Yowiehunters Forum

moetunes wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 1:09 pm Thanks for the support Searcher and for the explanation Rusty.

As a clarification: Linda Moulton Howe is a journalist, she reports on things. She has nothing to do with any dna exept her own and maybe her hubby's if she's married. I don't know how that confusion entered the thread.

Cheers

Moetunes

Looking through the thread the DNA was raised by Dudlow which was the first response to your OP.

sensesonfire wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 1:18 pm Just a reminder to the anti-religious fanatics out there exactly what this section of the forum is about.

AYR - Yowie Controversial, Conjecture and Fringe Subject Matter Discussion
This is a Soap Box section of our Forum where those who hold passionate views/opinions regarding various aspects of Theology, Creation, Religion, Paranormal , etc - pertaining to the Yowie can be POLITELY debated, away from our mainstream friendly Yowie / Bigfoot Discussion Board.

It does not mention discussions by academics on their interpretations of these cryptids the Main Yowie Forum is for that and I've told you why I commented on: A Forensic Expert Says It’s A Different Species so this section of the forum has no place for the unbelievers. Do you see my argument Rusty2.

Senses forgive me if I am wrong but you seem to be contradicting yourself.

In future post as much as you like in the Yowie Controversial, Conjecture and Fringe Subject Matter Discussion board. In fact I applaud you for doing so as I enjoy the reading.

However the main forum is for those that wish to have a say without the controversy, conjecture or fringe matter.

Dion wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 2:07 pm

sensesonfire wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 1:18 pm Just a reminder to the anti-religious fanatics out there exactly what this section of the forum is about.

AYR - Yowie Controversial, Conjecture and Fringe Subject Matter Discussion
This is a Soap Box section of our Forum where those who hold passionate views/opinions regarding various aspects of Theology, Creation, Religion, Paranormal , etc - pertaining to the Yowie can be POLITELY debated, away from our mainstream friendly Yowie / Bigfoot Discussion Board.

It does not mention discussions by academics on their interpretations of these cryptids the Main Yowie Forum is for that and I've told you why I commented on: A Forensic Expert Says It’s A Different Species so this section of the forum has no place for the unbelievers. Do you see my argument Rusty2.

Senses forgive me if I am wrong but you seem to be contradicting yourself.

In future post as much as you like in the Yowie Controversial, Conjecture and Fringe Subject Matter Discussion board. In fact I applaud you for doing so as I enjoy the reading.

However the main forum is for those that wish to have a say without the controversy, conjecture or fringe matter.

Thanks, Dion,
But when I do post I hope that precludes any malicious remarks from the quasi-academics.

We can't instantly stop malicious remarks/attacks or off topic comments Senses but we can remove them .

Just for the record...in case anyone missed it...I'm not a "religious fanatic". I made that clear in posts on here. I just like to explore other peoples points of view. I think that's quite rational. (?)

Searcher wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 9:38 am
Well said moetunes. I fully agree with you. It's yet another case of religious fanatics hijacking posts for their own selfish agendas.
This thread should never have been moved. Instead, the off topic replies should have been deleted or the posters at least warned.
I bet I'm not the only one who feels this way!

No. You're not the only one who feels that way.

Senses,

Your argument that the controversial, conjecture fringe subject matter discussion only pertains to you and your religious conjecture doesnt hold up.

There's this thing in that descriptor it looks like this "etc" which leaves it wide open for just about any other theory besides ones in accord with your religious viewpoint. That's why its there. So the admin don't have to open a dictionary and list every form of classification thats not "religious.

Besides in there you even quoted paranormal and creation. Neither of those necessarily have to do anything with either religion or theology. So even in your supplied quote you are ignoring at least 50 percent of the supplied guidelines and recasting them in a narrow viewpoint in favor of your religious agenda and angle. That's called a false dichotomy and its a big no no amongst people trying to promote their opinion in a constructive or even logical manner. Folks see through that hence the frustration with your dogmatic and unyielding viewpoint on this subject.

You're allowed to have those viewpoints of course. You're even allowed to express them. What you're not allowed to do is create straw-man attacks against anyone and everyone who believes or sees things differently and then attempt to approach them in a belittling manner as you do.

Calling anyone who disagrees with you some quasi- academic boogyman is a straw-man attack. That ain't cool. Besides you really think Jesus would behave like that or do you think he would show patience and tolerance for the " unbelievers"

Theres a thing about human nature. It often mirrors the behaviour thrown at it. So if you're getting "malicious" attacks its likely because you yourself have been perceived by others of doing just the same.

Or as the great philosopher Rodney King once said "can't we all just get along?"

Hey Muser,

If i were to entertain a paranormal angle on sasquatch, yowie id explore the idea that although yowie are real animals. Morphogenic thought forms may exist and occasionally masquerade as such cryptic creatures.

Tulpas and even elementals might be whats at play here. Perhaps the spectator summons and sees what they want to see which whatever mental energy they put out there. Perhaps this mental energy interacts with quantum fluctuations and manafests a ,at least audio-visual facsimile , of what stems from the Id.

The experience may be spectator driven. Its their own projection. And thats why whether its yowie, dogman, fairies, elves, demons or aliens they have appeared different depending on the personal proclivities of the individual. Cultures since history has been recording things either verbally or in manuscript form all have some sort of trickster paranormal experience that takes on many forms. Machine elves become seemingly real. The paranormal might be the unanswered questions leading scientifically up to the discovery of my hypothetically proposed mechanism.

People are free to disagree with my speculation. That's cool. I look forward to an open exploration of this universally experienced phenomena. And im one that has definitely seen paranormal things in my lifetime. One day ill tell you guys about the time i saw and interacted with what i perceived to be at the time a wraith or shadow person. I dont know exactly what i saw but im not going to narrow my options in examining my experience to just one dogmatic perspective. And thats the beauty of life the liberty to think freely and even on occasion change ones own mind.

bassplyr wrote: Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:35 pm Senses,

Your argument that the controversial, conjecture fringe subject matter discussion only pertains to you and your religious conjecture doesnt hold up.

There's this thing in that descriptor it looks like this "etc" which leaves it wide open for just about any other theory besides ones in accord with your religious viewpoint. That's why its there. So the admin don't have to open a dictionary and list every form of classification thats not "religious.

Besides in there you even quoted paranormal and creation. Neither of those necessarily have to do anything with either religion or theology. So even in your supplied quote you are ignoring at least 50 percent of the supplied guidelines and recasting them in a narrow viewpoint in favor of your religious agenda and angle. That's called a false dichotomy and its a big no no amongst people trying to promote their opinion in a constructive or even logical manner. Folks see through that hence the frustration with your dogmatic and unyielding viewpoint on this subject.

You're allowed to have those viewpoints of course. You're even allowed to express them. What you're not allowed to do is create straw-man attacks against anyone and everyone who believes or sees things differently and then attempt to approach them in a belittling manner as you do.

Calling anyone who disagrees with you some quasi- academic boogyman is a straw-man attack. That ain't cool. Besides you really think Jesus would behave like that or do you think he would show patience and tolerance for the " unbelievers"

Theres a thing about human nature. It often mirrors the behaviour thrown at it. So if you're getting "malicious" attacks its likely because you yourself have been perceived by others of doing just the same.

Or as the great philosopher Rodney King once said "can't we all just get along?"

I'm sure you will all get along just fine as your main irritant has nothing more to add to any story on this forum.


I have articulated my research in my story "Evidence Pertaining to The Origins of Bigfoot/Yowie/Yeti" and there is nothing more to add.

What the academics won't acknowledge is the fact that this has been the third most read in well over 4,000 topics even allowing for the negative comments from the unbelievers.

It is obvious that people outside of this forum want to hear what I have to say not some disillusioned academic. I only have to make a comment and views increase exponentially.

While some people have been enlightened others stumble along blindly trying to fathom some understanding of these cryptids but they will get exactly nowhere virtually the same conclusion that science has to offer.
I have nothing more to add to any story on this forum.



Matthew 9:26-27 - None So Blind As Those Who Do Not See! 

Enjoy the AYR Forum.

Hi Senses, I for one read all your theories and to me are all very interesting whether I believe parts or not. When I go out squatchin I look back at your comments and some other people's to see if we have similarities. It helps with research. I do not read from couch potatoes . I have seen your attacked over and over again. Thankyou for sharing your knowledge and support and wish you well. I do hope you continue on Ayr .

When I go bush I comment on times,weather,moon,noises,and what I saw ECT..What I physically felt and saw has led me to believe they are paranormal dimensional being.BUT I can't prove it so it is just my own belief. If I hammered others on my belief others on Ayr would be on my arse too.

What I'm saying is put your belief across and explain to others why you feel your points are legit.no use arguing round in circles. We lost Welly in a similar way,and a lot of people sure don't want to lose you. Myself included.dee

bassplyr wrote: Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:51 pm Hey Muser,

If i were to entertain a paranormal angle on sasquatch, yowie id explore the idea that although yowie are real animals. Morphogenic thought forms may exist and occasionally masquerade as such cryptic creatures.

Tulpas and even elementals might be whats at play here. Perhaps the spectator summons and sees what they want to see which whatever mental energy they put out there. Perhaps this mental energy interacts with quantum fluctuations and manafests a ,at least audio-visual facsimile , of what stems from the Id.

The experience may be spectator driven. Its their own projection. And thats why whether its yowie, dogman, fairies, elves, demons or aliens they have appeared different depending on the personal proclivities of the individual. Cultures since history has been recording things either verbally or in manuscript form all have some sort of trickster paranormal experience that takes on many forms. Machine elves become seemingly real. The paranormal might be the unanswered questions leading scientifically up to the discovery of my hypothetically proposed mechanism.

People are free to disagree with my speculation. That's cool. I look forward to an open exploration of this universally experienced phenomena. And im one that has definitely seen paranormal things in my lifetime. One day ill tell you guys about the time i saw and interacted with what i perceived to be at the time a wraith or shadow person. I dont know exactly what i saw but im not going to narrow my options in examining my experience to just one dogmatic perspective. And thats the beauty of life the liberty to think freely and even on occasion change ones own mind.

G'day Bassplyr,

First up...I found your entire post interesting...but I really like your last sentence. I read it a couple of times and fully agree with it!

I'm not prepared to rule a definite line through anything or any theory. I would maybe lean towards bigfoot on the brain/hallucinatory explanations for those that experience things in the bush.

We all hallucinate internally (dreams) but it's possible to have external hallucinations. You don't have to have a mental disorder, be drunk or drugged either. I think if you're going out to see if you can find a yowie in the early hours (or if your walking through your loungeroom at 3am)...sleep deprivation, lengthened concentration periods and overly raised senses might work against you. Hallucinations can be either auditory, visual or olfactory, or they can be all combined at the same time.

I also find it interesting that a person who is emotionally stable and generally happy will usually be more prone to experiencing neutral, interesting, or positive hallucinations. In contrast, however, a person who is emotionally unstable and generally unhappy will usually be more prone to experiencing sinister, fear-inducing, and negative hallucinations.

On a personal note...in the middle of a very down time due to a very poor economic decision I made that put a lot of strain on my marriage, I had an experience that...in the moment...I thought was 100% real. I woke in the middle of the night and was certain I saw a large centipede climbing up the curtain in our darkened bedroom. I could hear it, I could see it. I knew where I was and felt instantly wide awake. I flew out of bed, turned on the light and started gingerly lifting and searching through the curtain. The Mrs woke up and started looking with me...because I was so sure of what I saw, she believed me. There was nothing there. I truly believe that there was a direct link between my emotional state and that hallucination.

As for the paranormal...I don't know. The quote by Donald Rumsfeld seems appropriate in these matters. "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." LOL!!

Hi Muser, i noticed you mentioned "I'm not prepared to rule a definite line through anything or any theory. I would maybe lean towards bigfoot on the brain/hallucinatory explanations for those that experience things in the bush.

I myself have had many hallucinations at work early in the mornings, 12 hour nightshifts 6x a week makes my eyes extremely tired. I once worked at the Australia Zoo on nightshift as well and at 0400 i swore i saw a elephant sitting on a copper log post!!!!! Of course it wasnt there.

I am not attacking your theory in any way, just would like to ask
How do you explain when a bunch of people go out yowie hunting and 2 or more people see the same weird thing ). I find it hard to believe several people could ever hallucinate at the same time and see the same exact hallucination ( and everyone being sleep deprived also). Dee

adventurer wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:12 pm Hi Muser, i noticed you mentioned "I'm not prepared to rule a definite line through anything or any theory. I would maybe lean towards bigfoot on the brain/hallucinatory explanations for those that experience things in the bush.

I myself have had many hallucinations at work early in the mornings, 12 hour nightshifts 6x a week makes my eyes extremely tired. I once worked at the Australia Zoo on nightshift as well and at 0400 i swore i saw a elephant sitting on a copper log post!!!!! Of course it wasnt there.

I am not attacking your theory in any way, just would like to ask
How do you explain when a bunch of people go out yowie hunting and 2 or more people see the same weird thing ). I find it hard to believe several people could ever hallucinate at the same time and see the same exact hallucination ( and everyone being sleep deprived also). Dee

Hi Adventurer,

I was just throwing another idea out there. I'd never want to be arrogant enough to dismiss any theory on yowies. Until we get a body...who knows what's really what??

As for several people seeing the same thing...I guess the only thing we could on in that case would be something we experience ourselves in day to day life.

In these cases, I would suggest that it wasn't several people having the same hallucination. I'd say it is far more likely they have experienced the misinformation effect and retroactive interference. It works like this, lets say 4 people witness someone run out of a store with a bag of cash. That person bolts up a side street, quickly disappearing from view. The police turn up and ask the 4 witnesses what he was wearing. 3 say they're not sure, 1 says a green hoodie. The policeman (more urgently) asks the group again, "Was he wearing a green hoodie?"

The 4 witnesses have a quick meeting...after a quick discussion, the 1 witness changes his mind and agrees with the other 3 that they're not sure what the robber was wearing.

This is why police interview people separately...so they don't contaminate or seed each others evidence. Even in cases where one person at first believes he or she saw something different from the rest of the group, the human need to conform to the group often makes that one hold out eventually come around to share the same collective memory of the group.

In cases of several people seeing the EXACT same thing...in the bush, at night with expectation, excited energy and a need for a sense of togetherness in what could be a dangerous situation...I think in the washup...when discussing what has just been observed...trying to get their collective heads around what they just experienced...the misinformation effect and retroactive interference could play a big role.

A group of people have all witnessed an event that either happened too fast to take in all the details or was so hard to make out in detail that they are not, at first, able to comprehend or explain what it is they saw. But afterwards they will exchange bits and pieces, share hypotheses and speculations, and, eventually, they will arrive at some consensus as to what it is they experienced, even to the point of implanting shared collective memories. And — this is important! — their shared memory need not be an accurate representation of what it was they actually witnessed! They are unwittingly implanting false memories into each other.

Or...they just saw a yowie! I don't know. I'm not willing to say for sure they didn't. They very well could have. I'd love to!

It's just something to consider. That's all.

Hey Muser you had a hypnopompic hallucination. I get them every so often. They are very lucid even when your startle awake by them. They only last a few seconds but they sire seem real. Interestingly insects are some of the most common firm of them. I often see giant huntmen or spiders dangling in the air or scurrying along walls. But ive seen people, monsters and even a wall that appeared breathing and covered in fuzzy mold like something out of a bad acid trip.

Totally healthy sane normal people get them. I believe it gas to do with the combo of having high acetylcholine and residual altered brain states from having woken up suddenly while in rem sleep.


You can get them while totally awake and tired or the brain is entrained into a altered state. The altered state can be from anything rythymic like drums, hiking, or experiencing similar visual or auditory stimuli repetitively. That's called a type of hapnagogic hallucination. Usually get them just before falling asleep. But you can get them from the above mentioned ways too

Senses.

