Interview with Richard Stubstad: Is Bigfoot Human?

I recently conducted an interview with Richard Stubstad on the subject of Bigfoot. Stubstad was an early player in Melba Ketchum’s genetic studies of Bigfoot which later branched into the Erickson Project, among others. Stubstad himself has no relationship with the Erickson Project at all.

Lately, he has been publishing his own analysis of the samples that he worked with. His job was to analyze the initial samples as a statistician to determine their MtDNA and the probability that they were finding something real and not a hoax or misidentification. Stubstad’s website is here. You need to hit the click here button to read the pdf on his analysis.

Stubstad’s paper deals with two samples. Sample 1 is apparently a bone from the southwestern US. The location is not known. Sample 2 is blood and tissue gathered from the northeastern US, possibly Vermont, but I am not sure.

The two samples lined up almost totally, a very surprising result. A hoax was ruled out because the two locations were very distant from each other, and the two groups did not cooperate with each other. Thus these two samples have a 9

The kicker is that both samples came back 10


Robert Lindsay (RL): You say that these samples come from the Franco-Cantabrian glacial refuge in Europe 10-20,000 YBP. Does that mean that no modern humans have MtDNA like this? Were there any samples in GenBank of modern Europeans showing similar MtDNA to these ancient Europeans? What I am asking is if it is possible for the samples to be from modern humans existing today, or is that impossible?

Richard Stubstad (RS): Well, this is one of the caveats. There are some modern populations who have MtDNA which resembles the ancient European samples. They tend to be Spaniards, Portuguese, Catalans, Basques, southern French, etc. So a human today with predominant ancestry from these regions could have DNA that looked like that from the Franco-Cantabrian glacial refuge. However, there is a 9

RL: Do you think that the samples were of Bigfoots?

RS: I really do. I don’t think it was a hoax because the two groups who submitted these samples do not work together at all. In fact, they don’t even like each other. I can’t imagine them working together for any reason. Also, I went to the southwestern site, and I believe this fellow really does have some Bigfoot activity at his site. I’m no expert, but that’s my impression. I also felt this guy was simply incapable of such an elaborate hoax. I won’t go into the reasons for that, but let’s just leave it at that.

RL: So Bigfoot is human then? What kind of sense does that make? It makes no sense at all.

RS: Well, in my opinion, Bigfoot is probably a hybrid species, part human, part something else (a related hominid of some kind), that has the ability to have viable offspring. The MtDNA only means that there was a human female from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge in the Bigfoot line during that time frame. That’s all it means. It doesn’t speak to the females of the Bigfoot line before that, nor does it speak to the male lineage.

RL: One of the leaks from the Erickson Project said that Bigfoot was partway between a Neandertal and a human. Jeff Meldrum was said to be surprised that they were that close to us. He thought they would be more distant. Is there any evidence of Neandertal MtDNA in the sequence?

RS: There is none whatsoever. Neandertal differs by ~200 polymorphisms on the mitochondrial side, and that was not indicated in this finding at all. Even Neandertal MtDNA is quite a bit different, so this should have shown up. Dr. Ketchum is a likely supporter of the hybrid theory. This is something that she knows a lot about due to her work with animals – hybridized species.

One of her theories was that there could have been what she called “seepage” of Neandertal DNA into the Bigfoot mitochondrial genome. However, I don’t really see much evidence of this. Perhaps there is more compelling evidence on the nuclear DNA side; I just don’t know.

RL: Does GenBank even have any Neandertal sequences in it?

RS: As a matter of fact, they do, and I believe they have more than one – there are in fact several in there.

RL: In the paper, you list two dates – 10-20,000 YBP and 20-30,000 YBP, for the samples. Which one is correct?

RS: The samples themselves matched best with nine samples in GenBank. Eight of these were dated to ~15,000 YBP in the Franco-Cantabrian glacial refuge. However, I believe that this sequence can go back all the way to 20-30,000 YBP in that same area. So it could be anywhere from 10-30,000 YBP in that refuge.

RL: I have been trying to put this all together, but I just get more and more confused. This still does not make sense to me. However, a human-Neandertal or human-Erectus hybrid is at least conceivable.

One thing I find interesting is that the Franco-Cantabrian refuge is where the Neandertals made their last stand on Earth before they went extinct. The last Neandertals are known from caves at Gibraltar ~27,000 YBP. So possibly, the last remains of the Neandertals mated with one or more human females in this area, and Bigfoot was born. The Neandertals went extinct, but Bigfoot as we know it today here in North America was conceived.

RS: I don’t have a problem with that. We have a lot of stories of so-called Bigfoot males around the world taking human females to breed with them, especially here in North America.

Possibly what happened is that the remaining archaic hominids bred in with some human females in the same fashion, and the resulting offspring had enough increased fitness (ie, survival of the fittest) to keep the species from going extinct. That is, the archaic hominids may have gone extinct, but the archaic hominid-human crosses had enough increased fitness that they were able to survive.

RL: Can you describe your relationship with the Erickson Project?

RS:: Yes. Initially, I was involved at the very start of the project, not with Adrian Erickson himself, but with Dr. Ketchum along with a few other folks.

RL: Is it possible that you refused to sign an NDA and this was the reason you were not allowed to continue?

RS: No! I signed an NDA way back in January of 2010, but Dr. Ketchum threw us out anyway. We all signed NDA’s, and we all obeyed them. Even before I was thrown out though, my NDA expired, so I am not on the hook for anything. I think she wants to make this a one-woman show.

RL: You said you think she will be the sole author of the piece and that such papers often have more than one author. How do you know this? Is it possible that you and others might still be listed as co-authors?

RS: No! There is no way we are going to be listed as co-authors. You see, there were several of us, and we were all supposed to be co-authors, but Dr. Ketchum threw either most or all of us all off, so I assume Dr. Ketchum will be the sole author.

RL: What do you think Ketchum’s motivation was? Glory? Money?

RS: I think she wants to get all the credit for this discovery, and maybe there is a financial motive as well. Maybe she wants be some kind of TV star. I really don’t know.

RL: We don’t know if your samples were used in her paper or not, correct? Is it possible that your samples were not useful for Ketchum? I mean, maybe they were useful and maybe they were not, right?

RS: Well, we don’t know if she is using the samples I worked with in the project. I think maybe she is not, as we were thrown off. She still has quite a few other samples. She has about 20 good samples in total. Of those, she may have used 10 or more for her paper. Were the first two samples useful? Of course they were! These were the initial samples that yielded what she called “very interesting results;” the ones that got her interested in doing the larger project project that followed.

RL: You are not leaking private information about this project, correct? And you only know about the initial phase of the project and nothing about what came afterwards, right?

RS: This is correct. I’m not leaking anything; that was a mischaracterization. My NDA expired, and I’m not violating anything. And yes, I know nothing at all about what happened with the project after I left.

RL: How do you feel Ketchum’s project will go?

RS: I am uncertain about it. For one thing, it’s apparently a one woman show, and these papers usually have more than one author. How will a woman show go over with peer reviewers? For another, I feel that she may overreach and make too many unwarranted generalizations or speculations in this piece. We may have another Lloyd Pye case on our hands, like with his so-called Starchild Skull.

RL: I have such a hard time thinking that Bigfoot is human. It really stretches the definition of what human means.

