BIGFOOT is REAL New Bigfoot Evidence Screened As Expert Claims Proof Of Existence

DZAG Wright

Blue Shift
Come on people. This "evidence" is crap. You can almost go blind trying to pick Bigfoot faces out of the pixels in these lousy videos and photos. And you can get close-ups of a sleeping Bigfoot for 30 seconds but no longer, and you couldn't wake it up and get it to walk around so we can see the whole body? Nope. Confusing close-up or blurry long shot. Nothing in-between.

DNA evidence? Okay, fine. Let's see it. Let's get a peer review; do it right. Otherwise:

Would you chance waking a creature which when angry with humans kills them by twisting their head off like a coke bottle? Or would you be as still and quite as you can so you can make it home to your family? Careful with your answer because until you're in that situation you can't accurately answer this.

Please show us all the evidence that ANY person at ANY point in time has EVER had his or her head twisted of by a wookie. And I don't want t story from some native american of 600 years ago, I want pics or a police report or a coroner's report. Proof, please.

PrincessTofu

jaffo

Spider879
reply to post by jaffo

 

True the vids can be faked, but if they did faked it they must have known there will be experts pouring all over these footage measuring all kinds of angles and what nots,after all these are not bored kids who wanna throw up a Youtube vid to get a few hits and a laugh,so I am looking for motive, a half million spent and five yrs camping out in the woods to produce fakes???..I mean you never know but... daang!! a tremendous waste of time and $$$ to have your credibility ruined, I await further independent testing on the Dna stuff and expert checking of the vids.

Credibility? These people have no credibility. They are known frauds. This is how they make their living. Give me 100k a year to camp out and make a lousy fake BF video and I quit my job tomorrow, lol...

It's possible that they are frauds, but can you name them and give example of how they are frauds? Or do you mean that they haven't done anything fraudulent in the past but are now trying to produce something fake?

If you have some info about the researchers I'd love to see it. Please explain.

I apologize. I read through some of your posts and can see your point-of-view. Please disregard.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful.

edit on 4-10-2013 by PrincessTofu because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2013 by PrincessTofu because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2013 by PrincessTofu because: (no reason given)

No problem and thanks. For starters, here DNA evidence here...is opossum. That doesn't happen by accident. She can submit whatever garbage she wants and no matter how many reputable scientists and geneticists tell people it's fake, others will keep donating to her studies. That's fraud.

Another couple of things. Why is she not showing the results received from supposed top universities? Why is she not showing the letter supposedly asking about the new species? Why did at least one university straight up say that they never received anything from her and why did another deny providing ANY information at all? If they didn't want to be involved, they wouldn't have been involved. They would not have just randomly tested DNA for someone who they did not know and be "fooled" into confirming that wookies exist.

"But a rep from NYU tells The News that the university never dealt with Ketchum — who holds a doctorate in veterinary medicine from Texas A&M University — or accepted any data or samples from the Bigfoot Genome Project.
The Louisiana Crime Lab said it worked with Ketchum on her study but all they did was extract DNA from bones she sent them that she in turn sent to be sampled elsewhere.
"They didn't know what they were testing," Ketchum told the Daily News Wednesday by phone of the samples sent out. "I have one email from a tester saying 'what have you done, discovered a new species?'"


Read more: www.nydailynews.com...

jaffo

PrincessTofu

jaffo

Spider879
reply to post by jaffo

 

True the vids can be faked, but if they did faked it they must have known there will be experts pouring all over these footage measuring all kinds of angles and what nots,after all these are not bored kids who wanna throw up a Youtube vid to get a few hits and a laugh,so I am looking for motive, a half million spent and five yrs camping out in the woods to produce fakes???..I mean you never know but... daang!! a tremendous waste of time and $$$ to have your credibility ruined, I await further independent testing on the Dna stuff and expert checking of the vids.

Credibility? These people have no credibility. They are known frauds. This is how they make their living. Give me 100k a year to camp out and make a lousy fake BF video and I quit my job tomorrow, lol...

It's possible that they are frauds, but can you name them and give example of how they are frauds? Or do you mean that they haven't done anything fraudulent in the past but are now trying to produce something fake?

If you have some info about the researchers I'd love to see it. Please explain.

I apologize. I read through some of your posts and can see your point-of-view. Please disregard.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful.

edit on 4-10-2013 by PrincessTofu because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2013 by PrincessTofu because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2013 by PrincessTofu because: (no reason given)

No problem and thanks. For starters, here DNA evidence here...is opossum. That doesn't happen by accident. She can submit whatever garbage she wants and no matter how many reputable scientists and geneticists tell people it's fake, others will keep donating to her studies. That's fraud.

--
Give us a link please. I want that link that shows it was an opossum. Unless your trolling and just saying things just for the sake, you'll be committing a serious T&C violation.
Sounds like your disinfo to me, somebody who came here to dismiss her work.

Actually I just went through the majority of your responses from other threads, primarily this one.
THEY ARE ALL NEGATIVE. Why are you on ATS? Are you purely a skeptic? Because we are here to discuss things that are of interest to the common community. If you want to debunk, so be it, that's strictly your opinion, but don't insult the members of this site with total Debunk and Skepticism without any kind of links to back up your claims. We do have skeptics on this site, BUT AT LEAST THEY HAPPEN TO BELIEVE IN SOMTHING that is out there.

merkaba93
I don't know where those maps come from, but you are welcome to come up to Oregon and I'll drop you off out in the middle of the forest and you can tell me how it's lost it's virginity.

That probably would be easy enough to do. To begin with, you could look into it yourself to see if it is part of the 90-97% (depending on source) of original US forests that have been disturbed enough (for various reasons /practices) over the centuries, to be no longer considered as virgin forest.

Though some of the regrowth is now old and possibly getting back to near original. In fact the amount of forest in the US seems on the rise in recent times, contrary to world trends.

One could literally walk out of my backyard in the foothills of the Cascades and walk to Alaska and never see another human. Is it "virgin" and never touched? I don't know, but there are no roads and no people, no cellphone coverage.

Wow, no phone coverage, that must have been tough . No doubt there are forested areas, this isn't what I was disputing, but I feel you may be exaggerating slightly. If you are looking for expanses of uncharted wilderness, it isn't in the US. Looking at all the little dots on the "bigfoot sightings map" scattered over your area makes me wonder how these sightings occurred if it is uninhabited, or how the people got there (with no roads). There must have been a lot of exploring of uncharted wilderness going on by these intrepid people at the time. Were they parachuted in, exploratory expeditions?

It also doesn't explain bigfoot being sighted in every mainland state.....

I just came back in from deer season and I was only out about 5 miles, never saw another human.

Why would that be considered unusual?

As far as animals hiding? Have you ever busted a deer that was bedded down, accidentally? I just did that a few times. I know where they like to bed so I know where to stalk. You can be literally 5 feet from the bed and they are invisible, until they bust out and give you a nice little adrenal rush.

Yes. But deer are surely one of the easiest creatures to track and figure out. I have done the opposite also (snuck up on them), I wish other creatures were as easy (though I don't hunt at all, a camera the most I carry).

Hunting mountain lion is like hunting a ghost.

Some of their cousins in other parts of the world are the most evasive, secretive and adaptive (not to mention dangerous) creatures on the planet. They can even live in urban areas without being found (known to be there from predation, trail cams etc). Which is why they are cryptids with only a speculated existance.....oh.....wait on..... . Though we are talking about populations of massive 8' tall upright walking anthropoid apes, a very different thing, there is no way to make a comparison without resorting to magic.

Point being, the US is still plenty wild and even known animals have little trouble staying out of human sight.

I certainly accept that there is still wilderness. The point is that it has been well explored, logged, prospected and 1001 other things over the centuries. No. of bigfoots found = 0. No. of things found to indicate bigfoot = 0 (that stands up to scrutiny). Other very large mammals have struggled not to become extinct, not ol' bigfoot. His range seems growing steadily since the hoaxes of the 50's/60's and now must surely be one of the most widely ranging large mammals in the US, despite not one ever being found ..... ever ..... anywhere.....

merkaba93
I don't know where those maps come from

conservationreport.wordpress.com...

