshy sample has already been "shared". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 I think the wacko who did this first had access to a hairy human body part, then he sliced off a chunk of skin and flesh knowing he could *cause a stir* with it, given that it was too hairy to appear human, and also knowing the half human/ape correlation to bigfoot. In my opinion, in order for this to be true, the person would have to suffer from Hypertrichosis. That’s the kind of hair cover that I understand we are talking about here. The condition is so rare that I think it's as implausible that someone would have access to a cadaver with this hair covered condition as it is someone actually shot and killed a Sasquatch. Pick your poison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 And it is probably their "perceived humanity in appearance" that keeps many potential 'shooters' from pulling the trigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 There's a transcript of a couple of very informative interviews with Dr. Ketchum in the latest edition of the Oregon Bigfoot Blog that came out today. You may have to be subscribed to read them... http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/bigfoot/melba-ketchum-2011-bigfoot-dna-study/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 I was just reading those. Seems like she has put a bit of time into compiling her DNA 'paper trail'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 If the flesh was cut from a human corpse and even if they were extremely hairy surely it would be nowhere near hairy enough for anyone to think it was bigfoot..even if they did suffer with Hypertrichosis. The hair would surely be more like fur, for warmth. Wouldn't the skin be thicker and tougher than a human, and the layer of fat beneath it be thicker... If the piece of flesh looked like it had been cut using a knife or another tool, this could have been done after it was collected to clean it up or to separate different samples...just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 SY, don't you mean the DNA results or sequence has been shared/elucidated? I assume the fleshy sample has already been "shared". Yes , DNA and DNA results, one and the same as far as I was concerned in that statement. The sequences of the DNA, I would expect to be logged at some point in the Data Bases and shared that way as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 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. Please explain. If BF has human genes mixed with BF genes, it is not BF but a hybrid. If nDNA show BF as about half way between a chimp and a human, then how are BF closer to humans than they are to chimps? Again, I'm looking at statements of advocacy by Paulides who is making the case that sasquatch are human. The sketches he has provided in his books show a very human-looking sasquatch. He is virtually proclaiming that his view of sasquatch will be vindicated by Dr. Ketchum's study. How does this square with the "Hunter's story" about animals that look bear-like, or ape/bear combos, running on two legs and occassionally on all fours. There is apparently nothing about the appearance of Bigfoot, if we believe eyewitnesses, the Patterson film, sketches by sighters, etc., that would give us the impression that we are dealing with an animal that can move over territory quadrupedally. (Gorillas have short legs, sasquatch allegedly have long legs.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) Please explain. If BF has human genes mixed with BF genes, it is not BF but a hybrid. If nDNA show BF as about half way between a chimp and a human, then how are BF closer to humans than they are to chimps? Again, I'm looking at statements of advocacy by Paulides who is making the case that sasquatch are human. The sketches he has provided in his books show a very human-looking sasquatch. He is virtually proclaiming that his view of sasquatch will be vindicated by Dr. Ketchum's study. How does this square with the "Hunter's story" about animals that look bear-like, or ape/bear combos, running on two legs and occassionally on all fours. There is apparently nothing about the appearance of Bigfoot, if we believe eyewitnesses, the Patterson film, sketches by sighters, etc., that would give us the impression that we are dealing with an animal that can move over territory quadrupedally. (Gorillas have short legs, sasquatch allegedly have long legs.) Jerrywayne, I don't know how this puzzle will eventually fall together, but can say that these images have common roots in location and origin, but from the two opposing views that you mention and with one of the sketches in association with the quadrupedal locomotion you speak of. The location is also in common with the sample of hair with roots that I sent to Dr. Ketchum. Edited July 17, 2011 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 There's a transcript of a couple of very informative interviews with Dr. Ketchum in the latest edition of the Oregon Bigfoot Blog that came out today. You may have to be subscribed to read them... http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/bigfoot/melba-ketchum-2011-bigfoot-dna-study/ Thanks for posting this, it's nice to see it transcribed. 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. My previous point is that we are hearing about all of this from enthusiasts. Even your comment about Dr. Ketchum is your comment, the comment of an enthusiast. Was Dr. Ketchum initially a skeptic or someone "friendly" to the issue? Was the Hunter really oblivious to the existence of Bigfoot, and had no idea what he may have been looking at? Do we believe the Hunter because a long-time enthusiast/researcher does? Did Bindernagel really see a sasquatch in Kentucky via the Erickson Project? Who says he did? Another enthusiast. Try this thought experiment: which would be more convincing ----- Bindernagel saw a sasquatch in Kentucky, or Bindernagel and his companion that day (hypothetically speaking) Niles Eldridge, saw a sasquatch. Basically, what I'm saying is that all of this is being promulgated by proponents, enthusiasts, true believers, and such. It all may be true. I just think that, at this stage, it would be more interesting if some NON-enthusiasts, not necessarily skeptics, would be in the mix. P.S. Silver Fox --- read your web site and agree with your political views. As to Bigfoot -- you're sasquatch's first Gonzo journalist. GONZO --- http://en.wikipedia....onzo_journalism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 My previous point is that we are hearing about all of this from enthusiasts. Even your comment about Dr. Ketchum is your comment, the comment of an enthusiast. Was Dr. Ketchum initially a skeptic or someone "friendly" to the issue? Was the Hunter really oblivious to the existence of Bigfoot, and had no idea what he may have been looking at? Do we believe the Hunter because a long-time enthusiast/researcher does? Did Bindernagel really see a sasquatch in Kentucky via the Erickson Project? Who says he did? Another enthusiast. Try this thought experiment: which would be more convincing ----- Bindernagel saw a sasquatch in Kentucky, or Bindernagel and his companion that day (hypothetically speaking) Niles Eldridge, saw a sasquatch. Basically, what I'm saying is that all of this is being promulgated by proponents, enthusiasts, true believers, and such. It all may be true. I just think that, at this stage, it would be more interesting if some NON-enthusiasts, not necessarily skeptics, would be in the mix. P.S. Silver Fox --- read your web site and agree with your political views. As to Bigfoot -- you're sasquatch's first Gonzo journalist. GONZO --- http://en.wikipedia....onzo_journalism Very good point. I am actually suprised that so many seem to be leaning towards this story being a factual event. But then again, I think many who seem to believe it, want to believe it. As you said, they are enthusiasts, first. Again, no offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 17, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 17, 2011 about half way between a chimp and a human, then how are BF closer to humans than they are to chimps? The way I ran the numbers (provided by either Stubstad or Fox) it came out to exactly 37.5% of the way, not quite half and closer to 1/3. FWIW. Hard to run percentages on data not documented as fact as yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Ketchum was not involved in Bigfoot research until people brought samples to her DNA testing facility. She's not an enthusiast. She's not a friendly. She's a veterinarian with a DNA-testing business. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts