Jump to content

Ketchum 2.0

See-Te-Cah NC

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MIB said:


You missed much and are wrong in many regards.


Ketchum is, or was, a veterinarian with a highly regarded DNA lab.   She did the equine genome in the same manner that the neanderthal and human genomes were done.   This is not a trivial accomplishment.   Her lab was regarded highly enough to have been used by the FBI in identifying Sept 11 human remains.  





She was brought into bigfoot research by David Paulides.    Hers was the "mysterious" and un-identified DNA lab mentioned in either The Hoopa Project or Tribal Bigfoot, I forget which.  Anyway, those were published in 2008-2009 and her involvement began several years earlier.   I'm guessing 2005-2006.




There's more that I can't say.   I sat in on calls Ketchum made to my old bigfoot research partner as a silent fly on the wall .. not sure Ketchum knew anyone was listening.   That gives me perspective on things she said which others probably don't have. 


I'm not saying she's right, I'm not saying she's wrong.   I'm dismayed by the apparent drive to ridicule and dismiss, to nit pick stuff to death, rather than to weigh the big picture.   Most likely Ketchum is absolutely wrong .. but what if she isn't?   Have the hecklers considered that?   .. or is it fear she might be right which leads them to heckle?





A broken clock is right twice a day.🤷‍♂️


Thats a question for geneticists. Because everyone I have listened to thinks she and her work is a joke. Her sequences didn’t show a living animal. Just random parts and pieces of many different known species unrelated to each other.




And read her response…. She refers to Matilda. The Chewbacca costume.


I am convinced she is a hoaxer. And I would never give her a penny. Now can I be wrong to pass judgement? Sure. Will she crack this thing wide open? 🤔




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering these creatures seem to defy all logic and reason in being able to  film or capture them on a trail cam , I'm willing to listen to any possibility.


One thing is for sure in my mind we are not dealing with an ordinary animal .



Edited by 7.62
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update MIB.  Repeating; I did not follow the early work. When I posted, I expected someone to fill in the gaps and you have.

I do not follow the fallen angel idea.

My big picture is large, black haired animals. I keep thinking about Springsteens song: 'Hunter of Invisible Game'. I am ramping up for summer activities....still have some snow to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Catmandoo said:

........I do not follow the fallen angel idea.

My big picture is large, black haired animals.........


I also reject fallen angels. I figure them as large, furry, primitive humans........or hybrids, like sapien/neanderthal, which is pretty much what her project determined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MIB said:


I don't either.    But if that's where the evidence eventually leads, I'm not going to refuse to accept it.    I'm perfectly comfortable looking at whatever the data says.   Not without questioning it .. data must be interpreted by fallible humans with ulterior motives.    We, as a culture, seem to put more value on validating our own views than we do on finding the truth, whatever it is.   Given how much we do not know, it is as unscientific to reject her views out of hand as it is to accept them out of hand.   There simply is not enough clear evidence for either.   And yet we seem to do it anyway and we belittle others who do the same thing, just supporting a different view, as somehow being anti-science.     Bigfoot is a mirror.   We're guilty of the things we accuse others of and we can't set our egos aside long enough to see it.  


There are no special points for "i told you so" when Ketchum is proven right or when she is proven wrong.   All the "gotcha" in the world is just our own egos on display. 

This is simply not true. There is a reality. And Melba Ketchum tried to pass off her work AS reality!!! Science isn’t being unscientific by questioning her work. It’s absolutely doing its job! I don’t understand this mindset.


If I went to Africa and I was a vet with some knowledge on genetics and I came back with a bunch of DNA samples, tested them and then wrote a paper (in my own peer reviewed journal) that proclaimed a new novel species? And the rest of science looks at my work and says….ummmm no. So I get mad and post pictures of a Star Wars character as some sort of buttressing proof!? How is science at fault here?


Dear God people if you’re going to support primatologists and DNA sampling? Pick someone, ANYONE with a proven track record!

Hey look! Dr. Mayor is holding up a REAL type specimen of a novel primate species! 🤯 That’s not EGO….that’s science. It’s why my pot pie comes out of the microwave hot. It’s why I can Bluetooth my phone to my TV and watch you tube videos. It’s why we know we share 98.9% DNA with a Chimpanzee.


Despite my advocacy of Sasquatch being a real creature? I’m not going to cheat and move the goal posts of discovery to fit my world view.

And I am NOT going to allow my feelings or pocketbook be manipulated by snake oil salesmen. 






  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, norseman said:

........If I went to Africa and I was a vet with some knowledge on genetics and I came back with a bunch of DNA samples, tested them and then wrote a paper (in my own peer reviewed journal) that proclaimed a new novel species? And the rest of science looks at my work and says….ummmm no............


Happens every day with the rest of "Science" saying; ummmm........yeah!


Enjoy this article, and consider this gem within it:





.........But you can't necessarily expect the DNA to sit outdoors and remain intact. DNA tends to break into fragments, with the size of the fragments shrinking over time. Depending on how degraded the sample is, you might see more or fewer reactions failing..........


How can this statement possibly be true when "Science" is making proclamations every bit as fantastic as Ketchum made with dna samples taken from a sliver of bone that has been buried in a cave for over 40,000 years?



..........Hey look! Dr. Mayor is holding up a REAL type specimen of a novel primate species! 🤯 That’s not EGO….that’s science..........


Reference, please.



.........And I am NOT going to allow my feelings or pocketbook be manipulated by snake oil salesmen. 


