• 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.
Stubstad, while he was still posting at Robert Lindsay, was getting in as many digs as possible at Ketchum. He is trying to kickstart a competing venture, "in Europe." It is possible that Java Bob is allied with him.
 
I think the May 4-6 conference at which the Ketchum Hokum is supposedly presenting will signal the true status of the paper, if it has not been published before that date (which at this point is looking less and less likely). If she actually presents the paper there, prior to publication, then it is pretty apparent that it has been rejected, since Sally has noted that the Ketchum Hokum has decided to not discuss the paper prior to publication. If she pulls completely out of the conference, then it will get very interesting to hear the reasoning behind the withdrawl from the conference. I would imagine the "excuse" will be that the paper is still in peer review, and will not be discussed ahead of publishing. By then, however, that excuse will be worn very thin. At some point, either the paper will be posted on a blog or forum in a leaked format, will be published in a yet to be determined journal, or may just ride off into the sunset. I agree that the options for the Ketchum Hokum camp are narrowing quickly.
 
There was a famous financial swindle where a woman showed up to the USA with a trunk allegedly filled with wealth. She had no money, but managed to get some kind of lawsuit going with a relative over who had the right to the contents of the trunk, and in the meantime it was sealed by the court.

She got a bank to loan her a tremendous amount of cash based on the theory that if there was a lawsuit then certainly the contents had to be extremely valuable. She kept the trunk tied up in this lawsuit for a very long time, with the bank making additional advances right up to the end where finally the trunk was opened and there was of course nothing valuable in it.

The Ketchum Hokum is exactly the same kind of hoax: I have a flying dragon in a box, but I can't let you see it. Who cares if she has DNA results, there is no type specimen so no journal of any repute whatsoever is going to publish those DNA results. The alleged nondisclosure agreement, journal embargo, etc. is all part of the hoax.

The website is a complete fraud in terms of its stated purpose on disseminating information regarding her "research". There is not one iota of information on her research and instead it is the exact opposite: screeds on why she can't divulge any information on her research, along with diversionary piffle.

All the hoopla over "leaks" and Ketchum's indignant responses - this is the apex of the hoax. The whole point is to get people squabbling over the contents of the trunk in order to create the illusion of something being inside. She has to get her fingers on whatever money or fame she's trying to extract out of this hoax before the trunk is forced open.
 
I don't see how she can monetize without publishing at some point somewhere. I doubt that there will be many more paying customers until she does.

Are you thinking some book publisher or TV producer might give her a big advance on the basis of the trunk? I just don't see how that would happen.
 
The only funding pool that I see as perhaps still viable would be her donors. She can continue to drag them along with additional testing required to fulfill some required revision to thePaper for publication. I am sure the donors still think the trunk has cash. She has probably shown them a "draft" of the report to keep them satisified. Outside of that, with 300 people signed up to her protection group, I can't see how a TV producer or book publisher would see that there is a big audience for her research.
 
You're not thinking like a producer of a lowbrow bigfoot program.
Who would have ever believed someone would hire Bobo and MMM to travel the country pretending to look for bigfoot?!!!
 
parnassus said:
I don't see how she can monetize without publishing at some point somewhere. I doubt that there will be many more paying customers until she does.

Are you thinking some book publisher or TV producer might give her a big advance on the basis of the trunk? I just don't see how that would happen.
Click to expand...

She has already acquired name recognition, which is part of anyone's thinking in this arena, and it remains to be seen whether that on balance increases or decreases her regular line of AKC dog certifications and stolen horse identifications using DNA.

Movies, books, speaking fees - I have no idea how extensive her thinking is on what she hopes to get out of it, but clearly she has nothing in the trunk because she is working so hard to conceal what is in there while loudly proclaiming her intention to show everyone. This is a hallmark of the manipulative con man, and it works on people who listen to what they are saying instead of watching what they are doing.

People can suffer from delusional thinking or just get idiosynchratic thrills out of activity others find repugnant, and I don't know this woman's background well enough to sort out money vs. notoriety motives or how carefully she has thought through her plans.

But there is no question in my mind she knows better than anyone else that she is running a hoax instead of being innocently duped or sincerely misguided. Who knows better than Ketchum that there has to be a type specimen? Why has she provided zero information on this information-dissemination site? Because providing that kind of information would demonstrate there is no basis to what she is doing.
 
My problem with this whole bigfoot issue is how properly to use the name; is the plural bigfeet, bigfoots, sasquatches, yetis, or is it like deer, moose, bison, where the plural is same as singular? And, what ever happened to yeti(s)? Don't hear much about them anymore. If I were a yeti I'd be pretty miffed at being ignored for so long by so many when I was the original abdominal snowman.
The wonderful invention of human folly; is there no limit?
 
Dale said:
My problem with this whole bigfoot issue is how properly to use the name; is the plural bigfeet, bigfoots, sasquatches, yetis, or is it like deer, moose, bison, where the plural is same as singular? And, what ever happened to yeti(s)? Don't hear much about them anymore. If I were a yeti I'd be pretty miffed at being ignored for so long by so many when I was the original abdominal snowman.
The wonderful invention of human folly; is there no limit?
Click to expand...

The Little Squatchin' Glossary


Bigfoot- big critter certain people think lives in the woods

Sasquatch- (see Bigfoot)

Bigfoots, Bigfeet, Squatches, foots- all acceptable plural forms of Bigfoot or Sasquatch (just have fun with it!!!)

Squatchy- any piece of woodland that doesn't have a 7/11 in the middle of it and is therefor suitable habitat for Bigfoot

Footery- the pursuit and exploitation of the idea of Bigfoot

Footer's- those who actively are engaged in the pursuit of Bigfoot

Bleever's- those who believe the creature exists and are engaged as enthusiasts via the internet, books, TV and other media

Damn Skeptics- those who dare question the validity of said Bigfoot due to the lack of any sort of verifiable evidence that it exists

Scoftic- created on the BFF to describe anyone with the gall to question the validity of outlandish claims such as "I have bigfoots living next door and they smoke and wear hats" to "Bigfoot is a shapeshifting multi-dimensional creature from the future" (no I am not kidding)

Fencer's- those people who are slowly coming to the realization that all the Bigfoot stuff is so much hokum

TheMeldrum- Idaho State Primatologist who probably doesn't really believe in Footery but sure likes keepin it real and gettin it paid

The Ketchum- DNA analyst who's normal bidness was verifying registered dog bloodlines but who was either hoodwinked or joined into the creation of a supposed peer reviewed scientific paper that proves Bigfoot is real

The Paper- above supposed scientific paper that seems to follow none of the progress of any scientifically submitted paper in history

The PGF- world famous film supposedly showing a creature in action, one of the best examples of the "moving the goalposts" fallacy because anytime a skeptic proves a claim attributed to the film wrong (creature is within human limits, walks within human limits, elbow is in proper place...etc) they come up with something else to try and maintain their bleef's

If I missed anything, feel free to add to it!!
 
Last edited:
Fixed!!


As far as what Drew said, I think he's wrong. I love how Footery sounds!!!
 
Last edited:
But I thought BF prefer 7-11's 2 to 1 over Circle K's ? What would happen if they sawed the trunk in half ???
 
Has anyone ever tried to define the various sects within Bigfootery?

Olympic Project
Munns Report
BFRO
Robert Lindsay
Erickson Project
Snow Walker Prime
Tim Fasano
Todd Standing
The Meldrum
The Ketchum Hokum
The Georgia Boys
David Paulides
The Sierra Kills Boys

Obviously, some are individuals, but they each seem to have their own followers.
 
Last edited:
"Bigfoot sects".. Now there is a subject or topic. What do they say about that issue ? Does mating occur in the fall when the deer get with it or.. with the other smaller mammals in the spring ? I would imagine when the dna is analyzed they will be able to show us the age.. sects.. and approx. something ? I cannot wait !

edit: Oh wait. never mind....

Like the Meldrummites, Paulidesites, Hokumites, Lindsayins, Standingums, Fasonians, Moneymakerites ...etc
 
Last edited:
We need to determine each groups Bigfoot canon, official names (love the Meldrumites, Ketchumites, etc), and of course their distinguishing characteristics. Ok, thread hijack over.

Back to the DNA. ABP your trunk con is really on point. I think you have effectively described the entire life cycle of thePaper ploy.
 
TheJackal said:
The only funding pool that I see as perhaps still viable would be her donors. She can continue to drag them along with additional testing required to fulfill some required revision to thePaper for publication. I am sure the donors still think the trunk has cash. She has probably shown them a "draft" of the report to keep them satisified.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this very well, and would like to know it better. She has a lab, so she's done the tests herself, right? And someone is either paying her to do them (the people who sent her samples?) or donating money to see that it gets done? I have no idea how many samples are involved but the math is easy:

Revenue = #samples X price per sample. It isn't very many though, right? Is/Was she hoping more samples would come pouring in with people willing to pay money for DNA testing of their "bigfoot" tissue find?

Hard to second-guess someone running a hoax. If we look back at the Roger Patterson model though, he ran every angle he could: a club, a research organization, book, film, road show, newsletters - so the thinking of a hoaxer for gain is "whatever I can get away with".

But since she is a DNA tester and a 'footer this is what we get from her: some kind of DNA footer hoax. Merldumb did the best he could scamming his trade into bigfoot: the mid-tarsal break hoax. Munns is playing the suit analyst hoax based on his hollywood background.
 
At one point, The Ketchum Hokum called out to a few folks that had really helped her in her research. I might be pipe dreaming, but I thought one was a philanthropist (not to be confused with anthropologist). The constant talk about "cutting edge" for me, and to borrow from Monty Python, is more machines that go "ping". Also money to support the expendables used during the research. Lastly, I am not sure everyone associated with the project worked pro bono. I can't imagine that you could find enough qualified folks willing to risk their reputations for free. As I recall, the Ketchum Hokum supposedly sent some samples to other labs for "double blind" testing. All of this adds up to money. I just can't see how testing dog DNA generates the capital necessary to fund this type of research.

Now, if we go back to the Monkey in the Trunk (Trunk Monkey) theory, then there is no need for financial backing, because the trunk is empty. No machines that go "ping", no huge staff of researchers, no double blind testing, no expendable items. So it really depends on how you want to manufacture the hoax. Is part of the Trunk Monkey duping investors into buying better testing equipment or paying for independent testing ? Not sure, but I just can't see banking on TV/Book/Website/Lectures with the Trunk Monkey. Of course, none of this takes into account the ego strokes from the Ketchumites. Maybe that is the big motivator, but it typically comes down to money.
 
Last edited:
then you have the Reformed, the Seventh Day Squatchers, the Roman Footers, the Bleevers of the Latter Day Bigfoots, the Sephartic Squatchers, Little Sisters of the Squatch, etc etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

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