“We’ll Get You Pie Before You Die,” by Alpha Unit

The fruits of their labor built America’s cities and homes, historians say, and made some people very rich. Nowadays we call them loggers.

Once upon a time they were lumberjacks. Or “timber beasts,” if you really didn’t like them.

Life was rough and frequently cut short when you did this kind of work. At the beginning of the twentieth century when serious efforts were made to unionize the logging industry, most workers in the country were virtual slaves, called “wage slaves” by organizers, according to journalists John C. Hughes and Ryan Teague Beckwith. In their book On the Harbor: From Black Friday to Nirvana, they chronicle unionization efforts for loggers in the Pacific Northwest, and go into detail about their working conditions.

Record-keeping wasn’t very good in those days, but a man’s life expectancy as a logger was said to be about seven years, they say.

Seldom a week went by without a buddy killed or maimed by a rolling log, a falling tree, a giant splinter run through him, or a whipping cable slicing him in two.

From the time he got out of bed in the morning, a logger never knew if he’d make it back to the bunkhouse in one piece, as one writer put it. Hughes and Beckwith continue:

Sawmill workers and shingle weavers lost fingers so routinely that it was practically a rite of passage. Hands and arms went flying, too, in geysers of blood, as the saws shrieked.

None of this made much of a difference to the employers. None of what many workers take for granted today existed then in this industry – no safety regulations, no inspections of gear or practices, and certainly no health insurance or rehabilitation programs. According to Hughes and Beckwith:

When a logger was crippled or killed, the bosses often said it was his own damn fault. He was too careless, or a greenhorn. Maybe just unlucky. “Joe’s number was up. We’re burnin’ daylight. Let’s get the lead out!”

These workers were easy to take advantage of. They were typically single young men, often recent immigrants. Many were migrants who followed timber jobs as they became available. But conditions in lumber camps were so bad that, by one estimate, the annual turnover rate was as high as 600 percent.

Employers didn’t seem to care. They weren’t moved in the slightest to do anything to ameliorate the conditions that were creating this astronomical turnover. Conditions like overcrowded, lice-infested bunkhouses. Another author, John E. Haynes, described some of the logging camps in Minnesota.

Bunkhouses were ventilated only by doors at each end and one or two small skylights in the roof. One or perhaps two iron stoves, kept fired all night, provided heat. The poor ventilation compounded sanitary problems.

The men worked 11-hour days in the cold Minnesota winter and generally wore two or three sets of underwear in addition to their outer garments. The combination of wet snow and hard labor soaked the jacks’ clothes every day, but the men were without washing facilities either for themselves or what they wore…layers of sets of wet-from-sweat clothes hung near the stove every night to dry for the next day.

The steam from the clothes joined the stench of tightly-packed, unwashed bodies in the bunkhouses, prompting one Wobbly to comment that “the bunkhouses in which the lumberjacks sleep are enough to gag a skunk.”

Toilet facilities were primitive in the extreme, says Haynes. Privies were simply shallow, open pits with a roof and some poles for seats. The privies were rarely treated with lime or even covered with dirt.

To the men who hired the workers, all of this was perfectly okay. If you were a worker who didn’t think it was okay, your option was to quit. A perfectly fine arrangement, correct?

Not so, said union organizers, specifically the IWW, or Industrial Workers of the World – also known as the Wobblies. It was workers just like these loggers that the Wobblies focused their energies on.

Any wage earner could be a Wobbly, says labor historian Gibbs M. Smith. It didn’t matter what your occupation, race, creed, or sex was. You could be Black or White or Asian, American or foreign-born, skilled or unskilled.

This openness toward unskilled workers is what set the IWW apart from the American Federation of Labor. The AFL adhered to a craft union philosophy and were too conservative for the Wobblies. Consisting mainly of skilled workers, the AFL refused to organize the unskilled.

“Big Bill” Haywood led the IWW. He favored industrial unionism over craft unionism, stating:

We are going to go down into the gutter to get at the mass of workers and bring them up to a decent plane of living.

Machinery and advancing technology were progressively eliminating the need for skilled craftsmen, Smith writes. The IWW believed that since the employers had united into great combinations of capital to maintain supremacy, it was necessary to organize all workers, skilled and unskilled, into industrial unions “to wage effective war on the integrated power of modern industry.”

In their efforts to organize loggers, it wasn’t just conditions in the camps that the IWW protested. They strongly objected to the “job sharks” who supplied laborers to the mills and logging camps. Because working conditions were so awful, employers hired agents to snare fresh bodies, as Hughes and Beckwith put it.

In the winter of 1911-12, the IWW took a stand against the logging companies and their job agents in Aberdeen, Washington.

Off-duty laborers would pass by and congregate near the Sailors’ Union Hall in downtown Aberdeen, where IWW organizers had begun their outreach efforts. The favored spot was near a saloon owned by a city councilman. The City Council didn’t like the IWW, seeing them as subversives, so it passed an ordinance prohibiting street speaking in the locality.

But the City Council chose to look the other way for one group in particular, another group that was interested in the laborers, or at least in their souls – the Salvation Army.

The Wobblies didn’t like this one bit.

Joe Hill, an immigrant from Sweden who had worked his way across the country as a laborer in factories and mines, and on farms and waterfronts, had joined the IWW once he made it to California. He mocked the “Starvation Army” in a song that parodied their hymn “In the Sweet Bye and Bye”:

Long-haired preachers come out every night, Try to tell you what’s wrong and what’s right; But when asked how ’bout something to eat They will answer with voices so sweet:

You will eat, bye and bye, In that glorious land above the sky; Work and pray, live on hay, You’ll get pie in the sky when you die.

The IWW kept up their protests of the Aberdeen ordinance, suffering vigilante violence in the process. In January of 1912, the City Council passed another ordinance – this time outlawing all street speaking. The Salvation Army, too, had to lie low.

But the IWW wasn’t contented. This was about the principle of free speech as well as organizing workers. They staged another protest, complete with singing, soap boxing, a boycott of local merchants, and a lot of bad publicity.

Eager to avoid the kind of destructive conflict that had gripped Spokane a couple of years earlier during IWW-led protests, the city of Aberdeen reached a settlement with the Wobblies. They consented, finally, to street speaking. The Wobblies moved the free-speech fight on to other cities, and organized a massive strike that closed every wood-working plant on Grays Harbor.

The timber industry eventually met many IWW demands, such as clean bedding and the 8-hour workday, during World War I. According to Hughes and Beckwith:

Frightened of paralyzing strikes that could harm logging of spruce for military planes, the U.S. Army created a special Spruce Production Division. With military efficiency the “Spruce Army” improved conditions more than the Wobblies ever had.

The Wobblies didn’t get everything they set out to get as an organization. They wanted all workers united into “One Big Union.” It hasn’t happened. They wanted workers to unite to overthrow capitalism. Capitalism is still here, a hundred years later (and so are the Wobblies).

But the city fathers in Aberdeen became afraid of them. Lumber company owners were afraid of them, and so were Chamber of Commerce managers. The U.S. Army became afraid of them. That’s quite a feat.


Haynes, John E. 1971. Revolt of the “Timber Beasts”: IWW Lumber Strike in Minnesota. St Paul: Minnesota Historical Society.
Hughes, John C. and Beckwith, Ryan Teague, eds. 2005. On the Harbor: From Black Friday to Nirvana. Las Vegas: Stephens Press.
Smith, Gibbs M. 1969. Joe Hill. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Latest on the Sierra Kills and Bigfoot DNA

Has the Sierra Kills shooter been identified? The shooter who supposedly shot and killed 2 Bigfoots in the Sierra Nevada in October 2010 may have been identified. On a Cryptomundo thread here, a commenter with the handle “Nominay,” who also comments on this forum, suggests that the shooter is a man named Justin Smeja.

Smeja is a 25 year old Californian, an avid hunter, who lives in Sacramento, California. That would place him in close proximity to the location of the Sierra Kills in Plumas County not far away. Here is a photo of Smeja with a mule deer her shot. He is only 16 years old in that picture.

Smeja is also a member of the Olympic Project. This ties in with what my source “Bear Hunter” told me. He said that the shooter got deeply involved with the Olympic Project after the shooting. Nominay says that a friend who was close to the shooting incident confirmed that Smeja is the shooter.

It’s not yet been confirmed that Smeja is the shooter, and I’m not going to reveal the shooter’s name, although I know what it is. On the Cryptomundo thread, there were some arguments back and forth about whether or not Smeja could be the shooter.

Photos of Ketchum study evidence revealed. Here are some photos of some of the evidence that is being used in Dr. Melba Ketchum’s DNA project.

This sample is from the skunk kill reported by JC Johnson from the Four Corners area. A Bigfoot reportedly trapped a skunk in an irrigation pipe and killed it. The Bigfoot was apparently injured by the broken pipe. Apparently there was some blood evidence from this incident that was submitted as Bigfoot blood.

The only information I have on this was that some of the evidence was tested for nuclear DNA (only a single gene), but not mitochondrial DNA, although the full sequence may have been done later on. The sample was submitted by JC Johnson. I found these photos on the Internet.

The dead skunk from the Bigfoot-skunk encounter
Blood, surely skunk blood but possibly Bigfoot blood too, from the interior of the pipe.

Bigfoot DNA samples in Kentucky were obtained with broken glass. Bigfoot DNA samples were obtained from the site in northern Kentucky where the Erickson Project’s knockout videos were produced. The people at the site were feeding the Bigfoots every night by leaving food out for them. The EP Superglued broken glass to the table where the food was laid out for the Bigfoots. When the Bigfoots came that night to eat the food, the tips of their fingers were cut by the broken glass. In this way, a lot of excellent Bigfoot blood was obtained from the site.

Ketchum and Adrian Erickson back on speaking terms. Ketchum and Erickson are back in regular phone contact; however, the contacts have been described as “jockeying for position” on Ketchum’s part.

Ketchum burned her best friend for the money and glory. After Ketchum got herself a Hollywood lawyer and wrote up new NDA’s giving herself almost 10

An excellent female geneticist was on the team, and she was close to Ketchum. She refused to sign the new NDA, and Ketchum coldly dumped her from the team. This woman was distraught and absolutely devastated that her close friend would betray her like that for cash and fame.

Speculation about Ketchum’s competence is misguided. Although some of my sources have a low opinion of Ketchum as a scientist, I do not share that opinion. I think she’s a good scientist. However, in at least one sense, the criticism is misguided. For instance, on the James Randi forums, they are saying that Ketchum is not competent to do the DNA study because she doesn’t know what she is doing when it comes to DNA.

But in a way, it doesn’t matter, because she is not even doing a lot of the work herself. She is sending the work out blind to different labs and having them do the work. For instance, she will send the work out blind to Lab A, they will do the work and send it back to her. Then she will send it out to Lab B in the same fashion to check the work of Lab A and see if they can back it up.

In all cases, the samples testing positive as Bigfoot DNA are being done by labs other than Ketchum’s, and their work is being backed up by other labs. In all cases, the labs have agreed with each other on what is what is not Bigfoot DNA. So the samples really are being tested blind by multiple parties, and everything is testing out perfectly so far. This adds excellent weight to the science of her study.

Relationship between Erickson Project and Ketchum DNA project hard to describe. First of all, I would like to point out that the EP and the KP are two completely different entities, legally and in de facto reality. However, they have tight ties, which often causes people to confuse the two.

The EP is a minimal entity, probably for legal reasons. When you refer to the EP, you can only be talking about three whole human beings – despite the fact that a large number of other folks are associated with the project, you cannot refer to them as part of the project, probably for legal reasons.

Nevertheless, the two projects have deep ties. First of all, the EP are the people who enlisted Ketchum to do the DNA testing. This is not stated on the EP website, but this is what happened. She was not their first choice. They went to many others first, but all of those labs turned them down because they did not want to deal with the Bigfoot question. They went to her because she was the only one who would do Bigfoot DNA.

Also, the DNA results must be released in tandem with the EP video results. If Ketchum goes ahead and releases her study first, she can be sued by Erickson. So these two studies have a lot more in common than most think.

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

Are Black People Stupid?

A view from the comments, with my comments following:

Before I actually worked with a large population of blacks, I would never have believed that they are as stupid as a whole as they are. In fact, I used to believe in absolute equality of all races. However, some years of working in an office-type environment with lots of blacks has totally changed my views.

I think it’s hard to quantify intelligence, but you can get a fairly good idea of someone’s intelligence by observing how/if they readily absorb information and use it to make logical decisions. Smart people “get it” and can move on. They remember information, can make connections, and apply what they learn.

Give me any other race to train/work with. I don’t care if they are white, Latino, Asian, Indian, Middle-Eastern-there is a very good chance that those individuals will learn fairly quickly, have a modicum of manners, a decent or at least passable work ethic, and will do their freaking jobs.

Training blacks is frustrating for me, because 48 out of 50 of them don’t “get it” the 3rd, 4th, 5th time they are presented with the same information in a slow way that anyone else would grasp. For many of them, when they do finally “get it” they can’t make the logical, big-picture connections that would allow them to really excel at their jobs. I see lots of abysmally poor memories, slow wits, and at best a surface-level understanding of their jobs.

And then they’re lazy and tend to be rude (whenever they can get away with it) on top of it. What’s sad is that I’ve seen this not only in janitors and entry-level clerks, but in higher-level black executives and officers who were smooth enough to rap their way into a high-paid position, but either too stupid or lazy (or both) to actually do their jobs.

If you defend black cognition the way that I used to, I challenge you to work for a few years in an office environment with a large population of them.

This is a very interesting anecdote, and you do hear other things from time to time. This has not exactly been my experience. I worked mostly in teaching. There, the Blacks were generally fellow teachers. At the time, I had heard all of the rumors about Black stupidity, and according to this guy it should apply to Black teachers too, but I did not notice that my Black teachers were stupid at all. Actually, I was looking around for evidence of them being dumb, but I could not really find it.

I also dealt with Black administrators – principals, vice principals, counselors all the way up to the district level and, on a lower level, Black secretaries and whatnot. Some of them struck me as not exactly being geniuses, but they didn’t seem to be idiots. Black teachers and administrators always struck me as the cream of the Black crop, and never once did I think they were stupid. At the very least, they struck me as “at least competent.”

On the other hand, here in California, teachers have to pass a very rigorous exam called the CBEST.Many Blacks and Hispanics fail this exam, hence there are cries that it is racist, but they have not yet gotten rid of it, thank God. Hence, most of the less intelligent Blacks are simply screened out. I remember one Black teacher who seemed to be an alcoholic. He showed movies a lot. They probably should have gotten rid of him, but he was a nice enough guy anyway.

Once I worked on a job site with just me and four other guys, all Black. We were janitors at some aerospace plant. We would work for like 3 hours, then just take off and sit around and play cards the rest of the night. The Black guys all liked me a lot. Most were older, but one was a young guy.

The young Black dude and I would take off and go smoke weed in some out of the way place. The head janitor was an alcoholic. I thought it was funny that these older Blacks would call each other “jigs.” Anyway, they were smart enough to do their jobs and play cards.

I also worked with Blacks at a legal coding place. The Blacks there were all well behaved, and none were particularly stupid. They were about as smart as the Whites there. One guy in particular was my good friend, and he was very smart.

I have also not seen a lot of the storied Black laziness and bad work habits except for the janitors, but as a radical, I thought that was mostly just a protest by some working class guys.

In general, I have found that for some reason, Blacks at work seem to be “smart enough.” Not total idiots but not flaming geniuses either.

I had a Black girlfriend once. At one time, we were discussing marriage. She also was “smart enough,” but she had problems in her college courses, and her BA was only in Homemaking, which she taught. I had to write her college level English class papers for her because apparently she simply could not write them well enough.

At one point, we got in a huge argument. The paper was on a short story written by some Black writer. It was about a man called “Douglass” who never shows up. The women are talking. “Douglass is a man!” Ok, look, obviously this is Frederick Douglass! Literary analogy and all that.

She just could not get it and was furious. She knew all about Douglass, and obviously they were not talking about him. It was as if her mind could not deal with an allegorical level of things and was stuck in concreteness. It was then that I realized the limits of this “smart enough” intelligence.

At the moment, it is true that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites as measured by IQ tests. There is a 13.2 point gap between Black adults and White adults – White IQ = 103, Black IQ = 89.8. It’s not yet proven that this is due to genes, and at some point, Blacks may be able to close the gap.

The author mentions that Latinos seem much smarter than Blacks. But their IQ’s are only a few points higher. Latino IQ = 93, Black IQ = 89.8. Are a few points really going to add up to much of a difference? At the end it boils down to what can we do about this. Probably not a whole lot.

But Blacks can certainly work on the non-IQ based aspects of their work performance such as perceived laziness, coming in late, leaving early, taking time off all the time. With their lower IQ’s, Blacks need to try to make up for that in non-IQ ways by being superior or at least adequate on non-IQ factors. That may tend to ameliorate that IQ stuff.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Two Hypothetical Questions Regarding Bigfoot

From the comments. What would you do?

OK, so you are in the woods, minding your own business, when suddenly you are kidnapped by a small group of Sasquai (Bigfoots) a la the Ostman story (let’s just say, suspending any disbelief you may have.) My question is:

1. If you have a chance to escape, do you take it, or do you stay with them and learn all you can about them, try to learn their language, if they have one, etc.?

2. They indicate that they want you mate with a Bigfoot of the opposite sex, so do you oblige them, or decline? Let’s assume that you are with them long enough to believe they are a type of human, like a hybrid of an ancient line of robust hominins and modern humans, so they aren’t apes, per se, though they are living in a very primitive manner and they may not have the entire cognitive range of modern humans.

If you decide to mate, then why? Are you afraid of saying no, or is it impolite to turn down such a generous offer from your hosts? Or perhaps you are interested in doing it for science? Could you possibly be attracted to an 8 foot tall, 800 pound hairy humanoid?

It will be interesting to see how question 2 is answered by both women and men.

Discuss. 🙂

Unfortunately, the bitches, I mean the women, are all up in arms that this question was even asked. They say that no woman would ever have a choice about whether to have sex or not with the male Bigfoot, therefore we are asking them whether or not they would enjoy getting raped by a Bigfoot, or by anyone for that matter. It’s quite possible that the woman would have no choice in the matter indeed, therefore, this question should probably be asked of women only.

I had no idea, in my male centered way of thinking, that I was asking women if they would enjoy being raped or not. The thought simply never occurred to me.

Check out Bigfoot Forums for the hottest Bigfoot discussions.

Galbraith: There Is No Debt Crisis


The king of Keynesians himself weighs in on the debt and deficit crisis: there is no crisis!

He makes some interesting points. First of all, the CBO debt and deficit predictions are based on complete lies. They were conjured up out of thin air to invent a fictional future that will not, and could not take place. The fictional future is rigged in all sorts of ridiculous ways to make it look like the debt is going to explode out of control.

The debt is only at 6

The dean of the deficit hawks is Pete Peterson. He’s a hedge fund manager and the head of the Concord Coalition, which has fooled a lot of well meaning liberals. Even 30 years ago, when our debt was a much more manageable level than 6

Deficit hawks have one goal and one goal only – to slash government spending to the point where government barely exists. They scream about the deficit as an excuse to destroy the state that they despise. Republicans don’t care about deficits – we know this because under Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr they set records by spending like there was no tomorrow and being extremely fiscally irresponsible.

But as soon as a Democrat gets in, there’s a debt and deficit crisis and it’s time to slash and burn. Remember the debt and deficit crisis under Bill Clinton? He actually balanced the budget and produced a huge budget surplus.

Galbraith notes that a state that prints its own money should never have a problem paying off its debt. He is correct in a sense. Because the US controls its own currency, we can never end up like Greece, as everyone is warning.

Greece is in the boat it’s in because it does not control its own currency. Since we mint our own money, we can always just print money to pay off our debt if we wish to do so. The only worry is inflation, but with a dead economy and demand in rigor mortis, there’s no risk of inflation. Inflation is caused by excessive demand chasing too few goods. You can’t have inflation when demand is dead. Indeed, the main risk right now is not inflation but deflation.

The other risk of excessive debt is that at some point, foreigners might not want to buy your government bonds. Is there any risk of that? Looking at the bond market, we can’t see any. US bonds still have a seemingly unlimited number of eager buyers.

What about fake risks? According to conservative Republican Barack Obama, the reason the economy is dead is because of the high government debt and deficit. As long as debt is so high, Obama says, business won’t invest due to “uncertainty.” By lowering the debt and deficit, we give a signal of confidence to the private sector and they will start investing again.

It’s sad that Obama said that because it shows that he believes rightwing lies about economics and implies once again that Obama is a Reaganite on economics.

Another lie is that business will not invest due to “regulatory uncertainty.” That is, they are afraid that the “super-liberal” Obama is going to regulate them to death, so they won’t invest. The Republican solution to this to eviscerate business regulations, and then the business sector will receive the vote of confidence needed to invest again.

This are both sickening lies. There is not the tiniest bit of truth to either of them.

Facts show that the deficit is currently caused exclusively by the dead economy and the declining tax revenues that result from it. The US also fails to collect 1

The debt problem does not come from excessive spending. US state spending, at 2

As you can see, the screams about how the US will end up like Greece are nothing but lies. We can’t possibly be Greece in any possible universe. You’re comparing apples to hot fudge sundaes.

Naomi Klein On the Debt Ceiling Charade

Naomi Klein:

Using a trumped up crisis to raid the public purse and attack the basic rights and benefits is a very old trick – but rarely is the shock doctrine tactic wielded as brazenly as in the pseudo debate about the debt ceiling. This is naked class war, waged by the ultra rich against everyone else, and it’s well past time for Americans to draw the line.

This whole thing is fake, a phony crisis, a charade, Kabuki theater. And Klein hits it right on the head when she ties it in with the Shock Doctrine. Klein’s Shock Doctrine theory holds that one of the latest tricks of imperialist capitalism is how it deliberately creates crises or catastrophes, then uses those calamities to push through radical rightwing changes that are beneficial to Global Capital. For instance, Iraq was deliberately destroyed in order that US capitalist mass murderers and vultures could make money off rebuilding the very place that they wrecked!

Greece was deliberately driven into debt by the venal and wicked banksters who control the world so that its public institutions could be sold off and Greece itself could be bought by the rich. Capitalism created a worldwide economic collapse. Whether  it did so deliberately or not is debatable, but students of history know that unregulated capitalism causes periodic horrible economic collapses, recessions and depressions.

They then used this collapse, which they had augmented for decades by a careful policy of massive tax cuts and deliberately running up huge deficits under Republican Presidents with the expressed purpose of create a debt and deficit crisis down the road, to force through radical class war against the vast majority of working Americans and undo the New Deal, the Great Society and all progressive change for the last century in an effort to take us back at least to the 1920’s, or, as Karl Rove put it, to take us back to the 1890’s.

The crisis was created deliberately. The rightwing is simply using the debt issue as an excuse to destroy most of government. Why? Because the modern Right has a deep and profound hatred for the state. They wish to eviscerate the state on all levels in order to create a Third World type Libertarian state characterized by a starved, minimalist and ineffective state ruled by venal elites who wage permanent and savage class war on the poor, the workers and much of the middle class.

The assault on government will not end with this debt ceiling debate. Obama thinks he can fix this debt debate and then move on to other things. But that’s not possible. The Right will not stop hammering away at government and slashing it like a crazed serial killer hacking at his dying rape victim until the state is nearly eviscerated on a 3rd World level.

However, even then, the Class War will be continuous and ongoing. That’s because in almost all human socieites, there is always something still left for the Rich to steal from the rest of us. We are never so poor that they can’t take more stuff from us.

I told you previously that I followed Salvadoran politics for a while. I used to give money to the arms fund of the FMLN guerrillas, so I got daily updates via phone about Salvadoran politics.

I understood Salvadoran politics to be that the population was divided into

But those daily updates about the Salvadoran state were enlightening. Every single day, the fascist ARENA state tried to steal more and more money, land and stuff from the other 9

Another thing that amazed me was that the Salvadoran rich, the

Greed is as instiable as the healthy desire to survive. One never has his fill of it.

More on Government Coverup Conspiracies

I believe that there has been a conspiracy by the state to coverup the Bigfoots’ existence, but I don’t believe it is permanent. They won’t stop the publication of the groundbreaking Bigfoot DNA study which will probably be published soon, at least I don’t think so. But this study will not be enough to prove the existence of the Bigfoots.

The government people and the skeptics will simply attack and poo poo the study and the related videos. The majority of Americans and scientists will continue to reject the Bigfoots’ existence, but we will get some more folks on our side. And I think the state will to continue to disappear Bigfoot bodies.

I do not think this is a permanent conspiracy. It’s simply a conspiracy to delay the discovery as long as possible. At some point, there will be so much evidence that there will be nothing that the state can do, and the Bigfoots will just be discovered. At that point, the coverup will end, the state will deny that there ever was one, and they will try to figure out how to deal with the Bigfoots’ existence.

Most of these coverups are just “delay it as long as possible” games.

I think the same thing is going on with UFO’s. UFO’s clearly exist, but so far, the state has been able to cover up their existence. If decent evidence ever comes forward, the state will just pull out all the stops to poo poo the evidence and say it’s all lies.

This is what they did in the Roswell case, where a UFO definitely crashed in the New Mexico desert in 1947, and two dead aliens were confiscated by the Air Force. Those aliens were sequestered away, and my understanding is that the US government is continuing to study the bodies. If Roswell happened, then it was probably not the only one. There must have been other UFO cases out there. Roswell was excellent proof of UFO’s, but the state just ridiculed it.

The UFO coverup, like the Bigfoot coverup, is only expected to be a longterm delaying tactic. At some point, the evidence for UFO’s may be so overwhelming that the state can’t cover it up anymore. At that point, they may just allow the evidence to go forward and then try their best to deal with the fallout.

Coverups are excellent conspiracies for state elites to engage in. All they do is put off or delay, hopefully as long as possible, the truth about this or that reality. When the reality is finally discovered, the state just acts surprised as if they are seeing the reality for the first time.

They deny that there was ever a coverup, and the media goes along. The media, also run by the same elites who run the state and corporations, has bashed into our heads for decades now that conspiracies simply do not exist and furthermore, that they are scientifically impossible. The notion that conspiracies are not possible and that all conspiracy theorists are nuts is part of the game of the elites who practice conspiracy.

Suppose I was a member of an elite practicing a conspiracy. The first thing I would do is put out the idea that conspiracy is not possible and that all conspiracy theorists are insane. Then I would enlist the media to promote these notions. Now I am free to conspire at will! See how this works? If any of my conspiracies is uncovered, I will scream, “Conspiracy theory!” and “Tin foil hat!” Now matter how much evidence there was for the conspiracy, it would never be uncovered because the media has already decided that conspiracies are not possible.

One rejoinder to conspiracy theory is, “Why doesn’t someone blow cover?” But people are blowing cover all the time. The number of people, all the way up to generals, who blew cover, often on their death beds, about Roswell, is very large. But since conspiracies “don’t exist,” an unlimited number of people can blow cover, and it won’t matter because we will just call them all liars.

Another thing to note is that conspiracy is an aspect of daily life. Trust me when I say that the rich have been conspiring to get money and especially to keep money for millenia. Once you enter into the realms of the super rich, you enter into the Conspiracy Theory Zone. They are continually conspiring to obtain and especially to keep their millions.

That the rich would conspire for money and power but the state would not is ridiculous. After all, in the US, the state is of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. Why would the same rich would conspire fulltime outside the state suddenly stop conspiring once they start to work for the state? It makes no sense.

More On Why Hard Right Types Can’t Seem To Change

In regard to whether or not rightwing crazies can ever change, Matt writes:

In American society there are social rewards and reinforcement for being a right wing nut, especially in the demographic you mention. Plus there’s so much of the propaganda around… I don’t even know where you would find a liberal talk show on the radio dial, and I live on one of the coasts. The reason people stop being liberal is because it’s basically unacceptable among regular white American adults. Short answer to your question: No. Never.

I think Matt has an excellent point. Most American Whites are simply cowards. Now, all my life since 1980, I have been living in towns where almost every White person was a rightwing lunatic. In these places, almost everyone just went along with the program.

The swingers, the people having 3-ways and going to go LSD-fueled sex orgies, the gays, the bisexuals, the surfers screwing 100+ women and girls a year, the weirdest and craziest punk rockers and Goths, the drug dealers, even those dealing large quantities of LSD, pot and cocaine, my friends in some cases my idols and heroes, everyone was a Republican!

There really wasn’t any thought to it. People were simply Republicans because everyone else was. I was always a liberal Democrat, and there have always been some pretty extreme penalties for having that philosophy – a lot of rejection and ostracism. In towns like that, a lot of White liberals are actually fired for their politics. For instance, if you put a liberal bumper sticker on your car and the boss sees it, you will usually get fired.

Now, I’m a pretty strong person, plus I think Republicanism is a scum of the Earth philosophy. So I defied everyone and put up with all of the problems and rejection that came with that. But I figure most Whites are just not as strong as I am, plus they don’t care about politics that much. Obviously, in the towns I lived in, the easy way out would have been to be a Republican like all my friends. All I did was cause myself a lot of problems just for the good of my ideology and that one vote that was typically wasted.

I’ve never known anyone who went from Hard Right to liberal. I’ve known some folks who went from Crazy Right to Obama-style Centrism. Or at least that’s how they vote. I’ve known some liberal and moderate Republicans who turned into some sort of liberals. It seems like the liberal and moderate Republicans can transition over to some type of liberalism.

The real Dittohead whackjobs would seem to have a hard time of that. For one thing, the Dittohead kooks would have to move to liberalism and then admit that they were wrong before. For some reason, the real rightwing crazies seem to have a really hard time admitting that they were wrong about their politics. The ones I know, I don’t think that they could ever do that.

People can move from liberalism to conservatism and admit they were wrong as liberals, but there’s some weird about rightwing wackos. There’s something about the Insane Right philosophy that makes it hard for people to admit that there is anything wrong about their rightwing nuttiness. Liberals will quite often admit that they were wrong. Is it that liberals are more open-minded and conservatism is all about closed-mindedness?

The Hard Right types also seem to be much more emotionally invested in it than people are in liberalism.

With the ones I have known, it seems to get worse the longer they remain invested in Rightwing Insanity. It’s like it would be easier to abandon after 5 years of it then after 40 years. I just can’t see them losing face by admitting that they were wrong for all of those years.

Is There Any Hope For US Rightwing Nuts?

The US Right has been extreme since Reagan and they’ve only gotten nuttier and nuttier. What I’m wondering is, Is there recovery? You know, like with drug addicts? Can they ever get better?

I’ve known some people who went far off the deep end in radical Right politics (once you start loving Rush Limbaugh, the local rightwing talk hosts and Fox News, I figure you’re hopeless). They all invested quite a bit in this insane ideology, and they invested in it for many years. It became very much a part of their self-image. All of these people are middle aged White males. One of them know votes Democrat sometimes and another one even voted for Clinton, even though he listened to Rush nonstop.

What I’m worrying about though, is I can’t see any White person who has gone that far insane into lunatic US rightwing politics to ever come out of it and renounce it. Are they ever going to become liberals in any way, shape or form? How is that possible? People move from left to right, from youth to aging, all the time. It happens so much it’s almost a joke. But when do you ever hear of someone going from insane rightwing kook to anything resembling sane politics? When do you ever hear about anyone going from Right to Left? Does it even happen?

The real problem here is personal investment in their ideology. For some reason, it seems to be no problem for people to abandon liberalism no matter how much they sunk into it. They just laugh and say I used to be Commie liberal before I got some sense. But these US rightwingers have so much emotional investment in this craziness. Can you imagine any of them saying, “Yes, I used to be a deranged reactionary dittohead freak, but then I got some sense, and now I’m a liberal?” I can’t imagine it. Have you ever met anyone who changed like that?

Table Manners: Are You Supposed To Leave Some Food on Your Plate?


This is a sore issue between me and my extremely uptight, ultra-White family. The “table manners” game. They’ve always insisted that my table manners are atrocious. I think that’s ridiculous. No one else has ever remarked on them except for one Black girlfriend, who was one of the most uptight people I’ve ever met. I actually don’t like slobs either, and I am White, culturally and obviously, but I think that at some point you are just too White.

My violations?

  1. Putting my left wrist on the table while I eat with my right hand. I really hate the eating with one hand thing and keeping the other forearm off the table in your lap. I feel like my left arm just got chopped off!
  2. Finishing every last bit of food on my plate.
  3. Eating soup. Something asinine about eating soup that I can’t quite remember. Could it be leaning over the bowl? You’re not supposed to lean over the bowl?
  4. Using my left fingers as a “pusher” to help ease recalcitrant food onto my utensil. I guess I could use a piece of bread to do this, but I’m usually too lazy. Anyway, my uncle, a wealthy business owner who spent all his life having business meals, uses his fingers to push too.
  5. Eating with my mouth open. This accusation really pisses me off, because even I don’t think I do that! Like I said above, I’m into manners too.

Can’t think of anymore right now.

My father being dead is not a good thing, but I am glad I don’t have to listen to his table manners crap anymore.

The only one I looked up about was the “always leave a bit of food on your table.” The version I learned was the White genteel version that says you leave some food on your plate to show you’re not a pig. Also, trying to get the last scraps does tend to involve some of those “pushing” violations.

According to this article, that rule is all but dead. It’s a rule from the older generation, and at the moment in the US and around the world for that matter, it’s either out or on its way out. Around the world, manners seem to be moving in the Japanese direction: eat it all up to show how appreciative you are. The only problems are in a few countries where, if you lap it all up, the host thinks you didn’t get enough to eat, so they demand that you have seconds. In other places and in some US groups, it’s considered rude to leave any food on your plate!

If there’s one thing that sucks about being White, it’s this table manners crap. There’s no way on Earth that other cultures are as nutty about this stuff as we are.

Fascism Today in the US and Beyond

Uncle Milton writes:

Bernardio Carpio: I have a gut feel that what you are going through in the USA today is what the Germans were going through during the Weimar Republic in the late 20′s and early 30′s, before Hitler took over. An aggressive, determined, fanatical, irrational right wing. A reactionary middle class.

UM: I doubt it …and this is coming from someone who has several Jewish relatives. If we are sliding towards fascism it is much more likely to be the half-assed Latin American variety wherein the elites are behind walled compounds protected by bodyguards and the masses suffer from mass inflation and economic instability.

Milton is right about most of it except for the inflation. There won’t be any. And I do consider Latin American fascism to be real fascism.

Fascism is simply any far rightwing, anti-democratic movement.

The opposition to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the Venezuelan, Bolivian and Ecuadorian opposition, the Honduran ruling elite, all of these are fascists because they hate democracy.

Any violent, murderous, rightwing government is automatically fascist. The Salvadoran right is still fascist. The ruling elite in Haiti is fascist, as is the ruling elite in the Dominican Republic. The Guatemalan and Colombian states are obviously fascist.

Going abroad, the Indonesian and Phillipine states have been fascist forever.

The middle classes in many places are fascist. The “yellow shirt” middle class opposition in Thailand is clearly fascist. The leader of the poor, the “red shirts,” Thakhsin, won the election in 2006, and they refused to accept the results because they boycotted it.

They rioted and demanded another election. Incredibly, he accepted a new election, but then the yellow shirts staged a military coup. The US corporate scum press said he was thrown out because he was corrupt, but all Thai governments are corrupt. The yellow shirt government was just as corrupt as the red shirts or even worse.

The opposition in Belarus is fascist. Lukashenko won the last election fair and square. It was proven by many observers, and exit polls proved it too. He won by a very wide margin. The corporate scum press around the world said he stole the election and that the opposition really won.

Then the opposition, which represents maybe 2

The modern Republican Party in the US is fascist because it is a far rightwing and fiercely anti-democratic party. They refuse to accept the legitimacy of any Democratic President. In that sense, they resemble the middle class yellow shirts of Thailand. It is important to note that it is their hostility to democracy and refusal to recognize the opposition as legitimate that makes the Republicans fascists.

And going by conversations with them, most Republicans are fascists themselves. I realized this when Bush stole the 2000 election. I talked to a lot of Republicans back then. It seemed like most of them recognized that Bush was stealing the election, but they just did not care. At that point, I realized that we were doomed.

The truth is this: the business sector, the capitalists, are almost always fascist when there is a left government in power or threatening to take power. It’s true all over the world. They simply refuse to accept the legitimacy of a left regime.

If You Believe in Bigfoots, You Must Believe in a Government Coverup

But if you believe in Bigfoot, you must believe in a government conspiracy to cover up their existence.

Obviously, people shoot at these things all the time. Sometimes they even kill them.

Bigfoots get hit by cars on a regular basis. Sometimes, they are killed by cars.

Obviously, Bigfoots die in the woods on a regular basis. Surely, humans come upon the bodies of dead Bigfoots from time to time.

Bigfoots shot by hunters or cops, Bigfoots killed by cars, Bigfoots found dead in the woods are clearly all reported to authorities.

Since 1968, we have many reports of the government hauling these dead bodies away after they are reported. Before 1968, we have no such cases. The evidence implies a conspiracy.

Otherwise, you have to believe in crazy things.

  • Bigfoots are never roadkilled. Nuts. Of course they are.
  • Bigfoots are never shot dead by hunters or cops. Surely they are.
  • Bigfoots are never injured or killed in natural disasters. Sure they are.
  • Bigfoots are never found dead in the woods. But of course they must be.

In order not to believe these things, you must invent magical theories:

  • Bigfoot bodies disappear magically into the woods.
  • Bigfoots are so special that they cannot be hit by cars.
  • For some odd reason, Bigfoots cannot be killed by bullets.

Are We In a Pre-Fascist Era?

Via commenter Bernardo Carpio:

I’ve recently been reading a lot about Hitler and his rise to power in the 1930’s. I really hope I’m wrong (especially since I’ve got a brother and a sister, and numerous other relatives in the US) but I have a gut feel that what you are going through in the USA today is what the Germans were going through during the Weimar Republic in the late 20’s and early 30’s, before Hitler took over.

An aggressive, determined, fanatical, irrational right wing. A reactionary middle class. A defeated working class. A persistently depressed economy and massive unemployment. Spineless leaders on the so-called left (right wing social democrats in the case of Germany, 9

Interestingly, every single one of his comments is absolutely correct. Let us look at them one by one:

1. An aggressive, determined, fanatical, irrational right wing. This is an excellent description of the US Republican Party, and this craziness has been going on since 1980.

2. A reactionary middle class. Indeed, it was the middle class who supported the Nazis. The workers never did. The Tea Party movement, a very reactionary movement, is indeed a movement of middle class Whites.

3. A defeated working class. Yes, the US working class is indeed defeated. That is an excellent way to look at them. They are also very confused, and in many cases, they are out and out reactionary. The White working class voted for the reactionary John McCain by 30 points. Why?

4. A persistently depressed economy and massive unemployment. This is exactly what is going on, and neither party will do anything to make things better. In fact, both parties are doubling down to wreck the economy as much as possible, which is insane. Why? Ideology.

5. Spineless leaders on the so-called left (right wing social democrats in the case of Germany, 9

As far as whether this will lead to actual fascism, it is hard to say. It is not proper to call the Republican Party fascist per se as I did in my last post, however they do have fascist tendencies. The most glaring fascist tendency is their undemocratic nature.

Repeatedly shutting town the government, create a climate of hate in which threats to government officials have skyrocketed, investigating a President’s sex life, accusing a President of murder, trying to impeach a President on blatantly corrupt charges, repeatedly engaging in false investigations of the President’s administration, stealing two elections, one via a corrupt Supreme Court and another via corrupt voting machines, using corrupt corporations to install crooked voting machines across the land in order to steal more elections, disenfranchising millions of voters, using gangs of thugs to raid election halls to prevent ballots from being counted.

Those are all actions that speak of a far rightwing party that hates democracy. Far rightwing, antidemocratic parties are typically called fascist.

Whether the Republican Party is fascist at the moment is hard to say. Maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt as Carpio says and call it a pre-fascist movement. In a similar way, we can go easy on the Tea Party Movement and call them a very reactionary movement of the middle class. However, historically, these types of movements have led to fascism in many cases.

Obama’s Debt Ceiling Plan Will Wreck the Economy

Obama is calling for $4 trillion in cuts to government programs other than military, which will be increased. This will send a huge wrecking ball to the US government at all levels other than the military.

This is exactly what the Republican Party wants because they hate government at all levels other than military. We really are dealing with a 3rd world rightwing party or a Libertarian Party there. They want to reduce the government at all levels down to an absolute minimum. Obama thinks that wrecking the government like this is just awesome. He chided the Republicans for only cutting $2 trillion out of the government in their offer. He demanded $4 trillion in cuts. “I’m a bigger Republican than you are!” Obama screamed.

There really are no tax increases in the plan to my knowledge. All there is is $4 trillion in cuts and a promise to look into reforming the tax code later. Earlier, the Republicans agreed to some tax increases, but only on the poor and working people – regressive taxes. Obama cheered for huge tax hikes on the poor and the workers. “It’s the Republican way!” Obama screamed.

Even the Republicans were too afraid to put Social Security cuts on the table. Obama was outraged. “How dare you not cut Social Security!” he screamed at the Republicans. The plan to axe Social Security, now part of negotiations on both sides, actually came from Obama, not the Republicans. Can you believe that?

But it makes sense because Obama has always hated Social Security and has always wanted to slash it. I believe he even mentioned that in his campaign. Gutting Social Security is not a political move on Obama’s part – it’s part of his basic political ideology, which is that he’s a Reaganite.

Obama is now offering hundreds of billions in cuts to Medicare. “I love it! Kill grandma!” Obama screamed. This is outrageous. But once again, this is part of Obama’s basic Reaganite ideology. During his Presidency, Obama has consistently stated his desire to trash Medicare.

This goes back to his roots as a New Democrat and a member of DNC. I have read the DNC’s policy papers. Apparently the DNC is committed to “reform” of Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. It’s hard to say exactly what those reforms are, but it looks like they want to get rid of them and replace with via privatization.

Hillary and Bill Clinton come from this same DNC philosophy. Bill Clinton tried to cut a deal with his best friend Newt Gingrich to cut Social Security, but it all fell apart with the Monica Lewinsky mess. Hillary has also stated that she wants to gut Social Security.

The deal Obama wants also includes massive cuts to Medicaid. Obama is one program Obama really hates, because he can’t stop talking about how much he wants to cut it. The problem here is that ObamaCare relies heavily on Medicaid to cover many of the uninsured under his program. These huge cuts to Medicaid under this deal will be a death knell for his very own ObamaCare.

Further, $4 trillion in cuts will deal a death blow to the economy. It’s hard to say how bad it will be, but it will definitely hurt the economy. It may cause a double dip recession, lengthen the recession or cause an actual depression. It is difficult to quantify the actual damage, but there will be damage. It will reduce economic growth, contract the economy, reduce jobs and increase unemployment.

The Republicans don’t believe this because they believe that massive cuts in government spending during an economic downturn actually benefits the economy. They claim that the downturn was caused by too much government spending. Cutting government spending will “restore confidence in the private sector” and boost the economy. It’s madness.

Obama is wrecking his own economy with this deal. He’s on a suicide mission.

