Todd Disotell on Ketchum Sasquatch DNA Study

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 3rd, 2013

Todd R. Disotell, a professor at the Department of Anthropology at New York University, told that Ketchum’s research is nonsense.

“It’s just a joke,” he said. “She is a laughing stock of people that are of a community that are already kind of wacko.”

“This was not reported in any scientific way whatsoever. It’s complete junk science, and then she misinterprets it. She hasn’t published in peer-reviewed papers on this stuff. I don’t know how this got put together,” he said.

Disotell says that he has disproven samples from being what they’re claimed to be many times, including debunking a yeti, a chupacabra, and a sasquatch eight times, including once on ScyFy’s “Joe Rogan Questions Everything.”

“You can’t prove something doesn’t exist,” he said. “You can prove that every sample you’re brought isn’t what they’re claiming, But you can’t disprove this. It will go on forever. We’ll always have it.”

Source: New Bigfoot Evidence Screened as Experts Claim Proof of Existence

Melba Ketchum contends:

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.

44 Responses to “Todd Disotell on Ketchum Sasquatch DNA Study”

  1. Jeff Wrolson via Facebook responds:

    What scientist says ‘legit’ and expects to be taken seriously? At least she didn’t use hater, like she sometimes does. Ugh. When is the crazy lady gonna go away once and for all?

  2. pogsquatch responds:

    Of the 4 or 5 times I’ve seen Todd on TV, he has never blinked once.

  3. edsbigfoot responds:

    I don’t know why or how, but I just have a funny feeling this all has something to do with the possible November/December release of the Sykes study.

  4. cryptokellie responds:

    Bottom line. All this back and forth DNA hot potato and he said – she said game is baloney. If Bigfoot actually exists, it will not be proven by what the positive DNA testing shows, but by the attainment of the real item or a big enough piece of one. After the fact, all the testing will only give further insight as what Bigfoot actually is or is not.

    It is the procurement of the animal itself or, as I say, a large enough piece of one that will settle this matter once and for all.

  5. Scopi responds:

    “getting legit human mtDNA results from non-human hair.”

    I look forward to Ketchum proving that black is white, up is down, cats are dogs, and that people who put “Dr.” in front of their names can be really dumb.

    Oh wait, she’s already proven one of those.

  6. ihatethatwilguy responds:

    Erikson and Ketchum have officially made me lose all hope of sasquatch being real.

    I’ve read crypto books for as long as i’ve been able. I used to tell my mom I wanted to be a Cryptozoologist when I grew up. I remained willfully ignorant of the hoaxers. “Just because one guy lied doesn’t mean they all did” is what I would tell myself. I was wrong. They are all liars looking for a paycheck. The Chewbacca mask and “sleeping” sasquatch videos from the DNA conference were the last straw.

  7. Goodfoot responds:

    edsbigfoot: Disinformation, you mean. Yeah, that’s occurred to me. To date, it’s the best explanation for their obvious fraud. A clear fraud intended to silence all legitimate research and “prove” once and for fall that Bigfoots “cannot possibly exist”. That seems to be the implication.

    ihatethatwilguy: So… a couple obviously fake pieces of film evidence are enough to convince you that proves Bigfoots do not exist? Did I get that right?

    Sounds like you go whichever way the wind is currently blowing.

  8. Jayross responds:

    cryptokellie has stated about all that needs to be said.

    A body, that can be freely examined, is what’s required to end the debate.

    No amount of video footage, photographs, or piles of published work is going to change that. Media can be easily manipulated, and information based on anecdotes and legends is not valid research; it is fiction.

    Concerning DNA, these cases are invariably labeled as corrupted or undetermined.

    That leaves us with nothing tangible.

    While it is fun to speculate and imagine, and places like Cryptmundo give us an arena to do just that – at day’s end all we’re left with is conjecture.

    I do find it sad that with the advent of social media and reality television, the subject of cryptids has morphed so uncomfortably into the realms of marketing and commercialism, which can only inspire more elaborate hoaxes.

  9. John Kirk responds:

    I find it incredible that a veterinarian would attack a scientist who is a competent DNA analyst. This is absolutely ludicrous. If she has documentation that Disotell did do testing, then release it so we can all see it. Also, show us where he was wrong, prove he contaminated the sample and did not do his work diligently IF he ever did any of this.

