Bear Hunter Interview Part 2: More Outrageous Bigfoot Allegations and Revelations

Here is the second part of my interview with a fellow I will call Bear Hunter. The widely read first part is here.

It deals with a wide range of subjects, including why we have a hard time getting good trailcam videos of Bigfoots, Bigfoots burying their dead in peat bogs, Bigfoot gravediggers who dug up a Bigfoot grave and found a skeleton of a Bigfoot hand, a trapper who is more or less living with a group of Bigfoots, an wilderness area with a huge number of disappearances that may be Bigfoot-related, and most outrageously of all, a man who claims that he was kidnapped by Bigfoots and  taken to their lair where they tried to force him to mate with a female Bigfoot a la the famous Albert Ostman story.

I think we ought to send someone up to Canada to try to find the guy who is reporting the Albert Ostman Redux story. At the very least, it deserves to be investigated.

RL: Do you think Bigfoots avoid trailcams? Some people say that they avoid those cameras.

BH: They do avoid them as a matter of fact. They can hear the cams. The cams give off a lot of noise. It’s at a low frequency that humans can’t hear, but the Bigfoots can hear it. Other animals can hear it too, but they are not as wary as Bigfoots. For instance, some of your great big trophy deer won’t go near one. Bigfoots can hear them for quite a ways away, and they just stay away from them. The manufacturers know that the cams give off a lot of noise, and they are working now to reduce the noise that they give off.

RL: What do you think Bigfoots do with their dead? I say they bury them.

BH: They do bury their dead. In Canada, they bury their dead in peat bogs. These bogs are funny places, sort of like swamps, but they are almost like quicksand. You can sink down and get trapped and die in them if you are not careful. I know some guys who dug up a bog and found some Bigfoot bones. They put all the bones together and ended up with a Bigfoot hand skeleton.

RL: Why don’t they go public with it?

BH: You have to understand the way these guys are. These types…they just don’t care. They don’t care about getting famous or going public or anything like that. They are outside of all of that. These guys who found the skeleton have a cabin way back in the woods that they use for recreation. The Bigfoot hand skeleton is there, mounted on a piece of wood. They have a few beers, get drunk, bring this thing out and laugh about it and make jokes. That’s all they want to do with it.

RL: Are you aware of any habituation stories we haven’t heard about yet?

BH: There is a guy in British Colombia, a trapper who lives way out in the woods. He’s supposedly totally habituated some Bigfoots. He’s more or less living with them in a sense. He sees them every single day.

RL: What do you think of the Albert Ostman story? Is it true?

BH: It’s a true story. What’s even more strange is that there is a fellow up in British Colombia, a trapper, who has a similar story. He was talking to a friend of mine, telling him about Bigfoots, and then the trapper mentions that he got kidnapped by Bigfoots once! My friend said that at that point, he stopped listening to the guy, forget it.

The guy said a Bigfoot kidnapped him and took him back to a cave where the Bigfoots were living and tried to force the guy to have sex with a female Bigfoot! Just like the Albert Ostman story, no? So it looks like maybe Bigfoots do kidnap humans sometimes for breeding purposes.

RL: Is this guy who got kidnapped by the Bigfoots for breeding the same as the guy who is living in a habituation situation with the Bigfoots?

BH: He may well be. They are both trappers in British Colombia living way out in the woods.

You know, we also have people in Canada who disappear on a regular basis. There is one area of British Colombia where 21 people have vanished without a trace over many years. It’s also an area with many Bigfoot sightings. A lot of people are scared to go in there. I know a lot of outdoorsmen who refuse to go anywhere near that area. It seems like there is something creepy going on there. I am wondering if the Bigfoots are behind the disappearances, and if any of this involves kidnapping humans for breeding purposes.

Check out Bigfoot Forums for the best Bigfoot discussion on the web.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

24 thoughts on “Bear Hunter Interview Part 2: More Outrageous Bigfoot Allegations and Revelations”

  1. Wow, KW is really putting a lot on the line w/ his reputation. I have to ask, did he know that it would be likely his identity would be uncovered as a result of these interviews, and if so, to what objective?