Paul Krugman – The Republican Party Is Insane


Well, yeah, it’s been obvious for some time now. And they’ve been getting more and more loony for a long time now. This has been an ongoing process. Obama’s Health Care plan was originally proposed by the ultra-rightwing Heritage Foundation and reactionary dog Bob Dole in 1993. It’s a rightwing project. When reactionary nut Mitt Romney put it in in Massachusetts a few years back, the Right cheered. But when Obama proposed the same rightwing plan, the Right jumped up and down, threw a fit, and screamed “Communism”! It makes no sense.

Krugman suggests that the modern Republican Party sees any Democratic Presidency as fundamentally illegitimate. It’s basically a fascist party a radical rightwing party that rejects democracy. We saw this under Clinton with the endless fake investigations over nothing, the fake impeachment over nothing – one of the most outrageous acts in the history of US government, the investigations of the President’s sex life, the insane rumors about Hillary being a lesbian and a Communist, the notion that Clinton was a Communist, the repeated attempts to shut down the government.

Then there were the two electoral thefts from Democratic Presidential contenders, first in 2000 by the most corrupt and reactionary Supreme Court in history and second in 2004 via the hacking of the computer voting system, deliberately set up by fascist Republicans and fascist Republican corporations in order to steal elections for the fascist Republican Party.

We are seeing it again under Obama. Things that the Right would normally agree with, as they are after all radical Right proposals that Obama makes over and over, are rejected as “Communism.” There are repeated attempts to shut down the government, attempts, willful or not, to wreck the economy so Obama won’t be re-elected, endless racist race-baiting, suggestions that Obama is a Communist, a traitor, and not an American citizen.

The problem is that a huge number of Americans – 40-5

I don’t think it’s fair to just blame the Republican Party. The American people could easily reject these morons, right? In any decent country, a party like that might poll something like

More on the Sierra Kills and Bigfoot DNA

Regarding the Sierra Kills, in which two Bigfoots were shot and killed in Plumas County, California, in November 2010, new evidence has surfaced casting doubt on the shooter’s story.

The shooter claims that he went back two weeks later and dug through the snow to find a 7 inch long by 4 inch wide by 3 inch deep “Bigfoot steak.”

Many people have suggested that finding such a huge chunk of a dead Bigfoot in the snow two weeks later is dubious.

Bigfoot steak was carved off a body with a knife. We now have information that Dr. Melba Ketchum, who is running the DNA project, said that the Bigfoot steak seemed to have been carved off of a dead body with either a knife or some sort of tool. This suggests that the story about the shooter finding it two weeks later in the snow is not true. Instead, the logical suggestion is that the shooter carved it off the body before he left that day or took one or more of the bodies or parts with him and carved it off later.

Shooter wants amnesty from prosecution. Sources on Taxidermy.net continue to believe that the shooter took one or more of the bodies or parts of them with him that day and that he continues to hold evidence. They say that unless he gets an amnesty for prosecution for shooting the Bigfoots, he will disappear all of the evidence. I support giving the shooter amnesty. In fact, I put an attorney in touch with him for just that reason.

Erickson/Ketchum Project chaos. Ketchum and Adrian Erickson continue to have a huge falling out. For a long time, she was not even returning his phone calls. This is all because he won’t sign one of her  fancy new NDA’s that gives her all the rights and him none. However, she did call him recently because she was upset at all of the leaks and was wondering who was behind them.

Ketchum paper accepted for peer review? According to a comment on Cryptomundo, Ketchum submitted her paper to a journal for peer review in early December 2010 and the journal accepted it early February 2011. That means that the paper meets the required scientific standards for the journal, and that, even if some reviewers have critical comments during the peer review process, it will still be accepted with some sort of changes, ranging from major to minor. If true, this is excellent news.

However, on June 11, 2011, Rich Germeau of the Olympic Project stated on a forum that the paper had not been sent out yet. So the situation is very confused.

However, if the commenter is correct and Germeau is wrong then the Ketchum paper is in much better shape than I thought it was.

Bigfoot steak DNA tests positive for a Bigfoot. On a recent radio show, JC Johnson and Derek Randles suggested obliquely that DNA tests on the Bigfoot steak had tested positive as coming from an actual Bigfoot.

Is the Sierra Kills story a hoax? Some people say that the Sierra Kills story is a hoax. They believe that the shooter hoaxed the story by making it up. He went to Taxidermy.net and made up a big story about killing two Bigfoots. Then he fooled the Olympic Project into believing his story. Then he somehow hoaxed the Bigfoot steak sent to Ketchum’s lab, though in order to do this, he would have had to have cut a slice off of a very hairy human cadaver.

Sources who believe in this say that there could be various reasons why he would do this. For one, they say he is an extreme redneck and an ultra rightwinger who supposedly did not believe in Bigfoot before. They say this is just the sort of person who creates a Bigfoot hoax. They also feel that he is a highly disreputable and unreliable person, and this sheds doubt on his tale.

In addition, according to a thread on Taxidermy.net, two Black bears, a mother and a cub, were reportedly shot dead near the Dixie Mountain Game Refuge at the beginning of November 2010. The sources suggest that the shooter shot a female bear and her cub and turned that story into the shooting of two Bigfoots. Adding weight to this, the Nevada Department of Fish and Game, asked about the Sierra Kills story, said that it was two bears that were killed and not two Bigfoots.

As far as the Bigfoot steak, sources say that judging from the shooter’s character, he would not be below slicing a piece off the thigh of a human cadaver.

I don’t believe that this story is a hoax.

Shooter very religious, a polarizing personality. We have more information on the shooter. He moved from Texas to another state, apparently with his family, at at least age 16 and has lived in this state ever since. He is extremely religious – a fundamentalist Christian. I have seen a photo of him at age 16 after killing two bucks. His hair is dyed punk rock flame red and he has a pro-Christian t-shirt on.

I’ve been accused of harping on the shooter’s character. It’s true that I don’t like him, and a lot of others don’t either. However, he has a wife who loves him and a wide circle of friends.

Some people are just bad. Everyone agrees. Not so with this guy.

The shooter instead is more of a polarizing figure, something like his hero George Bush. The very things that those who don’t like him hate about him are what make a lot of others think he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. As he says on his webpage: “I’m the type of guy you either love or hate. I’m fine either way.” This is a much better way of looking at his character as opposed to flat out saying he’s a bad guy.

Possible Sierra Kills government coverup. Supposing that the Sierra Kills actually happened, the Nevada wildlife officials’ statements is evidence of the government coverup that I have long said must be happening in the realm of Bigfoot.

Possible government investigation into the Sierra Kills and the Bigfoot steak. A new piece by Loren Coleman reveals some very strange emails he has gotten about the Sierra Kills. He has received some emails from folks claiming to have some sort of government connection. They say that federal investigators are closely watching the Sierra Kills investigation. They are monitoring the web forums and blogs and they know who all the players are and what their roles are. When they feel that laws have been broken, they will act.

What is interesting about all of this is that it suggests that the Sierra Kills may have actually happened and that it was not a hoax. Or at least the government seems to think that it happened, or that something happened anyway, as the emails are confusing.

This all smells of Men in Black stuff, but I have said for a long time that MIB are involved in a coverup of Bigfoot evidence.

A Bigfoot is found dead in a man’s yard in Washington state in 2003. He calls the police, but instead of police showing up, a black helicopter lands in his yard and MIB’s get out armed with automatic weapons. They order the man into his home, load the Bigfoot into the copter and fly away.

A sheriff’s deputy responds to a Bigfoot killed by the side of the road in Ohio. He radios for help, and backup shows up. They rope off the scene. Then state police show up. Then the National Guard shows up. Then a black van pulls up, two US soldiers get out, and they cart the Bigfoot to the van and drive away.

There are many more such stories. MIB’s actually exist, but hardly anyone talks about them. Guys dressed all in black, black helicopters, black vans – that’s all military intelligence, top secret, classified. I understand that a black helicopter was used in the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Here are the emails about the Sierra Kills case and Ketchum’s lab using the Bigfoot steak:

I did hear from one of my retired federal investigator sources who still works for them as a consulting evidence expert. He told me essentially they know what is going on and are watching the situation. They have all the forum reports, know where the supposed samples came from, who is and who is not involved and what roles they’re playing.

I get the feeling from him that national security is somehow involved. I don’t know how except perhaps it might have something to do with release or misuse of technology that’s considered vital (educated guess). This is a new area in advanced research and puts a real dent in the how much anyone working on new technology can say or release in any form.

Beyond this he can tell me nothing in specific except that when and if they decide laws have been broken they will act. I know he holds a Top Secret clearance with compartmentalizations. He has multiple degrees in scientific fields and consults for several agencies on evidentiary issues. My work for him was routine but he’s really an interesting person.

He made no reference to any hoax other than to say they know what’s going on and who’s responsible. They will act if and when they decide the situation warrants it. It isn’t quite as bad as portrayed in the Indiana Jones movies but almost so.

And this, also:

I suspect there’s more beyond this supposed hoax than we’ll ever know. This business with the so called Dr. Ketchum smells like another stinking hoax and you’ve done a good job of reporting like you did in 2008. However, this time I’m not buying into it. I don’t know what’s up but when one of the people I’ve done work for in my past government careers tells me for my own good to stay out of a mess I should take his advice.

It’s an interesting twist with the feds watching the whole deal and I wonder what’s up and why but like I said when a friend says stay out I stay out. I suspect that we’ll never know the whole story. So much information is hidden in the name of national security that it’s ridiculous.

Check out Bigfoot Forums for the best in Bigfoot discussions.

Barack Obama, Manchurian Candidate

I honestly think that Obama was selected by TPTB to destroy the Democratic Party. He’s doing the job that Carter and Clinton started. There won’t be anything left of the Democratic Party when he’s done. The New Deal is the Democratic Party. You get rid of the New Deal, you get rid of the party.

I think Obama has been a secret Republican all along. In the coming election, he needs to switch parties and become the Republican he’s always been and run as a Republican. He’ll probably win!

We should have listened.

Remember the speech at the park in Chicago, where all those Blacks and liberals marched to the park to hear him speech. We saw all those big Black figures like Jesse Jackson with tears in their eyes. Spike Less was saying, “This changes everything!” I was sitting in a doctor’s office with some Black people next to me. There was this wonderfully cute little Black girl next to me. I asked her, “Do you like Obama?” She nodded her head in the cutest little girl way. I had tears in my eyes.

Tears of nothing. Tears for nothing. I want to kick myself for crying. What wasted emotion. It was all a fraud.

We should have listened to that speech.

He praised Ronald Reagan, his hero, at that speech in Chicago. At that point, the fix was in. It was all over.

We should have listened.

Your Choice

Vote for one of the below rightwing extremists:

“Democrats” At least the DNC/Obama/Clinton types are basically reactionary fanatics.

“Republicans” These are frankly out and out fascists, or getting to be something like that. Right?

Who else is out there?

