Are We Still Calling Bigfoot A Legend?

[This Vale Of Tears]

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/the_ketchum_project_what_to_believe_about_bigfoot_dna_science/

I've been a believer since I was a boy not only because of the lore among non Indians but also because of Indian stories that go back centuries that I've heard from my grandpa and uncle. S'sketchee is what we called it, long before white man ever set foot on this continent, and then all you white folks, unable to pronounce it correctly, muddled it into "Sasquatch". In our language, it simply means "wild man" and it turns out DNA proves we were very much correct.

DNA evidence was collected in a very curious way as documented on the History Channel. A remote cabin up in Canada was continually broken into by a wild beast who thrashed the place and then left. Since there was no food, this was not the typical bear foraging for something to eat, this was something else. So a group of researchers set a trap, a board filled with long sharp screws pointed upward. The trap worked. A creature came to the door of the dwelling and inadvertently stepped on the board leaving hair and blood.

​

And that's not all. The link I provided is from a separate incident where hair, blood, and dropping samples from a female and juvenile were collected. What's interesting in all these cases of examining Bigfoot DNA is that the genes are very much closer to being human than ape. In fact, there's only one gene that makes the difference. Bigfoot truly is a "wild man" as my people have always referred to it.

Bigfoot does exist and now we have the technology that has proven it.

 

[RANDOR]

Bet the ol demons can't escape very easily from that foot.

 

[River Jordan]

So why did you provide a link that basically explains how Ketchum's "work" is a bunch of hooey?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

So why did you provide a link that basically explains how Ketchum's "work" is a bunch of hooey?

I had several webpages up and I posted the wrong link. I meant to post this one: http://www.catholic.org/news/national/story.php?id=52640

The csi website is one of those websites dedicated to debunking myths, even if they can't. Reading it, you'll see quickly there's no substance to it, just a lot of flak.

Bigfoot DNA has twice been collected for analysis, which was the point of my OP. The DNA doesn't match that of any known animal and is so close to being human, it's uncanny. I don't put a lot of stock in the video that was provided because after the Patterson film, it's clear that more evidence is needed than alleged footage to satisfy skeptics. But DNA doesn't lie and proves that a proto human creature exists.

 

[River Jordan]

The csi website is one of those websites dedicated to debunking myths, even if they can't. Reading it, you'll see quickly there's no substance to it, just a lot of flak.

That's funny, because that's exactly what they say about Ketchum...i.e., that "there's no substance". After years and years of grandiose claims with no actual data, Ketchum finally publishes a paper in 2013. However...

"The journal, DeNovo, is a brand-new online outlet that consists of one issue with only this one paper."

That's not a good sign. Further digging shows that Ketchum actually owns that journal, which means she self-published...highly unethical. The problems continue...

"Three of the references cited in the Ketchum paper as prior published research on the creatures were discovered to be questionable in validity. One was an openly-stated April Fools prank that concluded the Yeti was actually an ungulate (hoofed mammal) and that its resemblance to apes was due to convergent evolution. When confronted with this information, Ketchum denied responsibility, saying she was told to include “all” references by one reviewer. She did not concede that she knew they weren’t reputable scientific works."

That's a good indication of very poor quality work, which is likely why she elected to self-publish.

Bigfoot DNA has twice been collected for analysis, which was the point of my OP. The DNA doesn't match that of any known animal and is so close to being human, it's uncanny. I don't put a lot of stock in the video that was provided because after the Patterson film, it's clear that more evidence is needed than alleged footage to satisfy skeptics. But DNA doesn't lie and proves that a proto human creature exists.

We have claims of "bigfoot DNA" by a person who has a history of questionable scientific ethics and professional conduct. If her stories of "playful bigfoot" populations that "like blueberry bagels" are true, then she should have no trouble collecting enough samples to send some out for independent analysis. Anyone can claim "I've got DNA samples from an alien" and self-publish a paper with made-up sequences. If she truly has what she claims, then she needs to follow proper protocols and procedures. Up to now however, she's behaved exactly like someone who's lying.

 

[RANDOR]

Ok...people play along with bigfoot...but what ever you do...don't say the word.....ooooops........ almost said it......better spell it...
W. A. T. E. R.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

That's funny, because that's exactly what they say about Ketchum...i.e., that "there's no substance". After years and years of grandiose claims with no actual data, Ketchum finally publishes a paper in 2013. However...

"The journal, DeNovo, is a brand-new online outlet that consists of one issue with only this one paper."

That's not a good sign. Further digging shows that Ketchum actually owns that journal, which means she self-published...highly unethical. The problems continue...

"Three of the references cited in the Ketchum paper as prior published research on the creatures were discovered to be questionable in validity. One was an openly-stated April Fools prank that concluded the Yeti was actually an ungulate (hoofed mammal) and that its resemblance to apes was due to convergent evolution. When confronted with this information, Ketchum denied responsibility, saying she was told to include “all” references by one reviewer. She did not concede that she knew they weren’t reputable scientific works."

