I would advise Ketchum to stick strictly to her data. People may be feeding her bogus footage/info etc in order to muddy the waters of her discovery.

The establishment would like to see her discarded, and give Sykes the crown for the DNA finding.

The reports of alleged Wookie type sasquatches are few and far between. They do exist, but they are in a distinct minority. I have always taken that the witness described them as wookie-like because they were hair covered like Chewie was.

The nose in this footage is like that of a canid or felid. It is not human, pongid or otherwise. I have never heard any witness describe a sasquatch nose as being like the one in the series of photos above. It is completely out of sync with eyewitness reports.

In addition to the other bizarre features of this supposed sasquatch, where are the classic sasquatch anatomical features so widely reported such the sloping forehead, conical cranium and absence of a neck as described in a preponderance of sightings? This creature is entirely different. In my opinion it is not a sasquatch and does bear a remarkable resemblance to Chewbacca or some other fantasy film creature. It does not look like at all like a sasquatch.

If, in fact, this is the footage that is supposed to lend credence to the recent DNA study in Texas, then I would have to say that is a failure in proving any support for the DNA quest.

1-What does a bigfoot look like? What’s it supposed to look like? Should all of them look like what is in the PG film? Do they all look the same, in different parts of the country, if they are out there at all? My only experiences are from living in different rural areas with regular animals, and I do know that elk and deer, and even some coyote for example, have different colors in their coats according to their surroundings, the facial features in those animals don’t change that much, in my experience. That’s stuff I have witnessed since I was young, so that I can say.

2-Why would anyone be dumb enough to use a star wars mask, especially anyone who has been in this for as long as some of these folks appear to have been….are they selling the photos, or books or movies? How are they making money and ripping people off if they are?

I read online, I don’t know if its true, that Steven Spielberg’s own bigfoot encounter years ago influenced that mask…is that true or more internet non-sense?

So, in my search to find some of Dr. Ketchum’s responses to some of this stuff since her paper seems to be the spearhead for a lot of this right now…I found these on her FB page from yesterday, I know the first post relates to this, not sure about the second one.

1-”I’ m sorry to say the picture of Matilda had to be taken down. While she is adorable, that picture is owned by Adrian Erickson. It was allowed to be in the paper only. That picture is copy written and licensed. Anyone distributing or posting it is doing so illegally. Adrian is a good person and out of respect for him we will not post it publicly . We advise everyone to do the same.”

2-”Do to the wild rumors out on the internet. I felt it important to address a new rumor about a possible hoax. First we have never hoaxed anything as there is no need to. We have the proof we need in the science. I hope this helps everyone to understand.

One of the early reviewers asked for “any and all references related to our subject matter”. We neither agreed, with nor endorsed with any of those references used, though Bindernagel’s books are a good effort since at the time he didn’t know the human element involved. It was not our choice to use any of them though. That reference was a testament to the idiocy surrounding not only the scientific bias against the existence of these “people” but also the request by reviewers for references that we had not felt had any place in our manuscript, and were not included originally. This same reviewer, required the “so-called folklore” that is in the introduction. That also was not in the original manuscript”

Finally,

What does all this mean? Who has “what” to gain, and who has “what” to lose? I don’t know what her post is referring to, I guess she is saying she added things the reviewers requested even though its stuff she didn’t like? I do find it interesting how when people believe in something, no matter what, they won’t let go of their beliefs, and maybe this is some of what we are seeing on all sides?

I don’t feel like a total believer, or a total non believer, I’d like to give the paper the benefit of the doubt until the next set of reviews come thru…I’ve seen people get pretty nasty on here, and I’m not looking for a fight, just a little clarity, and if its not possible, that’s cool too:)

“On the other hand, the justified skeptics/skoftics regarding Matilda have never wavered from their unclenching faith in a 40 year old hoax.”

Are you referring to the Patterson/Gimlin footage? If so there is no proof it was a hoax. All evidence indicates it was real. Asserting the PGF was a hoax doesn’t mean it actually was.

On the other hand, the justified skeptics/skoftics regarding Matilda have never wavered from their unclenching faith in a 40 year old hoax. “Won’t the rest of the humanity feel stupid when tribes of 8 foot tall hairy ape-men-women living in the United States turn out to be real.”