Nor should you. 'Feelings' transcend "Science", as the headlines prove hourly. And there are as many snake oil salesmen within Science as there are within every other industry or religion on Earth.


Link to comment
Share on other sites



Ultimately, she saw the collection of contradictions as a sign of her own sincerity. "I'm not sure why they're like they are. I don't think anybody is, and I think that gives people a real problem. But we can't change how the results came out. And I'm not going to lie about them, and I'm not going to try to make them fit a scientific model when it doesn't."

After an hour-long phone conversation, there was no question about whether Ketchum is sincere in her belief that bigfoot exists and if her data conclusively proves that it's worthy of protection. But, at the same time, it's almost certainly this same sincerity that drove her to look past the clear problems with her proof.




So the author sees Melba as sincere in her belief in Bigfoot. I concur.


The author also questions if that’s WHY she cannot see her obvious mistakes….


Thats because Melba Ketchum is working backwards from a belief and she is pounding her “evidence” of a square peg through a round hole. 

I would say he is being very generous with Melba Ketchum. I would put her in league with Todd Standing. Except she has more sciency gobbley goob behind her. But at least Todd was original and not so lazy as to use a Chewbacca costume that could be spotted from SPACE.






  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, norseman said:

Here let me send this radio wave to you in Alaska….Mr. I Hate Science.😉...........


Thanks for the reference. Let's review:


1) Dr. Mayor was part of a team that discovered not one, but three "unknown" species of lemurs. She was taken to a location of discovery by a local, who was quite familiar with what they were looking for (not any of the three undiscovered ones) by a drawing.



2) The team was financed to help achieve national park lands protection for known rare lemur populations.......ie, a political expedition as much as a science expedition. The discoveries were pure, unadulterated accidents of fortune. These lemurs are so unafraid of people that they'll quite willingly climb onto your hand.


3) These discoveries advanced the political goals of the expedition as much as they advanced Science. This is in clear contrast to any search or discovery of sasquatches in North America.


4) DNA gathering and analysis had almost zero role in the discovery of these lemurs. It was utilized exclusively as a tool of confirmation of complete specimens, quite literally, in hand. Conversely with sasquatchery, the combined DNA circus performances of Ketchum, Sykes, and Margaryan have pretty well established that you'd better get a pic of a smiling Dr. Mayor holding a sasquatch if you want your DNA confirmation to gain mileage. If you don't, your sasquatch had better be many thousands of years dead (and called anything under the sun except a sasquatch), or you just aren't going to get any traction.


5) I don't hate Science. I just don't trust scientists, whether accredited or of the imaginary variety. I've found every one to be human, including those who thought otherwise of themselves. Moreover, the industry as a whole behaves like every other industry, except when it behaves, postures like, or is used by proponents like a religious faith. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, norseman said:

........I would say he is being very generous with Melba Ketchum. I would put her in league with Todd Standing.........


The author was very generous with Ketchum, which in itself is noteworthy. It was a welcome change from the kind of opposition one is accustomed to in this society. And she is very much in the Standing League. The vast majority of people who publicly enter this field of 'Science' end up in that league regardless of their achievements or lack thereof. If you seek success in Science, research weapons, climate change, or sasquatches that died thousands of years ago, or you'll end up living in a tent in downtown.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking more into this and found a gentleman who lives not too far from me, Scott Carpenter. He seems like a decent genuine person and I greatly enjoyed his

videos; although, I think a lot of his photo evidence is a bit questionable. 

He seems to be a very strong proponent of the idea that there is a spiritual (particularly a Christianic) connection to sasquatch. He explains clearly why he believes that to be true

based on his interaction with this phenomenon. More specifically, he seems to have been harassed by some "paranormal" activity which he believes to be connected to 

sasquatch as a whole. He claims the remedy to this harassment was to invoke the power of Christ which he claims put end to it immediately. Hence his beliefs. 


Now, he could be completely lying, or he could be completely truthful, or somewhere in between.  Unless he's outright falsifying all of this it certainly means that via his experiences

he has a case for a spiritual connection that did not leave a paper trail. I also like to keep in mind most people don't have the financial means or know-how to deploy instrumentation 

to fully document the phenomenon as it's occurring, so I can understand why the average person might go through something like that and come up scant on proof. That is a pass I would give such an

individual in Scott's case. 


All that said, I find the idea of analysis of a suspect DNA sample turning up with no known species match and being in some way indicative of a relationship to homo sapiens interesting. 

What I don't quite see is a way to reconcile the evidence gathered from the DNA sample (assuming that it is an unknown species, the analysis was correct, and that statistical noise did not

play a role. NOT TO BRING UNDER FIRE THE RIGOR OF THE LAB CONDUCTING THE ANALYSIS only to cover the base) with a Christianic connection to such an unknown species. When the 

term "nephilem" is used, it implies a specific connection to the Christian apocrypha that has far too many gaps of our understand to draw those lines. 


A spiritual connection could be rationally drawn by an individual with sufficient information experiencing this phenomenon

who has religious/spiritual convictions as their belief implies an already accepted notion of the supernatural. Maybe there is some credibility to the worship of "nature spirits"

as perhaps there are/is/were supernatural phenomenon that occurred  in nature that generated a religious following. Perhaps sasquatch is part of this. 

All that, for me, is digestible. The "nephilem" aspect is too far a leap for me as of yet. 


Not that what is or is not digestible for me really matters in the grand scheme. It's purely a personal "wall" given what has been discovered (or released) to the public. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...