That's a good indication of very poor quality work, which is likely why she elected to self-publish.


We have claims of "bigfoot DNA" by a person who has a history of questionable scientific ethics and professional conduct. If her stories of "playful bigfoot" populations that "like blueberry bagels" are true, then she should have no trouble collecting enough samples to send some out for independent analysis. Anyone can claim "I've got DNA samples from an alien" and self-publish a paper with made-up sequences. If she truly has what she claims, then she needs to follow proper protocols and procedures. Up to now however, she's behaved exactly like someone who's lying.

What's your level of proof? Do you want somebody to shoot one of them and drag it into town? People who have had opportunity to do just that found they couldn't do it. Oh, and you didn't actually read the link I meant to post, did you? DNA and camera footage is about the only humane way to prove Bigfoot's existence without bringing harm to the creatures and we have both. But seeing as we still have people who believe we didn't land on the moon and yes, even people who believe the earth is really flat, I'm just wondering how far your obstinance goes.

 

[aspen]

Reminds of the salamandar papers......

 

[Andrey son of Lion]

The national guard of Ukraine, in which the new authorities of Ukraine adopted the militants of the radical organizations, produces terror in the territory of military actions. Some military units formed and financed by private investors. They not only are fighting against the units of resistance, but kill the local population, destroy the station power supply, water supply, houses, firing at schools, children's institutions, hospitals, shooting at the buses with refugees, in ambulances.
This is not a struggle against so-called terrorists. This is the state military terror against the local population of these regions of Ukraine.
The administration of YouTube removes almost all the videos that testify about the crimes of the new Kyiv authorities. Media in Europe and America in concealing the crimes of the new Kyiv authorities. Kyiv government is controlled by special services of the USA.

Many soldiers of the Ukrainian army does not want to fight against their own people. There are many cases of draft evasion, of desertion. Reported that there were cases when the national guards shot the soldiers who refused to shoot their compatriots.
Reported in the news that there were cases, when a group of Ukrainian military servicemen fled to Russia to get political asylum. Because the Ukrainian authorities can repress for refusing to fight against his countrymen. The most recent case - escape to Russia 41 Ukrainian soldiers.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Did you accidentally post on the wrong thread or intentionally? What does this have to do with Bigfoot?

 

[RANDOR]

Really!..what did that have to do with big foot?

Hmmmmmmmmmm I wonder if big foot is a Christian.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Really!..what did that have to do with big foot?

Hmmmmmmmmmm I wonder if big foot is a Christian.

I don't know. Maybe we can convince Kirk Cameron to lead one through the sinner's prayer.

 

[pompadour]

I don't know if they ( big foot ) exist or not, but I suspect they do.
About 40 yrs ago I was deer hunting in northern Minnesota in November, I was about one mile from the road in a large forest area around 9am there was a light fog could only see about 200 ft. I was leaning on tree and I saw some one walking about 100 ft in front of me from left to right. because of the fog he appeared all black. I saw him ( it ) come out from behind a large tree, walking rather fast, hard to do in brush and downed trees. walked about 20 ft then despaired behind another large tree. was not carrying a rifle and was swinging his arms like a person would do, so it was not a bear ( they don't swing their front ( arms ) legs when they walk up right ).
Don't know what it was.
Pomp.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I don't know if they ( big foot ) exist or not, but I suspect they do.
About 40 yrs ago I was deer hunting in northern Minnesota in November, I was about one mile from the road in a large forest area around 9am there was a light fog could only see about 200 ft. I was leaning on tree and I saw some one walking about 100 ft in front of me from left to right. because of the fog he appeared all black. I saw him ( it ) come out from behind a large tree, walking rather fast, hard to do in brush and downed trees. walked about 20 ft then despaired behind another large tree. was not carrying a rifle and was swinging his arms like a person would do, so it was not a bear ( they don't swing their front ( arms ) legs when they walk up right ).
Don't know what it was.
Pomp.

Many, many hunters and woodsman have had this same experience and they know the difference between a bear and a creature that's clearly not a bear. I find it fascinating that the Christian faith is based on eyewitness testimony, but when it comes to Bigfoot, the skeptics won't be satisfied until one of them is tranqued, caged, and dragged before cameras. I believed in Bigfoot long before the recent DNA evidence because of the consistent eyewitness accounts such as yours.

 

[River Jordan]

What's your level of proof?

Proof of what?

Do you want somebody to shoot one of them and drag it into town? People who have had opportunity to do just that found they couldn't do it. Oh, and you didn't actually read the link I meant to post, did you?