  2. Understood .. I’m just somewhat puzzled as to what benefit it would be to him for his identity to be known, and in light of your comment, what point there was in starting off with anonymity in the first place.

  3. Would you happen to know more specifically? SW BC is a pretty vast area which includes Vancouver.

    It would have to be a relatively small, perhaps the size of a large national park, wouldn’t it?

    Good series on the BF, by the way.

  4. Mike (Nichols):

    Picking up on the thread in the first “bigfoot kill” interview with the bear hunter, here we go!

    First, if you don’t mind I’d like to establish whether either of us have any financial vested interests in supporting our respective points, as they may be.

    I am a Civil Engineer by trade, and I happen to use a lot of statistics in many of my projects, which are generally of the applied research type, regarding pavements and pavement management. My interest in sasquatch was absolutely zero (in fact you could have called me a skeptic before August, 2009). If you look on my Home Page at:

    you can read all about it in my 3rd person bio.

    I don’t make any money from my “hobby”–sasquatch (or not). Quite to the contrary, as is the case with most of us–skeptic or otherwise.

    I earn my living by working 30 hours/week & drawing social security, as does my wife, who is from Denmark–where I lived for about 10 out of my 69 years of life. I am fighting advanced prostate cancer, which is the main reason I am still working (for the insurance).

    I would say my free-time hobbies are: family; fishing; and now sasquatch DNA, probably in that order. I have no vested interest in this DNA research coming out as I expect it will–scientific substantiation of the existence of what is known as sasquatch–whatever that may be (feral human; hybrid; ancient hominid; etc.). I would thugh like to find out–one way or the other–before I put away my wooden shoes, as they say in Danish.

    More details & arguments later … over to you, now, Mike.


    1. No financial interest in my pursuit. It has only cost me. Haven’t made a dime and never intended to when I set up my web site as an ancillary means of trying to get to the bottom of the mystery. I am an environmental biologist by degree and an environmental consultant by training with expertise in environmental assessments. I took this on as a hobby in 2006 to find out for myself after researching the subject around that same time period.

      What I found over and over again were people sincere but sincerely misinterpreting: sounds (knocks, grunts, moans, whoops), prints and photographs/videos as evidence of sasquatch with no corroborating evidence. Identical to the “Finding Bigfoot” series. After 6 episodes, not one (1) bigfoot was found. When you explore each particular piece of evidence it eventually breaks down to no evidence. Many who believe in its’ existence, use this cumulative “data” as substantial evidence.

      I have spoken personally with many people who have “compelling” stories much like mine. But as I discovered after detailed analysis and questioning, I was wrong and some of them upon detailed investigation were proved wrong as well. Not wrong in what they think they saw or heard but in their interpretation. What many people just cannot seem to grasp is just how detailed and involved some hoaxes are and what variety of sounds common creatures can make. I have recordings for example of a horse coughing which sounds just like tree knocks.

      Again, the biggest problem with the theory is related to population dynamics. Not a single “expert” or scientist studying the phenomena has suggested a population throughout the U.S. as less than in the thousands. This would be expected for a viable population. Let’s take Bobo Fay on “Finding Bigfoot” as an example. He claims he saw one that was 10 foot tall. That would equate to a creature with at least an 18″ foot having a weight of approximately 500 – 1000 lbs or more. If only 10% of the population consisted of ones this size with a modest population estimate of 2000 individuals, this would mean there are 200, 10 foot bigfoots running around forests of N.A. A creature this size would leave prints or trails and could be tracked quite readily, particularly as the suggested habitat involves swamps, creeks and other low-lying and saturated floodplain areas. Yet, no long pathways or trackways show up that can’t be ruled out as hoaxes.

      There are many other problems with the natural history of these creatures that has been developed by those “in the know” such as those on the series I mentioned. Notice how often you hear them mention things like “we know bigfoots are nocturnal and that they will call back or knock on wood when we call to them” without the slightest bit of evidence to back it up. There is a corporate knowledge of the behavior that is shared by these believers that is left uncriticized and accepted simply because they know it to be so. Just exactly how do you know it?

