Comments on: Jim McClarin on Ketchum Sasquatch DNA Study

By: dconstrukt

dconstrukt — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:36:54 +0000

how were the samples collected? who collected? how do we know they werent contaminated?

why isn’t this in a real journal?

SO many questions… sadly, there’s too many red flags for me to take it seriously right now.

By: odingirl

odingirl — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:00:21 +0000

Bravo, John Kirk. This is all that some of us are asking for … without verification of the sources of the samples in a reasonably meaningful way, we will have little to conclude. The inability to prove a negative – that the samples didn’t come from these creatures – may be fuel for the fire of some of these claims, unfortunately. We have nothing to compare the samples to, so anything can be claimed at this point.

By: dconstrukt

dconstrukt — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:33:38 +0000

very interesting…

john… i am tending to agree with you… i think its interesting and the report is fascinating, however we shouldn’t rush to any conclusions just yet.

just thinking about the mating aspect, how can a human mate with a primate and produce an offspring? I thought that was like impossible!

unless maybe it was done so long ago the “human” was more like ape than we thought?

I dunno, but i find this whole thing very interesting.

By: John Kirk

John Kirk — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 01:24:28 +0000

While I have had not had any opportunity as yet to read the findings and therefore reserve judgment on the DNA sequencing, I do have a problem with some of the conclusions being drawn so early in the day.

Hairs were produced with some peculiarities to them. However, why is there such a rush to proclaim them sasquatch hair? Where’s the proof they even belong to sasquatch?

Let us not leave our senses in the rush to prove sasquatch exists, but let us take measured, cautionary, diligent footsteps toward the goal. A healthy dose of skepticism is always a good thing when extraordinary claims are being made like this.