Yes I did read it. And why can't anyone shoot bigfoot? Every year for almost a century, thousands of armed humans go into the deepest recesses of the wilderness in the Pacific Northwest, set up camp, stay for weeks, and shoot all sorts of things...deer, elk, bear, moose, wolves, coyotes, cows, dogs, even each other...yet not once has anyone shot a bigfoot either accidentally or on purpose?

DNA and camera footage is about the only humane way to prove Bigfoot's existence without bringing harm to the creatures and we have both.

No, you have a kooky, dishonest veterinarian who claims to have DNA, and did so in an extremely unethical way.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Proof of what?

Proof of Bigfoot. Did you already forget what we're talking about here?


Yes I did read it. And why can't anyone shoot bigfoot? Every year for almost a century, thousands of armed humans go into the deepest recesses of the wilderness in the Pacific Northwest, set up camp, stay for weeks, and shoot all sorts of things...deer, elk, bear, moose, wolves, coyotes, cows, dogs, even each other...yet not once has anyone shot a bigfoot either accidentally or on purpose?

And yet there are hundreds of eyewitness accounts of people seeing this creature, accounts from hunters and woodsmen, people who understand what they're seeing. The Christian faith is one based on eyewitness account. so to say it isn't enough is to say Jesus isn't risen because we didn't get any video footage of the event. All those witnesses who have seen this creature cannot just be dismissed and in fact, are a stronger testimony than even the uncorroborated DNA evidence and camera footage that's recently surfaced. That alone is reason enough to believe, or Christianity itself can be thrown into doubt.


No, you have a kooky, dishonest veterinarian who claims to have DNA, and did so in an extremely unethical way.

Really? What was the "extremely unethical way"?

 

[River Jordan]

Proof of Bigfoot. Did you already forget what we're talking about here?

Oh, so you're asking what I would accept as proof of bigfoot's existence. The same as any other newly discovered species...an actual specimen.

And yet there are hundreds of eyewitness accounts of people seeing this creature, accounts from hunters and woodsmen, people who understand what they're seeing.

So you just accept every claimed eyewitness account?

The Christian faith is one based on eyewitness account. so to say it isn't enough is to say Jesus isn't risen because we didn't get any video footage of the event. All those witnesses who have seen this creature cannot just be dismissed and in fact, are a stronger testimony than even the uncorroborated DNA evidence and camera footage that's recently surfaced. That alone is reason enough to believe, or Christianity itself can be thrown into doubt.

Sorry, but there's no way I'm going to tie Christianity to the existence of bigfoot.

Really? What was the "extremely unethical way"?

Did you not read the very article you posted? She aligned herself with kooks (e.g., the woman who claimed to have gotten bigfoot DNA from blueberry bagels), kept claiming over the course of many years that a published paper "was coming", promised to have her manuscript peer-reviewed and published in a respected, prominent journal. But in the end, she didn't send out her manuscript for independent review and "published" it in a defunct kooky journal that she purchased (and has only one paper...hers). Not only that, but one of her main citations in the paper was an April Fools Day prank!!

You don't see any problems there? None at all?

 

[Enquirer]

Bigfoot ... ah well, I've watched Discovery Channel which had - not sure anymore - an entire program dedicated to capturing
bigfoot and anything else related to the creature.
Guess what ?
What ?

They never found one single solitary piece of hard evidence out there which doesn't surprise me because the creature does not exist..
There were dozens of so-called sightings which wouldn't surprise me either because;

A. People want to be on TV.
B. People want a bigfoot to exist.
C. The same people believe in snoopy the alien, father Christmas and the tooth fairy.

 

[aspen]

This brings to mind an important issue; those of you with kids, how do you teach your kids the difference between fantasy - Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and reality, God?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

This brings to mind an important issue; those of you with kids, how do you teach your kids the difference between fantasy - Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and reality, God?

I don't think anyone disputes that the Easter Bunny is real and not fantasy. What people want to know is, does he also play golf?

This brings to mind an important issue; those of you with kids, how do you teach your kids the difference between fantasy - Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and reality, God?

On a more serious note, the Bigfoot story is much more meaningful to my people than the immigrants to this continent to which it's relatively new. It's no more real or less real than the other tales that are passed down orally from one generation to the next. Native Americans have long known about S'sketchee or the "wild man" and have passed that knowledge down and particularly being from a Northwest tribe whose territory spanned the U.S./Canadian border, we've lived right in the are with the highest concentration of sightings. So the new evidence revealing his existence doesn't surprise me. My grandfather, who passed away a few years ago was a big believer because he had seen the creature himself when he was with HIS father!

My contention is that if we discount the eyewitness accounts, then we similarly discount Christianity, a faith given to us by eyewitness account. To me it's the most important evidence of all. It's not likely that a hunter is going to bag one because, believe it or not, many states have passed laws against hunting Bigfoot. No joke. DNA evidence is our best hope, as well as video footage more credible than the blurry Patterson film. Eventually we'll have that, but even before it comes to light officially I'm a believer. My whole family is and for many generations.