Thursday, November 29, 2012

CNN reports Bigfoot DNA Using Footage Mostly from TV Show Finding Bigfoot

CNN Carol Costello reports the Bigfoot DNA study that says Bigfoot is part human
using  mostly footage from Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot
Now you know it is really news. CNN had picked up the Bigfoot DNA study that claims Bigfoot is part human.


The choice of mashing up the Melba Ketchum Bigfoot DNA study and the TV show Finding Bigfoot is ironic (perhaps even amusing) to most Bigfooters. Matt Moneymaker, co-host on Finding Bigfoot,  has been very vocal, most recently on twitter, about his lack of confidence in Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA study that claims Bigfoot is part human.

Below are some choice tweets from BFRO founder and Finding Bigfoot's co-host, Matt Moneymaker.


  I think the DNA study in Texas will be exposed as a hyped up publicity stunt and scam. I've been monitoring it for a while.



Bald-faced mendacity of Melba Ketchum. She told Lee Speigal the DNA samples "came to me. I didn't go after them, that's for sure." Bullsh*t.



More than 5 years ago she pitched her BF DNA testing to the producer of Monsterquest, and later pitched herself to the producers of MY SHOW!



 Yo Greggy, Melba's study won't be taken seriously by any real scientists. It's all fake. Her "team of scientists" doesn't exist



Yes, she received a few legit samples but her "DNA analysis" and documentation was a sham and a scam. She made ridiculous excuses for years.



 When hoaxers and charlatans succeed it getting news media attention, they can use the attn to swindle people who want to help.



 All three of those guys [Paulides/Randles/Carpenter] are dealing w/ Melba because she is telling them exactly what they want to hear about their own samples.



The only silver lining to Melba Ketchum's scam: It helped encourage Dr. Sykes at Oxford (England) to seek BF DNA samples. He is very legit.



27 comments:

  1. I CAN'T WAIT FOR MONEYMAKER TO EAT HIS WORDS WHEN SYKES COME BACK WITH THE EXACT SAME RESULTS... I HATE TO BASH YOU GUY BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE A GOOD DUDE, BUT YOU GAVE DR.KETCHUM SHIT TOO WITH YOU'RE LITTLE 5 STEP THEORY.... WHAT ARE YOU GOING SAY WHEN SYKES STUDY MATCH KETCHUM'S??



    ALL CAPS GUY-

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GUY ISN'T GOING TO HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING YOU NITWIT. THE CAT VET HAS NOTHING. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO SAY, WHEN SHE QUIETLY SLIPS AWAY INTO THE SHADOWS OF BAD DREAMS? All CAPS!

      Delete
    2. Hey ALLCAPS,

      Thank you for your comment, it's good to hear from you again. Your right, my 5 stages was a response to a Melba Ketchum question.

      It should be known that the 5 stages were created long before Melba Ketchum. It is based on Thom Bascardi's 2005 happy Camp hoax, 2008 Georgia freezer hoax, Todd Standing's own claim of Bigfoot proof, and many other big Bigfoot announcements over the years.

      I never said that Melba is a hoaxer. I was just saying I have seen this pattern before, and I always hope it ends differently. As a reminder the 5 stages are.

      1. A big "too good to be true" announcement
      2. Defensiveness or attack your critics.
      3. Postpone the evidence.
      4. Postpone the evidence (again).
      5. Announcer claims to be a victim of a hoax.

      I honestly hope this does end differently, who wouldn't? To answer your question. If Ketchum's study comes back solid after being peer reviewed I will say, "I was wrong, and incorrectly assumed the worst."

      Delete
    3. THANKS FOR RESPONDING GUY! MS. SNOWFLAKE PRIME, I CAN SEE WHY YOU AREN'T WELL LIKED BY A LOT OF FOLKS IN THE BF COMM. 50YRS OLD WITH THE MIND OF A 9YR OLD THROWING A FIT BECAUSE NOBODY IS PAYING ATTENTION TO YOU (RICK DYER) SO THE NEXT TIME GUY AND I ARE IN CONVERSATION, KEEP YO MOUTH SHUT!!!!!

      Delete
  2. matt find bigfoot or shut up!!! you are obviously JEALOUS because i have not seen absolutely NOTHING from you or your mighty bfro..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt is simple stating what anyone with a single functioning neuron has already figured out.

      Delete
    2. YOU MEAN "SIMPLY STATING" FOOL..

      Delete
    3. snow walker prime is sooo annoyingly obnoxious.. obviously bullied as a child!

      Delete
  3. SQUATCH POLITICS.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good grief, this reporter is lumping EVERYONE into the batshit crazy arena, because the Cat Vet wants to play scientist. The reporter could at least identify the freaking Cat Vet as the crazy one. This woman has managed to paint this whole field with the color of nutjob. Thank you soooooo much Miss Cat Vet for making us all look like nitwits. I can't believe anyone is buying her brand of B.S. at this point. In the old days they use to tar and feather people for less.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SNOWFLAKE, "YOU" OF ALL PEOPLE SHOULD BE THE LAST PERSON ON EARTH TO BE CALLING SOMEONE ELSE A NITWIT!!! YOU FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF WHEN YOU TEAR OTHERS DOWN.. IT'S BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE "YOU" SNOWFLAKE THAT OTHERS HESITATE TO COME FORWARD WITH ANY REAL EVIDENCE SUCH AS A PHOTO, VIDEO OR PLASTER CAST BECAUSE OF JEALOUS COWARDS LIKE YOU WHO BRINGS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO THIS FIELD!!

      Delete
    2. don't forget that annoyingly retarded "goofy" ass laugh! lol

      Delete
    3. Well. I have to put my two cents in. While I haven't seen all of SnowWalkers material,,I've seen a good bit. Most of that I have seen is well rounded,,methodical. IMO,,I've never seen him bullying someone,,but I've noticed him giving a hoaxer or two down the road. Well,,,who here wouldn't? Jealousy is a major obstacle to overcome in any area of research. And when you add a legendary being,,some die hard people mixed with weekend warriors,,with 90 percent of all those have high emotional attachments in one state of BF or another,,,,these things are bound to happen. Keep up the great work SWP!!!!

      Delete
  5. I THINK ALL OF YOU! ARE cKOO*cKOOo 4 Cocoa PuFFSs!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Guy- your five steps definitely applies here. I wish it didn't, but it does. i just hope Sykes can be quick enough to give true results. I always had a feeling that the vet was over her pay grade. Too many inconsistencies.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I see the attacker here and it Anonymous ALL CAPS you have no balls hiding behind Anonymous. I would say a lot more but I do respect Guy for what he has done over the years for the community. But to hide behind Anonymous and then lash out at people if you are going to stand up for your positions don’t hide behind Anonymous like a coward.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ALL CAPS GUY= EDWARD LEE JR.. NOBODY IS HIDING!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well ONCE AGAIN the State ran CNN reports a story with goofs & laughs about the subject of BIGFOOT. I saw a story they did about a couple that witnessed a real UFO and the reporters came on tv wearing aluminum foil hats, making fun of these people. You cant get those ass'es to report anything the RIGHT way!

    ReplyDelete
  10. themanwithoutanameNov 30, 2012, 2:41:00 PM

    Here is how Guy screwed up royally :
    1. A big "too good to be true" announcement?
    So please explain Guy, how one goes about making an announcement about Bigfoot DNA, that is neither "Big" nor appears to be "too good to be true" to the non-scientific layperson who is inexperienced at solo nightime forest type activities. Answer: We'll I guess that it would be impossible, because no right minded person, layman or scientist, would go nightime exploring in the forest by themselves. Scientists would stay in the lab and everyone else is either glued to the boob tube, iphone, internet or getting some.

    2. Defensiveness or attack your critics?
    So please explain Guy, how Melba is attacking her criics when she simply states on TV to "look at the data". If she made any criticism of Matt Moneymaker, it goes without saying that she would be correct.

    3. Postpone the evidence?
    Please explain how Melba is in control of the peer review and/or the science journal publication. Answer: Well, er, um. Frankly I am just frustrated and I wanted to blame someone and Melba was the only person that I had a name for, so she will do just fine, thankyou.

    4. Postpone the evidence (again)?
    Read number 3, (again).

    5. Announcer claims to be a victim of a hoax?
    Guy, please explain how Melba has made any statement to the effect that she has been hoaxed, or is it still too soon but you wanted to do your bit to taint her scientific endeavor, just like Matt Moneymaker.

    If you think that I am getting nit picky with you Guy, you are right. If you are going to take a high profile public position on this critical subject matter, you had better have dotted all of your i's and crossed your t's. I don't see that happening here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Man Without a Name,
      Thanks for your comment and holding my feet to the fire. I appreciate the opportunity to reiterate my position and acknowledge the subjectivity of my opinion.

      I don't know how many times I have stated that I am rooting for the study, but have concerns. Even If I said that the other way around. Just because I have concerns, doesn't mean I'm not rooting for the study.

      I'll address each one of your questions and I hope you find my responses honest and forthcoming.

      1. It's been 45 years since the P/G film, any new potential evidence seems too good to be true. this includes Sykes study. I'm not jaded. I mean it in the same sense that I feel Peter Jackson returning to direct the Hobbit is, "too good to be true."

      2. I have no recollection of Melba attacking her critics, but there are multiple examples of her surrogates doing so. I admit, I am assuming that because she has not condemned this behavior, she condones it.

      3. Melba can't control the timing of the peer review. That's the point, she should have never established a time of when it would be published.

      4. Since Melba missed her first target, she shouldn't have established a 2nd and 3rd. Her recent comment was it will be published in weeks not months. that means before the end of the year.

      5. Melba has not reached stage 5 and hopefully wont. These five stages are based on Biscardi mostly. Only in theory, IF she was to get to stage 5 she will either blame those that gave her the evidence, or blame the other labs outside her direct supervision.

      Again, it is in all of our interest that the study is successful. I think I have been civil about my concerns. It would be dishonest of me to hide them.

      Thank you again for your thoughtful comment, and you're welcome to be nit picky here any time you like.

      Delete
  11. I see no logical reason to be bashing Dr. Ketchum. Clearly she has some definite results or her study wouldn't be up for peer review. If she claims to have mapped the entire Sasquatch genome and is now allowing her study to be reviewed, well then lets look at it and then make an assessment. But in the meantime, Guy and Snow Walker, let's not jump to conclusions about Dr. Ketchum, or even Todd Standing. Let's keep the language and material clean...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree. If these guys haven't interacted with her personally, or dealt with her professionally, then they are just sifting and regurgitating the crap from the internets. Kind of suggests that not only are they gulible, but that they are the willing tools of someone else's agenda.

      Delete
    2. i totally agree anon 3:22pm! it is the "michael merchant types" who bring absolutely NOTHING to the field but negativity!

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Love the article by the way,,,,I was outside earlier,,,and on the wind I thought I heard explicitives that sounded so familiar. Now I know,,,lol.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. what a TOOL that matt "what is that?! that's a squatch" moneymaker is.......

    ReplyDelete

Let's keep the language and material clean, keep in mind we have younger fans that get their Bigfoot News here too.

Please read our terms of use policy.