Try this one from greenpeace, the sources are on the linked page. Note the dark green areas could "potentially" have intact ancient forest. It looks worse that the one above. Not much doin' in the US.

The plunder in the US forests has gone even further with 94 percent of original forests lost forever.

www.greenpeace.org...

jaffo
Another couple of things. Why is she not showing the results received from supposed top universities? Why is she not showing the letter supposedly asking about the new species? Why did at least one university straight up say that they never received anything from her and why did another deny providing ANY information at all? If they didn't want to be involved, they wouldn't have been involved. They would not have just randomly tested DNA for someone who they did not know and be "fooled" into confirming that wookies exist.

"But a rep from NYU tells The News that the university never dealt with Ketchum — who holds a doctorate in veterinary medicine from Texas A&M University — or accepted any data or samples from the Bigfoot Genome Project.
The Louisiana Crime Lab said it worked with Ketchum on her study but all they did was extract DNA from bones she sent them that she in turn sent to be sampled elsewhere.
"They didn't know what they were testing," Ketchum told the Daily News Wednesday by phone of the samples sent out. "I have one email from a tester saying 'what have you done, discovered a new species?'"


Read more: www.nydailynews.com...

--
It is called a blind test, its to show that there would be no mistake in the testing, that nothing will be dismissed too easily. After spending 5 years and half a million dollars, your not just going to say, "Hey guy! check this BFGT DNA!" only to be looked at as insane and wasting time.
This was needed and the more secrecy, the better.
You just answered your own questions. Exactly! what have you done, discovered a new species? if anything that statement should send shivers down your back.
Does a BIG TIME MULTIPLE DEGREE SCIENTIEST HAVE TO BE THE ONE DOING THE RESEARCH???
Why do you dismiss her's? because she does't have the same degrees as top scientist?
Your logic in this matter is simplistic and ignorant, your better then me because your rock is simply bigger then my rock...I guess so, dummy me!

Have we ever found where these creatures live? Are there no babies or teenage offspring? Considering apes, monkeys and humans are social animals, isn't it odd that Bigfoot seems solitary?

The videos don't reveal much of anything. Except perhaps a big hairy dog having a nap under a tree.

If I was rich I'd happily pay people to wear Chewbacca suits and wander around the woods all day and night.

Arnie123

jaffo

PrincessTofu

jaffo

Spider879
reply to post by jaffo

 

True the vids can be faked, but if they did faked it they must have known there will be experts pouring all over these footage measuring all kinds of angles and what nots,after all these are not bored kids who wanna throw up a Youtube vid to get a few hits and a laugh,so I am looking for motive, a half million spent and five yrs camping out in the woods to produce fakes???..I mean you never know but... daang!! a tremendous waste of time and $$$ to have your credibility ruined, I await further independent testing on the Dna stuff and expert checking of the vids.

Credibility? These people have no credibility. They are known frauds. This is how they make their living. Give me 100k a year to camp out and make a lousy fake BF video and I quit my job tomorrow, lol...

It's possible that they are frauds, but can you name them and give example of how they are frauds? Or do you mean that they haven't done anything fraudulent in the past but are now trying to produce something fake?

If you have some info about the researchers I'd love to see it. Please explain.

I apologize. I read through some of your posts and can see your point-of-view. Please disregard.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful.

edit on 4-10-2013 by PrincessTofu because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2013 by PrincessTofu because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2013 by PrincessTofu because: (no reason given)

No problem and thanks. For starters, here DNA evidence here...is opossum. That doesn't happen by accident. She can submit whatever garbage she wants and no matter how many reputable scientists and geneticists tell people it's fake, others will keep donating to her studies. That's fraud.

--
Give us a link please. I want that link that shows it was an opossum. Unless your trolling and just saying things just for the sake, you'll be committing a serious T&C violation.
Sounds like your disinfo to me, somebody who came here to dismiss her work.

Actually I just went through the majority of your responses from other threads, primarily this one.
THEY ARE ALL NEGATIVE. Why are you on ATS? Are you purely a skeptic? Because we are here to discuss things that are of interest to the common community. If you want to debunk, so be it, that's strictly your opinion, but don't insult the members of this site with total Debunk and Skepticism without any kind of links to back up your claims. We do have skeptics on this site, BUT AT LEAST THEY HAPPEN TO BELIEVE IN SOMTHING that is out there.

edit on 5-10-2013 by Arnie123 because: more info

Here you go: www.the-scientist.com.../articleNo/36302/title/-Bigfoot--Samples-Yield-Opossum-DNA/

And as to why my posts seem to be "negative" perhaps I adhere to the site's motto a bit more than you is all. Maybe I tend to go with "evidence" rather than "belief." But that's just me.

Arnie123

jaffo
Another couple of things. Why is she not showing the results received from supposed top universities? Why is she not showing the letter supposedly asking about the new species? Why did at least one university straight up say that they never received anything from her and why did another deny providing ANY information at all? If they didn't want to be involved, they wouldn't have been involved. They would not have just randomly tested DNA for someone who they did not know and be "fooled" into confirming that wookies exist.

"But a rep from NYU tells The News that the university never dealt with Ketchum — who holds a doctorate in veterinary medicine from Texas A&M University — or accepted any data or samples from the Bigfoot Genome Project.
The Louisiana Crime Lab said it worked with Ketchum on her study but all they did was extract DNA from bones she sent them that she in turn sent to be sampled elsewhere.
"They didn't know what they were testing," Ketchum told the Daily News Wednesday by phone of the samples sent out. "I have one email from a tester saying 'what have you done, discovered a new species?'"


Read more: www.nydailynews.com...

--
It is called a blind test, its to show that there would be no mistake in the testing, that nothing will be dismissed too easily. After spending 5 years and half a million dollars, your not just going to say, "Hey guy! check this BFGT DNA!" only to be looked at as insane and wasting time.
This was needed and the more secrecy, the better.
You just answered your own questions. Exactly! what have you done, discovered a new species? if anything that statement should send shivers down your back.
Does a BIG TIME MULTIPLE DEGREE SCIENTIEST HAVE TO BE THE ONE DOING THE RESEARCH???
Why do you dismiss her's? because she does't have the same degrees as top scientist?
Your logic in this matter is simplistic and ignorant, your better then me because your rock is simply bigger then my rock...I guess so, dummy me!

I'm sorry, but major universities do not do DNA tests for random strangers without knowing who is asking for the test to be done. Don't believe me? Send a random sample of your own DNA to Stanford and provide no documentation as to who you are or why you want it done. See if they do ANYTHING for you. They won't.

jaffo

Arnie123

jaffo

PrincessTofu

jaffo

Spider879
reply to post by jaffo

 

True the vids can be faked, but if they did faked it they must have known there will be experts pouring all over these footage measuring all kinds of angles and what nots,after all these are not bored kids who wanna throw up a Youtube vid to get a few hits and a laugh,so I am looking for motive, a half million spent and five yrs camping out in the woods to produce fakes???..I mean you never know but... daang!! a tremendous waste of time and $$$ to have your credibility ruined, I await further independent testing on the Dna stuff and expert checking of the vids.

Credibility? These people have no credibility. They are known frauds. This is how they make their living. Give me 100k a year to camp out and make a lousy fake BF video and I quit my job tomorrow, lol...

It's possible that they are frauds, but can you name them and give example of how they are frauds? Or do you mean that they haven't done anything fraudulent in the past but are now trying to produce something fake?

If you have some info about the researchers I'd love to see it. Please explain.

I apologize. I read through some of your posts and can see your point-of-view. Please disregard.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful.

edit on 4-10-2013 by PrincessTofu because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2013 by PrincessTofu because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2013 by PrincessTofu because: (no reason given)

No problem and thanks. For starters, here DNA evidence here...is opossum. That doesn't happen by accident. She can submit whatever garbage she wants and no matter how many reputable scientists and geneticists tell people it's fake, others will keep donating to her studies. That's fraud.

