CNN Reports Bigfoot DNA study with Unrelated Finding Bigfoot Footage
Posted by: Guy Edwards on December 1st, 2012
CNN Carol Costello reports the Bigfoot DNA study that says Bigfoot is part human using mostly footage from Animal Planet’s Finding Bigfoot
Now you know it is really news. CNN had picked up the Bigfoot DNA study.
The choice of mashing up the Melba Ketchum’s study with footage from the TV show Finding Bigfoot is ironic (perhaps even amusing) to most Bigfooters. Matt Moneymaker, co-host on Finding Bigfoot and BFRO founder, has been very vocal, most recently on twitter, about his lack of confidence in Melba Ketchum’s and her study.
You can read Matt Moneymaker’s 8 best tweets in reaction to the Melba Kethum’s study at Bigfoot Lunch Club.
About Guy Edwards
Psychology reduces to biology, all biology to chemistry, chemistry to physics, and finally physics to mathematical logic.
Guy Edwards is host of the Portland, OR event HopsSquatch.com.
Remember, this is a Facebook story that has been blown all out of proportion. Why should we be surprised that CNN is now utilizing Animal Planet’s Finding Bigfoot’s unrelated DNA footage with this “news” that is baseless, until the scientific publication is published? We’re talking about television media here, folks.
Loren: you’re right about what it is.
My concern is that the scientific mainstream’s overarching ignorance and ridicule gives this kind of thing carte blanche to happen.
Science needs to be continually prodded to do the right thing. What it’s doing now with regard to hairy hominoids isn’t the right thing.
Science isn’t our master; it’s our servant. We, the public, pay scientists’ salaries. When they are doing proper science, they should stand firm against the public’s lack of information. But when they are not…they need to be called on it.
Poor Moneymaker, hoisted by his own petard. But, this does allow him to be interviewed by all the major media outlets to set the record straight. That will make him happy again.
This is turning (if it hasn’t already turned) into one big joke (CNN?).
Most television media is entertainment trying to masquerade as media.
Wait a minute, DWA. I’ve been hearing all kinds of strange rumors about this mysterious paper, including things like some samples were collected from bagels, something called angel DNA, and other bizarre comments. If her paper included anything like that, except maybe the bagel thing, “mainstream science” can hardly be blamed for declining to publish it. I have read articles in scientific journals that tested whether vocal recordings were human made or not. That’s the approach that should be taken for true objective information sharing at this point. Save the other stuff for after the data have been published.
Of course Moneymaker is grumbling about it. He’s not making any money off it. Probably wishes he had thought of the idea first.
Shake your money maker, Matt! Does it seem to anyone else that’s he’s peeved he isn’t the focus of squatchtention for once?
If this DNA study is correct in its conclusion, it would seem not only to validate the North American Sasquatch or Bigfoot but also the Russian version or Almasty. I put this out there because it seemingly would support the Story of Zana as reported in the book: In the Footsteps of the Russian Snowman as she gave birth to children who grew up looking normal despite her description matching a bigfoot.
PoeticsOfBigfoot: naaaah, I’m right. You clearly didn’t see the clip.
This isn’t a staid scientific demurrer. (Meldrum’s was, and he is right.) This is another let’s-snicker-at-bigfoot puff piece, complete with bimbo making aerial quote marks. And as Loren points out it lumps “Finding Bigfoot” with the MK paper, never mind that (1) “Finding Bigfoot” is a credibility sapper all its own; (2) the paper, who knows? could make that bimbo eat her quote-mark fingers with a heaping side dish of crow; and (3) Moneymaker is trying like hell to discredit the paper before anyone ever sees it, with his own over-the-top crap.
As everyone here has taken pains aplenty to point out, this isn’t about science, least of all about the significant reservations the mainstream could have with the paper, for which things frankly don’t look good given early returns. This is about the sensationalist mainstream media, their continuous selection of glam and pablum and hoary rehashes over real news, and their lack of grasp of the world they live in.
And yes (feel free to edit yourself in, Guy) I should have given Guy more credit for the Moneymaker and “FB” juxtaposition irony.
Well I couldnt take the CNN report seriously and had the lady had too much to drink ? Was she tickled by the word bigfoot and you know what the say about men with bigfeet !
Possibly there was some merit in the ladies humour if she had watched the Matt moneymake clip ! I do love it when Matt says ‘there’s something on the hill’ not so much the teams faux sasquatch calls. Why dont they content themselves with tarzan calls ?
I do think we can be a little condescending in view of all the evidence and promise now for sasquatch research.
There used to be a saying……….but if a man builds a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to his door. I dont know why the heck a path is not being beaten to Dr Ketchums door after years of failure by mainstream science to come up with some dna results which provide something new and are hughly overdue given the de facto probability that sasquatch exists. Scientists should reach out their hands and give all the support they can rather than in many cases grudging interest. She has now changed the the dna landscape even if her work fails completely.
DWA, you’re right, I can’t open the clip on my phone. So please, explain how a clip on CNN reflects the closed-minded scientific community. Thanks.
Ketchum’s study was just a scam. I am a squatch believer, but I know that squatches are not related to humans. I hope those kinds of idiots will just be ignored. It’s disrespectful. Nonetheless, Finding Bigfoot is a great show!!
PoeticsOfBigfoot:
The explanation is in the clip.
I don’t see any sniggering and air quotes around the word “scientists” (well, bimbo, sorry but they are) when topics accepted by the mainstream are under discussion.
The evidence says, loud and clear, that the mainstream is wrong. But the mainstream doesn’t even review it.
Maybe things have been procedurally sloppy so far. But there are no findings to snigger at yet. Boy wouldn’t everybody have to start contemplating plates of crow if Melba Ketchum is right.
The mainstream is way behind the times on this topic. They are insisting on 19th-century standards for proof (and insisting that people who can’t be charitably called part-timers and are working on their own dime get the proof for them). They are conducting and trumpeting comprehensive biotic surveys that may be missing an umbrella species for which there is a huge body of consistent evidence.
But when they snigger ignorantly, that’s the mainstream-news cue to snigger too. After all, they’re the (air quotes ) “experts.”
[snigger]
squatchman: A SCAM? So you have inside information? Care to share with us?