Bigfoot News August 11, 2011

Why Adrian Erickson won’t reveal his killer Bigfoot videos. First of all, it’s not true that Erickson can’t show his videos until Ketchum’s DNA project is completed. He can release them anytime he wants. But Erickson wants to wait for DNA results to reveal his videos, some of which he has been sitting on for 6 years now.

If Erickson were to release his videos now, they would cause a firestorm of controversy. The professional skeptics in the scientific community and media would rampage all over the videos, and the inevitable verdict, as with the P-G film, is that the videos would be denounced as hoaxes. The skeptics and scofftics would trash Erickson, Dennis Pfohl, Leila Hadj-Chikh and the rest, digging up dirt on them to trash their lives and reputations just like they did to Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin and the rest.

Erickson knows they are going to trash his videos, but he thinks they will stand up better with DNA evidence to back them up. Erickson’s position, which I agree with, is that no matter how good Bigfoot videos are these days, they will always be accused of being hoaxes. It’s not possible to produce the “good enough” photo or video that the skeptics demand because it doesn’t exist in any possible universe.

Wally Hersom, financier behind the Olympic Project (OP), revealed for first time as the very wealthy benefactor of Dr. Melba Ketchum’s DNA project. Wally Hersom is the money man behind the Olympic Project. He is a very wealthy man, a multimillionaire. He has much more money than Adrian Erickson of the Erickson Project. I do not know how he made his money. For some time now, we have known that Dr. Ketchum had a mysterious benefactor who wished to remain anonymous.

We just learned his name from a confidential source the other day. It is Wally Hersom. Hersom is funding the MtDNA and NuDNA sequencing for Ketchum’s project (KP). The NuDNA costs up to $11,500 per sample, and hardly any submitters can afford it, so someone needs to pay for it, and Wally’s the man. We have heard nothing but good things about Hersom, and we think he is playing a positive role in the community in general.

But as you can see, the OP and the KP have profoundly deep ties. This is why Derek Randles and Justin Smeja are always saying that they can’t say this or that due to some NDA. Both of them are all wrapped up in NDA’s due to the tangled mess of the OP and KP. The NDA’s are due to a business relationship.

In short, the OP and KP hope to make money off the discovery of Bigfoot. In Ketchum’s case, the path to the ca$$$$h seems clearer. I can’t see how Hersom is going to make his money back, especially if he signed one of Ketchum’s ugly NDA’s. But that’s probably what’s motivating Hersom’s NDA’s. He’s probably trying to recoup some of his investment.

Olympic Project probably went to Sierra Kills site immediately after the shootings. Based on an interview with a source with deep connections to the OP who must remain anonymous because they could possibly be under an NDA, I conclude that it is very likely that the OP went to the Sierra Kills almost immediately after they were notified of the shootings.

Derek Randles of the OP has said that the OP could not make it down there until this August, 10 months after the shooting, because it cost too much money, and the OP could not afford to go there. The reasons why they could not go for nearly a year were because it cost $3,000, there was snow on the ground, and he runs a couple of businesses. However, his statement does not appear to be true.

We know this because the source told us that as soon as the OP heard about the Sierra Kills, they immediately put plans together for a recovery operation. So it appears that constraints such as lack of money, Randles’ two businesses, snow on the ground, etc. were not operative. The OP are known for good reason as the “boots on the ground” guys in Bigfoot research. They go anywhere, do anything, and don’t let weather or terrain stop them.

Further, it is dubious that Justin Smeja, the shooter of the two Bigfoots, went back to the site alone as he has said. For one thing, he changed his story. First he said he went back alone two weeks later. Then he said he went back with the driver a few days later.

But it does not appear that he could have gone back up alone. Immediately after the killings of the Bigfoots, he was not in any position to go back, and he was not going up there anytime soon. Suddenly he ends up going back there. Put it all together. Smeja, the driver and the OP must have all gone back to the Sierra Kills site very soon after the Bigfoots were killed. It’s the only conclusion that makes any sense.

Sierra Kills Bigfoot bodies or parts were probably secreted away by the OP and KP to protect investments of time and money. Let’s think about this. The bodies or body parts in the Sierra Kills, if revealed to the public and media right away at the time of discovery, could conceivably have put the kibosh on the KP, thereby wasting the money Hersom sunk into it while upstaging Ketchum and essentially wasting her time and money too.

It was essential that the bodies or body parts be secreted away and not revealed to the public in order to protect Hersom and Ketchum’s time and money that they had sunk into the project. It’s understandable that folks want to protect their investments of time and money, but in this case, it has resulted in a delay of the potential discovery of Bigfoot by probably over a year and possibly longer. As always in Bigfootery, science takes a back seat to ca$$$$h.

According to the BFRO homepage under “Questions of the Month,” OP financier Wally Hersom has a gigantic Bigfoot photo in his home.  If you walk into Wally Hersom’s (The OP’s benefactor) home, you can see a huge blown-up photo of a Bigfoot. The photo is called “Big Phil.” Previously, it was thought that the photo was taken with the OP’s own trailcams, however, we have now discovered that it was given to Hersom by an unknown person who shot the photo. The owner has apparently not given Hersom the right to release the photo.

The OP has not released the photo on their webpage for a variety of reasons. One reason is that project leader Derek Randles is uncertain if it is a photo of a real Bigfoot or if it is a hoax instead. However, the photo is said to be extremely impressive, possibly as impressive as the P-G film.

OP lied about solid Bigfoot evidence, said they would release it immediately to the public but never did. The OP always insisted that if they ever got solid evidence of Bigfoots’ existence such as a body or a part of a body, they would immediately go public with it. So what happened when they got at least a part of a body, and possibly much more? They secreted it away to Dr. Melba Ketchum’s DNA study, where it’s now all locked up with NDA’s, book deals, etc.

It’s all about the ca$$$$h. Some longtime supporters of the OP are disgusted at this line they have taken and consider them to be sellouts. In reality, they’ve just got Bigfoot fever.

The OP probably never would have released the story about the Sierra Kills. My source has told me that they feel the OP was probably never going to release the story of Smeja killing the two Bigfoots. Instead, they were going to release the information about the steak as part of Ketchum’s project, but they were not going to tell anyone where it came from. The source said that Randles is probably lying when he said that the OP was going to tell this story in whole after all the papers and whatnot were said and done. Why tell this scurrilous tale? What for?

The source said that if not for my reporting, the story never would have broken in the first place, unless, that is, some other person broke the story, which is uncertain.

Criminal complaint lodged against Justin Smeja in a city near Sacramento. We have managed to cultivate sources in a police department near Sacramento in the town where Smeja lives. A call to the police department the other day revealed that a citizen had lodged an anonymous complaint against Smeja for “double homicide” in Plumas County, California, in October 2010 in relation to the Sierra Kills.

The sources would not elaborate on whether or not the complaint had been followed up. Part of the problem with the complaint was its anonymous nature.

Bigfoots have hunched backs to give them powerful muscles in the chest and shoulders. One thing about Bigfoots that is little known is that they have a sort of a hunched back. In fact, this is a diagnostic sign of them. One wonders the reason for the hunched back. The hunched back serves to give them much more weight on the huge shoulders and upper back and also pushes a lot of the weight onto the huge chest.

Why Bigfoots walk flatfooted. Bigfoots have a flatfooted walk, whereas humans do not. The midtarsal break and the flatfooted walk that the Bigfoots have is necessary. One of our sources spoke with a professor who said that the flatfooted walk, the midtarsal break and the bent-kneed gait are necessary in order to support all that weight. If they did not walk they way they did, the professor said, the weight of their bodies would be so much that it would break a non-bendable human type foot.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

92 thoughts on “Bigfoot News August 11, 2011”

  1. If they find any semen, it belongs to me. No..I don’t want it back.
    Donate it to a sperm bank.
    She was fantastic. Poor fluffy.

  2. Hogwash…pure conjecture. More misinformation supplied by Erickson to his paid shill Lindsay. All about the cash? Well, when you ‘cash out’ that leaves it all to those who ‘held tight’…at that point, all you can do is whine and accuse those who still have money invested as ‘greedy’. Stop the charade….

  3. Lotta innerestin’ stuff here.

    As with all great discoveries, from “what is out there in the Universe?” to “What happens when we die?” to “Aliens and Dulce” to name it…much conjecture most likely is mixed with many cold, hard facts!

    Again, please don’t demonize money. Hundreds of years ago, art and literature were funded by the wealthy, and science was funded by the scientists themselves. In fact, up until mid-20th century, much science was self-funded or barely funded by outsiders. Kinda explains why many of those who made important discoveries in science and medicine died broke or nearly broke. The Curies’ and Fleming are but two examples.As I said before, I’d much rather private individuals funded science than the gubbmint which most likely decide if important finds are made public or not. The very wealthy now are on a mission to fund things like AIDS research (Bill and Melinda Gates, for example) and investments in poor countries (Warren Buffet) and so on. Now it is Wally Hersom and Sas. IF the gubbmint has known about BigFoot (and there is much our gubbmint knows about lotsa stuff besides BigFoot, like the paranormal studies done over the years and have only been revealed by virtue of the Freedom of Information Act!)obviously, it is taking PRIVATE money to establish this specie’s existence.

    I don’t think this is a bad thing. NOW, if Mr. Lindsay has invested a great deal of time and money (time IS money!) and he is being denied his share of the pie, it is an injustice. I understand any irritation on his part.

    But my point is: I’d rather private citizens get involved with science, than the gubbmint, gubbmint pretty much mucks up everything it touches…

    1. Yeah ok, but we are socialists here, so we don’t agree with you. I’m even a member of the Communist Party USA! So we don’t agree with your anti-government stance, obviously. Science as a profit-making venture, corporations funding science, very very bad idea. Private philanthropists funding science, no problem. I think they already do to some extent anyway. The problem though is that the philanthropist will want the science to come out a certain way, to get bang for his buck. So that taints the study right there. Like all those drug studies funded by the drug corporations themselves. There’s already been some corruption allegation going on with that stuff.

      1. Robert, I understand your political/social views. I respect them completely. Altho I can’t remember one off the top of my head, some of your blogposts have sounded beautifully conservative, in the most proper way. Not conservative as right-wing kwazy, but as a solid view in conserving our country and its assets. In conserving people and their individuality. In conserving our scientific assets and abilities. On conserving the innocence of childhood(that subject and your view on it moved me.)

        I agree with much of yer view on Big Pharma.

        Howevah, as the bright man you are, surely you understand about power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely. I don’t want any corporation or totalitarian (or otherwise) government telling me what to do, or how to do it. We need government, no question about it. How much? Not sure and I should be, I’m freakin’ 60, and the more I live, the more I know that I don’t know very much! Maybe that’s the wisdom that comes with old age…we finally figger out just how dumb we really are?

        I am on yer site because of this BigFoot thing. You seem to be very much informed and I love it. Our opinions do not converge on much, but yer info and slant on this subject fascinates me. About BigFoot and other so-called paranormal stuff, I just can’t get enough of. It sure beats the hell outta television!

        I’m enjoying the ride and I hope you let me stay.

  4. Nice! Its about time something from the ep project leaks. It be nice to at least get a date of release for ketchums paper or the ep video. Even if its two years away a date would be nice! Good job Robert!

  5. I have been following this story all over the internet. There are reports the shootings never happened and there are reports that the shootings did happen. I tend to believe they did happen. I also believe that they DNA of the dead bigfoot was tested. I also understand that people can make some money for this “discovery”. However, the money they can make is not that much compared to a pop star for example. Therefore, if all this research is being done in the name of science, then why can’t someone in the know step up to the plate and say what is really going on. If the goal of the Bigfoot community is prove they exist, it would also seem logical that they would also want to protect them since it seems the population is small. Why delay doing the right thing? If people have been sitting on evidence for as long as five years in certain cases, they why not come out with what they have. It has been said that logging companies have killed Bigfoots. There are stories of hunters killing them. With knowledge comes responsibilty. Ego has no place in science. We owe it to ourselves to continue spreading knowledge and helping other living creatures. Robert do you know if anyone in the loop (without mentioning names) would like to come out and tell the truth since it would be the right thing? Don’t they feel the need to protect these ceatures? Are all just hypocrites looking for a pay day?

  6. ….still not sure I understand such an intelligent man’s interest in sasquatch, certainly there must be a nobel prize to be earned here…I’m just not seeingit

  7. The interest is rather simple. Man is a curious being who studies his past, present and future in countless ways. If Sasquatch evokes thought and study in us then it is a good thing. We constanly dwell on the negative. Learning in general is not a negative so lets embrace it. While a potential Sasquatch discovery may not earn a Nobel Prize, it will teach us something positive. Who knows, we might just learn a little more about ourselves! To date the subject of Sasquatch has at least confirmed some of the things I have learned about human nature not to mention I have even seen some new things!