They have hair all over their bodies, they have a nuchal or occipital crest on their skull, they have very long arms, a somewhat nonhuman hand, a nonhuman way of walking, they are much taller and weigh more than any human race, they have a midtarsal break that went out with Homo Erectus 300,000 YBP, they have hair on their breasts, they have no tools or fire, they do not seem to have a normal human language – they are language poor and do not seem able to pick up human languages very easily as another human race would – and they sometimes give off a strong odor similar to what an ape does.

On and on. They’re simply not human. That’s all there is to it.

RS: I agree with you, and this is why I think they are a hybrid between humans and some other hominid.

RL: Are you aware of the feral human theory for Bigfoot?

RS: Yes I am, and it must be considered as one of the hypotheses, but there are many problems with this hypothesis, as you note above.

RL: Regarding the other Bigfoot types around the world, do you think we are dealing with something similar? To me, looking at the Almasty, the Yeren, the Mawas, the Yeti, the Nguoi Rung, the Yowie and others, it seems that we are dealing with the same beast, maybe in different forms.

RS: I agree with you. It does seem to be the same animal, with some differences, maybe similar to the differences between a Lowland Gorilla and a Mountain Gorilla.

RL: Although I think the little Orang Pendek of Sumatra may be something different.

RS: Yes, well there, we can can possibly connect this creature to some recent bones of the so-called “Hobbit” or Flores Man in Indonesia.

RL: Is there anything else you would like to add?

RS: Yes, there is one more thing! I looked at another MtDNA sample, and it came out completely different!

RL: How do you mean? How did the DNA come back? Was it Homo sapiens sapiens again?

RS: Yes, it was as a matter of fact, but it was nothing like the two samples that came back as from the ancient Franco-Cantabrian refuge. It was completely different.

RL: Now things are really not making any sense. Can you elaborate?

RS: Well, not really. I am going to write this up in my next addition to the website you mentioned to begin this interview, hopefully within the next month or so. But it goes along with a theory of mine, that maybe Bigfoot males were taking human females into their genetic line at various points in history. Now – this doesn’t mean that I know this to be a fact; I’m merely speculating…


That’s it for the interview. We may be interviewing some other biggies in the Bigfoot World as things come to a head with the Erickson Project in the near future.

For the best in Bigfoot discussions, make sure to visit Bigfoot Forums.

Please follow and like us:

61 thoughts on “Interview with Richard Stubstad: Is Bigfoot Human?”

  1. Achilli A, et al. The Molecular Dissection of mtDNA Haplogroup H Confirms That the
    Franco-Cantabrian Glacial Refuge Was a Major Source for the European
    Gene Pool. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 75:910–918, 2004.
    “These findings have major implications for the origin of Europeans,
    since they attest that the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area was indeed the source of late-glacial expansions of huntergatherers that repopulated much of Central and Northern Europe from ∼15,000 years ago.”

    In other words, according to what has been presented here, it is most likely that the mtDNA in Substad’s samples originated from humans of european ancestry. Thus while there is neither evidence of a new primate nor of a hybrid species there is the suggestion that that those who submitted tissue were either sincerely mistaken as to the actual source or actively participated in a hoax.

    1. Correctly stated, Eli. Knowing what I know about the circumstances behind the two (initially) submitted samples, however, I believe there is less than a 3% chance that this was a “mistake” (two inadvertent misidentifications) or a coordinated hoax.

      That’s why it is very important to continue this work in an objective scientific manner. This can only be done with further samples to see how they ALL come out. Not only on the mtDNA side of the equation, but on the nuDNA side as well in case my hypothesis is correct that: 1) the first two samples are probably from real sasquai; and 2) they are in fact some kind of hybrid species = a human-something-or-other crossbreed.

      I hope we can find a credible institution to do this work properly, as a multi-disciplined scientific team, not a “one woman” or “one man show” as Dr. Ketchum appears to be proceeding unilaterally.

      I believe that, while Dr. Ketchum is probably right about being 100% certain herself about the existence of sasquatch, she will be found as considerably less than credible by the scientific community. Then, the rest of us will have to pick up the pieces and proceed in a more credible and objective manner with this research.

      Thanks again for the intelligent and insightful response to the interview.

      Richard Stubstad

  2. So, as in every single case I have investigated including an incredibly detailed 3 month hoax in Central Florida in 2006 involving scat, hair and two (2) sightings, we are left with the most likely explanation of a hoax. Your 3% is subservient to my 1%, after Jeff Meldrum reviewed photo and video evidence of mine showing a 16″ track with a clear midtarsal break and was convinced enough to write a letter supporting our efforts.

    The much greater probability, in the absence of any substantive evidence indicating the actual existence of a large, bipedal, hair covered, ape-like, non-human-like creature, is that 3% translates into 100%.

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. So what are people seeing? Something that has yet to be filmed, captured, killed, or otherwise scientifically documented. With the number of camera traps, night vision and thermal vision recording devices used in nearly every state of the Union in the last 10 years, not one verified photo of an identifiable animal matching the descriptions of witnesses exists.

    Isn’t it time “believers” step back and honestly ask why?

    Michael J. Nichols, CEP

      1. It’s simple. I am an environmental biologist certified in the area of environmental assessment with a specialty in wetlands science and with over 30 years of experience. Matt Moneymaker claimed these creatures exist and offered an expedition in Florida. That began my earnest quest to discover for myself whether these things existed. After only 3 months of inquiry into it, I was convinced they were real and began to interview eyewitnesses, investigate reports and analyze my own data. After 5 years of intensive investigation, the only evidence that held up as possible evidence was footprints. And after realizing how well they could be faked and were being faked, it is my opinion now that there are more plausible explanations for all of the sightings and so called evidence.

        What people are actually seeing is any number of things including the possibility of outcasts with various diseases/mutations, but more commonly misidentified known animals or people in suits. These are by far the more plausible and therefore the more likely explanations, especially in the absence of good photographic documentation. I absolutely have no confidence in the Erickson project as I have heard M.M. describe the best of the videos since 2006 and still no release.

        I have spoken to numerous big name “researchers” or read their stories. M.M. has never seen one (except a shadowy figure he assumes was one), Jeff Meldrum has never seen one. Rick Knoll has never seen one (with the exception of a shadowy figure through heavy rain and his windshield wipers at night which he can’t say for sure what it was). Every single time the goods are about to be delivered, something goes awry and it falls short. In short, no evidence. Meldrum estimates a population in the U.S. in the thousands, perhaps 2 – 4 thousand. M.M. thinks a lot more. Think about it, – 2 -4 thousand 7-9 ft. tall hairy, ape-like social beings inhabiting the forests of North America. Not a single defensible trail cam photo (the Jacobs photo is a bear). No defensible thermal image, no night vision photo. In short nothing after hundreds of researchers spending thousands of hours in these forests for the past 10 -15 years. Only excuses for how smart they must be to avoid detection.

        I personally spoke to 6 witnesses 2 years ago (3 – two person witness accounts) and visited the exact spots where the “creature” was seen. A 7-8 foot tall hairy beast described as massive (a “refrigerator”), 400-700 lbs. with no trace of a print, flattened grass, broken twigs, hair, scat, etc. in the panhandle area of Florida.

        Every single behavior attributed to bf is explained by natural phenomena or human action/hoaxing. Tree knocks for example. I have hundreds of hours of nocturnal recordings where multiple tree knock sounds were recorded and analyzed. Some turned out to be horses coughing (sounded identical to wood on wood knocks), some turned out to be other humans, some turned out to be distorted calls of night herons at a distance, and some were unexplained but most likely a jug or container popping as temperature and pressure changed during the night.

        Or how about howls – coyotes and red wolves as well as humans can account for all of them.

        Tree twists and tree breaks. Micro-climatic conditions during severe storms can produce identical effects as those many “researchers” described as bigfoot generated.

        So my quest recently resulted in a turn in my thinking as I discovered the great lengths some people are willing to go to in order to perpetuate a hoax. Most people don’t think that a person or group of people would go to such great lengths to deceive others but I witnessed it personally. That is why everyone should be extremely skeptical on this subject even when they have seen one themselves. Like I thought I had. But little by little the evidence when evaluated properly begins to fall like a house of cards.

        It looks good at first, but when scrutinized it simple doesn’t hold up. So there’s your answer. Hope it helps.

    1. Why? To me the answer is obvious. Pictures taken are not professional photographers, the lighting is poor in most cases, cameras are not the best, and the subjects hide (grabbing onto tree trunks, etc). It doesn’t take anything more then common sense to figure that one out.

      1. In Reply to Victor Oropeza and Laurie B’s comments:

        Victor, please read your comment that criticizes me…for what exactly? Hint: see your first sentence. Then apply that criticism to your comment. The observation you should make is when you point your finger at someone notice how many are pointing back at you.

        And since you are 100% convinced it should not be too hard convincing the rest of us. Now let’s see your cards.

        They are literally tens if not, hundreds of thousands of game cams put out in the forests of every State of the Union, some of which are stealthy infrared having no flash to spook the intended prey – typically various species of native deer which are said to be the favored food item of these supposed creatures. There are also many thermal imagers being used by researchers in many states. There is even great monetary reward being offered for photographs of such a creature. Yet, not one has been offered and found to be legitimate.


        Mike Nichols

        1. Cheers Mike! You have structured your belief, or should I say disbelief, that the evidence of the existence of Biggy F. is — if I read your posts correctly — 100% manufactured. Without sidetracking into the volatile terrain of opinionating may I ask if you might be willing to share what constitutes your body of evidence that anything and everything about this critter is faked? I ask, not to put you on the spot, or to challenge you, rather because the encyclopedia of this phenomenon is still being written and in it hoaxing, in exacting detail, must be discussed. So. What specific, first-hand ‘evidence’ do you possess that abrogates every claimed sighting/encounter that, if I may remind you, extends back into the oral histories of multiple First Nation populations? I am with you by and large on hoaxing, it, and Hollywood, have caused near-on catastrophic damage to this investigation, but are we possibly in agreement that the term “Evidence” swings both ways, that it applies as much to the debunker as the believer? If we are, then I would love to hear from you. I am compiling a comprehensive data base of sightings and encounters and would consider it incomplete if the sad, but storied tableaux of hoaxing not be given equal time . . . Should Richard’s and/or Mme. Ketchum’s DNA study, in effect, pan out, then watch as the winds begin to shake the barleycorn free. Proper and probably very well-funded investigations will become the norm, crashing, thank goodness, the comedy of testosterone-fueled, trail-cammed, camouflaged jim-jams a-bulge with guns spectacle currently so au courant . . . For that at least we should all be grateful. Cheers!

        2. Now, now folks. We are getting a bit nasty with one-another.

          Mike Nichols has a point. I do not agree with him, but he does have a point that needs due respect. What you may not know is that he investigated a VERY promising lead in Florida for quite a long period of time–only to find out that the folks there were pulling a fast one on him, and did it so well that he fell for it until their story finally fell apart. In short, he was taken, in spite of his experience etc.

          If I had been taken for a ride like that I’d feel exactly the same way Mike feels. Fortunately, I haven’t been taken like that, except perhaps by Todd Standing–and even in this case I’m not 100% sure–but nearly so. Todd is likely pulling the wool over our collective eyes, and most of us already believe that.

          I believe Mike only has ONE fatal flaw in his logic–he takes each piece of evidence on its own merits, one at a time, and if he can find a way a single piece of evidence COULD have been hoaxed, his conclusion is–it probably was.

          I tend to take all the evidence available and ask: What are the odds they are ALL hoaxes. In my opinion, not very great. In Mike’s mind, it’s a foregone conclusion.

          Add to that the DNA evidence (which was the kicker for me) and I come up with a 96% or 97% chance that the sasquai exist.

          I have posted a new article (Sept 2011 Update) at the following website:

          If Melba and the rest of my detractors (except Mike, perhaps) see this, they will probably have a cow or two. But oh, well. Such is life.

          Richard Stubstad

        3. Tens? or even hundreds of thousands of Game Cams out in the forests? It would take an army to place that many. I want to see sales records for that many and to know why the jobs records do not improve for those involved in production and sales. You listen to too many politicians.

  3. Mike:

    Thanks for your comments.

    Two years ago, I would have agreed with you – well maybe not 100% but (say) 90%. I was also a Bigfoot skeptic then, and I STILL am about most other “mystical” things: UFO’s, ghosts, a parallel universe, etc.

    Now however, I remain in the 3% (or so) boat – that is I do indeed remain skeptical, but only to the tune of 3%. I’m 97% sure these two sample are from real-life sasquai (for many reasons by the way, not only the mtDNA). What I DON’T know is “what is a sasquatch, assuming for a fleeting moment they exist?”

    This is what the DNA data showed – I didn’t fudge the data; I didn’t expect the outcome we got (and neither did Dr. Ketchum, by the way), and frankly I cannot say for sure that “sasquatch lives” or whatever the buzz word is these days in the off-the-wall Bigfoot community.

    Unfortunately, I – like you – have to wait for more evidence before I’ll be completely convinced myself. What I have stated in the pieces you have read (plus a bit of knowledge that I didn’t state) is FAR from proof of the existence of sasquatch. I, like most scientists, first want 100% proof, not 97% or thereabouts.

    Further, I not only want 100% proof myself, I am NOT satisfied with ANY level of proof – whether 97% or 100.00% on the mitochondrial side of the DNA equation, because – as you say – the Homo sapiens sapiens conclusion one should draw from the mito sequences I have seen does NOT explain in any way the so-called “sightings” or other circumstantial evidence we have all heard about until it’s all literally running back out of both of our ears.

    For the “rest of the story”, I’d like to see the nuclear DNA results that – reportedly – both Dr. Ketchum and other researchers already have “in the bank”. Once I see those, and see that they have been analyzed by a variety of reputable scientists (not only one or two scientists) and sequenced and re-sequenced until the cows come home, will I be a TRUE bigfoot believer.

    Until then, I’m with you ‘ol buddy.

    One problem with your counter argument though is this: Even if there are valid films, videos, or pictures of a real-life sasquai, there is always a way to create a hoax that would appear identical to the “real deal”. Even the P-G film, which is supposedly the “gold standard” for movies or videos of sasquatch could be a hoax, as we both know. While Meldrum believes in the P-G film, many others do not – also several of those who believe in sasquatch in general (eg. Java Bob Schmalzbach). This is especially true if – by some chance – the two mito samples I’ve seen are in fact tissue from the “real deal.” That would make sasquatch at least partly human, basically, albeit with an unknown nuclear DNA component.

    Thanks for your comments – I’m not in the least bit offended or think you are some kind of idiot with blinders on. I’m just not as sure as you are that the whole ball of wax is one big, huge, and coordinated hoax.

    Richard Stubstad

  4. Richard,
    All I have to say is why are we talking about DNA evidence? If there are literally thousands of these creatures roaming the forests of North America, good clear photographic evidence would surely precede the much harder to obtain actual tissue evidence. If you can’t even photograph them, how do you think mainstream science is going to react to bypassing the simple to obtain the near impossible?

