Can Am Project Bigfoot 101

[norseman]

 

[Camper]

Ive been watching just about all of Paulides's videos on Bigfoot and I wonder how people here feel about his work, especially the DNA stuff with Ketchum. I read a lot of the stuff here but dont really say anything but I think I recall people not having a lot of faith in that operation. Whats the consensus on the DNA project here, I mean if Paulides genuinely has a reliable method to get Bigfoot hairs that would be phenomenal if true but it seems like it would be too good to be true. If I'm hijacking the thread feel free to say so but I'm pretty curious as to the consensus of their work.

[norseman]

10 minutes ago, Camper said:

Ive been watching just about all of Paulides's videos on Bigfoot and I wonder how people here feel about his work, especially the DNA stuff with Ketchum. I read a lot of the stuff here but dont really say anything but I think I recall people not having a lot of faith in that operation. Whats the consensus on the DNA project here, I mean if Paulides genuinely has a reliable method to get Bigfoot hairs that would be phenomenal if true but it seems like it would be too good to be true. If I'm hijacking the thread feel free to say so but I'm pretty curious as to the consensus of their work.

No, your good. And I put no stock in Ketchum’s DNA. I think she is a quack. 
 

I like some of Paulides work. Some of it I don’t. Either way I see stuff and so I share it here. 
 

I also don’t think he represents Meldrum’s position correctly. Meldrum isn’t saying it’s a Gorilla, it’s gonna be much much closer to humans than a Gorilla. Only that it grazes on vegetation more like a Gorilla than a modern human.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

And I put no stock in Ketchum’s DNA.

 

With all due respect, Norseman, and I mean that, there is a difference between Ketchum and "Ketchum's DNA." Ketchum was only the data interpreter. The actual raw DNA data results themselves came out of those twelve independent labs and so had nothing to do with Ketchum. And that raw data from those labs is where Dr. Haskell Hart came up with that chart of DNA mutations that are rare in Humans but common in other primates. My advice? Go for the science, not the person. Hopefully you'll understand that fact and finally stop throwing the Sasquatch Genome Project's raw data/baby out with the bath water.

 

Edited December 31, 2022 by hiflier

[norseman]

19 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

With all due respect, Norseman, and I mean that, there is a difference between Ketchum and "Ketchum's DNA." Ketchum was only the data interpreter. The actual raw DNA data results themselves came out of those twelve independent labs and so had nothing to do with Ketchum. And that raw data from those labs is where Dr. Haskell Hart came up with that chart of DNA mutations that are rare in Humans but common in other primates. My advice? Go for the science, not the person. Hopefully you'll understand that fact and finally stop throwing the Sasquatch Genome Project's raw data/baby out with the bath water.

 

We disagree on this.
 

Disotell and others in main stream science have torn the raw data to pieces. It’s gobblegok. Man bear pig. She even published the findings on a genetic website she created. That’s not how science works in peer reviewed science.

 

And I’m not going to even go into the whole Matilda Chewbacca mask stunt.

 

If there was some real raw Sasquatch samples that went down in that dumpster fire? I’m truly sorry. But this is another pitfall of DNA being used for discovery. It’s not self evident like a body is. And often times the sample is destroyed in the test.
 

All I can say going forward is that if you have a legitimate sample? Make sure you know who you are giving it to.

[Huntster]

22 minutes ago, hiflier said:

..........The actual raw DNA data results themselves came out of those twelve independent labs and so had nothing to do with Ketchum. And that raw data from those labs is where Dr. Haskell Hart came up with that chart of DNA mutations that are rare in Humans but common in other primates.........

 

As time progresses, it appears that hiflier has taken a few puffs from the same pipe I've been smoking.

 

Quote

........My advice? Go for the science, not the person. Hopefully you'll understand that fact and finally stop throwing the Sasquatch Genome Project's raw data/baby out with the bath water.

 

In order to discredit the project and its findings, Ketchum herself, who made an easy target of herself (as we all eventually do), was attacked. This is the Patterson Effect.

 

Don't hold your breath. If you've got convincing science, the target moves to that point between your eyes, regardless of the issue.

[Huntster]

6 minutes ago, norseman said:

.......All I can say going forward is that if you have a legitimate sample? Make sure you know who you are giving it to.

 

Got a reference?

[hiflier]

At the risk of being redundant this is what Dr. Hart found in "Ketchum's DNA" (which is NOT Ketchum's DNA)." And I have not followed up yet on the scientists I sent the chart to for their assessments. And just because someone doesn't understand DNA, or don't want to educate themselves on the technology, doesn't mean that DNA is some kind of inferior scientific methodology not to be trusted. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the SGP's raw data as assessed by Dr. Hart and I would be happy to answer any questions anyone may have on these data:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2022 by hiflier

[hiflier]

39 minutes ago, Huntster said:

As time progresses, it appears that hiflier has taken a few puffs from the same pipe I've been smoking.

 

Which I consider a compliment indeed, Huntster  

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Got a reference?

I do. But was told not to share it.

[norseman]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

At the risk of being redundant this is what Dr. Hart found in "Ketchum's DNA" (which is NOT Ketchum's DNA)." And I have not followed up yet on the scientists I sent the chart to for their assessments. And just because someone doesn't understand DNA, or don't want to educate themselves on the technology, doesn't mean that DNA is some kind of inferior scientific methodology not to be trusted. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the SGP's raw data as assessed by Dr. Hart and I would be happy to answer any questions anyone may have on these data:

 

 

 

 

 

 

If a legitimate scientist can pull novel DNA from Ketchum’s dumpster fire? That’s awesome.

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

I do. But was told not to share it.

 

Well, I understand why they might want to remain low key, that doesn't help those who want to find a DNA testing and analysis that might actually get somewhere.

[norseman]

32 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Well, I understand why they might want to remain low key, that doesn't help those who want to find a DNA testing and analysis that might actually get somewhere.

If you have something you want tested? I can privately give you a contact. But I do not think these people want to be showered with DNA samples from random people.

[hiflier]

36 minutes ago, norseman said:

If you have something you want tested? I can privately give you a contact. But I do not think these people want to be showered with DNA samples from random people.

 

None of them do which is completely understandable. I have outlets as well but am holding the info in confidence.

 

2 hours ago, norseman said:

If a legitimate scientist can pull novel DNA from Ketchum’s dumpster fire? That’s awesome.

 

I concur 100%, otherwise, trust me, my friend, I'd never bring it up. And Happy New Year to you and everyone here. Thought 2022 was going to be the year but nope. Maybe 2023 will be and I'll be trying my best to make it happen.

[Huntster]

@hiflier

 

Class 11: