81 million votes? or BIGFOOT
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (25)
sorted by:
The DNA studies were completed by Melba Ketchum et al over ten years ago, with over 100 samples collected by researchers like David Paulides and Scott Carpenter. They are not bipedal apes...they are human hybrids, with a genesis of approximately 14,000 years ago. The mitochondrial DNA is human female, with the paternal DNA of unknown origin.
I did not know this but I do know they are out there. I also think there are several different kinds. I don't think I know as much as you do about the subject but I have reads thousands of sighting/encounter reports. There are the kind that do look like a Neanderthal, kind of, like the drawings you see. There are the kinds like look much more ape like, no neck, coned head. Then you see all about the dogmen and while that is gonna make people point and laugh ....too many reliable people from different areas report similar things. How do you explain that? I don't know but thanks for that info. I am going to check it out.
There are dogmen as well, however, bigfoot and dogmen are mortal enemies. You will not find both occupying the same location...generally speaking. You'd be surprised how much is actually known about them, but there is a concerted effort to hide the information, or label it as "fringe." For example, the "BFRO" is actually a military psyop, in place to gather location information from sightings. These beings are hunted, and key details kept from the general public.
Dr. Ketchum is now doing another study, this time on dogman DNA. The details should be released perhaps later this year.
There are more beings than these being reported. There are uncommon reports of a three-toed bigfoot, but these are not bigfoot -- they are something else. Rakes, Wendigos, little people, etc., etc.
Lots of strangeness in this world...
What did they extract DNA from to study it? A living specimen? Bones? Where can I read more about what you’re saying?
The DNA study is summarized in Scott Carpenter's book, Truth Denied. The sample collection itself was quite interesting. You can collect DNA from human hair, but not, as it turns out, from bigfoot hair. You need the skin tag from the root of the hair to extract the DNA. The most effective collection method was to smear bacon grease around the trunk of a tree 10-12 feet up, and then wrapping the trunk underneath with several turns of packing tape, sticky-side out. Other samples came from various parts of the country, hairs stuck on barbed wire, etc.
One of the samples was from a juvenile that was killed by a hunter near Dixie Valley, CA.
Lots of questions re: the accuracy of Melba’s tests.
Her tests were extremely accurate, and stood up to inquiry. What you are finding (if you are reading that her results were questionable), is the concerted effort to discredit her and her team. This is all laid out in Scott Carpenter's summary of the study in his book, Truth Denied.
There are dark forces out there trying to squash anything to do with the exposure of this and other truths. No one completely understands why, but it goes right up the chain to the highest levels of military command.
Yes, I get that there is a squash (heh) of info. Just there are two opinions on her work and methods of interpretation.
She set the study up with controls and independent verification, and she had other researchers collaborating. Anything else you read to the contrary is misinformation.
The efforts to crush her and her credibility reached all the way up to the highest levels of the scientific community. Journals who agreed to publish her results would pull out at the last minute, for no reason. Everything that happened all but destroyed her career.
I hate to sound like "that guy" but the last thing the US government wants to do is admit to the public there are 8 foot beings out in the forest. For obvious reasons. They know they are there. They don't want us to believe they are there.