• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
They say they have video of a sleeping squatch that gets up and walks away, and numerous other video clips of other squatches.


I read that the sleeping female Bigfoot does not get up and walk away. She moves around somewhat on the ground but that's it. The walking Bigfoot is a different video. The videos are said to be hi-def, close, and very clear.

One reviewer of the videos said something that is a red flag. The eyes don't blink.
 
Well, we've seen what they call a sleeping sasquatch, I believe.

IIRC, Marx's videos were better.

I want to see Parcher better his debunking time...assuming they give us something we can work with... :D
 
I don't think most religious people desperately need a miracle to prove to everyone how correct they are. I believe most religious folks just live every day with their beliefs as a matter of fact. They do the rituals and meditate on the lessons because there's comfort in going through the motions they've been taught since birth, that are socially acceptable to the community they identify with.

On the other hand, it appears that these bigfooters, like the flying saucerers, are in the unenviable position of having an irrational belief in this wacky pop-culture thing that most people find laughable. So they catch a lot of crap about it from family, friends, associates, and anyone else not similarly obsessed. Seems like it would be a constant source of doubt, causing a lot of internal struggle. Quite a different situation from the average religioid.

While religion may be irrational, most of its adherents don't appear crazy, whereas most bigfooters certainly do. Bigfootery is more like an obsessive doomsday cult: desperately anticipating, right on the cusp of the Earth-shattering event that will prove them right in their beliefs, and everybody else wrong.

No wonder they consistently fall prey to con-men, hucksters and charlatans.

I will stick with my statement. I don't see most religious people as overbearing, or annoying with their beliefs. I can say the same for bigfooters. Just like in religions, there are extreme elements, and hucksters out to make a dollar. I think its pretty equally distributed amongst "beliefs" of any kind. Doesnt really matter if its ghosts, religions, bigfoot, physics, *insertyourbeliefhere*.

I have many friends that believe in religions, and some have other weird beliefs or superstitions. Doesnt change my friendship with them. Everr try to change someones beliefs? You cant. They have to change from within. I think change can be assisted with education, with clarity and with patience. Remove any of those elements and watch the hilarity ensue.
 
There may be no raw analysis released at all. If journals reject the Ketchum paper the results won't be published unless she chooses to do it on her own. Who knows if the raw data would be shown or a narrative interpretation instead (the data would be gibberish to you guys so I'm just gonna tell you what it shows). She has already said that any rejection would be strictly because of anti-Bigfoot bias and not because of the actual science.

WP
She has a big series. She seems to have over a hundred specimens submitted by hopeful footers. Even if every one of them was by DNA a readily identified animal or human that would be very publishable. A slam dunk. It would not necessarily be pleasing to footers, but they would not give up. it would be appropriate for a number of journals. If it never appears in print it is totally by her choosing.
 
I don't think there was any significant But nothing like that will be available for the coming DNA stuff. We may never even get to see any photos of the original material submitted for testing (bone, tooth, "steak", hair, etc). We may never even get to see any actual copies of the DNA analysis results in a raw uninterpreted form (straight from the lab). If the paper(s) are rejected by mainstream scientific journals we may never even get to see the actual full explanation of why they were rejected.

Not so fast, when the paper gets published, or at such time as I feel the paper will never get published, I'll send a sample to anyone of the JREF's choosing, however we need to see the methods used and regions of the DNA that are targeted, plus the results so that independent analysis can replicate it.
 
I could only know through science, I didn't pull them from a bigfoot. The hair will be part of Dr. Ketchums paper. I'm willing to be part of a second test on atleast one of the many samples but under the right conditions and the right time.
 
What was it about the circumstances of the finding of the hair that had you thinking it came from Bigfoot?
 
What was it about the circumstances of the finding of the hair that had you thinking it came from Bigfoot?

Multiple sightings reported in the area.
The hair was found on a tree with twisted / broken limbs.
The hair appeared long and fine with many natural tapered ends indicating they hadn't been cut.

These are just a few observations that made me take interest in them.

You can read more about the find and what has been done to date to indentify them here.

http://www.texlaresearch.com/hairanalysis.htm

What I'm asking from you people is to name who you would choose to either validate or refute Dr. Ketchums findings.
 
Multiple sightings reported in the area.
The hair was found on a tree with twisted / broken limbs.
The hair appeared long and fine with many natural tapered ends indicating they hadn't been cut.

These are just a few observations that made me take interest in them.

You can read more about the find and what has been done to date to indentify them here.

http://www.texlaresearch.com/hairanalysis.htm

What I'm asking from you people is to name who you would choose to either validate or refute Dr. Ketchums findings.
Deleted
 
Last edited:
There might be two updates, one with more pictures and explanation of what we have observed from that find, and another with a link to DR. Ketchums results when they are published. I'll see about getting the first one up asap.
 
(Followed the link.)

So this bigfoot was messing about, beating up a redcedar in an Oklahoma pasture, and left behind some hairs that very closely match the microscopic image of horse hair on the website?

BTW, I know a guy in TN who did research on those eastern Oklahoma black bears. He says they're well dispersed through the Ouachitas in eastern Oklahoma. If these bigfoot hairs were taken from a location 120 miles west of that range, then we're talking about somewhere in the I-35 corridor, and potentially a good distance west of the interstate. Please please please be from the vicinity of the "Lucky Star" casino in Concho!
 
...What I'm asking from you people is to name who you would choose to either validate or refute Dr. Ketchums findings.
Roger Patterson. He's been so good at perpetuating the Bigfoot myth even 40 years after his death that he's 'simply gotta be' our go-to-guy on this one too.

...Please please please be from the vicinity of the "Lucky Star" casino in Concho!
Is that the Bigfoot friendly casino we've heard so much about? Didn't they find Bigfoot's cell phone in the employee bathroom or something but couldn't find an unexpired 3M® Used Condom & Fingerprint 'dusting kit' in time and it just turned into a big fiasco? It's always something.
 
Do you trust them? How about Disotell.

The peer reviewers are experts in their field. They are also anonymous and that is exactly what you want. If your DNA sample is shown to be an unknown species of great ape (that includes hominids) then gears will probably turn. Another sample (which you have) will probably be requested for replication of analysis and it may be one or more of the original peer reviewers that attempts the replication. If it's a green light then they won't remain anonymous because the replication would be published along with the Ketchum paper.

If there is a red light thumbs down it means that your hair didn't come from an unknown species of great ape. Accept that and don't play the anti-Bigfoot conspiracy card.
 
The peer reviewers are experts in their field. They are also anonymous and that is exactly what you want. If your DNA sample is shown to be an unknown species of great ape (that includes hominids) then gears will probably turn. Another sample (which you have) will probably be requested for replication of analysis and it may be one or more of the original peer reviewers that attempts the replication. If it's a green light then they won't remain anonymous because the replication would be published along with the Ketchum paper.

If there is a red light thumbs down it means that your hair didn't come from an unknown species of great ape. Accept that and don't play the anti-Bigfoot conspiracy card.

I hadn't thought of the reviewers being interested in doing it, but don't see why if they were, they would hold Ketchums paper until they could do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom