Monday, December 24, 2012

George Knapp is a Ketchum Bigfoot DNA Apologist

George Knapp continues to be a Melba Ketchum Apologist
"The most vehement, the nastiest reaction to the aforementioned [Bigfoot] DNA study has come from those that think of themselves as Bigfoot researchers" -- George Knapp, Coast to Coast AM

Two and a half years ago Dr. Melba Ketchum along with a retired police officer met with George Knapp, a Sunday night host of  radio call-in show Coast to Coast AM (C2C). It was in a Las Vegas restaurant called La Scala. At the dining table George Knapp was asked to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) in order to have access to Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA research.

Last night (12/23/2012) George Knapp interviewed Melba Ketchum on C2C to address any updates with her DNA study. Unfortunately the first two hours were used to establish that Melba Ketchum is well-respected in the international genetics community and tortured by a vicious Bigfoot community.

The biggest frustration, for us, is how the Bigfoot community is characterized as being vicious. Vicious is how Mr. Knapp refers to the community in his DEC 5th piece, "I’m dreaming of a Bigfoot Christmas"
The Bigfoot community has been even more vicious, mostly because so many of the true believers have staked out their own turf and do not want to see a scientific interloper like Ketchum upstage their often ridiculous assertions or to undercut public interest in the 800 or so cable TV shows about the search for Bigfoot.
Notice how Mr. Knapp does not qualify viciousness as coming from a few, it is the entire community that is vicious. A few inarticulate jerks do not make a vicious community. Critical thinkers with questions and concerns do not make a vicious community. After reading Mr. Knapp's Dec. 5th article you could characterize Melba Ketchum as a misunderstood victim due to her heroic dissent of the accepted consensus of bigfooters. We don't believe Melba is a victim, if she is, it is of her own making. More importantly, in our opinion, she is misrepresenting the community.

Last nights interview was an audio version of Mr. Knapp's earlier article with the addition of Melba Ketchum's backup affirmations.

It starts out with Mr. Knapp describing, "the most vehement, the nastiest reaction to the aforementioned [Bigfoot] DNA study has come from those that think of themselves as Bigfoot researchers...those folks have worked themselves into a real tizzy about this DNA study, attacking this study and it's principal coordinator with a vengeance...it has been relentless."
When Melba Ketchum gets a chance to respond to Mr. Knapps intro she characterizes her critics as jealous.

This post is not about the Bigfoot DNA study, we still hope that it sheds light on Bigfoot, or at least increases our understanding of Bigfoot. It is about how Melba Ketchum's narrative and press mis-characterizes the Bigfoot community. 

If you think about it, each one of us probably has a different version of Bigfoot in our minds, and that version has quite a bit of flexibility. Most Bigfoot conversations are like, "Do you think this? or do you think that?" or "I've heard some encounters that support this, but I've also heard encounters that contradict that." In other words, we acknowledge our uncertainty and admit we are curious. Yes we disagree, but we also listen.

Bigfooters disagree, but we also listen and above all learn from each other. This is the Bigfoot community we know, this is the community we are proud to be a part of. The vast majority of us are not jealous or vicious. We are curious and bonded by the same elusive being that the majority of the world refuses to consider. 

51 comments:

  1. Guy,

    Granted I would not qualify it as the entire bigfoot community, but there have been some quite vocal personalities who have gone overboard with their criticisms. While they may have some valid arguments, the way they have done so reflects badly on everyone. I would even suggest looking at how Sharon Lee from Doubtful News as how to be professional in one's criticisms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Anon,

      First you probably mean Sharon Hill(not Lee). Otherwise you are absolutely right, she is one of the fairest and most professional critics out there. we are huge fans and feel fortunate that she has contributed to this blog.

      Second, I agree some of the most vocal personalities have been nonconstructive. Some of these voices are not really researchers, let alone representative of the community as a whole.

      Thank you for your comment and we also recommend Sharon Hill of DoubtfulNews.com to any of our readers.

      Delete
    2. I agree 100%. "Critical thinking" does not mean "quick to criticize." The Ketchum uproar is simply another demonstration that the Bigfooting community has very little interest, on the whole, in either reason or finding the truth, whatever that may be. Most of what I read and watch is devoted to simply, and blindly, validating personal beliefs and "theories."

      Delete
  2. Chip-MindCemetery

    Listen, we all know the attacks are born of the need for researchers and Bigfoot blowholes to protect there "product". C2C openly lets Loren Coleman come on and bash Melba, it's pathetic!

    I wish she would of outed the individuals that were leaking information and trying to gobble up the rights to her documentary or work she will publish so that the rest of the community that does not like the BS that comes with the Crypto/UFO/Para worlds can learn who not to deal with.

    Of course the other researchers and I use that term loosely, are jealous she has something they don't and it could blow there work away essentially making all they did a waste of time.

    I'm no big fan of Knapp either, I have BIG questions about his relationship with Bigelow but that's for another day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Chip,
      I think there is something to your argument about people feeling they need to protect their product.

      Although, if they DO feel this way, it is a backwards way to think. Any Bigfoot attention in the mainstream media rises all tides. Anybody who has a Bigfoot product to sell (we don't) could leverage the attention to sell their wares.

      If the general public finds one aspect of Bigfoot interesting, they will most likely consume more diversified Bigfoot products.

      With that said, an argument can be made that some are injecting themselves into the controversy so they can bring attention to their products. Although, in my personal opinion, I don't think this is happening.

      Thanks again for you comment, the Bigelow relationship is interesting...

      Delete
  3. Thanks Guy, it is not a clean story by any means, and her version will be tested with more rancor than the Bigfoot Community can muster.

    ReplyDelete
  4. His information is coming from Paulides. Grain of salt. The show with Ketchum was 50% pure propaganda. What she said to disparage and diminish the very real contributions of the late Richard Stubstad to her study is truly disgusting. She glosses over so much that is well known now within the Bigfooting Community about her and this project with a veneer of pathetic lies and whitewash obfuscation. The rest of the truth will come out soon re. all of this, almost certainly before this paper ever sees the light of day in some fringe "scientific" magazine in Russia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. enought steven! all you habe is hearsay from java bob who by the way was affiliated with the infamous C. Tom Biscardi... so lay off ketchum! is that your thing, 24/7 bash ketchum?! get a life dude.....

      Delete
    2. No, anonymous, that is simply not true. I now have six direct sources who were very close to Ketchum or even still involved in the project, ALL of whom confirm they have heard this Nephilim stuff from Ketchum herself, in reference to Bigfoot DNA. The other stuff has been confirmed just as strongly. These are not people just spreading rumors. KETCHUM herself said and did these things in their presence.

      My life is just fine, btw, thanks.

      Delete
    3. Ketchum herself was also "associated with" Tom Biscardi. Did you know that? Do some research rather than just taking things on blind faith and wishful thinking, perhaps.

      Delete
    4. yes but as we all know she dropped the both of their asses when she found out they both had tainted reps.. like i said before your going on "hearsay" by disgruntled ex-employess! you do not have a dog in this fight yet you continue to slander this woman who have done absolutely NOTHING to you! i just don't get you man... you're so sad steven.. so sad.....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS DUDE!

      Delete
    5. by the way streufert, what have YOU done to prove or disprove these beings exist?! i'll tell you........NOTHING!!!!

      Delete
    6. Your statements are fallacious. I am interested in the truth of Bigfoot, so it is my business, especially the more they make public pronouncements without any proof. I won't bother to argue with you, as you are simply operating on faith, not reason. I an not slandering Ketchum. She is indeed claiming Bigfoot ar related to fallen angels, which is absurd, to many people, not just those she betrayed.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous I don't know who you are, you sound pretty passionate about Bigfooting, so I'm sure you have made contributions to Bigfooting.

      I just wanted to say I think Steven has made some pretty huge contributions, including his work last year in mapping the P/G site. Mostly for two things.
      1) He collected a LOT of data (with help).
      2) He shared it with the community to confirm, scrutinize or whatever...

      To me, this is what the original bigfooters used to do; collect data, beyond anecdotes, and share it. I wish there was more of it. Especially now in the digital age. We should be exchanging spreadsheets instead of YouTube links.

      This is not a "valentine" to Streufert. Although when he challenges me, I'm always the better for it. I just want to champion the work we ALL do and encourage more data collecting and sharing.

      Like this --> http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2011/12/2011-bluff-creek-film-site-project.html

      Delete
    8. the pgf site don't mean much to me! im on the fence in regards to that being a hoax or real.. strefert is a joke to me. he is going off of "hearsay" and not fact! i heard steven streufert had asked for donations for trailcams and didn't use ALL the money for the cameras. but does that mean its true? NO! of course not, but ive heard that mentioned twice.. i dare you to privately ask him if (i dare you) if he's heard that "rumor" and if he tells you the truth fhe answer will be, yes.. all im saying is one shouldn't throw rock if one lives in a glass house! wait til the paper comes out before you start slandering the woman! like i said before the pgf site means NOTHING to me so in my book streufert hasn't done jack to prove or disprove these beings are real....