“Liberals” Liberalism is nearly dead and gone, at least in the US Congress. Judging from recent votes, I would say that most liberals are reactionaries. I would describe them as reluctant reactionaries though. They vote for reactionary bills, but then they kick and yell about it afterwards as if they were forced into it. A lot of the time they aren’t even apologetic. Nancy Pelosi is determined to gut Social Security, come Hell or high water.

“The Left” I guess there are a few. Kucinich and Bernie Sanders come to mind. Are there any others. There is also a Left and quite a few liberals on the Internet.

Obama Says, “I’m a Bigger Republican Than You Are!”

In the horrific negotiations over the debt ceiling, Obama has thrown down the towel in a pitifully retarded press conference. He blasted the Republicans for only offering $2 trillion in devastating cuts to the people’s programs. How dare they hurt the people in such a measly and miserly way! If you’re going to rape and ruin the people, do it in style! Obama said, “It’s 4 billion or nothing!” The heck with these baby cuts!”

Way to go Barack! You’re more of  a Republican than they are!

The American people are criminally insane. Barack Obama is probably the most rightwing President that we have ever had in America. He’s more rightwing than Reagan, Bush’s father or Bush. None of them dared to cut Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. Only a true fanatical reactionary could do that, and that’s what Obama is. Reagan and the two Bushes were reactionaries, but they weren’t fanatical reactionaries. What’s truly pitiful is that according to the garbage American people, Barack Obama, fanatical reactionary, the most rightwing President ever, is a socialist.

The problem isn’t just the state or the politicians. It’s the people. The politicians and state are reactionary lunatics because Scumericans are ultra rightwing extremists themselves.

Ian Welsh, “On Social Security Cuts”


Barack Obama is Satan.

I do not think, anymore, there is much difference between Obama and Republicans. What are the differences anyway? Lay them out for me.

The Republicans want to gut Social Security or wipe it out altogether. Obama wants to gut Social Security, but keep it around. The Republicans want to nearly wipe out Medicaid. Obama wants to gut Medicaid, but keep it around. The Republicans want to wipe out Medicare. Obama wants to gut Medicare, but keep it around.

Welsh makes clear that Obama has always sworn to gut Social Security. That’s part of his platform. The DNC, if you read their policy papers, it appears that eventually they want to get rid of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in favor of “market solutions.” Bill and Hillary Clinton both proposed gutting Social Security in the 1990’s. Do the Clintons and Obama want to wipe out Social Security altogether like the Republicans do and not just gut it?

Someone tell me I’m seeing things? What’s the difference. If you’re going to vote for Obama, why not just vote Republican? What’s the difference anyway?

Someone chime in here.

February 9, 2009:

Then we’re going to get entitlement “reform.” Since Obama is promising this to Blue Dogs, this isn’t going to be anything you’re going to like.

January 4, 2010:

So you’re far more likely to see Medicare and Social Security gutted, than you are to see the military budget cut in a third or Medicare-for-all  enacted.

May 4, 2010:

(What is Obama?) A man who wants to cut Social Security and Medicare.

August 2, 2010:

Let me state the obvious, which we all know, one more time.

Obama intends to gut social security.  Republicans failed, it requires Democrats.

September 14, 2010:

The question about SS in the Villagers minds is not whether it should be cut, but how. That’s not to say it’s hopeless.  The last attempt to cut SS failed, after all.  But there wasn’t a Democratic president pushing for it that time.  Obama has proven very adept at arm-twisting Democrats.

October 24, 2010:

2011 – Bush’s tax cuts are extended.  Social Security is slashed.  This is done at Obama’s behest, so that Dems get blamed for it.

The blogosphere appears aflame about Obama being willing to cut SS.  Oh please.  Oh, and Obama still needs to be primaried, but by waiting this long, it’s become much more difficult to do, if not impossible.  Everyone who is whining about SS who wasn’t willing to primary him, was complicit in this.

Adults don’t believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, or Barack Obama being anything but a right winger whose legacy is institutionalizing Bush, then going even further to the right on many key issues.  They don’t believe that Obama responds to anything from the left but pain and threats that are backed up with the sincere willingness and ability to see them through.

Another Interview Up


Same subject, the Sierra Kills, where two Bigfoots were shot dead on the Plumas National Forest in November 2010 and a slice of one of their bodies was sent in to a DNA lab for testing.

This interviewer had a better delivery than the last one. However, he did endlessly harp on the fact that I don’t like this shooter guy, and he claimed it made me biased. True, I don’t like the guy, but lots of people don’t. The guy’s an ass, straight up. You can tell just by looking at his face. If you read his Facebook and Myspace pages, it becomes even more clear.

He’s got some statements on there saying something like, “I don’t like gay pride dope smoking hippies on welfare. I can’t show you how to roll a joint, but I can show you how to drive a tractor.” Ok, look, right there, with those comments, that guy just declared war on me. He’s got pictures of George Bush up there; that’s his favorite politician. He’s from Texas.

He says he “supports the troops,” and he’s got some poster up there with a gunsight and a bunch of Muslims in the sight. It says something like “Kill Em All.” He likes country music. His wife is just as nasty as he is, and so are all of his Facebook friends. They’re like the worst rednecks on Earth. Of course this is precisely the type of backwoods yahoo that would kill a couple of Bigfoots, so it all makes sense.

So this is what kind of guy we are dealing with here. A first class A-1 Fox News ultra rightwing super-redneck, old style backwoods yahoo shoot anything that moves hayseed with a grass twig hanging out of his mouth saying, “Hey y’all! Let’s go beat up some hippie faggots!”

I remember assholes like this very well from the 1970’s, and I hate them to this very day. Mostly because they always hated me. It’s pretty typical that rednecks think I’m a “fag,” even though I am 10

This same idiot, who knows me as well as anyone, taunted me for years for supposedly being homosexual. He also accused most of my friends of being gay too. There was never any evidence for any of this, and there was a universe of evidence against it. During this period of my life, I’d dated maybe 100 females and slept with about half of them. A lot of them were beautiful. Every time you turned around, there was a new one on my arm. I don’t say that to brag, I say that to show you how retarded homophobes are.

Sound gay to you? See what I mean? Welcome to the wacko world of the homophobe, where the most notorious playboys on the block are continually badgered about being “faggots.” There is something incredibly fucked up about homophobes, let me tell you.

The war between me and these idiots is never going to end. This stuff is personal.

Anyway, the charge is that because my sources don’t like guy, and I don’t like guy, I’m “biased” against him. Well, I hope not. We journalists try not to be biased about individuals when doing investigative reporting. I’ve been aware of my dislike for this clown from the very start, but I am trying not to let it get in the way of the search for the truth here.

Investigative reporting is like detective work. Sure, a detective may not like a suspect much, and he admits it, but a good cop doesn’t let that get in the way of a good investigation. Just because he doesn’t like the guy doesn’t mean that the guy committed this or that crime.

Same here. My version of the shootings and the version of the shooter’s buddies don’t even differ all that much. The only major difference is on motivation. I am going by the original story on Taxidermy.net. According to that story, he knew it was a Bigfoot, but he shot it anyway. His friend yelled at him not to, saying, “Don’t shoot! It’s a man in a monkey suit!” But he went ahead and shot anyway. He also shot it while it was running away. His rationale for shooting it was he thought it was threatening him.

As far as shooting the juvenile Bigfoot, he just shot it. No one knows why. According the early conversations on Taxidermy.net, he didn’t think it was threatening him.

The shooter’s story now has changed in many ways. He now says he thought it was a bear. Case of mistaken identity. In the case of the second one, he now says it was threatening him.

There’s no bias hindering my story at all here. I am simply choosing to go with the earlier versions of the story as opposed to the latest, greatest version.

New Robert Lindsay Interview Up


It goes on for a couple of hours, but I don’t say much past 1:10 into the broadcast.

It’s about the purported killing of two Bigfoots in Plumas County, California in November, 2010. I believe that this incident did take place. Incidentally, comments from Derek Randles and JC Johnson during the interview obliquely suggest that the slice of dead Bigfoot taken from the shooting site did indeed test out as coming from a real Bigfoot via DNA testing. That’s not confirmatory, though, only implied.

Update to the “Sierra Kills” Story

Updating the story of the two Bigfoots shot and killed in California in November 2010, we can now report that the shooter appears to have taken one or more of the bodies or parts of them with him on the day that he shot them.

Shooter may have taken bodies with him. Although the shooter has never admitted that he took the bodies that day, the evidence seems to indicate that he did.

There is a rumor flying around Taxidermy.net that the shooter said he cut the bodies into small pieces and hid them in a large number of different places or possibly with different people, scattered all around. They are on ice if this is true. This lines up perfectly with the timeline where the Olympic Project went around to Bigfoot forums soon after the killings saying that they had enough samples to last for years. The reason they said that, presumably, is because they have access to two dead Bigfoot bodies.

The shooter said he went back to the site two weeks later and found a small piece of flesh by digging through the snow, which was then sent in to Dr. Melba Ketchum’s DNA project. However, the piece of flesh sent in was 7 inches long by 4 inches wide by 3 inches deep. That’s as big as a steak!

There is no way that a gunshot would have sawed off that big of a chunk of flesh. There is also no way that a chunk of flesh that big would be left from animals eating the body. Further, Bigfoots bury their dead. If the two Bigfoots were left there, then other Bigfoots would have probably come soon after to carry off the dead and bury them somewhere else. Bottom line is that the story about going back two weeks later and finding the Bigfoot steak in the snow may not be true.

Is it possible that the shooter carved off the steak before he left that day? It’s possible, but I talked to taxidermists, and they told me that that story does not ring true. The shooter is a taxidermist himself. The taxidermists told me that no taxidermist would just saw off a piece of a thigh of an animal. A taxidermist would want to take the whole thing. They told me that he must have taken both bodies with him that day, probably putting them in the back of his truck.

One argument is that if the shooter really did kill two Bigfoots, why didn’t he go to the media with the news and get famous? Or why didn’t the Olympic Project do the same thing? The word from my sources is that everyone is afraid of going to jail, and that’s why they didn’t go to the media. A lot of people say they don’t believe that would stop anyone, but that’s the typical dynamic in these Bigfoot shootings. People shoot these things, then they look at the body and see how much it resembles a man, and they are afraid they are going to go down on homicide.

Friends tried to stop him from shooting the Bigfoot. We can also now report that the other man with him tried to stop the shooter from shooting the first Bigfoot. He yelled, “It’s a man in a monkey suit! Don’t shoot!” But he shot it anyway.

Shooter comes out of hiding. The shooter himself appears to be posting on internet forums lately. Here is one thread that appears to be from the shooter. Compared to writings from the shooter’s Internet pages, the writing style seems quite similar.

The probable area of the "Sierra kill" Bigfoot shootings is circled.

Shooter is a “maniac hunter”. The shooter caused quite a stir on Taxidermy.net in a thread about wolves by showing up and saying he would personally kill very single wolf in North America if he was given a chance to. This statement made a lot of people mad and caused a minor furor on the site. This goes in line with the general line about the hunter that he’s a “maniac hunter,” as we described earlier.