Academics dont acknowledge your threads view count and hit rate because its irrelevant to it being any closer to the truth. A lot of people mass view things that are far divorced from any truth. Look at some other paranormal based forums. Many that entertain the most incredulous notions based on very narrow perspectives and or research have the highest hit rates for views. Doesnt gave anything to do with them being anywhere closer to the truth. People are people and have different reasons for watching something. Take something like kim Kardashians tv shows. High viewer rating. Some watch it because they hang on to kims every word. Others because they have a morbid fascination and can't believe how stupid the show seems to them. Others because they like laughing at a clown. Some because they respect her self promoting skills and are hoping to pick up a few tricks they can learn from themselves. Doesn't necessarily mean all of them are there because they agree with kim. So falling back on the argument that you must be right because a lot of people check out your writings is not correlated with anything you say being right or wrong. Its a worthless statistic from a research or academic point of view.

Now i agree its nice to see ones work getting read or even appreciated. Theres nothing wrong with that. I too like my writings getting high view counts. Its a nice feeling. And ive been in that position too. (Although it gets pretty creepy after a while when fans start hunting you down outside of the forum elsewhere or on facebook ) more power to you. I dont want to take that away from you. Infact more hits on your posts are good for the website from an advertising standpoint.

One can argue though that more hits to a website dont necessarily reflect upon that website for the better depending on the websites intended disposition. Its always seemed to me that AYH was more about quality over quantity. Which could be why the mainstream research side of this website gets smaller hits. A different level of post quality towards the academic side of yowie research may be the spirit of the day there.


But i wouldnt take peoples interest in your writing to be indicative of your personal viewpoint and hypothesis being right. And it doesnt mean that other peoples opinions and speculation on just what paranormal things really are are automatically incorrect just because its not a popular opinion or in accord with yours. Plenty of scientists had initially unpopular theories at one time that turned out to not only be true but later on highly regarded.

Let others have their say and express their opinions with out going on the assult and trying to strawman attack them. Again ask your self would Jesus resort to such childish behaviour and play that same tactic? I dont think so. He'd be a lot more gracious about how he approached others of differing opinion.

bassplyr wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:44 am Senses.

Academics dont acknowledge your threads view count and hit rate because its irrelevant to it being any closer to the truth. A lot of people mass view things that are far divorced from any truth. Look at some other paranormal based forums. Many that entertain the most incredulous notions based on very narrow perspectives and or research have the highest hit rates for views. Doesnt gave anything to do with them being anywhere closer to the truth. People are people and have different reasons for watching something. Take something like kim Kardashians tv shows. High viewer rating. Some watch it because they hang on to kims every word. Others because they have a morbid fascination and can't believe how stupid the show seems to them. Others because they like laughing at a clown. Some because they respect her self promoting skills and are hoping to pick up a few tricks they can learn from themselves. Doesn't necessarily mean all of them are there because they agree with kim. So falling back on the argument that you must be right because a lot of people check out your writings is not correlated with anything you say being right or wrong. Its a worthless statistic from a research or academic point of view.

Now i agree its nice to see ones work getting read or even appreciated. Theres nothing wrong with that. I too like my writings getting high view counts. Its a nice feeling. And ive been in that position too. (Although it gets pretty creepy after a while when fans start hunting you down outside of the forum elsewhere or on facebook ) more power to you. I dont want to take that away from you. Infact more hits on your posts are good for the website from an advertising standpoint.

One can argue though that more hits to a website dont necessarily reflect upon that website for the better depending on the websites intended disposition. Its always seemed to me that AYH was more about quality over quantity. Which could be why the mainstream research side of this website gets smaller hits. A different level of post quality towards the academic side of yowie research may be the spirit of the day there.


But i wouldnt take peoples interest in your writing to be indicative of your personal viewpoint and hypothesis being right. And it doesnt mean that other peoples opinions and speculation on just what paranormal things really are are automatically incorrect just because its not a popular opinion or in accord with yours. Plenty of scientists had initially unpopular theories at one time that turned out to not only be true but later on highly regarded.

Let others have their say and express their opinions with out going on the assult and trying to strawman attack them. Again ask your self would Jesus resort to such childish behaviour and play that same tactic? I dont think so. He'd be a lot more gracious about how he approached others of differing opinion.

Here we go again.its simple,if you don't like his stuff don't read it. Your saying stuff he can't defend himself on, he's not even here. Give it up.

Muser wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:27 am

adventurer wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:12 pm Hi Muser, i noticed you mentioned "I'm not prepared to rule a definite line through anything or any theory. I would maybe lean towards bigfoot on the brain/hallucinatory explanations for those that experience things in the bush.

I myself have had many hallucinations at work early in the mornings, 12 hour nightshifts 6x a week makes my eyes extremely tired. I once worked at the Australia Zoo on nightshift as well and at 0400 i swore i saw a elephant sitting on a copper log post!!!!! Of course it wasnt there.

I am not attacking your theory in any way, just would like to ask
How do you explain when a bunch of people go out yowie hunting and 2 or more people see the same weird thing ). I find it hard to believe several people could ever hallucinate at the same time and see the same exact hallucination ( and everyone being sleep deprived also). Dee

Hi Adventurer,

I was just throwing another idea out there. I'd never want to be arrogant enough to dismiss any theory on yowies. Until we get a body...who knows what's really what??

As for several people seeing the same thing...I guess the only thing we could on in that case would be something we experience ourselves in day to day life.

In these cases, I would suggest that it wasn't several people having the same hallucination. I'd say it is far more likely they have experienced the misinformation effect and retroactive interference. It works like this, lets say 4 people witness someone run out of a store with a bag of cash. That person bolts up a side street, quickly disappearing from view. The police turn up and ask the 4 witnesses what he was wearing. 3 say they're not sure, 1 says a green hoodie. The policeman (more urgently) asks the group again, "Was he wearing a green hoodie?"

The 4 witnesses have a quick meeting...after a quick discussion, the 1 witness changes his mind and agrees with the other 3 that they're not sure what the robber was wearing.

This is why police interview people separately...so they don't contaminate or seed each others evidence. Even in cases where one person at first believes he or she saw something different from the rest of the group, the human need to conform to the group often makes that one hold out eventually come around to share the same collective memory of the group.

In cases of several people seeing the EXACT same thing...in the bush, at night with expectation, excited energy and a need for a sense of togetherness in what could be a dangerous situation...I think in the washup...when discussing what has just been observed...trying to get their collective heads around what they just experienced...the misinformation effect and retroactive interference could play a big role.

A group of people have all witnessed an event that either happened too fast to take in all the details or was so hard to make out in detail that they are not, at first, able to comprehend or explain what it is they saw. But afterwards they will exchange bits and pieces, share hypotheses and speculations, and, eventually, they will arrive at some consensus as to what it is they experienced, even to the point of implanting shared collective memories. And — this is important! — their shared memory need not be an accurate representation of what it was they actually witnessed! They are unwittingly implanting false memories into each other.

Or...they just saw a yowie! I don't know. I'm not willing to say for sure they didn't. They very well could have. I'd love to!

It's just something to consider. That's all.

Hi,thanks for reply,that would ring truth to a lot of things but not all.hope you see a Yowie one day, best of luck.dee

Meldrum absolutely cannot deal with the Bigfoot being paranormal. Meldrum pointed out that 100% of the samples that Ketchum tested, came out as the Bigfoot species. An impossibility. So Meldrum in no way agrees with Ketchum's DNA study.

Not much on today...so I did a little digging around. I found this article from 2013. It's long...but we've all got some spare time now, so give it a read!

For the record...I also did some research on Donald Prothero, the author of this article. He's a big time sceptic, but his research seems thorough. See what you think.



Bigfoot DNA? It’s Playing Possum!

by Donald Prothero, Jul 10 2013

I’m on my way to The Amazing Meeting in Las Vegas as this posts, but I wanted to write this as an addendum to our just-published book on cryptozoology, Abominable Science! (available at TAM this weekend, and on Amazon.com). Daniel Loxton and I will both be at TAM if you want to get a copy autographed by both authors.

Last February, the news and blogosphere was buzzing with excitement. Someone had claimed that they had sequenced the DNA of Bigfoot! Naturally, such a sensational story was reported all over the internet and even the mainstream media as if it were solid, confirmed research. If there was any skepticism displayed, it was at the very end of a story that mostly gave the claim uncritical coverage. A number of mainstream scientists and skeptics wrote critical blogs and articles about the way the discovery was announced and the fact that it was announced without a publication backing it up, but everyone had to reserve judgment until the paper was actually published—and even more importantly, when the results were double-checked by an independent lab.