      Delete
    9. Oh, bother. Are you interested in the facts, or just propaganda? I am only supporting Jamie in the camera project. He is a college student with limited funds. The funding drive was in the spirit of a public research project, shared with all. We doubled our goals and still overspent from our own money to install all cameras. We have videos posted showing the work done. We have done this in full transparency, and will release all results for free. This is active Bigfoot research in the most famous historical zone of sightings in the world. Say whatever you like, but this IS "doing something."

      My other work has been to study the full history of the phenomenon for the last 13 years, especially concerning my local area. I never make vast claims about myself, but share whatever I can, which includes a constant critical analysis, one very necessary in this field where big stories usually take the place of actual good evidence.

      Delete
    10. Nothing I say is mere hearsay. If a story comes from six separate parties all describing the actual words and positions taken by Ketchum to them personally or within their hearing from direct sources, and all of these parties heard these things separately, and these parties had nothing to do with each other but everything to do with Ketchum herself, then I think it all adds up quite decidedly to fact.

      We have shown all facts about our own projects, so they simply cannot be disputed. All expenses are shown on our web pages, with items purchased with those funds, and videos showing us installing them on and around the site. No one has profited but you, in the general public. We have spent four years in our research, all paid for by us save the recent trail cameras, all shared freely, and with total honesty, with demonstrable results, and we won the Bigfooters of the Year award for doing so. You, on the other hand, are too timid to even use your real name here, Anonymous, as you issue logical fallacies and foolish slanderous rumors directly contradicting yourself in doing exactly what you wrongly accuse me of doing.

      Delete
    11. WTF. This whole swirl of accusations about MK's belief system is a red herring. Who cares what her personal beliefs are? Einstein couldn't entirely separate his science from his concept of a creator. There are plenty of top scientists who profess faith (for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsEtTaKspK4). The main thing is whether they can keep their personal beliefs in check. At this point, she has issued a press release with no religious references, she has given interviews and offered no religious interpretations, and presumably her paper refrains from such digressions. Give it up, man! Who gives a shit, if she momentarily pondered an interpretation of her results in the context of her personal beliefs? Isn't that her right? Your attempt to discredit her using this rumor is prejudicial, persecutorial, and just plain fucked up.

      Delete
    12. The issue is one of PRECONCEIVED BIAS, Anonymous. The simple fact is that her conclusions mirror exactly her original beliefs and the ideas about Bigfoot held by her ideological faction and those held by those influencing her such as Paulides. So, though it is OK to hold private beliefs and faiths, it is not OK Science to mix them or to allow them to bias an investigation that is supposed to be wholly empirical according to the scientific method. Whatever her press propaganda suggests does not matter. The study was infused with and infested by these beliefs, and they have apparently led the study astray.

      It is not a "rumor." It is a fact that she has said these things relating Bigfoot to angels and Nephilim, to many people, all independently confirming it.

      But that is not even the whole issue. The latest lab results on the Smeja sample indicate that the entire Ketchum methodology was deeply flawed and scientifically fallacious and naive. I am not attacking her, but rather the public statements and insider information leaked from her study. I could care less about who she is in private life. I am talking about the Bigfoot DNA study and what we know about it. The more we learn about it and the more we can observe of their behavior, the more deeply broken and wrong the study appears, and there is more to come in that regard.

      Einstein stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

      Delete
    13. Einstein professed faith later in life and it was that faith that ultimately prevented him from accepting Quantum Theory. He also moved from anti-nationalist to pro-zionist sympathies based on his acquired faith. Still, none of that negates his contributions to science.

      Let's wait and see if the paper publishes and what she and her co-authors have to say in their discussion of the results.

      Delete
  5. Steven,

    I did not hear the interview, but did she mention anything about belief in nephilim, or indicate that it is actually a part of her paper? I know that you said it was once in the paper, but I have read that it was removed. I noticed that on a bigfoot facebook page you have linked youtube videos about nephilim when talking about her interview today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You were on the Facebook page. Right on there today I posted the interviews. Search "Java Bob Nephilim" on YouTube and you'll find them.

      Delete
    2. if she DID mention Nephilim.....SO WHAT! she IS a christian and just trying to make sense of the strange phenomenom...