Shooter needs amnesty, or else. Sources also tell me that unless the shooter is offered amnesty for the shootings, whatever dead Bigfoot evidence he has stashed away from the shootings is going to disappear. In that case we will have to wait until another Bigfoot is killed, and it will happen again.

I believe that this is true. The shooter should obtain an attorney and begin negotiations with law enforcement in order to obtain an amnesty for the killings, possibly in the name of science or for whatever other reason they can come up with. I strongly support an amnesty for the shooter, if only in interests of science.

“Bigfoot steak” from the Sierra Kills tested 10

Endless delays in Ketchum DNA Project. We can also report now that as of June 11, 2011, Melba Ketchum’s DNA study had still not been completed. The paper has supposedly been written, but they are waiting for the last few samples to come in. After that, the paper will go out for peer review. Why don’t they close enrollment on the samples and say they won’t accept any more for the study? That would seem to be the reasonable thing to do.

In December, on a radio show, Ketchum said exactly the same thing. That the paper was written, but they were waiting for the last few samples to come in. Here it is 5 1/2 months later and she is still saying the same thing. In the early part of the year, we were told that the paper was already out for peer review. Now, 4 1/2 months later, it hasn’t even gone out yet.

These delays are insane. I really don’t think that Ketchum is ever going to publish her paper. I’ve given up hope.

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

Chronology of the Recent Bigfoot Shooting Story

I know most of the players in this story, and I believe that it is true. At least the shooting part. Here is what happened.

1. The shooter shows up on Taxidermy.net and starts a thread saying I just shot 2 Bigfoots, now what do I do? The shooter is well known on the site and is a frequent contributor.

2. Thread quickly spins out of control going to 60 pages. The story is revealed on the thread.

3. Mods get messages that shooter is being harassed and threatened by people as a result of the thread, apparently mad that he killed two BF’s.

4. Thread is shut down.

5. A man named “Bear Hunter” from Taxidermy.net gets involved, calls up the shooter and questions him at length. The story outline results:

The 25 year old shooter, a transplanted Texan who left Texas nine years ago, was a passenger in a truck near the Dixie Mountain Game Refuge on the Plumas National Forest west of Frenchman Lake in the Sierra Nevada on the border of California and Nevada. It was mid-November 2010, and they were bear hunting. There was already snow on the ground. They hoped to find a bear just before it went into hibernation.

They came around a bend, and there was a dirty white female Bigfoot in the road 80 yards away. The shooter grabbed his 25.06 rifle and jumped out of his vehicle. As he jumped out, the Bigfoot started running towards him waving her arms. When the Bigfoot saw the gun, she turned as if to start to run away. The shooter’s companion yelled, “Don’t shoot! It’s a man in a monkey suit!” But he shot anyway. The shooter shot her in the side of the chest, and the bullet penetrated her lungs.

The shooter says he shot her because he thought she was a bear, but that’s not true. He knew what she was. The reason he shot her is because he thought she was threatening him.

She went down, then got to her feet. She ran off, sometimes on two legs and sometimes on four. After a while, she crashed off into the brush and died.

The men went to go look for the female Bigfoot. Suddenly two small, strange creatures appeared, sometimes on two legs, sometimes in four. They looked like a cross between a bear and a gorilla. The creatures had very large heads. They were on either side of the hunters, communicating back and forth.

The shooter raised his gun, fired and shot one of the creatures dead. The other small creature apparently escaped. As the shooter cradled the dying creature in his arms, both men realized that it was a young creature of the same type the shooter had just shot. At this point, they figured out that he had killed two Bigfoots. The juvenile Bigfoot died in his arms.

The shooter says he shot the young Bigfoot because it was threatening him. This is not true. He just shot it for some unknown reason.

The other man with the shooter was so hysterical and upset about the shootings at this point that he took the shooter’s gun away from him and pointed it at him, threatening him. He told the shooter that if he tried to shoot another one of those animals, he would shoot the shooter instead.

The story is that they both were so upset by that point that they left the area. The shooter said that they left the animals in the field and that he was not going back to the area until next fall.

The basic outline of the story is uncontroversial and is acknowledged by everyone who believes the story. The only differences are about the motivations of the shooter and what was or was not left behind.

6. Bear Hunter puts the shooter in contact with the Olympic Project (OP) in Washington State. The OP says, “We’re just trying to keep the shooter out of jail!” The shooter is very frightened of going to jail over the killing of the two Bigfoots. At this point, the story seems to die.

7. Suddenly Bear Hunter realizes that the shooter is deeply involved in the OP. This seems odd. Why is a guy who just shot two Bigfoots suddenly a major part of this organization?

8. Mysteriously, the OP appears on various Bigfoot forums, bragging that they have enough Bigfoot DNA samples to last for years. Bear Hunter regards this as curious and suspects that the shooter may have harvested one or both of the killed Bigfoots or parts of them and is keeping them on ice somewhere and giving the OP access to them.

9. Bizarrely, someone in California, apparently the shooter, submits a very strange sample to Melba Ketchum’s Bigfoot DNA project. It resembles a large slice off the thigh of a human cadaver, except that it is very hairy. The slice is about seven inches long by four inches wide by two-three inches deep – it’s a Bigfoot steak. The color of the hair is the same color as that of the killed mother Bigfoot. It appears to have been carved off of a body with a knife or some sort of a tool.

Dr. Ketchum freaks out because she thinks she is in possession of tissue sliced off a dead Bigfoot. She is worried that police will raid her lab to take away the sample and everything else she has, because that’s what the government does with Bigfoot evidence. She tries to get others to hold it for her instead. The others decline to take it off her hands.

11. The Bigfoot steak tests out as “no known mammal.” However, the DNA (probably MtDNA) tests as “human.” Nevertheless, according to a recent radio show, two men associated with Ketchum’s DNA project implied that the Bigfoot steak tested out as coming from a Bigfoot by DNA.

12. I break the story.

13. Pandemonium ensues.

14. The OP appears on forums, agreeing with the basics of the story: that the two Bigfoots were shot in the time and place where they were killed. They differ on the motivations of the shooter and certain other relatively non-important things.

They also reveal that the shooter went back to the site two weeks later, dug through the snow and found a nice chunk of the dead Bigfoot mother. Someone, apparently the shooter, sent the Bigfoot steak to Ketchum’s lab from California.


Adrian Erickson, Melba Ketchum, the Olympic Project, Bear Hunter and the shooter all think that the Bigfoot shooting story is true in its basic facts. They also agree that a chunk of one dead Bigfoot was sent to Ketchum’s lab.

Adrian Erickson, Richard Stubstad and Ketchum agree that Ketchum freaked out when she got the sample because she thought it was from a Bigfoot, and she thought the authorities would raid her lab to seize the Bigfoot steak and the rest of her samples, since this what they do with Bigfoot evidence.

People associated with Taxidermy.net agree that the long thread existed until it was shut down.

Possibility of a hoax: The general conclusion on the Net is that the story itself is fake.

Let us look at that possibility.

We know that the Taxidermy.net thread is real.

What if the shooter just made up the whole story? It’s possible, but I do not think he made up this story. His character is open to debate, but he’s not a faker or a hoaxer. On the other hand, some say that he is a very unreliable person and that at one point at least, he did not believe in Bigfoot. So it’s conceivable he made up the story as a gag, since that is what non-believers do.

What if the OP is making up the story? They don’t make stuff up. They are good researchers with excellent integrity. They don’t hoax. However, it is possible that they were hoaxed by the shooter, although I don’t believe that this happened.

The hunk of flesh adds credibility to the story. The OP says it’s a chunk of Bigfoot flesh from one the killed Bigfoots. Could it have been hoaxed? Possibly.

However, someone would have had to have had access to a human cadaver and then sawed off a chunk of the thigh. How likely is that? Further, this would have had to have been a very strange human cadaver, one covered with hair. And the hair would have had to have been the exact same color of the hair of one of the Bigfoots that got shot. How likely is that? In addition, two men made statements on a radio show implying that the Bigfoot steak tested out as coming from a Bigfoot by DNA.

Conclusion: As you can see, there is a great deal about this incident that seems to point away from a hoax or a lie. In fact, I believe it is neither, and I believe the basis for the story is true.

The two Bigfoots were indeed shot dead in California in November. At least one piece from one of the Bigfoots was sent in by the OP to Ketchum’s DNA lab for testing. The director thought that it was a slice of a killed Bigfoot, and she requested others take it off her hands in case the police raid the lab and seize the sample as they tend to do with Bigfoot evidence.

There you have it.

Breathtaking News from the Erickson Project

The leaks from people close to the Erickson Project continue to come in fast and furious.

Surely the most breathtaking news so far involves the sequencing of Bigfoot DNA. We already reported previously on the sequencing Bigfoot mitochondrial DNA, which is coming out 10

However, we can now report on the sequencing of the nuclear DNA from the male side. The report is that it is absolutely non-human! It is very far away from humans. In the chart below, various hominins are measured according to their distance away from humans in terms of polymorphisms (P* distance).

Hominin spp.   P* Distance   Date of split

Neandertal     9,200         508,000?
Denisova       18,400?       840,000
Bigfoot        68,300?       2.25 M?
Chimpanzee     182,000       6 M

As you can see, Bigfoots are approximately 1/2 way between humans and chimps. More precisely, they are 37.

We only have DNA from three hominids: Homo sapiens, Neandertal and Denisova. We have no DNA from Flores Man, Erectus or any of the rest. One reason for this is that DNA degrades, and it is impossible to get DNA from samples more than 50,000 years old. Flores Man samples were too degraded to get any DNA yet.

Therefore, evidence indicates that Bigfoots are a hybrid species. Some “thing,” some “monster,” some “subhuman,” mated with human females somewhere in Europe possibly ~20-50,000 YBP. Shades of King Kong!

What this “thing” was is completely unknown. It must be a hominid. It quite possibly was Homo erectus. Therefore, Bigfoots may be Erectus-sapiens hybrids.

The closest thing to an Erectus-sapiens hybrid is Heidelberg Man, or Homo heidelbergensis. This was late Homo erectus trending into archaic Homo sapiens. There is suggestive evidence that a heidelbergensis skull was found in China dated 13,000 YBP.

If Bigfoot is part-Erectus, this explains certain things. Erectus still had a midtarsal break in Europe 300,000 YBP. Erectus had a saggital crest.

It is clear by now that the “Bigfoot is an ape” theory lies in the dust. Bigfoot is a man, an ancient man, a blast from our ancient past, a subhuman, a human ancestor. He’s one of us, but he’s not.

In addition, we can report that the Erickson Project Bigfoot DNA study has isolated DNA from 20 separate Bigfoot individuals from around North America. They received hundreds of samples, but many were not useful. Of the 20 separate individuals, Adrian Erickson’s samples represented six individuals.

One of the samples was called “unknown hand.” This was hand of a “something,” but no one knows what. Inside the Project, people were taking bets on what the hand was from. Dr. Melba Ketchum bet that it was a bear. Others bet that it was not a bear. Ketchum never got any money from the bet. Whatever this strange object was, it was not a bear paw. No one knows what it was. Maybe it was a Bigfoot hand.