There were lots of reason for doubting the reality of the report. To start with, the researcher, Dr. Melba Ketchum (a long-term Bigfoot advocate, so she is no neutral party) did one of the worst possible things to convince scientists: she put out a press release before any peer-reviewed scientific publication of results. This always makes scientists suspicious, because it is a common strategy among less reputable researchers to get the press to cover substandard or even ridiculous research before scientists could weigh in.

Then the red flags kept on coming. Her lab, which mostly does DNA analysis for veterinarians, was given an “F” rating with the Better Business Bureau. When the paper finally appeared, it was not in a peer-reviewed journal that scientists trust, but in some unknown source called “DeNovo Scientific Journal“. It was the only paper in this online journal, another suspicious aspect of the research. And it took only a little bit of digging to find out that that Melba Ketchum had bought the journal itself and had no independent editorial board, so the research was completely self-published with no neutral peer review or quality control.


Even Bigfoot advocate Jeff Meldrum found this suspicious:

“To make an end-run around the process by erecting a facade in the form of a so-called new journal and allege that it is edited and reviewed, without providing any of that information on the public web page, it appears that she has undertaken an effort to self-publish, just to get it out there,” Meldrum told The Huffington Post. “And, to boot, she’s charging $30 a pop for a copy of the paper. Meldrum said he doesn’t think any credible scientific journal would shy away from the topic simply because of its controversial nature. “I wouldn’t rule it out entirely. There are certainly politics involved in the selection of papers. If it’s solid work, this is the discovery of the century, if not the millennium,” Meldrum said. “Any journal, if they were confident in the results and in the expertise of their reviewers, and it came down positive —I would think they would clamor for the opportunity to have that on the front cover of their journal.”



Throughout the long wait for the paper to appear, rumors were flying. There were lots of conflicting stories about whether it was under review or not, and a Russian co-author leaked all sorts of information that was not consistent with what Ketchum’s lab was saying. The press release and other announcements claimed that all the mitochondrial DNA was human (no surprise), and come from normal human hair which has mitochondrial DNA but no nuclear DNA. The nuclear DNA largely matches human samples as well, along with an “unknown component” that Ketchum prematurely attributes to Bigfoot.

As our own Steve Novella put it:

Let me offer a preliminary alternate hypothesis. The hair samples that contain only human mtDNA are from a human. The samples from which the nuDNA is isolated are also from humans but with some contaminants or some other animal source mixed in. That seems to be a more parsimonious interpretation. I would like to know more about the source of the DNA, but I guess that will have to wait for the full details to be published. The fact that the human DNA is modern human (hence the need for the alleged hybridization to have occurred so recently in the past) is most easily explained as the source simply being modern humans. Let us also consider the scenario that Ketchum is suggesting—in the very recent past (less than 15,000 years) an unknown primate bred with modern human females (mtDNA comes almost exclusively from the female line) producing the creature we now know as bigfoot. What, then, must the original unknown primate looked like? The result of this pairing then produced fertile offspring, enough to generate a new stable population of bigfeet. It is highly doubtful that the offspring of a creature that looks like bigfoot and a human would be fertile. They would almost certainly be as sterile as mules. Humans could not breed with our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees, or any living ape. It is probable that we could produce fertile young with Neanderthals, but it gets doubtful the further back in our evolutionary history we go – and how far back would we have to go to reach a common ancestor with bigfoot? The bottom line is this—human DNA plus some anomalies or unknowns does not equal an impossible human-ape hybrid. It equals human DNA plus some anomalies.


One of the first people to get an advance peek at the paper, geneticist John Timmer of the online journal Ars Technica, reported:


At this point, we get into some actual biology with enough details to analyze. And the details appear to point in the exact opposite direction of the authors’ conclusions that bigfoot represents a recent hybridization between modern humans and an unknown species of primate. To begin with, the mitochondrial DNA of the samples (when it can be isolated) clusters with that of modern humans. That isn’t itself a problem if we assume that those doing the interbreeding were human females, but the DNA sequences come from a variety of different humans—16 in total. And most of these were “European or Middle Eastern in origin” with a few “African and American Indian haplotypes.” Given the timing of the interbreeding, we should only be seeing Native American sequences here.

The authors speculate that some humans may have walked across the ice through Greenland during the last glaciation, but there’s absolutely no evidence for that. The best explanation here is contamination. As far as the nuclear genome is concerned, the results are a mess. Sometimes the tests picked up human DNA. Other times, they didn’t. Sometimes the tests failed entirely. The products of the DNA amplifications performed on the samples look about like what you’d expect when the reaction didn’t amplify the intended sequence. And electron micrographs of the DNA isolated from these samples show patches of double- and single-stranded DNA intermixed. This is what you might expect if two distantly related species had their DNA mixed—the protein-coding sequences would hybridize, and the intervening sections wouldn’t. All of this suggests modern human DNA intermingled with some other contaminant.



When the paper was finally available, it was accessible only behind a paywall that had a $30 charge for one paper. It is common in these commercial journals to charge a small amount for an individual paper, but a fee this large, going directly to the pockets of the author who owns the journal, suggests that she was milking the site for money from dedicated Bigfoot believers, and discouraging most scientists (who are not interested enough in the issue to waste $30) from accessing it. Others have suggested that since her company got the “F” ranking from Better Business Bureau and is tanking, she dreamed the whole thing up as a scheme to raise money from the Bigfooters.

I finally got a look at the paper for myself. Most of it reads like a conventional DNA paper, and the results don’t look that oddball since they are presented in a normal fashion. (By contrast, many crackpot papers have bizarre writing and structure, often presented in a weird font like Comic Sans). There is a section claiming that they eliminated questionable hair samples by comparing their samples to reference samples of hairs of humans and other common North American mammals. Only hairs which had a “novel visual structure” (p. 3) were said to have been used in the study.

Then there were other samples that included “toenail, tissue, blood, mucus, scratched tree bark and saliva claimed by submitters to be from an unknown and previously undescribed hominin”. They came from 14 states and 2 Canadian provinces. “Samples were subjected to a preliminary screening by utilizing eyewitness interview information, visual and histological examination, and DNA testing.” What?? This is the key issue that screams out for further investigation. Her samples were collected by people who claimed to witness Bigfoot, yet there is no identification of the source, where it came from, and how they know it came from Bigfoot—an inexcusable gap in the essential data allowing us to assess the reliability of the collecting procedures.

More significantly, not one of them was able to get a photograph of Bigfoot as it left tissues behind. I find that very hard to believe in a day when nearly everyone carries a cell phone camera in their pocket. Surely a photo would provide much more convincing evidence that the sample allegedly derived from Bigfoot. There are accounts of how the “blood sample” was obtained when Bigfoot cut its lip sucking on a sharp rain gutter. If the witness saw that much up close, why are there no pictures? This doesn’t give us any confidence that these “eyewitnesses” actually saw a Bigfoot leave the sample behind. Instead, it suggests that sampling is much less rigorous and second-hand, as indicated by the story that some of her samples came from a blueberry bagel left out in a Michigan back yard that is claimed to be frequented by Bigfoot.


And this begs an even larger question: if we have an unknown DNA sample, how do we know it’s from Bigfoot? We cannot just assume that if it doesn’t come from a known North American mammal, it’s automatically from Bigfoot. Without already having Bigfoot in captivity to sample from, all we can say about an unknown DNA sample is that it’s from an unknown source! This a common problem with cryptozoologists and pseudoscientists: if there is some phenomenon that is not yet easily explained by science, they assume that it must be caused by Bigfoot or ghosts or UFOs or some other supernatural cause. The proper scientific assumption is that if the cause is not yet known, we don’t jump to supernatural conclusions—we just don’t know the cause yet.



Well, the verdict is in. Ketchum sent reporter Eric Berger of The Houston Chronicle her samples so he could get them tested by a reputable independent geneticist. The result? Mostly just regular human DNA, with contamination by a number of critters, including an opossum! Ketchum describes her lab procedures in detail in the paper, and claims she had samples of other North American mammals to rule out their input. Apparently she forgot to include one of the most widespread mammals in all of North America, Didelphis virginiana—the American opossum.

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.”

I can just see the gags and cartoons out there now: Bigfoot in the “opossum death pose”; Bigfoot hanging upside down from a tree like an opossum….