    The New York Daily News wrote that Ketchum indicated at the press conference that NYU – where Disotell is a professor – was involved in the testing. The Daily News contacted NYU and they said outright that they had nothing to do with this project. That may mean that Disotell could have been involved privately, but to ascribe it to NYU is downright wrong.

    Disotell did a very good job on the supposed Zana skull in 2005. He was able to say that it was human after thorough testing. I accepted the results he provided and moved on. Just to clarify things though, I do not believe for one minute that that skull was that of Zana. It displayed certain African features and despite the fact that it was found in Abkhazia, there was a population of Africans living there for a century who had adopted the Abkhazi way of life. I have the photos to prove it.

    Once again we have someone who messed up and won’t let go of this bullheaded nonsense and drop it once and for all. As far as I am concerned this episode is now best forgotten and it is time to move onto other things that are a lot more credible in the realm of sasquatch.

    We need to get hold of Han Solo quickly so he can come back and retrieve his wayward Wookie from the wilds of Kentucky.

  10. Goodfoot responds:

    Jayross: EVERYTHING with any commercial appeal ends up being commercialized. Obviously, Cryptozoology has commercial appeal. We’re far from alone in being commercialized.

    It comes with the territory. Don’t despair.

  11. Goodfoot responds:

    In science and pseudo-science (I didn’t name anyone!) both, there is envy and enmity. In the Spanish-descendant world of the Southwest, it’s called envidia and movida. Things can get nasty very quickly. I’m watching from the sidelines at present. I got hurt.

  12. MadMatt32171 responds:

    Unfortunately, Dr. Ketchum- unlike the rest of us, you can’t recognize a wookie when it’s staring you in the face.

    It doesn’t matter if (big, giant, colossal IF) the collection, handling, processing, and analysis of the DNA in question were perfect and the results were unambiguously “unknown hominid” : by endorsing that video as genuine no one will ever take anything this group says or does seriously.

  13. David-Australia responds:

    Forget about killing one for proof, has anybody ever tried taking the time and having the patience to try and get close enough to immobilise (non-North American spelling used) a Bigfoot with a dart gun like they do in zoos and the police forces?

  14. sasquatch responds:

    All I have to say is; Chewbacca

  15. dconstrukt responds:

    @ Kirk-

    We need to get hold of Han Solo quickly so he can come back and retrieve his wayward Wookie from the wilds of Kentucky.


    Dude. That was the best comment in this thread!

  16. Connor Hutton via Facebook responds:

    said before on a couple of places: not convinced until a body’s found

  17. AreWeThereYeti responds:

    @ David-Australia.

    “Just sneak-up on Bigfoot & hit him with a tranquilizer dart.” Sounds reasonable. However, consider the following:

    1. Attempting to tranquilize a large, powerful creature is, in and of itself, a risky venture. Getting your dosage wrong has dire consequences: too much, and you put Bigfoot to sleep for good; too little and the frightened/enraged/disoriented subject presents a very real, even lethal, danger to itself and those attempting to subdue it.

    2. However, assuming you successfully put a Sasquatch under, how do you plan to transport the 500-800lb creature out of the forest? Most likely you’ll be miles from the nearest road. Slinging the subject over your shoulder ain’t gonna cut it, and dragging a sleeping Wood Ape behind an ATV just seems cruel…

    3. Then again, Bigfoot is reported to be an intelligent and social species. So, how do you suppose the other members of the clan are going to react when they observe one of their own “shot” with a “gun” and then falling to the ground? Right. Better bring some extra darts!

    4. Finally, there’s this: after all these years no one has gotten close enough to a Sasquatch to “shoot” an unambiguous picture – or video, for that matter. What do you suppose the odds are that they’d have any better luck while packing a tranquilizer-gun?

  18. alan borky responds:

    Craig settin’ aside the whole Melba Ketchup narrative I have to say I’m not that enthralled by many of her detractors pronouncements either.

    Plenty o’ these guys if they’d been handed the Denisova tooth or Flores Man samples’d’ve pronounced “Nothing to see here folks!” binning ’em the moment they detected signs of human like dna.

    In fact I shudder at the thought how many times this sort of thing may’ve happened since their discovery never mind before simply ’cause of the sheer statistical unlikelihood of yet another Denisovan or Flores Man being uncovered.

  19. size 13 responds:

    I could probably get one on the slab for less than $25,000.00.

    My stomping grounds are pretty much off limits because of the State Parks and Wildlife won’t allow me to take one down out there.

    I feel confident that I can bring down a monster and wouldn’t require a half million.Case would be for the most part closed about their existence.Just doing field studies from there on out.

    The people getting the funding are all the wrong people.

    “THE Squatchman”

  20. springheeledjack responds:

    If we can’t even get decent footage of one, how the heck are we gonna tranquilize one?

    I’ve been on the fence for some time about whether to go after a body or not. On the one hand, we’re talking about an unknown creature that appears to have significant intelligence and may have some sort of connection with homo sapiens. I’ve read more than one account of hunters getting a Bigfoot in their sights, but being unable to pull the trigger because of the human like characteristics and behaviors they’ve seen down the end of their scopes.

    On the other hand, without a body, it will be a never ending game of controversy over pics, videos, and any kind of secondary evidence.

    The bottom line is how far are we willing to go in order to solve the mystery? Or are we (as in the pro-Bigfoot crowd) more content with the mystery itself?

    Would I take the shot if I was out with the rifle and the opportunity? Honestly, I don’t know and probably won’t unless I end up in that situation.

  21. Goodfoot responds:

    Warning to fools who think they can “tranqulized” a Bigfoot: I PITY THE FOOL.

  22. Becho responds:

    I have one question, why would all of these people spend five years and half a million dollars on a hoax with no assurance of a return on their investment? To me that is the real question, have any of you thought about that?

    I agree with you Alan Borky. How many times has the DNA been tested and shown to have a homo sapien sequence, then was trashed because further testing would have been useless in their mind. I’ve read and seen enough of that to know that most of the samples that have been tested have been dismissed because they blame human contamination. It has taken years for someone to say there might be a reason why the samples come up looking so human. I have been suspicious about that for quite some time.

    Of course I don’t believe Bigfoot exists, I know it exists, so I come from a different perspective. I have said before to my co-researchers and others that I am in no hurry for them to be accepted as real. I will do my research and find out what I can and let others, more qualified than me, prove their existence.

    Another good question is why Bigfoot reports always come from area’s that have more than twenty inches of annual rainfall? If people are making these things up, then why don’t the hoaxers make that mistake? Here’s another one, If you see the castings and or pictures of prints from a site, why are the prints not exactly the same. I suppose the fake foot could be made from some kind of malleable plastic. But how many people have the skill and ambition to do that? How did they do the dermal ridges? To what length have all of these conspirators gone to in order to make all of the morphology of the prints match, to such a degree, as to appear to come from the same species? Why are there more sightings in one region than another? Is everyone in my small town just too dumb to tell the difference between a bear and a Sasquatch?

    I see that I’ve asked more than one question. : ))))))

    Once I started talking to the local people about what I was doing, I was amazed how many of my friends had an experience where they either saw one or had rocks thrown at them or whatever. Some of these people I’ve known for decades. Why didn’t they talk to me about it before? Because people laugh at them, that is what I was told. I must know of three dozen people in my town now that have seen one or heard one. One of my friends had a small tree thrown at him. Only one of these people reported it to BFRO. Are all of these people hoaxers? If they are hoaxers then they are really good at it. I wonder where they have their meetings?

    I see that I have asked more than one question. : ))))

    I have wondered about the human belief system for many years. In fact I even wrote a comedy about it. You and I are much more predisposed to being fooled over something that isn’t real and denying something that is real than you might believe. That, of course is because of our human brain. It is a curse and a blessing.

    Ask yourself the right questions.

    Occam’s razor folks,….. Occam’s razor. : )

  23. William responds:

    Once I saw this Chewbacca footage of “Matilda” months ago, I wrote off the Erikson Project as a complete scam. Ketchum, I wasn’t sure of and thought she just may have been a well intentioned woman who was victimized by people like Justin Smeja with his bear meat sample, passed off as a bigfoot. However, now it is clear that she is also a scammer as any lay person can tell this video is a fake and yet she is proclaiming Matilda’s sample as valid. Gimme a break.

    She is now right up there with Biscardi, and maybe even now surpassing him as a hoaxer. What a disgrace that people conduct themselves this way in this field.

  24. cryptokellie responds:

    Much larger and inherently more dangerous animals are routinely tranquilized. Go to You Tube and see elephants, rhinoceros, bison and big bears getting tranquilized. There’s nothing unusual about that being done. I would imagine that you would consider a real 14,000 pound bull African elephant somewhat more dangerous than a maybe 400 pound Bigfoot. I think that tranquilization is an option but, I wonder how many sassoons in their Wookie suits they have to go through before finally doping a real Bigfoot.
    I know I have been using this word before but it’s time for a definition…

    noun informal;
    1. a moron wearing a costume to appear as a Bigfoot.
    2. a charlatan in any field of endeavor perpetrating a hoax related to Bigfoot.

  25. Goodfoot responds:

    Yeah, but submit it’s a lot easier to shoot an Elephant with a tranquilizer dart than a Bigfoot. I’d be willing to bet people have gone into the woods with tranquilizer guns with the intention of shooting one. But you have to be able to see one first. Trust in this: they know what guns are for, and they’ll see you long before there’s any possibility of shooting them.

  26. Goodfoot responds:

    I am afraid I mostly agree. It’s an unfortunate fact that in a society of “fifteen minutes of fame” (Andy Warhol), just about every vulnerable field is rife with attention-seeking behavior. The ultimate goal is the fame, NOT being believed.

  27. Goodfoot responds:

    To discredit and cast scorn on the entire Bigfoot study community, that’s why. The question is, who paid them to do it?

    And Occam’s Razor is fallible, and here’s why: sometimes the simplest explanation is the wrong one. Sometimes things really ARE complex; pretending all mysteries have simple explanations is disingenuous.

  28. cryptokellie responds:

    Best not to bring Occam’s Razor into the world of Bigfoot as the simplest of explanations with the least amount of assumptions needed would leave the actual Bigfoot as a real animal at the bottom of most current plausible explanations. One has to assume that;
    A large primate unknown to science actually exists.

    This large unknown primate dwells in North America where non-human primates historically are absent.

    This unknown primate exists in numbers large enough to maintain a population in several geographical environs.

    Although existing in numbers great enough to maintain a breeding population, the total numbers are small enough to make capture and identification difficult if not impossible.

    There are more but…

    As to the evidence, the simplest explanations without added unrealistic assumptions are;

    All Bigfoot sightings are hoaxes or misidentifications.

    All Bigfoot photographic evidence is hoaxed or misidentified subjects.

    All Bigfoot hard evidence is hoaxed or misidentified.

    Now before I get all manner of hate responses, let me say that I am on the side of Bigfoot actually existing but Occam’s Razor is not the philosophical principle to apply here as to it’s basis in reality. The skeptics have the cards stacked in their favor in this debate as all the Bigfoot world can quite easily be explained away by normal means with almost no extraordinary assumptions. The unfortunate truth is the fact that the overwhelming majority of Bigfoot evidence is purposely hoaxed or misidentified and further weighs in on the skeptic side of the argument. Perhaps Sherlock Holmes had the best approach to the matter of Bigfoot… “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

    Is Bigfoot improbable, yes. Impossible, No.

  29. Goodfoot responds:

    Thank you. I agree 100%. Occam’s Razor may work in certain fields of investigation, but it fails miserably in ones like Cryptozoology, where Occam’s Razor says cryptids are certain not to exist. It just can’t be applied indiscriminately.

    But my question is this one: can something that actually exists truly be said to be improbable? If it exists, it certainly does exist.

  30. Becho responds:

    “There are stranger things in heaven and on Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophies” Read what you just said cryptokellie, “I am on the side of Bigfoot actually existing” and then you say “it’s existence is improbable.” Which is it and tell me why you think it’s improbable.

    Bears are huge omnivores and are very numerous. Bigfoot is much smarter than a bear and not only can survive on what they can hunt and gather, but has the intelligence to avoid detection, for the most part.

    Science has resisted the truth many times through history. Scientists are made up of humans who share our bazaar belief system. What amazes me is one picture of a spotted dear in Vietnam and science accepts it as a new species. Thousand of reports, pictures, casts, forensic evidence and film isn’t enough for Bigfoot.

