Sierra Shooting from A-Z

[Guest BuzzardEater]

Moneymaker's evidence is circumstantial. His theory doesn't rely on fact. It is speculative.

Moneymaker also made remarks about the Ketchum Paper to the effect that they have been returned.

Perhaps he is positioning himself as the voice of reason in the BF community. The networks might like somebody to quote one day. The position is pretty much open. John Green is in his mid eighties and less active. I can't think of anyone else.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

Hearsay accounts about primate DNA from verifiable sources and credible individuals. It would take two seconds to look up these peoples numbers, call them and have them tell me the same thing.

Straw man fallacy much?

They should always add non-human in front of that primate. Since we humans are primates; I know that's what they really want to say(non-human)...Anyways. No big deal. Some professors might squawk on about it. :]

News on Ketchum paper was handed back (i.e. not *rejected*) for several reasons.

One of the reasons: The paper “does not contain a testable hypothesisâ€.

REF: http://bigfootlives.blogspot.com/2011/12/matt-moneymaker-on-ketchum-dna-project.html

Thanks Sharon ,

Maximus

Sounds like a good reason for a rejection slip to me.

[Guest Alpinist]

I like the argument posted on the MM thread @Cryptomundo which essentially states;

If Siberias Denisova man was accepted as a species from one finger bone, (or whatever the amount of material was) the quantity of tested material Ketchum presented, plus the other tangibles such as trackways and prints, plus the video evidence, plus the thousand or so eyewitness reports, plus the historical references, then how could a journal or any scientist for that matter reject the hypothesis that Sasquatch exist now ?

If not then paleo-anthropology should also be considered a psuedo science.

Come on, a finger bone in a cave versus 20 separate submissions of Sasquatch DNA, plus, plus , plus. Something is seriously wrong with the academic world if this paper of Melba's does not get published.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Alpinist

[Guest StankApe]

A finger bone is an anatomical sample that could be used to trace the differences between it and other known finger bones along the human fossil record. It's a specimen. a DNA result that shows a non human hominid doesn't prove Bigfoot. It proves a non human hominid. It would generate interest in the scientific community for sure and would probably lead to more study and THAT would lead to species verification. But saying it's Bigfoot DNA isn't a testable hypothesis until they have a specimen to compare it to.

So, while Ketchum's DNA study (if it does show an unknown hominid) doesn't "prove" Bigfoot , it will get the ball rolling towards actual proof. As long as it is all above board the anthropological and zoological people would become compelled to further investigate I'm sure.

Just to clarify further, Nature is an elite journal and most submissions don't get published as they are limited on space. Rejection because they asked her to make references to "unknown primate" instead of "Bigfoot" isn't the same thing as saying "we don't believe you". I'm not sure that's why they rejected her. But my theory on an untestable hypothesis seems to kinda matchup... If the data is legit, it will get published in somewhere equally legit (i.e.- not some fringe paranormal journal but rather somewhere respected by the scientific community)

Edited December 7, 2011 by StankApe

[Guest General]

I have never said anything negative about Dr k and her study. Besides "what in the world is taking so long. Why can't we just share with everybody what we already know now? " I was told "you can't rush good science. We are going to cross our t's and dot our I's. This will be done right and worth the wait when the time comes "

Not word for word but pretty much. As for the rest of what some people are saying whatever man. We'll see.

[yowiie]

Yes we will

[Guest Chessy]

General Man you waited all this time you can't wait till New Years Day, don't you see 2012 New Year New Discovery of man ! Just hold your horses and you will have what you seek.

[Guest slimwitless]

I find it interesting that Moneymaker has waited all this time to insert himself into this story. He's basically accused both Dr. K and General of being dishonest before the study is even released. DNA is the only way to ascertain the origins of this sample. You can't do that by looking at a picture. Not cool, MM.

You know, there is testable material that has an established "chain of custody" in this story: The blood on General's clothes. It should be tested.

