Quote:Published on Sep 4, 2016
(NEW 2016) Have Scientist finally proved the existence of the elusive creature known as "BIGFOOT" or "YETI"? "The Sasquatch Genome Project", which includes several members with North Texas ties, still say that Big Foot is alive and well. In fact, Sasquatch has been spotted throughout Texas. The group not only has proof via grainy video -- it has DNA evidence. The Genome Project held a press conference in North Texas on Tuesday to discuss what it knows.

WFAA-TV interviewed Dr. Melba Ketchum, director of the Sasquatch project. She said she didn’t believe that Big Foot existed. But she’s no longer a skeptic. “Not only does the DNA prove it, but I’ve actually seen them at this point,” Ketchum said.

“They’re a type of human people, a type of human hybrid,” Ketchum told the station. “They can elude us. If you get it at all, it’s going to be very fleeting. It has been a long and tedious battle to prove that Sasquatch exists. We have had the proof for 8 years now, but building enough data to convince mainstream science has taken a lot of time. Trying to publish took almost two years. It seems mainstream science just can’t seem to tolerate something controversial, especially from a group of primarily forensic scientists and not “famous academians” aligned with large universities, even though most of our sequencing and analysis was performed at just such facilities.

We encountered the worst scientific bias in the peer review process in recent history. I am calling it the “Galileo Effect”. Several journals wouldn’t even read our manuscript when we sent them a pre-submission inquiry. Another one leaked our peer reviews. We were even mocked by one reviewer in his peer review. We finally found a new journal that accepted our paper and had it peer reviewed using blind peer reviews which we passed. However, we had to acquire this journal when they backed out of publishing our manuscript five minutes before it was to go live in order to keep our passing peer reviews obtained by this journal. We chose to do this rather than spend another five years just trying to find another journal to publish and hoping that decent, open minded reviewers would be chosen. We renamed the journal as per our agreement, DeNovo. The new journal is aimed at offering not only more choices and better service to scientists wanting to submit a manuscript, but also reviewers and editors that will be fair, unlike the treatment we received. Lastly, we have adhered to all of the standards set in the link below for author owned journals:

https://youtu.be/W4SFPDQxuvs

(12-07-2016, 12:34 PM)Grace Wrote: I'm sorry mystic, but if they have DNA evidence, gave people in the scientific community their evidence, findings, and writings for peer review and get nothing but laughed at, then the so called evidence is more than likely to be just that, laughable. 

While peer review has some problems, it's the best system we have, and if you have - as these people state - DNA evidence, if it was real you could get people to do more than laugh at you.

DNA is not subjective, if they have it and it's not from a dog or a human, they wouldn't be being laughed at by the scientific community. 

I simple cannot take your source as credible in light of this. Peer review is meant to protect people from frauds.. and I see this man and his self publication devoid of peer review as nothing but fraudulent. I find it doubtful he ever had any DNA evidence or submitted anything for peer review in the first place.

Advertising revenue appears to be the name of the game with this one.

(12-07-2016, 05:00 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote:

(12-07-2016, 12:34 PM)Grace Wrote: I'm sorry mystic, but if they have DNA evidence, gave people in the scientific community their evidence, findings, and writings for peer review and get nothing but laughed at, then the so called evidence is more than likely to be just that, laughable. 

While peer review has some problems, it's the best system we have, and if you have - as these people state - DNA evidence, if it was real you could get people to do more than laugh at you.

DNA is not subjective, if they have it and it's not from a dog or a human, they wouldn't be being laughed at by the scientific community. 

I simple cannot take your source as credible in light of this. Peer review is meant to protect people from frauds.. and I see this man and his self publication devoid of peer review as nothing but fraudulent. I find it doubtful he ever had any DNA evidence or submitted anything for peer review in the first place.

Advertising revenue appears to be the name of the game with this one.

Okay, so instead of waiting for someone else to tell me if these creatures are real, I'll just have to trust what my own eyes have seen (and my sister saw too) and say, Yes, they do exist.  And the sound they make will make the blood in your veins freeze when hearing it. 

I still think these creatures come from "somewhere else", and have the ability to cloak themselves. That's why the disappear so fast and elude capture, although this person says he did capture one, and showed a picture.  Whether it was a real big foot, I can't say; I can only speak for my own experiences.

(12-07-2016, 02:44 PM)Grace Wrote: @"BIAD"

I understand people who are distrustful of the peer review process, however, as I stated earlier.
It IS the best we have...

(12-08-2016, 12:35 AM)guohua Wrote: OK, so what you're saying is this, Bigfoot and a Wookie could be one and the Same?
That's an interesting idea. 


 OK, Ok, Ok, Sorry, But I had To! 

Quote:Dr. Matthew Johnson, Multi-Dimensional Portals, and Bigfoot Dream Visitations

Quote:Here’s a recent presentation by Dr. Matthew Johnson in which he claimed that during a trip to a habitation area in Southern Oregon (along with two other associates identified as Adam Davies and John Carlson), he witnessed a multi-dimensional portal open up several times.

He described the incidents as something very similar to the 1994 movie ‘Stargate’ in which portals open allowing persons to leave one dimension and enter another. This explains, apparently, why the Sasquatch creatures seemingly disappear in thin area when they are being pursued or observed by humans.