    I’ll tell you how I am going to react. I simply won’t accept the analysis as being valid. It must be the horse before the cart. We should have a progressive increase in image collection over the years as monitoring has increased, yet we do not. And now we leap to DNA to prove it? Is that how the mountain gorilla was discovered? Is that how the chimpanzee was discovered? Is that how any extant species has ever been discovered? Of course not.

    That, in itself, makes the Ketchum exercise even more suspect than the subject itself already is.

    If this isn’t patently obvious to even a casual observer, you have to wonder what exactly is driving this whole endeavor.

    Michael J. Nichols, CEP

    1. It’s late and I am in the mood to join in, a rare impulse on this topic.

      Any of the evidence you discuss, in isolation, has as you say many eloquent explanations. What I find compelling was my ability in the span of 2.5 years to personally collect examples of each type of evidence group along with personal witnesses. Like you, I went out to find out for myself. I chose a wilderness area well know to me since the 70’s while studying the watershed for a natural Resources class (BS BIo-Ag Science, JD – Environmental Law).

      Over 30 trips later, most alone, and the collection of track casts, photos/video of track trails, video of a BF (albeit poor resolution, but the hands are fairly well defined), sound files, video of crude structures/ crude tools/ grubbing sites/ probable nests, and personal interaction with a “whistling wonder,” night time eye contact with “blue eyeshine” at a height of 7′ within 4′ of me peering in while I slept (and awoke), and of course the odor (not always present) that combines skunk and decomposing matter…

      All of this in an area just not accessible to anyone, much less over so many trips and nights…nope.

      Jumping ahead…scientific method here? There is one eloquent explanation of all the evidence…a creature known as BF does exist. My personal conclusion at this stage is definitely Homo something…I see the rumor mill (I don’t have DNA in) and even if deemed Homo sapiens sapiens (which ultimately I doubt…it will be derivative), it is simply a matter of taxonomy to me now…They are different in culture and morphology in important ways. They are the same in very important ways as well.

      The differences: limited use of tools, crude structures and simple stone work, desire to withdraw from us, ability to see very well at night, the ability to generate a kind of eyeshine that is startling bright even without a moon or artificial light source (it does not seem to be reflected type eyeshine I am familiar with in other animals…I have seen bluish and amber), non-aggressive toward us, picky eaters, little interest in our material culture.

      Ways they are like us: family unit, ability to communicate ideas as well as use of animal mimicry, recognition of symbols, caching food, appreciation of music, curiosity, restraint, similar morphological build, behavior (ever wonder why we are “hairy-phobic?”) and so on. I succeeded in many ways…knowing for one.

      Trying to attract professors, scientists, etc to the site…not one would come out…resorting to the treacherous Bigfoot Researchers Field…only to find so many liars (it is amazing truly…people motivated to lie, cheats, idiots, and so on)…among the many (yea, there are many) honest, diligent and competent researchers…with no one to tell.

      Like the kid with the video from West Virginia…the topic so maligned (and Robert Lyle Laverty I feel certain was the beginning of the misinformation/clouding…and perhaps even sensible use of Wilderness system to address the “Sasquatch” problem…) that it has become…well the worst in science…at least “scientific ideals”…the idea of public domain, sharing and exploring to come up with truth and in this case…real public understanding and policy…there are ‘wild hominids” among us, and they rule the night…

      Really as one who studies the environment…answer this? Does it make evolutionary sense for the entire nighttime ecosystem to be voided by hominids…us…sleeping? All that opportunity at night….and in the rugged areas…perhaps we are the cannibals…as archeological evidence suggests, and after the the big melt…10,000ybbp….they had enough and retreated….and carved out this niche. I also believe due to the wilderness system and our retreat from subsistence hunting, etc. that BF’s are on the comeback in numbers…

      Too much for you? Well, I can assure you it has taken a lot of field work to get here myself. At one point, I was concerned…I felt responsible to make the truth known to the right people…I am over that now.

      My last trip up there…and well for the last year really, I know them now as a family…with habits, and who I and my culture are nearly irrelevant to…and we should just leave them alone. “Goodall” types like me…bring corruption in many ways, seduction that can be dangerous to them…and the “hunters” bring harassment….and science? It will bring a body bag.

      I do want to share my photos, video, sound etc….but find the task daunting (I collected a lot actually and have some exciting stories…) and am still bound by honor and duty to do the right thing…I am reminded of all the anthropologists with good intentions who introduced disease or cultural corruption to living tribes in the past…I don’t want that.

      Not anymore. I am finally Ok with everyone “not believing”…it was useful to the tailors of the Emperor’s clothes…I thought I would be the kid that pointed out “no clothes,” but I am now in a weird way a proud supporter of not telling. But that darn science degree and law…I might help if they are finally outed. The situation for Meldrum if as reported is one in which the weight of the evidence must be taken…together, not out of context..that would be poor scientific method too, don’t you think?

      Anyway…fun to let it out and disappear…I haven’t processed the entire experience…and what/how I feel about it all…especially the social issues it raises (among the behaviors of the BF researchers!).

      Thanks for your thoughtful posts. I doubt I will reply.

      1. Apehuman,
        I have found numerous gaps in your expression of your study methods and interpretation of results. My evidence was even more compelling than yours. The same gaps I see, were ones I didn’t want to see because the weight of the evidence to me was overwhelming. You are not presenting anything different or new to the subject that I have not already evaluated, tested and concluded or proven that other more mundane explanations are responsible.

        You may not respond but for the benefit of those reading who may wonder whether your data is conclusive I offer this: each one of the lines of argument you have given for the reason the sounds, sign and even visualization is directly connected to an undocumented creature, you presume to be bigfoot, is faulty. With more information, I am certain I could show you where you have made leaps across the gaps without connecting proper dots, which by the way, is absolutely necessary to make such an extraordinary claim.

        But let’s just take the first and most glaring. Your study site. Here are your words: “all of this in an area just not accessible to anyone, much less over so many trips and nights…nope”. This area you described a few paragraphs earlier as a site well known to you because of a college class field trip. So, you conclude, after your class has been taken there by a professor, (and how many other classes has he/she taken students) and after you personally have made over 30 trips, that it is not accessible to anyone. This is a common error made by many (including myself by the way) that the wilderness area you think is so devoid of humans precludes any possibility of human hoaxing or at least makes it extremely unlikely. It is simply not the case, as you have demonstrated yourself.

        But setting aside the hoaxing possibility, there is no evidence you have alluded to that even demands hoaxing. The entirety of your evidence as you described are common to most of the other areas I have researched and where reasonable and common conditions/events/wildlife, upon detailed examination, were found responsible.

        I challenge you to do what I did. Do not look at the cumulative weight of your evidence as compelling, but focus on each item separately. If you truly have evidence of an undocumented species, it will be worth it so you can be the hero and do what no one else has yet been able to do. Also, ask yourself what skill level you are at in interpreting wildlife and natural events such as storm damage on various types of vegetation. Did you grow up in the woods? Have you been under the tutelage of an expert tracker or naturalist? These are not ancillary issues. They are central to being able to discern subtleties for proper interpretation. Keep in mind you are only one person with very limited skill sets and experiences, even if you are the best tracker or sign reader in the world.

        Opening up your data to experts in representative fields who can review the samples and rule out the common before accepting the extraordinary will go a long way in getting perspective on your interpretation of the data.

        My guess, and yes it is an educated one in this unique and specific area, is that you have accumulated a lot of evidence of unrelated events, typical wildlife sign of that area, and human (typical) activity.