      Delete
    3. Being a Christian is fine, but reading the Bible and issues of faith should not be mixed and confused with Science and the scientific method. It quite clearly appears that K has done so.

      That being said, yes, we would all love to see this paper, rather than all of their talk, bragging, and propaganda about it before the fact.

      Delete
    4. Could it be possible that she left all that out in her paper? Whatever her beliefs, if they play no part, need we keep harping on them?

      Delete
  6. Link to the interview.

    http://youtu.be/TR8T3OQVAVI

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for the kudos. I started listening to the interview and was very confused by it myself. She deserves a great deal of professional criticism but she did NOT deserve the disgusting sexism I saw. That and the baseless rumors were the worst.

    I'm eager to see the response to the paper but she has failed with trying to run the parallel paths to please both the scientific community and the bigfooters, at least somewhat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me clarify my post above - the sexism and tasteless comments that showed up on websites and blog posts, not in the interview.

      S. Hill

      Delete
    2. Since the "field of Bigfootery" is wide open, it has attracted more than it's fair share of nobodies who are trying to become somebodies by simply using the internet to destroy the people that they perceive as standing between themselves and notoriety and/or control. These people often make a lot of useless video that they post to the internet. They also rely heavily on false rumors, as the supporting evidence to shore up their vicious attacks. See above for evidence of this.

      The anonymity of the internet, also allows those who are paid to destroy the movement of Bigfoot acceptance, to easily attack the 3 key components of that movement, that being the DNA studies, the P-G film and the Freeman footage. There is also the competitors of Ketchum. Lastly, there is the immature teenage sons of unsuitable parents. Not much you can do with the future losers of tomorrow.

      Miffed experts like Todd Disotel, revealed the professional games that go on, in that he sought to sew seeds of doubt by complaining that he had no data to study, nor did anybody he knew. As I understand it, secrecy from uninvolved people like Todd Disotel, is part and parcel to the peer review process. So Tood turned the standard protocols into a weapon to discredit Ketchum. Which is pretty unprofessional and a very cheap trick.

      Matt Moneymaker, sought to maintain his position as the goto man by claiming that the DNA study was a hoax. Matt lost his credibility a long time ago. This just reconfirms that it was justified.

      The paid scoftics from JREF, and cryptozoology.com can drop in anonymously and sew whatever seeds of doubt they can get away with. And not get caught. Which is why they try so hard to maintain their identity and the identity of those who pay them.

      So Melba Ketchum is getting flack from 4 sides. The only side that supports her, remains mostly silent. Which is why I am now seeking to illuminate. Determining a winner in the end, will be difficult.

      Delete
    3. Where do you get this idea that people are being PAID to discredit Bigfoot? Is there ANY actual evidence of this, or is this just a conspiracy theory??

      Delete
    4. Where do these people get hired from? Because i could use some easy cash.

      Delete
  8. I am not a religionist but do believe the Bible and other similar ancient middle eastern books are a very interesting history right out of the bronze age and before ! It is very interesting how the watchers,giants,nephilim,etc. match up with possible bigfoot descriptions. Steve is way overboard...in this respect. You don't have to believe the book is the word of god ... the history aspect is very valuable. I wish you bloggers would stop the love fest with each other. JMO

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excuse me, but HOW am I "overboard" in this? Most of the Biblical "history" is not reliable, or has been proven to be highly inaccurate.

      Delete
    2. So you're so close-minded that it isn't amazing to you that these legendary creatures exist in the oldest writing in the world..it matters not how much is true or false..it was written by real people. You have backed yourself into a corner. You have lost your ability to hypothesize... you get a high out of attacking without thinking it out. Your perception of yourself is far higher than others perception of you. They are afraid to level with you ... safer to be friends then enemies because of your tendency to serially attack.

      Delete
    3. That is nothing but a long string of logical fallacies, a senseless and baseless straw man argument. I am totally open minded, to things that may be verified and explored in reasonable ways. Mythology can contain elements of fact, as after all it describes the same universe as Science does, but through a vastly different methodology. However, mythological thinking had no place in the scientific method. Yes, I am indeed questioning K's ability to do real experimental science, as clearly her bias and predisposition is to a worldview in direct contradiction to the known and demonstrable facts of Science. It is perfectly within my rights to question as I do, as after all, it is they, her, who have made these wild claims publicly without the slightest bit of legitimate proof as yet provided.

