Matt Moneymaker is correct

There is nothing in the history of Bigfoot research to suggest it is human. The reason is that nothing human has ever been found. Not one researcher can point to anything found in the woods and say that was a result of human activity.

Early man formed society and culture. Even primitive man made fire and carved tools. They devised hunting skills and basic agricultural abilities. There is nothing to suggest anything like that is going on in the woods of North America.

Crude structures have ben found but they seem to lack any purpose. Perhaps they are territory markers but that is only a guess. Other then that, not much else has been found.

Matt Moneymaker is among the ape theoriest, and for good reason. Bigfoot seems to live on instinct alone.

Take an animal we KNOW exist - deer. You may catch a fleeting glimpse of one and then it is gone. Ever wonder where it goes? Where does it sleep or live? You will never find out. So it is with Bigfoot.

This DNA study does not fly in the face of science because there is no science of Bigfoot. This DNA study flies in the face of decades if Bigfoot research. Many good People have spent years in the woods to develop what we know today. New paradigms are nice. This, however, is bad science.

It can be criticized simply because the people involved are advocates of Bigfoot. They have worked the problem in reverse. Only seeking what will fit your conclusion which was presented up front is Ad-Hoc science. This study will be thrown out on its poor methodology alone.

Perhaps we need a new approach. Perhaps science is the wrong tool in understanding this cryptid. It may very well transend reason, and be something unfamiliar to our expectations.

Unfortunately, the Ketchum study will prove to be just an elaborate hoax. Many will have egg on their face.