--
Give us a link please. I want that link that shows it was an opossum. Unless your trolling and just saying things just for the sake, you'll be committing a serious T&C violation.
Sounds like your disinfo to me, somebody who came here to dismiss her work.

Actually I just went through the majority of your responses from other threads, primarily this one.
THEY ARE ALL NEGATIVE. Why are you on ATS? Are you purely a skeptic? Because we are here to discuss things that are of interest to the common community. If you want to debunk, so be it, that's strictly your opinion, but don't insult the members of this site with total Debunk and Skepticism without any kind of links to back up your claims. We do have skeptics on this site, BUT AT LEAST THEY HAPPEN TO BELIEVE IN SOMTHING that is out there.

edit on 5-10-2013 by Arnie123 because: more info

Here you go: www.the-scientist.com.../articleNo/36302/title/-Bigfoot--Samples-Yield-Opossum-DNA/

--
ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Are you kidding me????
"Those samples have since been analyzed by an anonymous but “highly reputable geneticist,” according to the SciGuy blog hosted by The Houston Chronicle"
...an anonymous but "highly reputable geneticist"....??? Okay, sure. BTW you realize that I'm the president of a small nation in Africa, right? but I won't disclose the name of that nation....

"Berger passed the samples on to what he describes as a “top notch” geneticist. The scientist requested anonymity “because some of his peers would question his engagement on such a topic.”"
So these "Samples" were not even tested himself, but just some random guy who was afraid to come out in the open? If he was so worried about his peers, then found out it was nothing but opossum DNA, he would have nothing to fear and had a good laugh with his peers over a beer. RIGHT.
--
this was clearly done WAY back in July 2 of this year. That's funny, because on the BF_Journal site, it clearly states that other people in that field would actively protest agasint such an idea as the site has shown memos from other people deliberately denouncing the work on BFGT's DNA and these are suppose to be top notch scientist. So much for professionalism.

I'll leave this much for you.
"You are saying, in effect, that 34 research organizations, from 14 US States and 2 Canadian Provinces submitted 111 opossum or other (unnamed and unspecified) species, that they belived had come from Sasquatch or Bigfoot.

You are effectivly claiming that the researchers who collected these 111 DNA samples that were studied, many of whom were Ph.D Biologists, are all grossly incompetent. That is far from the truth."

jaffo

Arnie123

jaffo
Another couple of things. Why is she not showing the results received from supposed top universities? Why is she not showing the letter supposedly asking about the new species? Why did at least one university straight up say that they never received anything from her and why did another deny providing ANY information at all? If they didn't want to be involved, they wouldn't have been involved. They would not have just randomly tested DNA for someone who they did not know and be "fooled" into confirming that wookies exist.

"But a rep from NYU tells The News that the university never dealt with Ketchum — who holds a doctorate in veterinary medicine from Texas A&M University — or accepted any data or samples from the Bigfoot Genome Project.
The Louisiana Crime Lab said it worked with Ketchum on her study but all they did was extract DNA from bones she sent them that she in turn sent to be sampled elsewhere.
"They didn't know what they were testing," Ketchum told the Daily News Wednesday by phone of the samples sent out. "I have one email from a tester saying 'what have you done, discovered a new species?'"


Read more: www.nydailynews.com...

--
It is called a blind test, its to show that there would be no mistake in the testing, that nothing will be dismissed too easily. After spending 5 years and half a million dollars, your not just going to say, "Hey guy! check this BFGT DNA!" only to be looked at as insane and wasting time.
This was needed and the more secrecy, the better.
You just answered your own questions. Exactly! what have you done, discovered a new species? if anything that statement should send shivers down your back.
Does a BIG TIME MULTIPLE DEGREE SCIENTIEST HAVE TO BE THE ONE DOING THE RESEARCH???
Why do you dismiss her's? because she does't have the same degrees as top scientist?
Your logic in this matter is simplistic and ignorant, your better then me because your rock is simply bigger then my rock...I guess so, dummy me!