        Oh, and one other thing. Do not trust your eyes. They are not 100% and if they were accurate, look for other indicators to corroborate what you think you saw.

        Hope this is helpful to those truly looking for answers.

        Mike Nichols

        1. Apehuman, please do not listen to Mike Nichols. He is a hardline skeptic who does not believe in BF. Just ignore him and don’t try to answer his questions because you will only get into a long and involved argument that will just go nowhere fast.

        2. Mike, “So, you conclude, after your class has been taken there by a professor, (and how many other classes has he/she taken students) and after you personally have made over 30 trips, that it is not accessible to anyone. This is a common error made by many (including myself by the way) that the wilderness area you think is so devoid of humans precludes any possibility of human hoaxing or at least makes it extremely unlikely.”
          Mike, for all you know, which you don’t, The professor could have taken years to find this location. I know of this location, and even though I have been in that part of the state all of my life, I didn’t know of this location until about 2008. The exact location that apehuman is refering to. If you don’t know yourself, of how or why? Then how in the world can you personally even come to those silly conclusions?
          The leaps and bounds that you take, make you look and sound like a complete fool. 30 years out in the field taught you absolutely nothing.
          It’s actually a very sad thing to know this fact.
          I went out into the field with just a curiousity, and found an answer that you can’t even acknowledge as being possible.
          That, to me, is extremely sad.
          Your arguement belongs in the playground, and your 30 years was a complete waste. Because I didn’t go to school for any of this, but I got the answers with about 48 hours in the field.
          My 48 Hours against your 30 years.
          Amazing, in’it!

        3. Sorry just getting around to reading this. Mike I hold a BS in Bio-Ag Science with BA in Chemistry and also JD with specialty complex scientific litigation. Born on a farm, animal husbandry, wilderness camping/treks, equestrian, SW prehistory hobby, native ecosystems, and birding…. a resident of Arizona for over 40 years and intimate with many areas (I use area here with the same general meaning….within a 2million acre forest, the area I penetrate is insignificant…except…well our Bf friends frequent that spot too).
          I apologize for assuming greater knowledge on your part about the Arizona wilderness as revealed in your comments. I do understand scientific method and the limits of my research in terms of scientific certainty, etc. I also suggest that my work is significant on several levels, none of which will address your particular issues, and without actually reviewing the actual data it is difficult for you to make a prudent response. Sorry, I haven’t made that available to you, but I think I did preface with that caveat: .
          I am not sure I will make the data available for some time either, as from what I can tell it serves no timely purpose. So, I can’t do much here to help your “unbelief.” I suggest you spend some more time in the wilderness with the purpose of looking for Bigfoot, and eliminating all those wilderness anomolies. Perhaps read Robert Morgan’s “Bigfoot Observers Field Guide” to prepare yourself beforehand, become familiar with the night sounds and resident species…Let us know when you have your own data!

  5. Is it possible samples were contaminated during analysis by a technician of Franco-Cantabrian ancestry? As someone who used to do a lot of DNA analysis as an occupation, that would be the first question I’d have.

  6. Just off-the-cuff (I don’t have time for much more computer time this weekend OR all next week) … this possibility was considered at the time I was involved. To my knowledge, three mito sequences of those involved to some degree or another were run. I saw two of these three (not Melba’s) personally, including my own.

    Melba is the only one of the three who had potentially direct contact with both of the two first samples, at least up to the time there were sent elsewhere for sequencing. She told me she had “Native American” mito, which is NOT any form of Haplogroup H*. While I cannot confirm this, I have no reason not to believe her on this score.

    The second person was involved with furnishing Sample #2. This person’s mito was NOT from Haplo Group H*.

    The third one was me; I am definitely from Haplo Group H*. However, my polymorphisms were not the same as the obvious polymorphisms from either Sample 1 or Sample 2 (polymorphisms according to the literature, not me). Further, the polymorphisms were not even all the same between Samples 1 and 2 — this is how I was able to “pinpoint” the time of existence of the so-called “Mito-Eve” of the two purported sasquai @ some 15,000 years ago (plus or minus a helluva lot). While I’d imagine my own mito Eve would be from the same time frame, I’m pretty sure I’m not a sasquatch myself (especially on account of my lack of body hair, not to speak of a midtarsal break), so my mito Eve was likely a different Cro Magnon woman (if that is what they are called from that period of time?). Last but not least, I only SAW Sample 1 – never did I even see Sample 2. I touched neither, of course.

    That means that the last possibility would be the actual DNA lab that these two samples were sent to, which was a lab that tested LOTS of these kinds of sample, somewhere in the U.S. but I don’t know the name of it. While I doubt that contamination took place at this lab (since they do SO many of these, though ONLY for Homo sapiens sapiens), I suppose this is possible. Also, this lab could have messed up on their primers here and there, but I really doubt this is the case for various reasons.

    Still, if contamination DID take place on one of the two samples (say) and not the other, then the odds of the extent of the mito match are still only 2% or 3%.

    I performed the statistical calculations in three ways. All three ways came out around 2% chance of a random contamination or mistake, so I said 3% just in case I made a genuine mistake on all three methods of calculation. The last remaining possibility is a truly coordinated hoax – which, knowing the players somewhat – is MUCH less than a 2% possibility. Probably zero percent. They are simply not knowledgeable enough about mito DNA to find two modern humans with such a good match a priori.

    Don’t forget, too, that the above ONLY addresses the female mito origins of the two (contaminated or not) samples @ some 15,000 years ago. The entire nature of these two creatures, if they are genuine sasquai, is NOT hereby determined, also assuming that sasquatch is a hybrid. I don’t know this for sure either; I’m just speculating with a little, but very little, actual information to back this hypothesis up.

    Finally, it may turn out that the sasquai (or at least these two) are feral humans or some kind of ancient Homo sapiens form, but I sincerely doubt it.

    More next week, folks … no more time for this.

    Richard Stubstad

  7. Back to the real issue. Richard, you have not even attempted to address the objection of the absence of increasing quantity and quality of photographic evidence in relationship to increasing technical sophistication and monitoring.

    I saw your post on the BFF about Dr. Ketchum’s problems and your idea of getting better scientists involved to independently work with the samples. No scientist worth his salt is going to get involved in light of the serious objection of lack of corroborative image data. And you have avoided it entirely. Until you develop a plausible hypothesis that satisfactorily addresses a species ability to avoid cameras taking into consideration a population whose numbers are necessarily relatively high to adequately maintain viability and stability, there is not a snowball’s chance in a very hot place that your hope will be realized. And shape-shifting as a serious explanation probably won’t get far.

    By the way, what is your estimate of the North American population of what you are calling sasqui?

    1. OK, Mike, I’ll have a go at your post:

      I am truly not a bigfoot expert. I am an engineer and statistician, and I still don’t necessarily “believe” in sasquatch; I had my interest perked when I thought about the idea of using DNA; something that wasn’t available until recently (say, after around 2000).

      I’ve never seen a sasquatch, and I haven’t analyzed any data about the extent of their population–even assuming they actually exist. The REAL experts: Meldrum thinks there are 600 – 800 in North America. Most others think 3,000 – 5,000 continent-wide. Adrian Erickson believes that a somewhat higher poplulation exists perhaps, but very thinly poplulated in many “pockets” throughout the USA and Canada.

      I’ve never seen either a sasquatch or a wolverine, so based on that alone, I really don’t have a clue about either. You can look this up–try the BFRO; I think they may be as good as any about a population estimate.

