PAGE 11 OF THE AMA THREAD:
53. posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 16:25
53. reply to post by SmartmuhahaXD
53. Can you tell us more about the DNA study and how the Bigfoot DNA resembled our own or are there common link between the Human
DNA and the Bigfoot DNA ?
53. There is much about the study and the background at
53. I could write on this topic for hours.
53. Refer to my bio for the location to purchase the DNA study.
53. Don't believe bloggers, read it for yourself.
Thanks for the question.
= = =
54. posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 16:28
54. reply to post by Pinkorchid
54. I remember a story of a young boy, who went missing for over 5 hrs. and he told his parents that the thing that took him looked exactly like his
own mum , but different and that he didn't like her as much as his own mum. He also stated that they wanted him to produce excrement on a piece of
some sort of paper.
54.1. Have there been may reports like the above?
54.2 Do you believe the children's stories that have been returned ?
54. The story you refer to is in "Missing 411-North America and Beyond"-
54. Children have an innocence about them that when uncorrupted, they are brutally honest.
= = =
55. posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 16:35
55. reply to post by Blarneystoner
55. I remain skeptical... too many unanswered questions. The DNA evidence is sketchy at best and a possible conflict of interest on Ketchum's part.
55. It seems obvious to me that David is alluding to the possibilty that the abductions he's investigating were perpetrated by "wild men" or
"bigfoot". Am I the only one who sees this? And yes... I would call being carried off by a giant ape-man an attack... geeze.
55. Still no reponse from David as to why the paper was only published in one journal and is that jounal's only publication. Which, btw was only
founded 9 days before the paper was published. Yet, David is convinced that the conclusions drawn by Ketchum are valid.
55. I respect David for taking the time to come and answer questions. With that said, I think it's only normal for someone to ask the tough questions
which surround the controversial research and conclusions which are drawn.
55. Deny ignorance... unless you're star struck?
55. I can understand why so many are disturbed by the findings. The conclusions drawn by Ketchum say that these wild men or BGFTs are human/primate
hybrids originated 15,000 years ago. That seems pretty far fetched, even to a layman.
55. It's a shame that the paper was never properly peer reviewed and if it was, why was it rejected?
55. Those questions have not been answered yet.
[Bo Xian: Please excuse my editorial GRRRRR to the above. The PTB in the religion of scientism do NOT allow dissent. Sheesh Sigh. Star
struck? Not a bit. Jealousy?]
55.All of your questions are answered on this site:
55. Scott puts the study into terms that everyone can understand.
55. Scott and I were privy to the communications between journals and Dr. Ketchum. Some journals are obviously corrupt and work within a process that
is slanted. They posed questions to her that were in the paper and blatantly obvious. The results of the study change the way the world views many
aspects of humanity. Read Scotts site, look at August and September, all of the answers are there and factual.
55. You can take punches at me, that's ok, but again, until you read the paper, I'm not insulted...
55. Dave is alluding that a bgft is abducting people, where is that fantasy coming from?
55. Please, lets be grounded in our responses.....
55. I've stated on this site 4X that there is NOWHERE you can find this....nowhere have our investigators pointed a finger at bgft as a culprit. If
someone has an agenda and believes that, I won't hinder their beliefs, but please don't pull us into your justifications...
Thanks for the question.
= = =
56. posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 16:37
56. reply to post by defcon5
56. First, I'd like to take a moment to thank David Paulides for taking the time to talk with us.
56. I find the topic to be highly interesting, and one of the better “conspiracies” that I have ever come across.
56. While most people read these disappearances and immediately think of something paranormal, or some type of human involvement (occult, serial
killers, etc), I have a different take on it. When the majority of folks think of dangerous wild animals in US forests, bears come to mind
immediately. However, they are not the only predators in our national parks. So with that in mind, what type of animal is capable of snatching someone
in a stealthy manner, often right under others noses, then carry them a great distance, often up mountains, very quickly, and dogs would be unwilling
to pursue them?
56. The first one that comes to my mind is mountain lions. For those who don't know, mountain lion (and other big cat) urine is used to repel other
animals, and that scent can also spook a dog. Additionally, with the US forest service being very protective of their numbers, they would be hushed
about publicizing human attacks.
56. Have mountain lions been looked into, and is there anything to eliminate them as the possible candidate in many of these
56.1. SAR team and trackers have eliminated Mtn lions and all other predators from the list of possible reasons for these
56.2 Some canines have actually been trained to track down mtn lions...
= = =
57. posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 16:40
57. reply to post by WhiteAlice
57. Here's my assessment of what was on your site:
57. 1. You were involved in a BGFT investigation which placed you into a position where you were at National Parks.
57. 2. Incidentally, while you were at those parks, 2 NPS approached you to inform you of another problem occurring at those same parks.
57. 3. Ergo, the BGFT investigation was relevant to the missing persons issues within the parks only in that that is why you were there and why you
were approached as you were a former LEO with an interest in curious matters. Outside of that, the two issues should be construed as unrelated.
57. I personally admire the fact that you have not attempted to produce any particular theory as to what is happening to these people. You seem to be
merely providing the facts in regards to a pattern that seems to exist with a portion of people that go missing in rural or wildlife areas. The moment
a theory gets attached to that, the focus becomes the theory and not the evidence of an issue presented in the pattern of the evidence, itself.
57. Would this be a correct assessment?
57.0 Your assessment is incorrect on multiple fronts.
57.1 Yes, we are reporting just facts
edit on 27/9/2013 by BO XIAN because: tags