      Delete
    4. +1 with the logical fallacies. Many times have i had to explain what logical fallacy was on the webpages....Also i don't know what you were referencing as the oldest text in the world, but it isn't the Bible(torah). Not even close. By thousands of years.

      Delete
    5. Speaking of logical fallacies...if you can't master or adequately address the science yourself, then you're better off attacking the scientist, eh? Steven?

      "It is perfectly within my rights to question as I do, as after all, it is they, her, who have made these wild claims publicly without the slightest bit of legitimate proof as yet provided."

      Question - yes; defame - no. Next time please provide tangible primary references (e.g. links) to these wild public claims.

      Delete
    6. Do you honestly believe that EVERYTHING is on the internet, has a link, or has appeared in print somewhere? That is simply not the case.

      There IS NO "defamation" going on here. These are legitimate discussions of matters concerning Bigfoot and Science. In the end it is not even about Ketchum, but rather the things she says, does and publishes about Bigfoot and DNA. So far, I'm sorry to say, what has been said and done by her camp and study group does little to convince me (as an individual thinker) and the larger world of Science of ANYTHING. That is the sad part... this DNA study may ultimately damage the credibility of Bigfoot as a species rather than prove it.

      Delete
    7. Watch these...

      http://youtu.be/dgj3mQrCa64

      http://youtu.be/Zs_ISnKclXA

      Plus, here is a discussion from the Facebook group where Rhettman Mullis confirms (again) that Ketchum thought Bigfoot related to the Nephilim/Angels:

      "Steven Streufert Now they are outright lying with weasel words. It is a fact replicated in many phone conversations that reliable figures have had with Ketchum that she specifically mentioned the Nephilim, "something out of this world" in the DNA, and yes, the word "angel" in conjunction with these statements. In context, this interpretation is undeniable.
      November 27 at 7:51pm via mobile · Like · 1

      Rhettman A Mullis Jr Funny, Sharon. Probably. Maybe Melba caught some of your DNA? What you say is true, Steven.
      November 27 at 8:08pm · Like · 1

      Steven Streufert Rhettman, can you please confirm again, to the best of your memory in exact words, how Ketchum expressed this Nephilim idea? Thanks!
      November 27 at 8:21pm via mobile · Like · 2

      Rhettman A Mullis Jr Stupid Facebook. I had written a huge response to this and this stupid thing locke up again and shut down. I hate Facebook. Suffice it to say, it was a 4-5 hour conversation, and yes I saved it. I am not under any NDA but I did give my word I would not divulge her conclusions, but that is irrelevant because it seems like everyone and their Bigfoot-buddy knows because she and others have leaked it. Regardless, we keep hoping that she will do the right thing, but with all of the leaking going on the wrong path has already been taken. It is unfortunate because we need multiple sources to validate findings and if she taints her work like it has been it will be discredited and invalidated. We do not want that to happen but unfortunately it is what is and as I have said before, she is imploding and that is tragic.
      November 27 at 8:50pm · Like · 1

      Steven Streufert Can you confirm her exact wording regarding the Nephilim statement, which you have already confirmed in essence & fact (if not exact words) that she made to you?
      November 27 at 8:55pm via mobile · Like · 1

      Rhettman A Mullis Jr Like I said, it was a long conversation and the points were made throughout repeatefly and she had to defend her conclusions to me because I countered her points. Not being arguementative, but having a serious academic discussion. She was adament throughout the entire communication that it was in her words, angels, nephilims, or angels, and as I previously said we even discussed her thoughts that it may be from King Og. But, again, I countered the claims with other facts.
      November 27 at 9:06pm · Like · 1

      Steven Streufert Did you mean to say... "aliens"?
      November 27 at 9:14pm via mobile · Like · 1

      Rhettman A Mullis Jr Yes, sorry, I have too much going on and trying to get some work done before the program in 40 minutes. Yes, aliens.
      November 27 at 9:18pm · Like · 1"

      Delete
    8. Wow. You're right! That is quite an impressive amount of 2nd hand information.

      Basically, you continue to use highly colored anecdotal information in an attempt to discredit her professional work before the public has had a chance to view it for themselves.

      We get it. You and others don't like her or how she has operated. However, what you are doing is unethical and highly offensive to anyone trying to keep an open mind and wait for the data to come out.