      If they exist at all once again, I think they remain relatively undetected by photographic equipment because:

      1) Their nighttime vision & other senses are reportedly excellent. They are probably smart enough to see a camera and try to avoid such objects (even if something they “see” isn’t a camera but some other mechanical object that emits waves (for example IR signals).

      2) I have seen only three mito sequences; for various reasons, I believe at least two of these were from real-life sasquai. These two came out showing a mitochondrial Eve from southern Europe from around 15,000 years ago. Ergo, the creature may be at least partly human–in my view a hybrid, but I have no evidence to support this hypothesis. That’s what I’m trying to get.

      3) Assuming for the sake of argument then that the sasquai are partly human, clearly if I was both younger and had better senses than non-feral humans (modern humans), I could avoid everyone because I’m just as smart (or nearly so) as my human “cousins” so to speak. Every potentially credible account I have ever heard indicates that they know fully well wan’t going on around them, even at night.

      4) Also assuming they are partly human, any photograph records could be either a modern human in disguise or a sasquatch not in disguise. That is why the P-G film is so controverial. It could well be either a human in disguise (a monkey suit) or a real “Patty”. So I do believe that many–but certainly not all–of the photographic evidence is of real-life sasquai. Again, assuming they exist in the first place.

      5) I agree with you that shape-shifting and/or UFO deliveries of the sasquai are not tenable. The DNA of such creatures–if they exist at all–would most likely be entirely different from ours, even on the mito side.

      6) In terms of species “viability”, I have seen some–not a lot–of evidence that in spite of their relatively low numbers, they have as much of a biodiversity as us modern humans. I don’t know how they pulled this off, but my guess (NOT KNOWLEDGE !) is that they mate with Homo sapien females from time to time–if and when they have the chance. Meaning: when the small head takes over.

      I believe that Dr. Ketchum and probably one or two other labs already DO have convincing evidence of the existence of the sasquai. I don’t have that at all (only circumstantial evidence), and anyone working in a vacuum so to speak like Dr. Ketchum will eventually only create more controversy. If these creatures exist, many samples will have to be INDEPENDENTLY tested by many labs. That is what I am trying to accomplish. I can arrange for obtaining more samples–at least some of which will most likely be the “real deal”. We just have to get them tested, which costs a small fortune to be done convincingly to the scientific community–just like they did with the two Denisova Cave samples.

      Actually, this project will be easier because ALL of the samples I can get are relatively fresh–sometimes within days or weeks of the sample being obtained.

      Richard Stubstad

      1. Hi Richard, I would not argue anymore with Mike here. Mike is a scofftic or skeptic of whatever they are. He has gone over to the other side and there is no hope for him until we get some better proof than we have now.

        Arguing with these guys is pointless as their minds are completely made up and no evidence can change their way of thinking. Even the finest BF video or photo will not change their minds, because it is never going to be good enough. As you can see, even the PGF is not good enough for him, so therefore no video or photo is ever going to be good enough. Of course, BF looks like a “guy in a monkey suit” even under the best conditions, so BF videos and photos will always look like some dude in a monkey suit. There is no getting around this fact. Further, since BF looks like a man, it will always be much easier to hoax a BF media than to hoax any other animal. These are pitfalls that will never be overcome. Even after discovery, it will still be very hard to tell real BF media from hoaxes, and hoaxes will continue even after discovery, probably more than ever as a matter of fact.

        I refuse to engage with the Mikes of the world and I would advise you to too. They’re just looking for an argument.

        The evolution of Mikes is easy to understand. They get involved in BF thinking it will soon be proven but proof is never forthcoming. In fact, it’s always just around the corner, but it still seems to never show up. It doesn’t make any sense, and after a bit, believers just throw up their hands and give up and go over to the skeptic side. It will all end when we get proof, but until then, we have to deal with this reality.

        1. I think Richard is big enough to speak for himself and so am I. You twisted his words and mine. He never claimed to be a “believer” and if proof comes it will be because of scientific skepticism, not by off-the-cuff dismissal of evidence either pro or con. I’ve tried as a biologist to demonstrate why mainstream science will not even consider supposed “proof” and provide you with the weakest link so Richard and others can be begin to understand the depth of the problem and postulate a defensible hypothesis to overcome it (besides shape-shifting). Dismissal doesn’t get there.

          Let me correct your particularly egregious error in the last paragraph. I got involved because I wanted to get to the bottom of it. Did they exist or not and what is the evidence. When all of my investigations turned out to be hoax (and very elaborate hoaxing by the way) or misidentification of known animals, I let the evidence speak for itself.

          The question I posed is does Richard want to get to the bottom of it. You make it pretty clear your position.

          And as far as the PGF, I suggest you read this thread: . and pay particular attention to Roger Patterson’s motive as discovered by Greg Long in an interview with Harvey Anderson (check out post no. 878 on page 30).

    2. I guess, and guess is operative word here…that Arizona is home to at least 100. I base that on six or seven areas I know that witnesses make repeated reports about, and the deduced belief that they live in family groups .so perhaps an average of four members. 4 times 7 is 28….. and our reports come only from those areas with some accessibility to humans..just a fraction of our state….
      …the state with only 18% privately held land…. so tripling that number doesn’t seem far fetched.
      Say an average for a state with the type of wilderness available…and that applies to most of the western states…

      it is quite easy to envision numbers in the 5000 and up range…
      But, of course if you are struggling with the idea of just one…

      Seriously Mike, my best recommendation is find your own “spot’ based on accessibility to you…so you can make repeat trips and get to know your area well.. so any changes are obvious to you and you become familiar with that areas residents. Do apply Morgan’s ideas with faith. Forget the cameras, etc.. you just need to get to a place where you know..or not. Can’t be basing this deep a burn on someone’s prank..or data collection.

      I personally believe that BF’s are among us more than we realize as we discard or deny the data….a type of scientific bias every bit as dangerous as Bigfootitis….

      elevation is a plus, but not required. Find a campsite at a saddle btw peaks…one that get some human traffic, but not too much…a site that might already have a few cagey “Camp Bigfoots” skilled at dipping in to check on the new potential meals (I mean leftovers, not people!) and perhaps even a bit of entertainment….and announce your arrival…

      I see you have a history with BFRO….. and a negative recollection…don’t worry, that’s not really special….many have issues with BFRO or the style… I see finally on thier website they say (in awe?) the NM 2011 expedition figured out not to act like hunters, but campers and walla…a Thermal image…

      go out wont trust anyone else..that’s why i did.

  8. Richard,
    I was a former investigator with BFRO and communicated frequently with Jeff Meldrum. I was kicked out of the BFRO for not sharing my evidence (that turned out later to have been elaborately hoaxed by a con-artist). Moneymaker wanted access to it badly because he didn’t, after all this time of searching, have any of his own.

    Meldrum’s numbers for N.A. are actually higher than that and are in the range of about 2,000. The figures you quoted are for the forests of the Pacific Northwest.

    The point is, there is absolutely no evidence outside of foot prints (which can be, have been and are being faked) upon which to base a population estimate. In fact, other than misidentifications and hoaxing there is really no evidence at all. Forget the Skookum cast, that is clearly evidence of elk bedding.

    Further, including the PGF, there are zero images of the so-called species that provide substantive detail which allow for independent analysis. So while I ask the pertinent question of evidence you simply repeat the fairy tale line Matt Moneymaker and others like to give that they are so much smarter and have such highly refined senses. Gee, it sounds interestingly similar to why no one has photographed Santa coming down the chimney – I mean the real Santa, not that guy with the fake beard and pillow-lined belly.