      I would love for these things to be real, but there is simply no evidence that can hold up to scientific scrutiny.

  5. Mike:

    Thanks for your reply, albeit a bit belated. On that score at least we are 100% alike. Both of us have other more pressing responsibilites, as we can see!

    OK on your background etc. too. In terms of sasquatch investigations you are certainly more experienced than I am. However in terms of looking at the issue through “DNA glasses” afresh (I only considered the possibility of its existence since the fall of 2009), I probably have a leg up on you.

    Still, since you are talking about properly vetting field experience, sightings, circumstantial evidence, etc., I am happy to start with that. Therefore, Mike, I’d like to take one type of evidence at a time, if you don’t mind. Otherwise the discussion gets too lengthy and I for one will have a tendency to gloss over details due to my other time commitments, OK?

    The first bit of evidence that interested me after I read the first book on the subject in 2009–Legend Meets Science by Meldrum–was footprints. I don’t know how to reproduce the graphics from that book, and as it turns out from other sources, but the short version of the graphics is this:

    After “vetting” what the researchers felt were false footprints (including those left by Ray Wallace & Jerry Crew in the 1950’s), there have been several statistical plots of footprint lengths, widths, and length vs width ratios made of hundreds of “viable” footprints. In each case, a dual-peaked “Gaussian” normal distribution is found, presumably with the 15″ peak being the adult female sasquatch and the 17″ or so peak being the adult male sasquatch.

    Furthermore, many of these footprints have dermal ridges.

    It is my understanding that these dermal ridges are difficult indeed to fake (although not impossible). It is also difficult to imagine that an army of podiatrists have stormed around the USA and Canada, in each and every “verified” case of footprints, and ended up coordinating the evidence to hide the fact that both the lengths, widths, and length:width ratios were carefully distributed to prove the existence of sasquatch. And all for no financial gain that I can see anyway.

    I would think these hoax-capable podiatrists & other so-called footprint experts couldn’t have pulled this one off, even if they tried?

    What think you, old buddy?

    Richard Stubstad

  6. Thanks Richard for really getting to the heart of the matter. Eventually I would like to write a book which will be chock full of illustrations and photographs of fakeries (made up the word I think), case studies of misidentifications and other outright hoaxes that I have personally witinessed and uncovered…in due time. So forgive me for not sharing any of those photos at this time.

    Some of the tracks that I found (along with a buddy) were identical to the supposed length/width ratios, had a midtarsal break and contained dermal ridges (where the substrate allowed for that detail). I took some of my best casts to one of the best podiatrists in south Florida and after spending some time examining one in particular and allowing her to view the videos of the prints in situ, she and her assistant were quite impressed. Dr. Meldrum was also impressed enough to write a letter for our purposes of conducting further research, especially with one print that showed a clear midtarsal break.

    There were many compelling aspects of the prints including toe marks, impressions into moss indicating it was not scraped out, very fresh impressions 2 1/2 inches deep into hard packed sand where we stomped with boots on immediately adjacent and virtually no impressions were left…in the middle of wilderness where entry and exit was extremely limited and where we did not, to our recollection, convey to the fellow who led us in, where we intended to go.

    Together with this print evidence was hair and scat evidence and wood knocks, tree weavings, claw marks and fresh tree breaks – all of which were accompanied by circumstances that virtually ruled out hoax.

    It was further accompanied by a sighting I had of a large bipedal extremely fast bigfoot-appearing figure at 1/3 of mile, with clear line of sight that upon discovery of me went into a cypress swamp with about 1 foot of water. I estimated the speed at about 25 mph. Another person with us at a later time also said he saw one during an episode where one appeared to have come into camp (prints left) and took pancakes I had put out for that purpose. Immediately after that incident while we were standing in the dark, intently listening, a baby javelina (which are not native to that area and which we had never seen any other individuals before or after) came right up to my feet and would not move without much prodding and shooing away (we were concerned that a mother was nearby). We thought this baby appeared to have been a pet and surmised that it might have been a gift offered in exchange for the pancakes. Heck, it made as much sense as anything else by that point.