    Occam’s razor does apply to this subject because, all purported hoaxes aside, there are way too many people who have had experiences to dismiss it. There is way too much evidence that correlates with other evidence to dismiss all of it as some sort of conspiracy. If you’ve read hundreds of eye witness reports you will find common threads that run through all of them. In fact those reports, upon careful study, have given me the knowledge necessary to find them and interact with them.

    I once picked up a hitchhiker that had a backpack. He told me to drop him off out in the middle of nowhere where he planned on spending a week. I, being a backpacker myself, asked him what kind of food he was taking with him. He told me he had an emergency candy bar and nothing else. He said “You’d be surprised how much food there is out there.” That was a domesticated human. Surely, bigfoot can find enough food out there given his or her skills.

    One point I wanted to make is the number of eye witnesses that never report their encounter. I estimate it is more than twenty eye witness reports for every report made. So you are saying that all of these people either fit into ones who can’t tell a bear from a bigfoot or are lying. I find that too much of a stretch to believe. Again I say Occam’s razor.

  31. Goodfoot responds:

    Quote of the day: “Scientists are made up of humans”.

    MAJOR wow factor!

  32. cryptokellie responds:

    I do think Bigfoot is improbable but not impossible. Many many improbable things have turned up to actually exist. At the time, an animal like the gorilla was considered highly unlikely until one was obtained for study. Add to this list; coelacanths, komodo dragons, megamouth sharks, gliding snakes, whole ecosystems that survive in almost boiling water next to volcanic vents. The list is on-going as it should be when open minds allow for it. The fact that I consider the Bigfoot improbable – highly improbable in fact, doesn’t mean that it can’t exist. I hope that it actually does. Believe me, I’ve been married for 40 years, improbable given todays general lack of standards and commitment, but there it is. Improbable yes…impossible no.

    Too many big assumptions for Occam’s Razor to apply…but since there are many improbabilities, after the impossibilities are eliminated you get…oh wait, that’s Sherlock Holmes again. Or Doyle which ever you prefer.

  33. bobhelferstay responds:

    What scientist sports a mohawk and expect to be taken seriously?

  34. Goodfoot responds:

    I agree with you, cryptokellie: there is a fairly narrow range of things where Occam’s Razor actually is a valid application. Most of us know that sometimes the improbable explanation is eventually the one that prevails.

    Occam’s Razor is a claim and not a principle, like gravitation. (by which I mean, gravitation is the truth, not a priciple). I first learned bout Occam’s Razor back in the 70s, in studying intensely the JFK assassination. In that case, Occam’s Razor claims that Oswald Did It, simply because the Warren Commission found he did.
    OR is NOT the best explanation in that case; it is the simplest explanation, I admit, but it is an elaborately-constructed LIE.

    Truth 7, Occam’s Razor 0.

  35. Goodfoot responds:

    I would respect him as a skateboarder or a bass player, but not as a scientist. But we must be very careful about dismissing people because of their appearance. What would you have thought of Albert Einstein in 1927, based on his appearance?

  36. Goodfoot responds:

    I would propose there are indeed other ways you would be convinced. Ask the question of others on this forum, who have had deep personal experiences, and felt no need for a body.

  37. corrick responds:


    Thanks for your posts. I actually cut and kept this bigfoot post of yours on bigfoot with regard to Occam’s Razor.
    About the best, succinct and articulate argument about why bigfoot is generally not taken seriously by all those
    “pointy” heads.

    And the usual response by micro-focused bigfooter believers that apparently can’t step back and view the larger macro-focused scientific picture.

    Great post.

  38. DWA responds:


    Best not to bring Occam’s Razor into the world of Bigfoot as the simplest of explanations with the least amount of assumptions needed would leave the actual Bigfoot as a real animal at the bottom of most current plausible explanations. One has to assume that;
    A large primate unknown to science actually exists.

    One doesn’t assume that. One sees evidence that indicates that the assumption that one doesn’t is false.

    This large unknown primate dwells in North America where non-human primates historically are absent.

    Again, that it doesn’t is the assumption, contradicted by evidence.

    This unknown primate exists in numbers large enough to maintain a population in several geographical environs.

    Although existing in numbers great enough to maintain a breeding population, the total numbers are small enough to make capture and identification difficult if not impossible.

