Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 Why are we all just taking this "bear" result as gospel? This was posted on a blog that has been agressively (and successfully) trying to discredit Dr. Ketchum since the announcement.
Drew Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 Smeja steak came back as Bear and Smeja http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/12/tyler-huggins-and-bart-cutino-shares.html
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) @ NiceGuyJohn: Well, it IS from the actual researchers involved with Smeja, and not a third party, as so much of BFE's (or RL's for that matter) tends to be. Smeja steak came back as Bear and Smeja http://bigfooteviden...ino-shares.html Behind the times a bit I see... Edited December 26, 2012 by Mulder
bipedalist Posted December 26, 2012 BFF Patron Posted December 26, 2012 Why are we all just taking this "bear" result as gospel? This was posted on a blog that has been agressively (and successfully) trying to discredit Dr. Ketchum since the announcement. Did you happen to download the lab report?
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 Guys, I have as much proof in my statements as you do...........slim to none. Only I can admit to it and you can't. Cite the source- you ever interpret anything yourself? Or do you need spoonfed all the time? Look at it for yourself and decide. This project keeps taking hits and losing credibility with every one. Look at it unbiased and you'll see it just like I do.
Guest VioletX Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 Random speculative thoughts whirling in my head: Justin shot a Bigfoot, but unfortunately picked up the wrong sample. Lab or Smeja/Tazer wishing to discredit study because of the human component in Ketchum's study. Bear mauled the Bigfoot steak and transferred it's DNA to it. Ketchum never said it was NOT BF DNA on Sierra sample, because she was really serious about NOT talking about the study. Yeesh!
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 Guys, I have as much proof in my statements as you do...........slim to none. Only I can admit to it and you can't. Cite the source- you ever interpret anything yourself? Or do you need spoonfed all the time? Look at it for yourself and decide. This project keeps taking hits and losing credibility with every one. Look at it unbiased and you'll see it just like I do. In other words: it's you unsubstantiated opinion and you refuse to support it.
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) Random speculative thoughts whirling in my head: Justin shot a Bigfoot, but unfortunately picked up the wrong sample. Lab or Smeja/Tazer wishing to discredit study because of the human component in Ketchum's study. Bear mauled the Bigfoot steak and transferred it's DNA to it. Ketchum never said it was NOT BF DNA on Sierra sample, because she was really serious about NOT talking about the study. Yeesh! Plussed Violet, quick study! Edited December 26, 2012 by apehuman
Big Stinky Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 I was under the assumption that in MK study that all hair samples were first screened by hair/fiber experts as alleged BF hair is quite unique and easily distinguishable from other NA mammals. This plus the fact that black bears contain 76 chromosomes leaves me scratching my head as to how this sample was admitted in the study at all if in fact it is bear as the current lab test shows ? This news is obviously concerning. I did go to sleep last night after listening to Melbas C2C interview and thought things looked good ! Bewildered Stinky
Guest Theagenes Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 According to a RL rumor supposedly coming from inside the Ketchum camp, the other contributor to the hybridization had a last common ancestor (LCA) with H. sapiens just over 2 million years ago. If true, that whittles the known candidates down to just three: late Australopithecine, Paranthropus or early Homo. If the final LCA turns out closer to 2 million years ago, it's more likely Homo. If 2.5 million or more, the other genera are real possibilities. It's hard to imagine humans being able to produce viable offspring with hominins as far distant as H. erectus or H. habilis, much less the Paranthropuses, but assuming that were possible it would solve several problems. The Paranthropuses are the most human-like hominins to retain sagittal crests and Paranthropus robustus had the largest of any hominin. In the thread I started for witnesses to pick which hominins had faces most similar to BF, they're overwhelmingly choosing the earlier bipedal apes over later Homo species. It's just hard to imagine we could have produced viable offspring with a "cousin" that diverged 2M BP.
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 Why are we all just taking this "bear" result as gospel? This was posted on a blog that has been agressively (and successfully) trying to discredit Dr. Ketchum since the announcement. Umm, well, not sure how aggressive that has been but... 1. The sample was identified as matching the subject of the kill by the shooter and was recovered from the area where the BF was shot. This means that a.) it was a piece of the dead BF or CONVENIENTLY b.) there was a dead bear that HAPPENED to be very near where the supposed BF was shot. I encourage you to do the math on that one... 2. The research and report was done blindly by a university lab. Here is the report if ya haven't seen it: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwrMS-lXBDSqc2YwR0oxZVN5R28/edit?pli=1 Looks pretty good (and damning) to me. Does not bode well for the Ketchum study, unless there is ANOTHER sample...but then that means that the story as it has been told is a fabrication....
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 Did you happen to download the lab report? No, I'm at work. If there is a lab report to substantiate all of this, then that's an ouchie. I don't understand why Justin would try so aggressively to prove his case by sending the sample to multiple labs if he wasn't certain of what he had. This just makes him look so silly.
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 So does anyone think Justin purposely provided a bear sample to try to cover the liability of shooting two hominids based on the believe prior to the latest tabloid garbage? The whole story from the beginning was suspect of BS but as time went on it grew stronger legs. With last months press release the pressure could really be on Smega to dilute the waters to provide reasonable doubt if he worries of ever finds himself in court later
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 In other words: it's you unsubstantiated opinion and you refuse to support it. Last time I checked this site, it was ok to post whatever we want so long as we don't attack a member or speak of politics or religion or whatever. You know the rules. You decide if it's fact or opinion. I'll post where I read or heard something. You decide if something smells funny or not. I read a email on bf evidence a while back from a person claiming to be a reviewer. Were they?- heck if I know, but it sounded credible. She jumped to conclusions. If I am to believe a guy shot 2 bigfoots in California and people can bait bigfoots in by feeding them pancakes and candy bars, I can sure as hell believe a reviewer sent an email to a popular site where us gullible bigfooters go for info. You're big boys and girls, stop being believer zombies and make up your own mind on stuff.
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) NM...posts are faster and furiouser than I am today.... Edited December 26, 2012 by notgiganto
Recommended Posts