      Delete
    9. You are wrong. Rhettman Mullis heard that stuff directly from Ketchum herself. Many others did as well. These are first-hand reports, not secondary. In historical studies or journalism, for instance, one would not simply ask Nixon, say, what the truth was. There would inevitably be spin, bias and distortion there. One would ask as well other primary sources who were there and witnessed whatever event for their perspective. Stubstad and Schmalzbach were witnesses, closely involved people. An appeal to authority suggesting only Ketchum knows the truth does not negate the experiences and vital points of view of others who were part of it. These things are simply true facts, and that is why I bring them up; none of what I've been saying is mere hearsay. All of the trollish attacks upon me will not change that more make your case for you. Those attacks, such as the vulgar and heinous ones posted here earlier and then deleted, only serve to discredit you and reveal your essential fanaticism and sociopathy. I am just the messenger here. The truth will out, in the end..

      Delete
    10. steven, i owe you a huge apology.. i went at you pretty ruff a couple of days ago. i'm blown away by what i heard earlier about ketchum.. i have absolutely NO faith in regards to her study! saying that i'm disappointed would be putting it very lightly, well hopefully the oxford study will yield promising results.. if not, i think im gonna be done with bigfoot completely!

      Delete
    11. Steven - Onesided Facebook or Twitter ramblings aren't very substantial. And of course good journalists asked Nixon, just as they asked Reagan about Iran-Contra and Clinton about Monica. You are definitely on an agenda to create a trial by public opinion. I haven't committed any trollish attacks on you - none of my posts challenging you have been deleted. I don't know Ketchum beyond what I've read on line, but I don't read the Facebook crap.

      She has made a mistake in her embrace of the habituators, as it has heightened jealousies and called her personal judgement into question. She has credentials and expertise and demonstrates in her interviews and press releases that she understands the technology and methods she is using. I am reserving judgement until the data are presented.

      As to you, I commend you for putting your name behind your words. You clearly desire some notoriety on this subject. However, your own vulgarity is barely concealed by your attempted grandeloquence. As the saying goes, "the one-eyed man rules the blind world." Cheers.

      Delete
    12. We shall see, then; & I assure you that only the tip of the iceberg has yet been seen.

      Of course, you surely know that Reagan lied about Iran-Contra.

      Delete
  9. doesnt ketchum's concept of the sasquatch as a generally benign creature conflict with Paulides 411 books where he implies bigfoot creatures are responsible for abductions and murders?

    ReplyDelete
  10. also hard to bring together the scientific stance she assumes at the beginning of the interview and the staunch believer attitude she exposes by hour 4. certainly her own beliefs should not be expressed in order for her to maintain at least the appearance of scientific impartiality...perhaps she should have been asked about her facebook forays too, her distancing from previous allies (substead) and her own lab's rocky business history... it's her behavior in regard to these issues that make me question her professionalism as well as the validity of her study....the thing with paulides, as i mentioned above is also curious, since he is (or was) a staunch ally of hers.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "A few inarticulate jerks do not make a vicious community." Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you Guy. One rotten apple spoils the bunch. Especially when said persons keep attacking over and over, because they are so unwilling to believe someone or something. Isn't the basis of the Bigfoot story about believing, and having an open mind? So just because George Knapp uses the term "Bigfoot community" doesn't mean he's talking about everyone. This is obvious. However if himself or Dr. Ketchum wish to use the term "Bigfoot community" and terms such as "vicious" or "jealous", they have the right to do so. If she feels like she has to vent a little because of all the crap she's gotten from people in the "Bigfoot community", then she also has the right to do so. She is human just like the rest of us. And now she is "misrepresenting the community"? Wow. I say screw you and your vision of your precious community. Let's talk about real people with real emotions real struggles. Not some bullshit idea a.k.a. your "Bigfoot community" that you are so inclined to protect under any circumstance - even if that means putting down real researchers and real radio hosts who both do a great job.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Annonny, you are a shill for the Ketchum book and movie project. Give it up! Ketchum's reputation is ruined, and not by any "viscous community". She's done it to herself and nothing can change that now.
    Maybe someday someone will use DNA testing to prove the existence of Bigfoot, but it won't be Ketchum. It can only be accomplished by someone with a reputation solid enough to support the results - no matter what they are. That's not Melba Ketchum, and it never will be.
    Those of us with no stake in Melba's book or movie have moved on, and are waiting for the results of the Oxford study.

    ReplyDelete

Let's keep the language and material clean, keep in mind we have younger fans that get their Bigfoot News here too. If your comment is directed specifically to our editor, Guy Edwards, he will personally take time out of his day and ask one of us interns to reply to you in his name.

Please read our terms of use policy.