Don Monroe found the hand in a dump somewhere in Montana or Idaho. A skinned bear paw that has the claws removed and resembles a human hand to a great deal. The hand was a bone with some relict skin remaining on it. All of the hair was gone. It’s not known if Ketchum’s lab even tested the hand for DNA.

One of the samples was a bone from a stream in Oregon. It may have been a femur. The bone looks like a human bone, but it is much too large. It was submitted by David Paulides’ North American Bigfoot Search (NABS).

We also have some updates in the story about the killing of the two Bigfoots near the Dixie Mountain Game Refuge in California’s Sierra Nevada in November 2010. There were two other men in the truck with the shooter at the time. At least one of the men was absolutely hysterical that the shooter shot the two Bigfoots. The other man was also not happy about the situation.

We can also report that the section of Bigfoot thigh sent to the Erickson Project DNA test from the shooting was auburn haired, and it also had a lot of grey in it. This slab was from the mother Bigfoot that was shot dead. She was probably a middle aged Bigfoot, ~45 years old in human terms or ~25 years old in Bigfoot terms. Her two offspring, one of which was also shot dead, were ~10 years old in human terms or ~5 years old in Bigfoot terms.

To this date, we do not know what the shooter did after he killed the two Bigfoots.

I know the name of the shooter, but for some reason, I am not releasing it, though I probably should. It will come out later anyway. His name can be found by industrious web sleuths who are intelligent about Internet sleuthing. The shooter has changed his story many times, and is very afraid of going to jail over killing of these two Bigfoots.

He is wise to be afraid of this, because I know some wealthy and connected people who told me that they are dedicated to seeing that the shooter goes to prison over killing the Bigfoots. These people think Bigfoots are humans, so killing one is homicide. So if I were the shooter, I would not be straight up about this matter either. Further, I would retain a good attorney. If the Olympic Project has any sense, they will have also spoken to attorneys too, because their mitts are all over these two killed Bigfoots.

The shooter is a narcissist and a redneck, and I don’t like him. You can tell he’s a narcissist. Look at his photos. Just look at that smug, smarmy look in eyes. I don’t think he’s a good person.

There are different kinds of hunters. Most hunters are good people, but a minority are not. The bad guys have the same mindset about hunting. They basically just like to kill things because they like to kill. You can tell who the bad ones are. You can see it in their eyes. They will shoot just about anything as long as it is not illegal. This guy has that look about him.

This is what kind of a person and hunter the shooter is. He is well known in the hunting and taxidermy community and is not well liked at all. In that community, he is thought of as a “maniac hunter” and an “unethical hunter.”

He could change any time he wants, quit being bad and start being good. His choice. I don’t think he will ever change though, because he is very happy being the smug ex-Texan prick that he is. Most of his friends are the same as he is, and so is the California woman who became his wife two years ago, who is now expecting.

Most narcissists never feel guilt about anything that they do. There are some reports that the shooter feels bad about killing the two Bigfoots. Perhaps he does. He may have some sort of a conscience. I bet he’s more afraid of getting caught though.

The Olympic Project has changed their story about this shooting several times now. I actually do not blame them. If I were in as deep as they are, I would get myself a nice, fancy story too.

For several months after November, their line was that the OP never went out to the shooting site.

Then they said that the OP did go to the shooting site 2 weeks later, and they found a chunk of Bigfoot flesh in the snow.

Now the OP says that only the shooter went back 2 weeks later and found the piece of flesh.

The story about going back later and finding a hunk of flesh strikes me as dubious, but maybe it happened. Who knows, right?

In addition, the OP said for a long time after the shooting, “Let’s make one thing clear! There were no two Bigfoots shot and killed!”

But after I broke the story, they changed their line to saying that a man that the OP knows well did shoot and kill the two Bigfoots.

They say he shot the first one because he thought she was a bear and shot the second one because it was threatening him.

Neither report is true.

The shooter knew she was not a bear. His line is he thought she was threatening him. And the second one wasn’t threatening him either.

The shooter was a passenger in the truck with three bear hunters near the Dixie Mountain Game Refuge on the California/Nevada border in November 2010. They came around a bend, and there was a grayish white female Bigfoot in the road on all fours. The shooter grabbed his gun and jumped out of his vehicle. As he jumped out, he saw the Bigfoot get up on two legs and start running towards him waving her arms. When the Bigfoot saw the gun, she turned and started to run away. The shooter shot her in the side of the chest, and the bullet penetrated her lungs.

She crashed off into the brush and died. The three men went down into the brush and saw her there. It was then that they realized that she was not a bear at all. They walked back up onto the road.

When they got to the road, they saw two small, strange creatures running towards them, sometimes on two legs, sometimes on four legs. The shooter raised his gun, fired and shot one of the creatures dead. The other small creature apparently escaped. As the shooter cradled the dying creature in his arms, they all three realized that it was a young creature of the same type that had just gotten shot. The juvenile Bigfoot had a huge head, and the shooter said it looked exactly like the Jacobs creature photo.

The shooter did not shoot the young Bigfoot because it was threatening him, which is his story. He just shot it for some unknown reason.

At this point they figured out that they had killed two Bigfoots. The two men with the shooter were so hysterical and upset about the shootings that they took the shooter’s gun away from him and pointed it at him, threatening him. They told him that if he tried to shoot another one of those animals, they would shoot him instead. The story is that everyone was so upset by that point that they left the area. The shooter said that they left the animals in the road, and he was not going back to the area until next fall.

There is a lot of fighting inside the Erickson Project. Adrian Erickson and Melba Ketchum are not getting along well. At least one reason is that Erickson paid Ketchum $70,000 for the sequencing of six Bigfoot samples. To this date, he has not received results from these samples, even though those samples do represent six separate confirmed Bigfoot individuals. He did receive results from one DNA test, the test he had done on himself. Most of the principals had their own DNA tested to avoid contamination.

Erickson had an agreement with Ketchum that if his Bigfoot samples tested out as coming from real Bigfoots, they would then be used in the final writeup. One or more of his samples were from real Bigfoots, but Ketchum is apparently threatening to not include them in her paper due to their falling out. So Erickson is threatening to sue her for violating their agreement.

Erickson has also threatened to sue a couple of other folks, including Dennis Pfohl and Mike Rugg, but I am not sure of the reason. Erickson is well liked, and he is also deeply respected. At the same time, the respect seems tinged with fear. He has sunk $3 million into this project, and he is not going to get it back.

One great thing to come out of the release of the Erickson Project results is that maybe Bigfoot witnesses will not be so persecuted. Roger Patterson was not an honorable man, but he did shoot a real video of a Bigfoot in California in 1967. He was so hounded by skeptics that they may have driven him to an early grave.

Bob Gimlin was so upset at the hounding that he more or less retreated from the public eye for over 20 years after the shooting of the video. He only came out in 1989. Gimlin is a tough man, but all of the attacks have still hurt him. Entire books and countless articles and Internet pieces have been written about how he hoaxed the famous video.

From Canada, word comes that Bigfoots are much more common around Indian communities than around non-Indians. It seems that Bigfoots are more comfortable around Indians than around non-Indians. One may speculate about reasons.

Updating a previous story, a trapper in McBride, British Colombia has told people that he was recently kidnapped by Bigfoots, who took him back to a cave and tried to make him have sex with a female Bigfoot. It’s an updated Albert Ostman story.

Another trapper somewhere in British Colombia is living by himself way out in the woods far away from anyone else. He is reportedly nearly living with a group of Bigfoots. He sees them every single day. This may possibly be the same man who says he was kidnapped by Bigfoots. The stories should be followed up.

A previous post reported on some Canadians who dug up a muskeg and found a Bigfoot hand skeleton in it. It was a Bigfoot burial ground. In northern Canada, Bigfoots use muskegs as burial grounds. This particular muskeg was in northern Saskatchewan.

The Bigfoot shooting and DNA stories are powerful news, maybe the stories of the year. Bigfoot is on the verge of being formally discovered by science.


In 1958, the Russian scientist Dr. Boris Porchnev concluded that relict hominids, cavemen from the Stone Age, continue to live among us to this very day. His prophetic views have been vindicated. The implications are nothing less than breathtaking. It’s nearly the story of the century already, and we’ve only just come round the bend. Hold onto your seats.

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


Porchnev, Boris and Heuvelmans, Bernard. 1974. L’homme de Néanderthal est toujours vivant (Neanderthal Is Still Alive). Paris: Plon.

"Corporations and Embarrassing Disclosures," by Alpha Unit

McDonald’s, Lowe’s, General Dynamics, American Airlines, IBM, and General Mills are among 81 companies that are fighting to keep certain information out of public sight, according to a recent article by Peter Whoriskey of The Washington Post. It’s the CEO-to-worker pay ratio. This disclosure requirement is a part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed into law last summer. Current rules already require disclosure of executive pay. Dodd-Frank requires companies to calculate the median value of what they pay workers, and report the comparison between that figure and the chief’s pay. Corporations began lobbying against the requirement over a year ago, calling comparisons between the chief’s pay and everyone else’s “useless.” On Wednesday the House Financial Services Committee approved a bill that would repeal the disclosure requirement. The vote was along partisan lines. Twenty-nine Republicans and 4 Democrats voted in favor; 21 Democrats opposed. Whoriskey reports that executive pay has more than quadrupled in real terms since the 1970s, even as pay for 9 Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat from New Jersey, added the pay ratio disclosure requirements to the new law. His take on this week’s committee vote?

The real reason House Republicans want to keep the typical worker’s pay secret is that it may embarrass some companies to reveal that they pay their CEO in the range of 400 times what they pay their typical worker.

“Corporations and Embarrassing Disclosures,” by Alpha Unit

McDonald’s, Lowe’s, General Dynamics, American Airlines, IBM, and General Mills are among 81 companies that are fighting to keep certain information out of public sight, according to a recent article by Peter Whoriskey of The Washington Post. It’s the CEO-to-worker pay ratio.

This disclosure requirement is a part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed into law last summer. Current rules already require disclosure of executive pay. Dodd-Frank requires companies to calculate the median value of what they pay workers, and report the comparison between that figure and the chief’s pay.

Corporations began lobbying against the requirement over a year ago, calling comparisons between the chief’s pay and everyone else’s “useless.”

On Wednesday the House Financial Services Committee approved a bill that would repeal the disclosure requirement. The vote was along partisan lines. Twenty-nine Republicans and 4 Democrats voted in favor; 21 Democrats opposed.

Whoriskey reports that executive pay has more than quadrupled in real terms since the 1970s, even as pay for 9

Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat from New Jersey, added the pay ratio disclosure requirements to the new law. His take on this week’s committee vote?

The real reason House Republicans want to keep the typical worker’s pay secret is that it may embarrass some companies to reveal that they pay their CEO in the range of 400 times what they pay their typical worker.


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)