I'm sorry, but major universities do not do DNA tests for random strangers without knowing who is asking for the test to be done. Don't believe me? Send a random sample of your own DNA to Stanford and provide no documentation as to who you are or why you want it done. See if they do ANYTHING for you. They won't.

--
Oh, apparently in this situation, THEY DID. Was Standford one of them? no, what UT? yes.

jaffo
And as to why my posts seem to be "negative" perhaps I adhere to the site's motto a bit more than you is all. Maybe I tend to go with "evidence" rather than "belief." But that's just me.

--
What, Deny Ignorance?
Belief is something that we all have here on this site, because we have seen things that cannot be explained easily.
You want evidence of that? to provide something in response to an assertion? In the areas of the fringe, you'll find that hard to find, very hard to find.
THAT is why many on here have come to know each other, because we all have a belief that there is something more at work here, something that can't be easily explained.
Deny ignorance goes both ways guy.

But, that's just me.

Sigh...clearly the power of belief trumps facts when it comes to denying ignorance.

jaffo
Sigh...clearly the power of belief trumps facts when it comes to denying ignorance.

-
What? like that site with the bogus story you referred to me? that was facts? yeah I didn't think so.
Sigh...clearly the power of ignorance trumps good detailed thought out responses to facts with bogus links like yours.
BTW, provide another site that would legitimize your claim that it was opossum DNA, seeing as how you only provided one source.

Arnie123

jaffo
Sigh...clearly the power of belief trumps facts when it comes to denying ignorance.

-
What? like that site with the bogus story you referred to me? that was facts? yeah I didn't think so.
Sigh...clearly the power of ignorance trumps good detailed thought out responses to facts with bogus links like yours.
BTW, provide another site that would legitimize your claim that it was opossum DNA, seeing as how you only provided one source.

How about a genuine Princeton University geneticist? Nah, I guess he is in on the conspiracy too, right? ROFLMA indeed.

'However, geneticists who have seen the paper are not impressed. “To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid," Leonid Kruglyak of Princeton University told the Houston Chronicle. “Instead, analyses either come back as 100 percent human, or fail in ways that suggest technical artifacts.”'

Really if you were going to be truly open-minded, you would concede that the fact that even Jeff Meldrum finds her story to be bunk ought to weigh pretty heavily against her so-called evidence...

And continuing...Geneticist John Timmer of Ars Technica has done a post-mortem on the entire Bigfoot DNA fiasco. He dissects what went wrong with her methods, her analysis, and her interpretation of the results. It all boils down to the fact that Ketchum was a “true believer” who wanted to find Bigfoot DNA so much that it distorted her perspective and she overlooked huge problems in the sampling, in the lab techniques, and in the obvious implications of the results. She was utterly convinced that the samples were not contaminated, yet in her methods section she admits to screening out hairs and other tissues that were from non-hominin mammals. Again and again, she got warning signs that the samples were contaminated, that most of the DNA was just from modern humans. It was clear that there was a mixture of a bunch of North American mammals in it that she refused to think about, but she let the software blindly crunch the DNA sequences without throwing other mammals in the mix, and so on. Especially when she got the mix of both single and double-stranded DNA, she should have known she had a lot of different mammals in the sample. As Timmer explains, she was so sure it had to be Bigfoot DNA that every contradiction or warning sign was completely ignored, and she constructed a bizarrely implausible story about Bigfeet interbreeding with humans only 13,000 years ago. It was also clear that this type of analysis was beyond the level of training and competence of a person like Ketchum. As Timmer and several others have explained, she jumped to the wrong conclusions or used the wrong methods when she encountered results that were not in her background or training. As Richard Feynman said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”

reply to post by jaffo


www.bf-field-journal.blogspot.com...
How about you read on the mainstream BIAS?
Oh am I open-minded!
Clearly this is something that a lot of people do not want getting out, of course it doesn't make any sense to "Princeton" professors,it turns their whole world upside down.
BTW, because there from PRINCTON, there "More" qualified? No I don't think so, plenty of very intelligent people in the world that are not from Princeton.

You'll find a lot of "SMART" people in history making claims to "Know all that their is to know", and sadly for them, that's not the case.