Believers In The Ketchum DNA Findings Are Launching New Bigfoot DNA Study


JC Johnson of Crypto Four Corners research has announced that a new "faction" has been formed to conduct a new bigfoot genome study. Johnson, along with other participants in the study, still believe the results of the previous Ketchum study are correct, and hope the results of this new project will vindicate those findings.

Regardless of the outcome, the group claims they will accept the results. The group has enlisted the assistance of Dr. Christopher, from the anthropology department of the University of New Mexico, and once the samples are collected, they will be sent to Dr. Jeff Meldrum who has agreed to oversee the study.

Many of the participants were previously involved with the Ketchum study. In light of the findings and ridicule of the Melba Ketchum genome results, which JC and others still believe are valid, each participant has agreed to accept the findings of this new study. The hope is that the findings from the Ketchum study are validated by the new conclusions.

JC has produced a 30 minute video that details some of the stories behind individual encounters and the evidence collection. - Sasquatch DNA Gathering
The video depicts Dr. Christopher interviewing several of the participants in the group.

Comments

  1. Replies
    1. 4 Corners thats BOBO old stompin grounds

      Delete
    2. I'm looking forward to the outcome of this testing and other future projects Dr. Ketchum is working on, where she plans to sequence the entire genome of possible sasquatch bones.

      Delete
    3. Hey up there Joe! I am glad they are continuing to collect DNA. I enjoyed hearing the background on the samples as well.

      Delete
    4. Breaking news, a shooter is terrorizing a military hospital in El Paso, probably some illegal wetback..

      Delete
    5. Joe WOULD think that a frivolous cat vet conducting another bogus Bigfoot DNA study oversaw by a Bigfoot shill in Meldrum (who's also a Standing supporter) is a "brilliant" idea.


      You just can't make this stuff up.......No WONDER people, scientists laugh at this field.

      Delete
    6. Joe should travel to America and meet some of these lunatic yokel footers in person -- after such an experience, I bet that he would quickly become a confirmed scofftic.

      Delete
    7. 7:38... You WOULD like to think that I'm anything other than the agenda of getting this sorted out once and for all, but it's not like you've got much else to go on now, is it? I mean... It's not like you can point to any one scrutiny of Meldrum that can be agree'd upon by his peers, or even hold a point of denouncement that can stand up now, can you? Go and Google George Schaller and see how hard he's laughing about this subject.

      10:41... The only people in America you need to be concerned with are these freethinking nazi's who are so detracted from any level of self esteem that they need to attack people's ideas on a blog. Curiously, I wonder what they're peers think of them? I think actions speak far louder tan words.

      Delete
    8. Freethinking Nazi's?

      You mean like your "moral" government telling it's citizens what type of pornography they can watch?

      Yep. Freethinking Nazi's controlling it's island inhabitants.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. ...none of that is secret or classified data but I can see why you use it to distract from your own freethinking Nazi's.

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. That's nice. You're aware that your government does all of this as well? None of it is new material.

      But I've never expected groundbreaking or well-thought responses from you, so all is normal.

      Delete
    13. "... No we don't, you do!"

      "But I've never expected groundbreaking or well-thought responses from you, so all is normal."

      Delete
    14. So, where did I say we don't? Putting words in mouths again, eh, Joe?

      Your big brother is actually America's little sister. Not only does your government spy on you, it passed all of their information directly to American agencies.

      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-deal-surveillance-personal-data

      Hmmm...

      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    16. Alluding to, speaking of, read between the lines...

      As always.

      Is it truly that difficult to simply say exactly what you mean and mean exactly what you say?

      If you do that then few will have the ability to "put words in your mouth."

      Delete
    17. Nargh, for someone "so educated, so read up" on the topic, I would expect you to have a level of literacy (not self proclaimed) to be able to accomplish that without me holding your hand.

      Delete
    18. There is zero reason for the need to do such. I'm not waxing intellectually over Tolstoy, or eastern philosophy.

      This is a biological discussion and when that dialogue ensues, you must be as clear and precise as possible. Scientific fields are truths and proofs, not taking a stab at what you really meant to say.

      Delete
    19. No, you're in fact fumbling scientific philosophy quite emphatically as regularly as you can shake a stick at. When that dialogue ensues, dear boy, the best you've got is reverting to film, pictures and anecdotes. Again, I think it rich you should be pointing fingers at being precise, or what people are trying to say.

      Delete
    20. And pray-tell, what do you believe I haven't been completely upfront about?

      Delete
    21. Like the fact that I've referenced physical evidence for months and months that has stood up to every little bit of scrutiny anyone can muster, and that every time you decide to bless us with your presence, you revert to anecdotes.

      There's a start.

      Delete
    22. So in these months and months, what anecdotes have I reverted to?

      As it were, comparatively I hardly have posted in these "months and months."

      And I'm sorry if you feel your physical evidence stands out when it doesn't. Maybe you should broaden your brushstroke?

      Delete
    23. I don't even need to revert to months past, take a look at this very comment section. You see, it's very important for someone cherry picking in an argument to exclude things that are in direct opposition of his/her stance. The filed is not merely resorted to "film, pictures and anecdotes". The physical evidence stands until you, in all your up and down approaches to the existence of this subject, can show otherwise. Again... Post your reasons and I will address them.

      Oh... And please don't expect anyone to swallow you not posting under anon.

      Delete
    24. So in these months and months, what anecdotes have I reverted to?

      Delete
    25. Well, you have fun spending the rest of the morning going through my old posts.

      I have things to do today.

      Delete
    26. Like wise Danny, t'was fun and I don't have the time to file through your crud hurlings.

      Take care!

      Delete
    27. Wow, Joe, you are embarrassing yourself to an extreme level today. Nice work Daniel, for exposing this fool.
      "Like wise Danny, t'was fun and I don't have the time to file through your crud hurlings."
      The ultimate cop out. You dont have time to do that but you have time to post your own crud hurlings all day long. Go back to plucking your back hairs you failure at life.

      Delete
    28. Oooooooh, what's the matter son, woke up to find your vomit piles on previous comment sections wiped up? Ha ha ha!! How about you show me just where my "exposure" occurred... Eh little coward? Nothing more fitting that Danny should attract the likes of you, nothing more poetic that Danny fails to address were the immediate subject matter falls flat too.

      When you're not cheerleading, you're still not proving any of your points.

      : )

      Delete
    29. Whoa.....Clueless Joe got SMOKED....again!

      Delete
  2. I'm just surprised that Wally hasn't sent his boys round to reclaim the cash he gave the original study.

    Such a wasted opportunity. Folks will whine about the self consuming BF community but they called Ketchum correct.

    If anyone can pick anything out of the bones of this mess, good luck to them.

    They're gonna need it.

    MMG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He may feel it's not worth going to court over- just a guess. It would be funny if he did, though.

      Delete
    2. Couldn't help wonder about Wallys "boys" would be like.

      Delete
    3. Ketchum left 5 years of pie and mud on the communities face, and now these monkeys are rehashing failure to turn a marketing front again.

      Delete
    4. What's the matter Danny, I would have thought someone like you would have wanted to settle this chapter and for all?

      Delete
    5. It is over, Joe.

      Ketchum failed and spent half a million dollars of someone else' money in the process, wasting 5+ years of the communities time.

      You have a cat vet pretending to be something she has no valid schooling.

      Delete
    6. Hey, you won't mind her making herself look like a clown again then, won't you?

      Delete
    7. This has allready been settled. If anything she found someone willing to skew the results in her favor. The sad thing is her last attempt was so "Joe" level pathetic that even if they legitimately find something this time, it will just be laughed out of public like it was last time. This is why Im thankful that the U.S. has real scientists doing real science, to keep this kind of garbage out of sight and in the murky depths of these kind of blogs to be discussed by the likes of Joe.

      Delete
    8. "B-b-b-b-but this has been settled! We don't need this retested?!" Ha ha ha!! What's the matter coward, you've got nothing to lose right? "Even if they legitimately find something this time..." Seriously, what type of slimy, self confessing, premeditated backtrack is that? I knew you were never remotely aligned with anything remotely impartial before, but this proves to everyone willing to stoop so low as to read your comments that you're not even remotely concerned with an impartial result; your safety net excuses just confirmed it.

      "Murky depths" that you spend all of your time following/hating it's proponents, coward... You don't understand the slightest bit of scientific method, trying to get you to back up your claims with referenced scientists is like trying to get a rat to do the cha-cha... And you still haven't proven any of your points.

      Delete
  3. BALTIMORE —The Black Guerrilla Family gang sent an armed gunman into a Baltimore police station Tuesday to test security, police said.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. POLICE fer U SAFETY
      911 ans its all GOOD : )
      no worries

      Delete
  4. Who is "Dr. Christopher?" He is not listed as a member of the staff or faculty of the department of anthropology at the U of NM. And why has Dr. Meldrum not confirmed his participation in this study. Don''t get me wrong if they have real sas DNA, great. But this thing already smells funny

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Uh,oh. Busted. He is actually the Rev. Dr. Christopher, pastor of the Church of the Blessed Unseeing Eye.

      Delete
  5. The site that has recently tried to steer viewers away from here have the exact same content as this site.

    Copying is a very sincere form of flattery alright !

    MMC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The last post from yesterday Joe. The snow joker I think. Squatchable. Com. Sorry no links having problems with iphone

      MMC

      Delete
    2. You're right, a lot of it is like holding up a mirror to Bigfoot Evidence. You can tell who their major source is.

      http://www.squatchable.com

      Delete
    3. I believe that is Shawn's as well, at least I hope so.

      Delete
    4. It's Shawn's. Registered 1-29-2013 w/ go daddy. All it takes is a Whois domain lookup, the site is either registered w/ a person (Shawn in this case) or a company. If it's a company, use public records to find the owner of the company. There's your domain owner.

      As for teh proofs: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=Squatchable.com

      Shawn's real name, email address, and street address is listed for all John Q. Public to view.

      Delete
  6. What do you folk's think about this Sasquatch report? could this have really happened or just a little far fetched as in it actually happening.........

    http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=33908

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's possible. There are a number of reports of them hit by cars. The BFRO investigator seemed to think she was credible.

      Delete
  7. WTF Shawn and Matt? You guys are just pulling all your material from another website and posting it as your own?

    http://www.squatchable.com/

    That should be illegal. You guys are lazy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's Shawn's site I believe, just like Mulder's World.

      Delete
    2. It's Shawn's. Registered 1-29-2013 w/ go daddy. All it takes is a Whois domain lookup, the site is either registered w/ a person (Shawn in this case) or a company. If it's a company, use public records to find the owner of the company. There's your domain owner.

      As for teh proofs: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=Squatchable.com

      Shawn's real name, email address, and street address is listed for all John Q. Public to view.

      Delete
  8. Are these the same bigfoot that braid horses' hair and communicate telepathically?

    Ketchum isn't knitting with two needles. Why pursue this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right now, it's the only game in town unless you believe in the Tampa Bathing Bigfoot.

      Delete
  9. buckle up and let the hoaxes begn.

    ReplyDelete
  10. . . . and they are going to keep on doing these genome studies until they get it right (the conclusions THEY want)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Killing Bigfoot TEAM the only solution to this quagmire gits U a body and gits U da proof

      Delete
  11. Check out the terrain where they are collecting DNA samples in the first few minutes of this clip. There is sparse vegetation, it's relatively flat and you can see for miles. It is also populated by people and their animals.

    These boneheads believe (or want us to believe) a 7 or 8 foot 600 pound apeman is running around there undetected.

    And of course people are falling for this scam too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sasquatch are reported in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado, the terrain in question shouldn't be a problem for something that's at times three times as big as us and therefore can travel three times as far & three times quicker.

      Boneheads like you, 9:48, would have people around here think that their ideas are bunk, remember though that you are here, and you are surely as spoilt or as narcissistic to think that you are more warranted of ridiculing people, which in fact is an effort to distance yourself from the fact that you are more likely threatened by what others think.

      Physical and biological evidence for an undiscovered primate says shut up and sit down.

      Delete
    2. lol @ PJ calling others bunk.

      Kid you haven't been proven correct in any manner about bf ever.

      You consistently ride the fence without making a valid choice, use deceitful tactics, and sheer volumes of anecdotal evidence.

      Let me know when you actually predict an outcome correctly or make a founded statement.

      Delete
    3. Hey old man, I'll need a body to prove anything, what I can do is show you the evidence that you gave up challenging me on a long time ago.

      If I "ride the fence" on some things and that frustrates/prevents you from putting words in my mouth, then that's typical and I'll enjoy that all the same thanks. When hate breeders such as yourself call BS on literally everything, then it's natural you'd get a hit, what I find funny are some recent comments from you, seemingly able to call the shots on a creature's anatomy/behaviour that you so sternly have contested doesn't exist.

      You don't know whether you're coming or going mate.

      : )

      Delete
    4. You need a body to classify and provide 100% proof but you have not provided a single piece where anyone can go...hey, Joe was right!

      You've gone to that fence you like sitting on because you were embarrassed several times over by making completely asinine and incorrect opinions on a number of items.

      But look at it this way, as long as you continue to draw upon my healthy skepticism like it's a bad thing, the more you ostracize yourself from the truth.

      Delete
    5. What I can do is provide is a solid and consistent source of Internet posts where people like you have been unable to show that I am wrong about the evidence, that's good enough for me... And I'll add, if Sasquatch are indeed human, or a type of, then how would you know until someone sits down with a Sasquatch and swabs their groin?

      If I'm on the fence on things it's because I choose to be, what you gonna do about it? It's funny how someone like you, so seemingly able to backtrack and call the shots on a creature's anatomy/behaviour that you so sternly have contested doesn't exist, should make allegations on the reasons as to why someone else should "sit ion the fence"? And herein lies the level of your "scepticism"... How can anyone measure it when you are so ready to contradict months worth of attacks on those who can support their ideas with evidence?

      Hmmmmmmmmmm.. ????

      Delete
    6. Solid and consistent internet posts, huh? Well color me surprised.

      It doesn't exist, Joe, not in an official sense. Your need to paint me as a static figure continues to alienate you from the truth.

      Existence debates play no part in analyzing the parameters and information given in a film, picture, or anecdote. Existence plays no part in evolutionary, biological, or historical comparisons.

      Keep riding that ambiguous fence, Joe, that way you can't get called out when you make idiotic assessment.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. I guess you can't comprehend the biological definition of existence.

      I can open a browser and come to the official BFE blog. I can't open my textbooks and find official existence of bigfoot.

      Blurring the lines of biological existence and pop culture existence is a deceitful act, Joe.

      Requirement is not obligatory in this instance, it's something you do naturally upon that sickly neutral fence. Interesting you only started riding that fence recently, post-Sykes pie on your face.

      Delete
    9. Oh but it does exist Danny boy, as officially as this blog exists, and you are invited to post your arguments to support your claims of course. I have no requirement to paint you in any light... Someone who openly stoops to the level you have around here, to the awareness of various people who tell you so, does not require me to do nothing of the sort. Existence of specimen, or the none existence of, has no means of measuring evolutionary, biological, or historical comparisons, being a negative and all.

      Film, pictures and anecdotes that have physical and biological data in support, means that your preferenced referencing of how useless such sources are are in fact just that. And in-between showing that the latter sources are indeed existent, I'll ride that fence just dandy... What you gonna do about it?

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. Oh I do indeed know, I in fact comprehend the importance of science journals, and I also comprehend the importance of expert opinion, like primatolgists... You can go on the Internet and check plenty of them out, probably me around here drawing attention to it too.

      I think the only protagonist in the promotion of such ideas, humorously, is he who tries relegating the relevance of such information to that of pop culture, old boy.

      Again... What I find funny are some recent comments from you, seemingly able to call the shots on a creature's anatomy/behaviour that you so sternly have contested doesn't exist, anyone would think that a change in book name may have given you the willies?

      ; )

      Delete
    12. Having a blast deleting posts again, Joe? Seems to be your old standby.

      Let me know if you ever get unbanned from BFF, we can have topical discussions that don't require you to delete and repost your responses when you misspell something or think of a quip.

      Delete
    13. No... I just noticed a typing error, stop getting all twitchy. And my word?! I love it when people suggest I've been banned from the BFF, it makes me laugh... Forget the BFF Danny, cut out the middle man, you've got my email address. Shoot me an email one time nothing will hurt with such a land divide between us.

      Delete
    14. Now why would I ever discuss something with you without an audience to observe your deceits and half-truth's?

      That middle man is thousands of registered and monitored bigfoot researchers, enthusiasts, habituators, and skeptics.

      Delete
    15. Because a man would address his personal issues directly, but that's not what's important to you here is it? Quit stalling, quit deflecting to the BFF like it;s some mantle... If you've got the goods to show how deceitful I am around here, fire away!

      Delete
    16. I see no personal issues afoot. I'm sorry you feel so emotional about it.

      Actually, the BFF is the mantle of online bigfooting community. The only comparable community is perhaps the Blue forum.

      Delete
    17. Oh please Danny, I've gotten to you from day one... There's a million Mike Honcho rants to prove everything I say. I'm as emotional as it requires to swat a fly... And you deflect, you've got your audience here... Fire away!

      Delete
    18. What audience? 2 drunks, a troll, an old man on a goofball blog?

      I'll take a solitary thread topic, ability to edit posts, and a community of researchers and enthusiasts any day. 3 bullets that you hide from.

      Delete
    19. "Hiding" being another rich point considering you hide under anon 99% of the time.

      Until next time, maybe you'll take the multiple invites!

      Delete
    20. Speaking of anecdotes, huh, Joe?

      While you trudge away in my post history, maybe you can show me where I have posted anonymously?

      Delete
    21. Danny...

      You're on record admitting to being Mike Honcho, MMG Sr, you're on record as the former claiming to have "mastered typing like loads of different people", you're on record claiming to have "trolled the sceptics here" and that "the enthusiasts didn't mind when you did that", and you're on record stating that you were multiple versions of me and my avatar.

      Come on bro... People have memories.

      Delete
    22. Am I?

      How about those anecdotes in these past months and months?

      Before you went on an alternate route, you were going to show us where I have posted anonymously. Although at best, you'll merely have anecdotal evidence.

      You said yourself 99% of the time that I'm anonymous, so which ones do you think I posted?

      Delete
    23. Yes you are... And I've hit the proverbial nerve it seems. With regards to this "past few months", I could have quite easily stated "the past couple of years"... Anecdotal evidence is the only thing you revert to, it avoids other areas of short fall as was explained to you up top.

      It's all there Danny written of your own hands, and you know damn well other people, not just me know when you post anonymously. Maybe later I'll take the time to file through it and source it, now I'm just content that you jibbed on showing us how deceitful I am.

      Delete
    24. Funny how you keep saying you hit a nerve with Danny yet you seem to be the one clearly agitated. If you think your constant "dear boys" can mask your frustration you're dead wrong they in fact point to how clearly frustrated you are. Now making assumptions about posts you think hes done anonymously? One can just as easily make the same claim as you as you are no doubt some of the anonymous posts supporting yourself. You just admitted you ride the fence to play the safe ground. I dont know what more we need to hear from you. Also I enjoy your pleading to keep this conversation private to try and prevent you from embarrassing yourself further. But it speaks to the person you are to not want the general public to see you continue to get called out on what Ive been calling you out for months. Despite your constant denial of it. And as far as anything youve said goes, to quote yourself "You still havent proven't a thing dear boy"

      Delete
    25. Agitated? I love the fight son... It's what keeps me here. And I'm about as agitated as a dog scratching the fleas off his backside. I tell you what would get me aaaaaall frustrated, you supporting your vomit with a bit of bite, eh? There's not a single person who posts here who isn't aware of good old Danny's exploits and self admitted stoops to troll people, it's why I'm so pleased he has cowards such as yourself on side, it's nothing more fitting. No, I "ride the fence" on the Carter business, an angle that frustrates Danny cause he hasn't much else to go on usually... Now there's some serious frustration. Pleading? More like an invitation outside for a scrap, kiddo, and if I was so "embarrassed" you wouldn't be running to his corner... Remember, about three times I invited Danny to show his muscle on this comment section; and like what you have come to be known by, it never materialised. Quite incredible then really that you should claim you've been calling on anything other than your mother to feed that foul mouth of yours. Please... Again... You are invited to post your arguements, something that when I check in a little while, would not have materialised. Notice how you make long essays about my character rather than the subject matter anymore? I wonder why that is?? You know the answer all too well son.

      ; )

      Delete
    26. You're still over here riding fences? After what, 6 hours, that must be quite the activity you had to accomplish earlier.

      Delete
    27. It's called multitasking Daniel... And you chimed in to check, remember.

      Delete
  12. Anyone else have a problem with the guy pulling the hairs out of the board with his bare hands? Wouldn't that be contaminated?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the bigfoot scientific method on full display.

      Delete
    2. Also notice how the interviewer leads the witness in describing what was witnessed (e.g. the footprints) after admitting he hadn't looked at the photographs yet. Clearly Dr Christopher has already decided what the witness has seen prior to examining any evidence.

      Delete
    3. How about Johnson's studio apartment and shirt? he looked like he making his announcement from a jail cell. Long story short is that you can't trust any of these guys, they obviously have no idea what they are doing.

      Delete
  13. It's Sahn, not Shawn first of all. He lives in a shitty apartment in Rancho Cordova.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I use the Americanized version because of familiarity.

      Delete
    2. LMAO...Sahn lives with his Mom Sith in a shitty apartment called Gold Creek!

      Delete
  14. why does he collect the hair without gloves on?

    ReplyDelete
  15. My thoughts exactly, Sara. Not a very scientific way of collecting specimens.

    ReplyDelete
  16. at 29:18, Dr. Christopher says that sasquatch has a "very distinct" hair structure... I would question that. First, I don't believe we have any hair that we can definitively say are Sasquatch, so how do we know? Second, Even "experts" constantly mis-identify not only presumptive Squatch hair (which DNA shows to be bovine, or horse, or any number of other species) but even common hair. A morphological examination by 5 experts can very well turn up 5 different conclusions as to the species of origin.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story