[Guest]

Oh PUHleeze. ^ Thus MM diverts attention and web traffic to himself, away from them. His interest is in HIM discovering bigfoot, officially, so his attempts to discredit his competitors should NOT be taken seriously. IMO

[Guest]

I find it interesting that Moneymaker has waited all this time to insert himself into this story. He's basically accused both Dr. K and General of being dishonest before the study is even released. DNA is the only way to ascertain the origins of this sample. You can't do that by looking at a picture. Not cool, MM.

You know, there is testable material that has an established "chain of custody" in this story: The blood on General's clothes. It should be tested.

I think it's pretty clear from his TV show that - 1.) MM is definitely not cool and 2.) He's not the most reliable source on what is and isn't squatchy.

[Guest]

I think it's pretty clear from his TV show that - 1.) MM is definitely not cool and 2.) He's not the most reliable source on what is and isn't squatchy.

I think people tend to judge him with emotion rather than his track record. He was laughed at when he presented his wood knocking and deer kill ideas in 1992 at the International Cryptozoology Society and in '08 he was the only voice on the interwebs saying that the Bigfoot body was a hoax.

Love him or hate him he has a pretty good track record on the pulse of the Bigfoot scene. Could he be wrong? Certainly, but before we judge "ANYONE" lets just let things play out. There will be plenty of crow to go around when the time comes.

Edited December 7, 2011 by rockiessquatching

[Guest]

I think people tend to judge him with emotion rather than his track record. He was laughed at when he presented his wood knocking and deer kill ideas in 1992 at the International Cryptozoology Society and in '08 he was the only voice on the interwebs saying that the Bigfoot body was a hoax.

Love him or hate him he has a pretty good track record on the pulse of the Bigfoot scene. Could he be wrong? Certainly, but before we judge "ANYONE" lets just let things play out. There will be plenty of crow to go around when the time comes.

I actually don't have a huge issue with MM, but the TV show makes him look bad. That's what I'm mainly judging him on, plus he did make a fairly big leap by judging Smeja a liar based on a photograph of a piece of flesh. If you think about it, I'm just judging a judger. In short, there's a whole lot of judging going on!

[Guest]

I actually don't have a huge issue with MM, but the TV show makes him look bad. That's what I'm mainly judging him on, plus he did make a fairly big leap by judging Smeja a liar based on a photograph of a piece of flesh. If you think about it, I'm just judging a judger. In short, there's a whole lot of judging going on!

Reality TV makes everyone look bad. They just like to frame people in a very simplistic lights that make it easy for people to form a quick opinion whether or not that opinion has anything to do with reality.

OMG look at me, I'm judging reality TV !!!!

[Guest]

A finger bone is an anatomical sample that could be used to trace the differences between it and other known finger bones along the human fossil record. It's a specimen. a DNA result that shows a non human hominid doesn't prove Bigfoot. It proves a non human hominid. It would generate interest in the scientific community for sure and would probably lead to more study and THAT would lead to species verification. But saying it's Bigfoot DNA isn't a testable hypothesis until they have a specimen to compare it to.

So, while Ketchum's DNA study (if it does show an unknown hominid) doesn't "prove" Bigfoot , it will get the ball rolling towards actual proof. As long as it is all above board the anthropological and zoological people would become compelled to further investigate I'm sure.

Just to clarify further, Nature is an elite journal and most submissions don't get published as they are limited on space. Rejection because they asked her to make references to "unknown primate" instead of "Bigfoot" isn't the same thing as saying "we don't believe you". I'm not sure that's why they rejected her. But my theory on an untestable hypothesis seems to kinda matchup... If the data is legit, it will get published in somewhere equally legit (i.e.- not some fringe paranormal journal but rather somewhere respected by the scientific community)

So say if the DNA study proves an "unknown primate" (with anatomical samples such as the piece of flesh from the Sierra shooting), and is followed by the release of unbelievably awesome video evidence by Adrian Erickson and they say, "here is your unknown primate, these samples come from these creatures in the video, they are Bigfoot". Would you say that proves Bigfoot? I'm curious, would you think this is enough, or is it going to take a full body on a slab?

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Hi

I would go for that and be kinda happy that the big guy was real.

But ! that would not give everyone that has had a sighting or other claims over the years a green light.

Tim