According to Dr. Johnson, his flashlight allowed him to close the portal. At a later time, during a dream, a Sasquatch visited him and explained that any form of light turns the portals off. Here’s Dr. Johnson in his own words.

Quote:The Habits and Whereabouts of the “Sasquatch” aka “Bigfoot”

This past week, I had several wonderful conversations with a gentleman named Thomas Hughes.  Thomas has been communicating with numerous Sasquatch since his first encounter in April 2008.  He has a wealth of knowledge about their existence and whereabouts, some of which he shared with me.

Sasquatch are gentle and playful giants.  They range in height from 6 – 15 feet and live to an age of approximately 120-140 years.  They are natural pranksters and are caretakers of Mother Earth.  What I mean by caretakers is that they have adapted themselves to the planet instead of trying to change the environment to suit them.  These beings have the ancient knowledge of plants and the way this planet operates.

Quote:Sasquatch are highly intelligent, multi-dimensional beings who used to reside on a planet called Malduk, which is now the asteroid belt. 

When their planet was destroyed approximately 300,000 years ago, they migrated to other planetary systems by teleportation through the use of pyramids, and some by space ships.  These beings live mostly in small, close-knit communities.  Their decisions are based on how it would affect the whole group and not just the individual.

They have the ability to raise their frequency just enough to be able to become invisible to humans.  They fear humans – seeing them as their greatest threat. So, most of the time, they go invisible when humans are around to avoid being hunted and killed.  Sasquatch are aware they are seen from time to time.

Quote:They have the ability to raise their frequency just enough to be able to become invisible to humans.  They fear humans – seeing them as their greatest threat. So, most of the time, they go invisible when humans are around to avoid being hunted and killed.  Sasquatch are aware they are seen from time to time.

(12-08-2016, 02:12 AM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote:

Quote:They have the ability to raise their frequency just enough to be able to become invisible to humans.  They fear humans – seeing them as their greatest threat. So, most of the time, they go invisible when humans are around to avoid being hunted and killed.  Sasquatch are aware they are seen from time to time.

Oh, okay.  Then I have to believe this because I saw an "invisible" one in the woods when I was around 10 years old.  NO, it wasn't my imagination.
Scared the dumplings out of me!!  


Thanks for all the information.  

(12-08-2016, 02:35 AM)guohua Wrote:

(12-08-2016, 02:12 AM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote:

Quote:They have the ability to raise their frequency just enough to be able to become invisible to humans.  They fear humans – seeing them as their greatest threat. So, most of the time, they go invisible when humans are around to avoid being hunted and killed.  Sasquatch are aware they are seen from time to time.

Oh, okay.  Then I have to believe this because I saw an "invisible" one in the woods when I was around 10 years old.  NO, it wasn't my imagination.
Scared the dumplings out of me!!  


Thanks for all the information.  

Well, Mystic, You and your sister and Ninurta and others have seen them and head them, so I'd say their real.
But there has to be a Good Explanation for someone not tripping over a body of a dead one or not walking into their encampment.

Where do they go? How do they just Hide from sight? Do they Disappear? Are they so afraid of Human Contact That they didn't leave those Twigs Tied in a Bow for those two researchers?
I Don't Know.

(12-07-2016, 08:12 PM)BIAD Wrote: It's just so annoying that mainstream-thought see it as a logical conclusion that any of the
witnesses were either easily confused or a down-right liar.
And that just can't be.

Quote:The Smithsonian:
'...The history of human evolution isn’t a straight line from fish to monkey to human. You know that.
The family tree of the genus Homo is full of diverging paths, with branches and dead ends.
But new research, says Nature, could prune back some of those branches.

Many ancient Homo species are identified from a few samples—sometimes even a single one.
All we have of some of our ancient evolutionary ancestors is skull and some teeth.

At a site in Dmanisi, Georgia, though, researchers found a set of five skulls, presumably representing different
individuals of the same species. The individuals were, obviously, individual.
But the features in these skulls overlapped with the features of skulls representing different Homo species.
That observation, say the researchers, led them to a controversial conclusion.

Quote:Nature:
"..The wide variability in their features suggests that Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus,
the species so far identified as existing worldwide in that era, might represent a single species.

…If the three hominin species inhabiting Earth about 1.8 million years ago were collapsed into one, H. habilis
and H. ruldofensis would be subsumed into H. erectus -largely owing to the similarities of the Dmanisi skulls
to those known for the latter species, says Zollikofer..."

If the researchers’ idea sticks, it would reshape the Homo family tree. Here’s what that tree looks like right now:



Cutting of branches from this tree would change what we think about human evolution.
Homo erectus, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, as we think about them, were more cousins than grandparents.
The new idea, says the BBC, would roll the three species into one that would have led to modern humans.

But that’s if this new idea holds up, and it’s already being questioned. Other scientists are saying that the technique
that led to this conclusion wasn’t really the right tool to use. The various hominid species, erectus and habilis and
rudolfensis, are differentiated by differences in the shapes and features of their skulls.
The comparison used in the current research, says Fred Spoor to the BBC, didn’t highlight these important markers.

This isn’t the first time that paleontologists have tried to cut whole chunks out of the human family tree, says Darren
Curnoe for the Conversation. It didn’t work those times; it’s not clear if it will this time, either...'