    There were other events that occurred over this 3 month period that also seemed impossible to have been faked such as a large creature that made a loud “drumphhh” sound while I was in stealth surveillance mode with a recorder that did not have enough battery power to keep on continually, unfortunately (so I missed recording it). I ran after it and it ran through a swamp with 1 1/2 feet of water. Sounded bipedal to me.
    The evidence was nearly overwhelming and made it more difficult for me to believe that all of this could have been hoaxed than to believe it was by real creatures.

    There is actually much more I could tell you about this episode, so you can begin to appreciate the extreme amount of work that went into this hoax, but let this suffice for now. My point is that without doing the thorough work of ruling out the most logical, even expert woodsmen and professional field biologists can be fooled by dedicated, detailed hoaxers.

    The whole thing began to crumble after conducting a background check on the individual who showed us the tracks and let us listen to his recorded encounter with 4 individuals surrounding his camp. It wasn’t just the background check of course, but that helped set the stage for getting serious about questioning all of the data. After time, one by one, each piece of evidence fell apart. Which is another story all to itself.

    So, because prints can and have been faked (with great detail), and because bigfoot has not been documented to exist, the onus is on the owner of any cast or other evidence to conduct a thorough investigation of human manipulation before concluding a new species is responsible. I personally do not believe the kind of investigation necessary to completely rule out human manipulation (of prints) has been done by those asserting that such prints do in fact provide adequate evidence for such documentation.

    Well, there you have it. At least my word on it anyway, for whatever that may be worth at this time. Feel free to ask any questions about this if you feel so inclined.

  7. Very good, Mike. You have told us now about an incredibly detailed and well-coordinated hoax that MUST have involved a whole lot of work and effort on the part(s) of the hoax(ers).

    This is said somewhat tongue-in-cheek, Mike, but l now ask you: Have you hereby proven that ALL footprint evidence has been provided by veritable hoaxers? Now there is one down, and another thousand or two or three to go before I will accept your single Florida incident as proof the footprint record consists entirely (100%) of hoaxes or bearpaws.

    Personally, I have only seen purported sasquatch footprints once in my life (last year), together with photos from the same site of prints in the snow. While I still don’t know for sure whether these were hoaxed or not, I’m pretty sure they were not hoaxed–but certainly not positive. What I do know though is that we had a real “specimen” of sorts from the same site, or at least from the same person who owned the land there in the Southwestern USA and took the photos, and that this specimen tested 100% Homo sapiens sapiens on the mitochondrial side. I am not aware of the nuclear side, and frankly I’m not even sure that the nuclear side was ever tested by Dr. Ketchum after I left the project. Most likely, it was.

    Well, with such a mtDNA result, that would have about done it and proven to both me and Dr. Ketchum that the sample came from a modern human, not a sasquatch–notwithstanding the footprints and other circumstantial evidence, which were admittedly circumstantial at best.

    What happened next was that Sample 2 was submitted–by an entirely different crowd of researchers and from the opposite end of the country (the Northeast)–at almost the same time. The mito results for this sample were not identical to, but so close to Sample 1’s mito results that a “tribal” connection as it were not only couldn’t be ruled out, it couldn’t be interpreted in any other way: Both samples, whether human or sasquai, came from the same mitochondrial Eve some 15,000 years ago in sub-glacial Europe during the later Wisconsin Ice Age.

    This was still not “proof”, and at the time we (Dr. Ketchum, several other researchers and I) were moving on to more mito sequencing AND concurrent nuclear sequencing of ALL samples (maybe a dozen or so at the time), mainly based on the statistical “97% certainty level” I came up with that Samples 1 and 2 were neither coordinated hoaxes nor random North American modern humans.