    There is no bigfoot DNA because there is no evidence of bigfoot. Which is why the DNA you allude to is…simply human. If I were you, I would turn my attention to those two bigfoot research groups you mentioned and find the common link. I smell a con-job.

    Enough said. I’ll leave you alone now.

    1. I disagree on the Skookum Cast. That is definitely a BF. There is no possible way that that could be an elk.

      I guess the problem is that you look at all the photo and video evidence and see it all as faked, hoaxed or misidentication. I see lots of excellent film where you see none, even thermal, night vision and trailcams.

      Problems is that BF looks so much like a man that it’s very hard to conclusively prove one way or another whether any purported video is of a BF or if it is some kind of a hoax. Even after we prove BF exists, and we will, of course, this problem will persist.

      We have 10’s of thousands of footprints, some extending for many miles, often out in the wildest of wildernesses. It makes no sense to posit hoaxers for all of these. It’s absurd. And quite of a few of the best footprints do not seem to be hoaxable at all unless you are an anatomist.

      The real theory that fails Occam’s, and fails it in the most pitiful and miserable way if you ask me, is the skeptic theory. It’s utterly ridiculous on so many levels I don’t even know where to start. The special pleading, convoluted reasoning, twists and warps of theory and thinking tangled as jungle vines getting stranger and stranger all the time, somersaulting here and there to try to cover for everything, is just laughable. It’s a joke, honestly. It really is.

      I would say that the best way to look at BF in terms of Occam’s is that there is a large undiscovered animal in the forests of North America.

      1. I can settle the question on the Skookum cast…
        why would a person spend an entire chapter of a book on an impression in soil that if a Bigfoot has absolutely no control sample with which to compare it?
        At least with the footprint we have many thousands….reported/photo’d/cast from all over the nation…at least they can be compared to ne another….

        but a BF body cast? What to compare to? So if an Elk expert looks at it and it compares favorably with the many Known Elk casts….how can one argue?

        I know that BF’s have fantastic mimicry ability b/c I was on the recieivng end of a fantastic, mind blowing “Serenade”.. I will however never convince a bio acoustical expert that any of my bird recordings are a BF w/o a video of the BF making the call…b/c the possibility for variation within a species..say a variation in call frequency or pattern, or even behavior, is more likely than a mimcry call of a species that is not recognized (also it isn’t mimicry if it varies too much….).

        Again – a lot of my data is not yet timely, except for…well BF hunter types because they know and listen….but the larger sleeping community of regular citizens (or internet BFers) is not yet awake…

        I am starting to panic about ketchum[s paper…too many rumors..

        check out Paulides little article in MUFON August ejournal… bit different tone than he uses in his books or blogs………but based on that the study still months away from publishing and it’s all about him…?

        enough already!

    1. Hi Robert…and I wont try and dissuade you…my point was that even if a body impression, the other data we have does little to bolster that conclusion. It’s an isolated data point…and as long as there are Elk experts (and there is one that denounces this impression as just an Elk lay) that say it’s Elk…it becomes just about impossible to defend…so why try in a book? That kind of data would benefit from other “body impressions” that aren’t wiped away as “elk”…and then so the reference to mimicry or night birds…w/o a video of a BF making the call…we will find a way to fit that data into known birds…
      So I am speaking more to the reality of data comparison and how far can we push it w/o a recognized species….and not too far unfortunately.
      I am as willing to believe it is a body impression of a BF as that of an Elk. Although, I recall a discussion in that book…”smart, but not that smart.” referring to the BF being “tricked” to get at an orange in a mud pile…. now that is a conclusory leap….
      also, LOL, glad to see you still reading this stuff. I would say you are “hooked.”.. Awfully quiet out there in BF land/internet….and Paulides August post in MUFON journal is an interesting “pre-release?” Or prep for his third book..moving into more sensational territory> What I did notice in the article was no reference to any other Bigfooters or even Ketchum…..guess it depends on the forum what one can say?

  9. The interesting thing about the two of you (Mike & Robert) is that both of you are 100% sure of your respective but diametrically opposed positions on the existence of the sasquai. I’m somewhere in between; obviously closer to Robert’s position (or belief) but still not “scientifically” convinced–even though I have more data to go on that most folks do.

    Re. the P-G film; I did read Greg Long’s entire (hardback) book; before I read it, I was about 50-50 on its validity based on a WHOLE lot of reading. After I read it, I was (say) 70-30 in FAVOR of it being the “real deal”. This is because I felt the Greg Long book mainly consisted of a personal attack on the integrity and honesty of Patterson, as if that would prove to me that he hoaxed the whole thing. Based on several conversations between Adrian Erickson and Bob Gimlin, I would tend to go with the word of Bob Gimlin (since he was actually there) before I’d believe either Patterson or Greg Long. Both of the latter had a clear agenda, while Bob Gimlin to me “feels” credible by comparison.

    Assuming for a moment that Gimlin isn’t lying about the the general gist of the events of that day in October 1967, I think he has been unfairly attacked and treated by practically everyone, including you, Mike.

    The fact is, folks–we don’t have any DNA sample from that creature (Patty) so we will NEVER know for sure–one way or the other. At this point, it’s all hearsay and a disproportionate amount of analysis for a single 59 second 16-mm film from 1969 !


    Richard Stubstad

    1. Thank you for shedding some light on why you feel the way you do about the subject. I only recently came to the definitive conclusion that bf do not exist. I leave open the possibility of some time of feral human or wildman or shaman or genetically altered human that some people are seeing.

      But the reason I am now convinced that there is no breeding population of ape-like bi-pedal giant is because of the many people I have exposed who have hoaxed, been hoaxed or simply didn’t know how to read sign in the woods. It is literally astounding to find out just how gullible even professional people can be.

      The key to PGF is the circumstances. There are so many red flags and no other convincing or similar photography in over 44 years of many including myself intensively searching. When I experimented with the stride that is when I knew for certain it was hoaxed. I cannot provide analytical proof, but I can tell you that I know human nature. That is why I feel certain. And if PGF goes, it all goes.

      Nonetheless, I wish you well in your pursuit. Just be open to the high probability of hoax. It will save you many a pang.

  10. Mike:

    I am also open to the possibility of sasquatch being a type of feral (or wild) human. I only said that it is unlikely–again assuming they even exist–that they are 100% Homo sapiens. Since I haven’t seen very much nuDNA evidence, I simply don’t know that part of the DNA equation, one way or the other.

    I am well aware of the many hoaxes out there. One of my good friends, “Java” Bob Schmalzbach, was “assigned” by Tom Biscardi to fetch that Georgia hoaxed event–the stuffed monkey suit in a huge freezer–and drive it to a “safe house” in Wisconsin, I believe. Talk about pain! He didn’t find out it was a hoax until they managed to thaw the thing out & the found out (first) that the feet were RUBBER ! Now, YOU talk about PAIN.

    JB is no longer associated with Biscardi, needless to say.

    One reason I’m pretty anxious to get the DNA tested elsewhere is that: 1) I’m pretty sure that the way Dr. Ketchum is going about this (with the “help” of her several attorneys), I believe her “findings” will lead to even more controversy and prove nothing much at all to serious folks like yourself (let alone a geneticist); 2) I’m pretty sick now, with prostate cancer, and I’d really like to see something definitive before I die–one way or the other; 3) I am not “set” on the “true” outcome of the DNA study, I only want the final outcome.