    Same thing. Etc. “Bigfoot doesn’t exist” sits upon an enormous pile of assumptions. The evidence it does, doesn’t. (Example: it’s not numbers but denial that keeps us from getting one. We’re not even trying. That some people think numbers are low – John Green doesn’t – is itself an assumption that may not be true.)

    There are more but…

    As to the evidence, the simplest explanations without added unrealistic assumptions are;

    All Bigfoot sightings are hoaxes or misidentifications.

    Many of us think that if skeptics understood what an enormous and unrealistic assumption that is on its face, they’d look at the evidence.

    All Bigfoot photographic evidence is hoaxed or misidentified subjects

    All Bigfoot hard evidence is hoaxed or misidentified.

    Same thing. The skeptics’ case is, basically, assumptions; the proponents’ case is mainly evidence. This is the sole reason I am a proponent.

    It cannot be overstated that untested assumptions – a good layman’s knowledge of the evidence qualifies one better than any mainstream scientific skeptic – are the only thing keeping the mainstream on the sidelines of this issue.

  39. DWA responds:

    More of what I mean:

    All Bigfoot sightings are hoaxes or misidentifications.

    Many of us think that if skeptics understood what an enormous and unrealistic assumption that is on its face, they’d look at the evidence.”

    This is easy to demonstrate.

    Take me to any database. Let’s go over the sightings, one by one. Tell me, in each case, what proves the account a false positive.

    You can’t?

    Then you have a very huge, and totally untested, assumption, don’t you?

    The house of cards continues to fall from there.

  40. Goodfoot responds:

    Where the “low numbers” hypothesis falls apart for me is that I truly believe if numbers were as small as the hypothesizers seem to assume, I think we’d have very few sighting indeed.

    Instead, thousands upon thousands of sightings; to me, that suggests high populations, probably even growing ones.

  41. DWA responds:

    “You can’t prove something doesn’t exist,” he said. “You can prove that every sample you’re brought isn’t what they’re claiming, But you can’t disprove this. It will go on forever. We’ll always have it.”

    You’re right, Todd. You’re right because you’re a scientist; and scientists are in this to expand knowledge, not to win arguments.

    I defend a scientist’s right to turn away samples that he has good reason to believe will turn out to be mundane on further testing. Testing is expensive, and wasting time is, understandably, frowned upon in science.

    But I don’t expect any scientist to attempt to shut down the discussion and declare victory based on Ketchum; Sykes; or anyone else’s tests, or, for that matter, on his own refusal of particular material. You are testing what you are brought, should you choose to do it; your findings are restricted to samples tested; and I refuse to blame nonexistence on negligence or bad samples. You can’t either.

    In the end, this animal will be proven the way they all have been: by full-time searches in the field for the actual animal. Evidence says that will work.

  42. DWA responds:

    Goodfoot: not arguing. John Green agrees with you.

    People seem to think that the “low” sighting numbers imply low actual numbers. I remember a scientist on here once who thought that the reports were actually greater than the actual encounters. No way; that defies logic. Unless of course we have a 100% false positive, which I’ve just shown is a massive assumption with nothing behind it but more assumptions.

    We all know that the recorded encounters with known animals are far exceeded by the encounters that go unreported. (The only exceptions I can think of that are likely are deep-sea animals, which won’t even be seen except by scientists.) Very few of the animals I have seen got reported to an authority or database of any kind.

    It’s the case here too.

  43. Goodfoot responds:

    DWA: The way it will be done is, as Thom Powell says, “by establishing an embassy”.

  44. DWA responds:


    Well, yup. “Just shoot it” seems to neglect how hard that’s been with a camera, where the range is longer and the aim can be far worse. Hunters have had the opps, and if the animal’s real, this makes at least a couple of the shooting accounts real to me. But it isn’t easy; nobody who has shot at one was looking for one.

    Known animals, we are relying on uncounted generations of hunting experience, dating back at least to the first hunters over from Siberia via the land bridge. Sasquatch, well, whoever has secrets hasn’t shared them.

    I’m on the fence about shooting too. Call it “guilty pleasure.” I’ll know for sure then. But I don’t guarantee it’ll make me happy. But without full-time mainstream involvement – which does incorporate other means of verification – it is probably what has to happen.

    If – right – the mystery isn’t enough. And for me, the mystery – with the evidence telling me clearly how to bet – may indeed be.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.