    Unfortunately, Mike, I never got much further. I did get a bit further, DNA-wise, before I was abandoned for a host of political reasons, not the least of which that fact that I am a pretty open person and I felt it necessary and beneficial to the success of the project to discuss our results with our colleagues at the time in the research. Dr. Ketchum was simply too paranoid or distrusting of some or all of these folks, eventually including me, to continue our initial teamwork, even though it was going very, very well indeed.

    Lastly, Mike, I really don’t think that Dr. Ketchum would be going on and on with all “her” research on both the nuDNA and mtDNA if something compelling hasn’t popped up since then–especially on the nuDNA side. She may have questionable ethics and business practices, but she is definitely not stupid or a “hoaxer” by any stretch.

    MIke, the sasquatch “industry” if you can call us that is really on to something here, notwithstanding your experiences with these clever and stop-at-nothing hoaxers, particularly a clever group from Florida. I too have never seen any evidence from Florida that seems very compelling, plus the fact that I believe it is just too hot and humid down there in the summer to support any large, hairy “feral human” if that is what the sasquai in fact are.

    I still can’t figure out why these hoaxers do what they do–what IS there to gain? Usually you can follow the money. But where’s the money here? And why, with many of us being of European origin, were our ancestors totally disinterested in hoaxing when they lived in Europe (very few purported sightings there, at least not in Western Europe, even today) but when we move to the USA, suddenly we become a veritable army of hoaxers and podiatrists intent on hoaxing instead of fishing, hunting, or the good-old outdoors, etc.?

    Over to you, Mike … great fun, all of it!

    Richard Stubstad

  8. Richard,
    Thanks for filling me in on these details but your request was to stick to one bit of evidence at a time. Let’s get back to prints. You mistakenly, like so many others, build a stick man from the discussion. You asked about prints and I mentioned prints and the problem with prints. You, on the other hand, built a stick man by suggesting that my argument was that since I witnessed a detailed hoax involving detailed prints, all prints must be hoaxed. By the way, did you ever study logic (serious question)?

    That is not the argument I am making. What I am addressing is your point about prints with length to width ratios, lengths and dermal ridges. You are suggesting (I assume from your first comments above on this) that since there are multiple prints with these same characteristics that are outside of human dimensions/ratios and that many have these same characteristics, that it argues against human manipulation and that they (some? all?) must be genuine bigfoot prints.

    What I am saying as has been demonstrated by my own investigations, is that those same dimensions were repeated in my study area and were determined by me to be hoaxed. Many other human manipulations have been documented with similar features. Therefore, human manipulation must be thoroughly vetted before being hypothesized as being made from an unknown and highly unlikely candidate (scientifically).

    Let’s assume (in the absence of scientific documentation and in fact, counter to scientific presumptions) that bigfoot (whatever it is) does in fact exist. In order to separate the real data from false data, you must have a set of standards that allow you to do this and you must follow rigorous testing to rule out the more likely (hoax) than the less likely (real animal). Are you with me here? If you do not accept this premise, then you will never be able to know whether you are on the trail of a hoaxer or a bigfoot. Why on earth would you (not you personally) not want to know that? There is only one reason I can think of and that would be that you are afraid of finding out all of the evidence is human (non bigfoot) derived.

    So, let’s stick to the print evidence. If you are still with me on this point, there are some missing ingredients with the analysis of print data. Before going into that into more detail, I must know that you are with me. I am not trying to pin you into a corner, rather I am trying to establish some scientific ground rules that indicate you and I are on the same level. Because if there is disagreement here, there is no need for me to continue.

    And just as an aside since you brought it up – you are stating that Dr. Melba Ketchum, in your words “may have questionable ethics and business practices”. That is a pretty serious charge, and in my book is serious enough, if true, to discount this whole operation. Someone doing this line of work must have impeccable ethics and business practices or the legitimacy of the entire operation should be called into question. Actually for me, if true, simply confirms my firm suspicions of the illegitimacy of this affair anyway. But, that is just an aside, so no need to respond to this part.

