Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Doubtful — by Sharon Hill Refuses to Consider Alternate View Point - Bias Abounds....

After reading Sharon Hill's post "Bigfoot Files approaches cryptozoology the correct way" I attempted to post a response. I will admit the response was long, but since the critics in this article obviously had not even read the Ketchum DNA Study and complained it was not "real science" I wanted to lay a good, well documented, and thorough foundation.  Just like the rest of the "mainstream scientific community" Ms. Hill displayed both her arrogance and her bias by refusing to post my response. It is obvious she also refuses to read or even consider the paper.

This is not science, this is a belief system. The critics refuse to consider the paper then call it baseless without any knowledge of what is in it. This is despicable and intellectually dishonest. It makes me wonder, what is she afraid of? If the study has been "judged" by the "community" then why not allow my response? It would pose no threat to the high and mighty or would it??  I was not debating, I was attempting to post an alternate view. Let me say that I have never refused to let anyone post a response on my blog. The only time I remove a post is if the commenter attacks me or another commenter personally or uses profanity.  I guess the mainstream scientist need to get back to the important ground breaking work of studying the mating habits of the fruit fly and not bother themselves with such trivial things as a history changing  novel contemporary hominin.

Below is Ms. Hill's comments:

Sorry, Scott Carpenter. This is my blog, not your platform. You have your own. So, I will not allow your long comment to be posted. This is not a debate forum. If you have a scientific finding, the community will judge. As they have.

Also, note that it does not matter how many times you announce something. That does not make it true.

Below is my post that Ms. Hill deemed not worthy of posting:

I totally and completely disagree with the conclusions that the Ketchum DNA Study is not real science and that scientifically attempting to prove a bi-pedal hominin exist shows a "bias" that invalidates the study. We have gathered mounds of data such as footprints, video, sounds, vocalizations, and eye witness reports. Knowing it would take more than this for the "scientific community" we set out to gather the "proof" and we have volumes of it. Unfortunately the Sasquatch Genome Study is being ignored by the critics and these same ignorant critics make declarative statements with no basis in fact. In order to set the record straight I submit the following: 

The "Novel North American Hominins, Next GenerationSequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies." is a serious, multidisciplinary study of the Sasquatch phenomenon and included the best forensic technology, mitochondrial DNA analysis, histopathology, whole genome SNP analysis, electron microscopy, and next-generation whole genome sequencing. The study was funded nearly $500,000 by private donors and we utilized the services of 13 different laboratories to analyze a total of 111 high-quality DNA extractions from unidentified samples, producing 20 whole and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes and 3 nuclear genomes. This was 5 years of rigorous science including blind studies.

The following scientist were on the team:

Dr. Melba S. Ketchum, Director
DNA Diagnostics, Nacogdoches,TX

Dr. Andreas Holzenburg
Director,  Professor, Department of Biology, Professor, Biochemistry and Biophysics
Microscopy and Imaging Center
Texas A&M University

Fan Zhang, Ph.D.
Bioinformatician in the Academic and Institutional Resources and Technology (AIRT) at the University of North Texas Health Science Center.

Dr.  Pat Wojtkiewicz
Director of the Shreveport Laboratory of the North Louisiana Crime Lab System and the Technical Leader of the DNA section. He has been employed at the crime lab since 1977.

Dr. Thomas M. Prychitko of Wayne State University in Michigan
Molecular biologist with a background that also includes evolutionary biology, microbiology and biochemistry.

Mr. David Spence, Trace Evidence Supervisor at Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences

Dr. Douglas G. Toler of Huguley Pathology Consultants in Fort Worth, TX

The results of the study indicate that the North American Sasquatch is a novel contemporary hominin, a hybrid between modern Homo Sapiens and a progenitor previously unknown to science. The results are controversial because they do not fit within the standard paradigm of evolutionary biology. The Team faced unbelievable prejudice and ethical violations from the journals where we submitted for publication. The paper did finally pass peer review at a small journal in January 2013, whose attorney then promptly told the editor he should refuse to publish our work.  Our passing reviews were from PhDs that specialize in genomics from that journal which we ultimately acquired in order to retain those all important passing reviews.  The peer reviews were leaked to various blogs over the summer by somebody in our study and you can find them here (

Serious scientist have looked at the paper to include David H. Swenson, Ph.D. who is a Biochemist and has over 39 journal publications to his credit. His statement:

I went over the manuscript by Melba Ketchum on Bigfoot genomics. My desktop had difficulty with a blast analysis of the consensus sequences. It helped me understand more about the project. This collaborative venture has done a huge project that taxes me to fully grasp. I see interesting homology with a standard human sequence with 99% match for mitochondria. From my abbreviated study, the nuclear genome seems to have human and nonhuman sequences.

My opinion of the creature is that it is a hybrid of a human mother and an unknown hominid male, Just as reported. For all practical purposes, it should be treated as human and protected under law.  Sasquatch is real, as proven by genetic analysis.

The submitters of DNA samples to include hair, blood, and flesh include:
Dr. J. Robert Alley, Dr. Igor Burtsev,  Dr. Angelo Capparella,  Dr. Henner Fahrenbach Dr. Al Guinn, and Dr. Samuel “Webb” Sentell, along with many other dedicated researchers across the country.

I ask that you put aside your personal bias, read the paper, and review the data. Be a "real scientist" and take a look at the data with no preconceived conclusions. Critically look at the study as a whole and then make your conclusion.

Do not close your mind and refuse to accept the data. The DNA is NOVEL and yes there are mutations and missing sequences that are hard to accept because a biological entity with this DNA should not be viable. Yet there are over 110 mtDNA sequences and 3 complete genomes with Novel nuDNA. I know the "mainstream scientist" in you wants to come to the conclusion "this can't be real, this can't exist, it must be the product of contamination or flawed processing". I ask you to fight that urge and look again at the paper as a whole, the chain of custody for the samples, the mounds of documentation to show pure, single source, non-contaminated DNA samples were collected and processed.  Read the study, read all the supplemental data and form a truly informed decision. I know this will be difficult, it will put you out of your comfort zone, and will likely pit you against your colleges, but I urge you to have the courage.

Below are the links to the DNA Study and supporting documentation:


  1. Dumbfilled News is the most hysterical and ludicrously written Confirmation Bias nonsense I have read on subjects that do not fit conveniently and safely within the predefined worldview that pathological skeptics such as Sharon Hill demand.
    In fact, the only other site that compares is the JREF forum. The forum is filled with the most base fallacious idiocy that seems to be constantly fueled by egomania and a never ending echo-chamber chorus of self-validating circular logic or "Facts, we don't need no stinking FACTS! We're always right, everyone else is always wrong because we say so and if you disagree, you're tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist kook!"
    Your response was not that long, it contained to much reason, logic, and facts. That's why Sharon fears it. I used to leave comments there, but even the most mundane comments that question the Dumbfilled News dogma somehow never seemed to make it into the thread.

  2. Reminds me of a comedy skit I saw years ago. The mayor of a town
    was introduced to a group of handicapped students. Speaking as loud as he could, " I 'm so happy to meet all of you. " After he left.
    one student said to another, " I hope someone tells that idiot we're
    blind, not deaf. "

  3. Scott, Did you see the news report a few days ago about a skull and jaw bone found in China over 1 million years old. I'm not sure if it had been reconstructed, but it sure does look like what I think a Bigfoot's would look like. Very big eye sockets, large brow ridge, sloped forehead, and massive jaws.

  4. A humble, I hope, suggestion: Squeeze out as much as possible comments to Ms. Hill (or anybody else) insisting she be a "real scientist," or questioning her courage, and similar personal statements. These can be interpreted as personal put-downs and, indeed, ad hominem attacks. Even if you regard what you have said about her as true, edit them out. They are not necessary when the core argument and its details are true and accurate. I am not saying that your fine response to her post would have been accepted anyway, but an objective reception by the receiver becomes, it seems to me, more unlikely when outright or implied negative personal comments about (her) are injected. I suppose one might argue that an objective reading by the party in question is not going to happen anyway, and one might be right, but I am unable to judge that. Mine is only an editorial suggestion, and is not intended to imply that your science, scientific positions, and arguments are not excellent. They deserve an increasingly wider audience.

  5. It took me a long while to think about who you were referring to Scott. I thought I recognized the name,but it remained out of reach. Then,I had to look her up. She's the "Bigfoot investagoter" or something,that seems to be always in front of her computer,never,ever in the woods,and from the looks of things,cares more about fashion than facts. Well shucks,to each their own,what ever makes them happy,LOL!!
    And,on a related note,,is this the same individual that had many pieces of supposed evidence,that was busted on every front,by an Actaul Bigfoot researcher/hoax investigator? If I'm not mistaken,if this is the same person,the credibility and respectability issues are gone like the wind.

  6. Btw Scott,I truly admire your attitude,and thoughtful attempt to show what the facts of the matter are,and none so much more,as you were a part of this process,contributed results,and actually educated yourself,on the DNA subject(and rather well,from what I've read,and others have said too)to better understand both sides of the subject,and to better report on the findings.
    I have to say,way to go! This,IMHO,shows dedication well above the bar. Instead of writing a quick,nasty comment to someone who may or may not(may not,alas) have any basis for their thoughts,,you actually took the time to write,again,IMO a well written,respectful comment,complete with the facts of the matter at hand.
    This,as sadly as it seems,may show why most folks of the mainstream world shy away from our world. For every one dedicated,knowledgable,and professional individual in this community,the odds are there's at least 5 who care only for drama,politics,money,and now(of all things!!)fashion and pop culture,than truth,scientific data,and that wonderful little word called understanding.

  7. Scott, your post to Mr. Hill, to me, was well written. I am NOT a scientist. I do NOT hold a PhD. I may NOT know much, if any, about DNA but what I DO KNOW is that Bigfoot/Sasquatch is REAL. I have absolutely NOTHING to gain by my acknowledging Bigfoot exist. I am just a girl who loves nature, spends hours upon hours in the woods, and as you know, I've encountered the Sasquatch. I've spent a month attempting to "debunk" my own evidence. I applaud you for providing some of the best information/data I've read.