    My remaining lifespan is more likely measured in months, not years–although I’m doing pretty well right now. So, yes, if I appear to be a bit impatient, well indeed I am !


    1. Thanks again for your candidness, openness and courage to share your private affairs. I have left chasing phantoms for more pressing matters. I will say a prayer for you and I trust you will experience comfort and peace through this trying ordeal.


  11. Richard, Tell us how you are Associated with Biscardi or have been in the past?

    Then tell us what lead you to leave Biscardi? The Truth!

    Did you once plan on investing with the Person you now call a HOAXER or was that all a con job so you and JB could take him for a ride?

    Did you not only only, not invest, but back out of your friendship with him, because you saw a way to make money off of what you thought was still Biscardi’s evidence???

    Are you also saying that You, JavaBob and Adrian Erickson, came up with the Idea for Melba Ketchum’s DNA study? That this study wasn’t even her IDEA?

    I thought the study has been going on 3 years, and your evidence was only added to it in late 2009? That’s less then Two years?

    Mike BF is real, I have seen him or her, from 20′ away in broad daylight! What it is I don’t know, but what it is not is FAKE.

    These guys are FAKE!

    Sasquai Debunker

    1. Looks like your questions are rather pointed but I have already figured out this whole project is based on fakery or chicanery of one type of another. Are you at least willing to state your name? At 20′ with the size these creatures are supposed to be and in broad daylight you really couldn’t tell its gender?. But perhaps it had its back to you. At that distance you would know precisely its location so you could track it and find ample evidence (prints, hair, scat). Care to share any of that data you collected?

      It is a funny thing how all of the people who had similar claims that I spoke to also did not have any other evidence that it was actually where they said it was. 7-8 foot tall, 400-800 lbs. but no prints, no hair, no scat. You will be no different. And the reason? Because figments of people’s imaginations do not leave evidence. And hoaxer’s evidence can and will be proven fake.

      Sorry chum, not buying it.

      Mike Nichols

    1. I’m fascinated, and disappointed, and entertained, all at once, at how emotional and upset people get about this topic. I recently saw a documentary probing why humans have civilization while apes do not. One of the key attributes, according to this PBS documentary, is that humans control their emotions, via special neural mechanisms, enough to work together and solve problems. That may be a good model for people to consider when discussing the Sasquatch. Just a humble thought. Sorry if I’m being preachy. I’m just not in the mood for a “Housewives of Sasquatch County” episode with potentially exciting DNA evidence percolating for once, just out of reach. 🙂

      Also, not engaging with Skeptics, refusing to speak with them, doesn’t build confidence. You’ll end up with an insular community of believers begin to accept lower and lower quality evidence as indicative of the gospel truth. I’m not saying that’s the case now, but it’s a slippery slope, so I’d be cautious.

      Honestly, that said, my heart is with the existence of the Sasquatch, but my head is still struggling. I was an anthropology major at a good University and I was discouraged from belief by exacting, academically rigorous professors. But I still hoped (and continue to hope) for evidence to support my boyhood fancy–just loved that Leonard Nimoy In Search Of episode. But that evidence is pretty thin, it seems. I will continue to keep an open mind in light of this new DNA evidence. However, the DNA data discussed here, though very interesting, doesn’t point to anything other than human beings, as far as I can tell. But I still hope that nuclear DNA will tip the scales in favor of “The Big Man.” I’ve read other rumors that the nuDNA is 37% between us and a chimp (750 vs. 2000 polymorphisms.) But that’s just rumor, isn’t it?

      The lack of photographic evidence that Mike talks about does concern me. Patterson is interesting for sure. I love that footage. But it seems that half the experts who view it believe it’s authentic and the other half think it’s a hoax. How can I draw conclusions from that? It’s therefore inconclusive. The other videos are just garbage. I’m sorry, but they are either taken from a great distance or they are blurry. They all look like people to me. They aren’t definitive in the least.

      Yes, it’s possible that the Sasquatch is clever and talented and sensitive and can avoid cameras. I do HOPE that’s true. But thinking about it, would all of them be that way? Even the frisky, daring care-free young ones? Even the extra curious bright ones? Even the doddering nearly senile or near death ones? Even the depressed “I don’t give a damn about life anymore” ones? Even the hungry, desperate “I’ve got to catch something to eat or I’m going to pass out” ones? I could go on. But the main idea is that variation and random chance suggest that any population will have outliars who, over time, drop the ball and mess up. So, even if it’s a big sasquatch no no to get photographed, a few of them would, logically, end up getting photographed. And I mean they’d end up in a high quality close-up photographs, not just the contenders for the Blobsquatch awards photographs we are all too familiar with.

      If there are high quality photos, I’d love to see them. And I’d welcome them. I look forward to them. Please let me know about them and where I can see them. I hope you are right, but I fear you are not.

      I hope I haven’t offended anyone. I do hope for the best with this new DNA evidence. I love the debate, when it’s not a glorified tantrum. I love the evidence, when it’s compelling and realistically analyzed. Good luck finding it!

      1. Personally, I have seen some “high-quality” video takes; many of which were connected to some of the DNA samples I used to work on. Of course, today especially these video takes could have been hoaxed or manipulated. So taken alone, these videos are not worth a whole lot. To both me and the owners of these videos, they are only worth something when I see the DNA evidence from either the very creature(s) in the videos or one of their “family” (most of these video sites are called “habituation” sites, where a single family reported sasquai are habituating).

        Personally, I’m waiting for some more DNA evidence before reaching any definitive conclusions. In fact, I’m hoping to start up yet another, perhaps more credible, DNA study that, in the end, will either support or reject Dr. Ketchum’s study data, along with other concurrent, ongoing studies.

        None of the other circumstantial evidence, as Mike Nichols has pointed out, can stand up on its own.

        Richard Stubstad

      2. @Mass. I concur. As far as photographs have you checked out the ‘Jacobs Creature’ photos? No one can tell me that thats a bear. Its obviously a biped and sure looks real, imho.

  12. Something that may be relevant to the Mitochondrial DNA being 100% human, a reason it was originally thought that humans did NOT interbreed with Neanderthals is that our Mitochondrial line has NO Neanderthal DNA, just human, but after full analysis it was found homo sapiens with the exception of isolated sub-saharan african groups have 2-4% Neanderthal DNA, highest levels from French and Asian anscestry (closest to 4%), a theory is that because of the structure of their pelvis, Neand. Females couldn’t birth mixed breed children, but wider pelvised humans could, leaving us only human Mitochondrial (mothers-side)DNA. Could it be possible that we have a common homo-sapien Mitochondrial source from which Sasquach has evolved AWAY? Seems counter intuitive, but given their living conditions, maybe not so much.
    I truly hope this is not some hoax, I would love to learn about this creatures’ genetic and anthropological origins!

    1. Sandra:

      Right on in all respects. My sentiments exactly. In fact I have a new entry in with one possible hypothesis supporting the same theory.

      It now looks like Melba Ketchum blow it yet again. I know she has the goods; she’s just gone too far with her own pet hypothesis — with no scientifically verifiable hypotheses, I would guess. Like putting a round peg into a square hole.

      Whether she is right or wrong about her hypothesis is immaterial. It has to be 100% supportable and testable by other scientiwsts and not speculative. In scientific, peer-reviewed papers, hypotheses have no place. Only DNA-based facts such as those you have listed above about Neandertals. The same goes for Denisovans, albeit from a different modern human population subset (Mellenasians only).

      Too bad; I was pulling for her.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)