    Mike Nichols

  9. Jeeze, Mike, how clever of you to call me on my own bit of digression. That’s why I absolutely love this discussion we’re having under the auspices of other interested parties. How entertaining, if nothing else.

    OK, you win; back to just footprints. I said I had seen “a few” footprints at a single sight (area), in fact in two different spots, maybe 1/4 mile apart from one-another. The quality of both was so poor (and the ground was/is so hard) that I didn’t even attempt to cast either one. Ergo, great fun and interesting, but no cigar–not by a long stretch.

    Since that’s the only first-hand, potential footprint evidence I’ve seen, up close and personal, all I can discuss intelligently is the footprint record that has been published and both of us are well aware of. Go ahead then and explain your theory to me that somehow a normal distribution of both foot length and width ensues (with one of these, of course we could expect the other). How would all these hoaxers pull this off across the country and Canada without saying to one-another–well, I’d better add an 11″ set of prints to fill in THAT gap here, for example? And why would this 1,500th hoaxer do this?

    And–who’s brilliant idea was it to utilize a different length/width ratio than ordinary humans have? The first hoaxer, and then everyone just followed suit because “they had nothing better to do”?

    Maybe Ray Crow did that–apparently he did in at least many instances–but why would literally everyone else across the USA and Canada, but nowhere else in any sufficient quantity whatsoever? Why do you think (eg.) Jeff Meldrum, John Green, and Grover Krantz are or were all wrong, while instead you, and ONLY you, are right in your respective analyses of these footprint data?

    I haven’t asked Peter Byrne, but now that I’m in contact with him, I think I will (on this score at least = footprints).

    Over to you again, Mike. I may not respond for a week–since I’m going on vacation to the only State in the Union that has absolutely no sasquatch sighting reports I know of–Hawaii ! That way, I won’t be hoaxed; that’s for sure.

    [I’m not telling you WHICH part of Hawaii I’m going to, just in case you decide to spend the money to come to the middle of the Pacific to hoax THIS old man!]


  10. Ok, I’ll address your points one at a time. Just like all of the other evidence, quantity means nothing. It is all about quality. Therefore, each print or set of prints stands or falls on its own.

    Jeff Meldrum has the largest collection I know of and it consists of 200 prints according to him (nowhere close to your 1,500). His coup de grace are two prints from the PGF site which is the subject of his published study naming the prints. So let’s start with the very best, the gold standard as it were and forget the lesser quality ones. If the very best example doesn’t pass muster no sense fooling with the others, agreed? By the way, I respect Jeff greatly and do not want to diminish in any way his accomplishments. I however at this point am not persuaded although I thought I was earlier because I believed in the existence of sasqui as you call them, from my own investigations. Therefore it was not hard for me to accept PGF.

    But after observing such a detailed hoax personally it made me question everything. The reason for doubts about PGF is the whole ball of wax. The whole story and the people involved. Plus my own experiment demonstrating that I could replicate the stride quite readily. In fact my first try was within an inch of the reported stride as attested by Bob Gimlin, yet not knowing until after I did it what that stride was! I remember shouting out load – it’s a hoax! For me, it was the icing on the cake. So, if a 6’2″ human (me) could readily do a compliant gait exaggerated walk replicating the stride almost exactly, why couldn’t a 6’5″ human (Bob Heironimus) do it even easier. In fact he passed a lie detector test so stating!

    Given those facts, the details of the prints require an even higher level of scrutiny that they would otherwise. In order then to accept these as from an undocumented creature, you absolutely need to scientifically demonstrate that a human COULD not make these tracks.

    What Jeff did is what I started to do with my evidence – try to fit a real creature into the evidence I had collected. But it is backward because it assumes the animal is real without any verified evidence to get you there. Keep in mind, using football lingo, the starting line for verified evidence is at the 1 yard line or actually the end zone marker, not the 25 yard line or further down the field. You have to start with the assumption that the evidence is hoaxed and then look for evidence of that hoaxing because you have yet to move the ball down the field. It would be different if you had at least one other piece of evidence that was verified by science. That is not the case. So you instead have to look for and rule out human manipulation. Not so easy because you weren’t there when it was done and you have to think of nearly endless possibilities.

    If I create a sensational recipe and don’t tell you how I did it but just show you some crumbs from the cake or whatever, you see how quickly you realize your handicap in trying to re-create it. Exactly what ingredients were used, how much of each, what mechanical proceses were used – was it whipped, mixed or something else? How long was it baked? What kind of oven was used? Was an oven even used?

    Your limits in imaging how it was done, does nothing to diminish my ability in doing it.

    So, in order to keep the ball from moving backward (back to football), you need to experiment with different materials and methods of fabricating prints to see if there is a way to duplicate the length width proportions, creating a mid-tarsal break thus establishing that a flexible prosthesis (or some other apparatus or mechanism) could not be not the source for characteristics appearing in the prints.

    Here is a close example: the crop circles. Remember those? All of these circles showing up all over the world with the same signature? Sound familiar to your argument above? How could all these hoaxers get together and know to do it with such similarity? So complex, so widespread, so difficult it seemed. Yet in the end, the technology was as simple as a 2 x 4 and a piece of rope.

    By the way, you are incorrect in your judgement that it is me against the Meldrums’, Byrnes’, Greenes’, Bindernagels’ and other fringe scientists/journalists. They are the outliers, not me. The burden is on the one making the extraordinary claims. The default position is that it is human manipulation. Not that bigfoot exists.

    So those making the claims have a huge handicap and are getting backed up behind the line of scrimmage which is at the end zone if they first do not attempt to hypothesis hoax and do the necessary legwork to show the implausibility of human manipulation by vigorous testing. After that, if successful, they can begin to try to move the ball in the forward position.

    To my knowledge this step has been overlooked. It is like the rabbit pulled out of the hat – once the trick is exposed everyone sees how simple it is. The burden is on the Meldrums, the Byrnes, the Bindernagels, etc. to demonstrate how the trick can be done – how prints can be manufactured resulting in the suite of characteristics in the PGF prints – but then what incentive do they have to do so???

    The problem is they are convinced, in the ABSENCE of verifiable data, much like I was, not BECAUSE of it. That is why I am predicting this bigfoot football team will never make it down field. Without a body, they are stuck in their own end zone.

    Mike Nichols

  11. @Mike: I appreciate a skeptical approach, but your story really shocks me. How is it possible to hoax so many things? And what do these people get out of it? That’s an incredible amount of work under harsh conditions. I’m not saying it isn’t possible, but yikes! That’s an incredible story. I would like to hear more about what was going on there.

    1. @MASS: I agree it is shocking. I was absolutely convinced bigfoot existed from this 3 month episode. This was just one semi-homeless, near penniless, con-artist with a bad ticker, and a broken arm, who outran us, outpaced us and almost out-smarted us. He also either had assistants (who were stealthy and brave/stupid – we carried protection if you know what I mean) or was extremely lucky.

      I haven’t told half of the story. Cumulatively, the events and individual pieces of evidences that came together at the right time built a picture that would have put In Search Of, Monsterquest, Finding Bigfoot and Legend of Boggy Creek (minus the shooting) to shame.

      One night with all four (the con man and 3 researchers) of us together, a family had set up camp a quarter mile west of us with the kids playing and laughing late at night. All of a sudden a blood curdling scream ensued, doors slammed and the truck took off seconds later at breakneck speed in a one lane dirt road where we heard it hit a tree (probably a side mirror or fender) and just keep on going – no slowing down. Something had scared the crap out of that family. We immediately assumed they had just seen one of the many bigfoot we thought were in the area. Next morning upon investigating, we found several large footprints in the 16″ range impressed deep into the ground within feet of where they were parked.

      Mike Nichols

  12. Richard, I have a couple questions for you. 1, What did you bring to the Erickson Project from your background that made you an asset? 2, How do you think the project may have suffered as a result of your contribution concluding prematurely?
    On hoaxers, I’ve always thought they were of some behavioral disorder of the personality attention-seeking kind.

  13. Mike (Nichols):

    I’ll be on vacation for the next week with my family, and I’m not taking my laptop (by intention). I’ll get back to you the week-after-this one. I’m enjoying the exchange, Mike, even though I disagree with you on about half of your points (or so).


    Did I say, or did someone else say, that I brought something or other to the Erickson project that made me an asset? I don’t recall that at all, myself. I have intentionally avoided becoming a “member” of any bigfoot research group or organization, because frankly I want to remain 100% neutral and objective. Any viable samples are OK by me (if they are properly vetted, etc.); I don’t really care which group they are from. In fact, the more groups or individuals, the better. I am an advocate for the sasquai (assuming they exist), nothing more, nothing less. My ultimate goal is 100% protection of the species or subspecies.

    As such, I hope to bring some scientific (method) assistance to ANY group–even my current detractors, whom I’ve never had a bone to pick with anyway.

    I believe (but do not know) that the Erickson project, and others too, are probably well on their way to fruition–but much work is left to be done. Not the least of which is the DNA analyses currently underway, AND which will need to be verified regardless of the results obtained.

    I don’t think anyone realizes yet how difficult it is to pass peer review–especially if sasquatch is a new subspecies or even a hybrid “progenitor” species such as David Claerr mentions here:

    I may be wrong: A peer-reviewed paper may be possible by (eg.) Dr. Ketchum in a relatively low-level scientific journal, but not a leading one such as “Science” etc. Until such an analyses appears in a high level Journal, it will be challenged until the cows come home–maybe not by us, here, but by the mainstream scientific community and the public alike (not to speak of our governments).

    Richard Stubstad

  14. Mike Nichols:

    I am very sorry, but I’m having some health issues that will, at least for a time, preclude me from the interesting and enlightening discussions between us.

    For now, we’ll just have to agree to disagree, with no disrespect from my side whatsoever.

    I’m still doing a minimum of work on the DNA part of the sasquatch study “hobby” of mine. Nevertheless, I’m interested in other evidence and/or counter-evidence such as your take on the subject.

    Suffice it to say that I don’t think Dr. Ketchum would have continued doing the DNA project (after I left the project, in disgust, in light of that potential shooting I don’t believe anyway) if it lead to a dead end. While the mitochondrial part was by no means “proof”, especially using your criteria of taking a single sequence at a time, I’m pretty sure the nuclear DNA–of far more than a single sample–revealed something a tremendous interest.

    Dr. K may be a bit of a romantic as to the factual existence of the sasquai, but she would definitely notice whether or not there were significant nuclear DNA differences between modern humans, other known primates, and the nuDNA data from a large number of reported sasquatch specimens she is in possession of. If these differences were insignificant, she would have dropped the project sometime around last November.

    I can’t really argue these points, though, because I DON’T HAVE THE DATA!

    Talk at you if & when I can turn this PCa around.


  15. Richard,
    Hope all turns out well for you. You will not be convinced by any of my arguments if you have not been so far. Unfortunately, you are focused on some highly questionable data from highly questionable sources with highly questionable untested science.

    I maintain there is not a single shred of documentation for the type of species you claim exists. Nor can you provide, or even have attempted to provide a solid description of its anatomy, its physiology, or natural history.

    If it hasn’t been documented with a description that rules out a human or a human in a suit, it therefore MUST be a human or a human in a suit or simply a phantom.

    Unless there is sufficient reason to do otherwise, I have concluded my comments related to this Ketchum/Erickson project(s) and wish you all the best.
    Mike Nichols

  16. Sorry, one more quick point – if anyone is taking any of this Ketchum/Olympic Project seriously – take a look at this. If this does not convince you, absolutely nothing will.

    I can assure you as a biologist with 30 years of experience in the field, no professional wildlife biologist with any degree of experience will take anything from this project seriously when this type of “evidence” and analysis is used to provide cover for claims being made.

    Case closed; next.

    Mike Nichols

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.