  8. DebK:

    Art can be created by poor people. Van Gogh was dirt poor. If you’re talented you will succeed without a patron. If you have no talent all the backing in the world won’t make you an artist.
    Literature’s the same principle. Most big writers started off poor or struggling…it’s conducive to good art.
    Science does just as well when it’s funded by govt. as when it’s privately funded. In fact if science is publicly funded it needs less oversight.
    France has a publicly supported medical research system, and it discovered many virus’ and cures.
    Who would you rather get your news from, Hearst at the start of the Spanish-American war, or NPR at the start of the Spanish-American war?

    Behind every great fortune is a great crime.

    1. To which NPR do you refer — the pre-cave in to right wing bullying and defunding NPR, or the post-cave in to right wing bullying and defunding NPR . . ?

      1. The pre-cave-in NPR and the post cave in. Like it or not, NPR is about the least rightwing media, although it is infiltrated with establishment toadies like Steve Innskeep. It’s certainly sucks less than CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, the washington whore times, the new york handjob times, the Bastin glob, or Salon. You can’t expect bravery and selfless risk-taking to be the rule in modern journalism. Be realistic.

  9. humm…followed the link to Bfencounters and EP “roll out”….honestly, can’t anyone in this field write without such obvious overt bias? If I didn’t know the peopel involved it would read better. I might even feel sorry for the hardworking baiting resercher who missed inportant family times suffering in the field. The sacrifices they all made!

    It really would read better if it were less slanted, less like a publicity jacket cover.

    On your recent entry into Bigfoot blogging….. many of the details you do have correct, at least according to those I hear from. Hersom jumping over from BFRO sometime in the last year…or so the rumor went, BFRO fell out of favor in the past few years…(apparently BFRO sold some of their Kentucky footage to the EP?) and I think if you go to Mary Green’s or Janice Carter’s posts you can find out a great deal more about that situation. You weren’t around (?) when the “pancake video” got posted on the internet by CraigWoolheater (if I recall correctly)… you might Google that…. I think that may have been where many became aware MM is not a lawyer…a suit was filed and I think just atrophied or something…..apparently CW had not signed an NDA…..
    and so it goes….. this rumor mill, and that’s what these are really, rumors……with the exception of first hand witnesses…say Stubstad or Randles speaking up to some of the claims….
    As for fame/money/bigfoots….. it will be a first….someone coming in ahead of what they spent (who actually goes in the field..not the internet web passive ad misters) so to whoever gets that Prize….congrats….impossible!
    $$$ yes they are necessary…but there is something worse in this field that messes it up… no real Bosses… we all work to achieve goals with those we don’t “care” for or like…maybe even dislike…but we work toward the goal as a team because we get paid to do so. Take that away… and you have “Bigfoot research” a completely chaotic field where “liking” someone (or trusting) means more than the actual research…..there is a great deal of very good research and evidence out there now…. overlooked because of this bizarre non professional, every man for self “field.” I suspect as the world comes to scrutinize the researchers involved DNA wont be the controversy…

  10. Apparently Ketchum and Paulides will speak for themselves on this topic October 1, 2011

    http://www.bigfootmountain.com/schedule

    Door fee $10.00 per day, per person,
    Conference Speaker Schedule Friday Sept 30th, 2011

    8:30 am Welcome and Opening comments (Troy Hudson)
    8:50 am Troy Hudson ( Local area Bigfoot Populations)
    9:30 am Thom Cantrall (Author “Ghosts of Ruby Ridge”)
    10:30 am Cubby Greenwood (Local Sightings)
    11:00 am Break
    11:10 am Scott R. Nelson(Bigfoot Language) or Farlan Huff (Bigfoot Research)
    12:10 pm Lunch
    1:00 pm Arla Williams (Cherokee Grandmother)
    2:00 pm Darryl Williams (Honobia Historian)
    2:30 pm Break
    2:40 pm Charles Branson (30 year veteran forest ranger. as seen on KTEN news)
    3:00 pm Robert Swain (Laughsquatch)
    4:00 pm Closing Remarks (Q and A)
    Saturday Oct 1st, 2011
    8:30 am Welcome and Opening Comments (Troy Hudson)
    8:45 am Arla Williams or Troy Hudson (What’s the Future)
    9:45 am Break
    10:00 am Arla Williams or Farlan Huff
    11:55 am Lunch
    12:30 pm Dave Paulides (Author “Tribal Bigfoot”)
    1:30 pm Scott R. Nelson (Bigfoot Language) or Troy Hudson
    2:30 pm Dr. Melba Ketchum (Sasquatch DNA)
    3:30 pm Round Table with Speakers (Q and A)
    4:00 pm Closing Remarks/Completion of Conference (Troy Hudson)
    4:30 pm Close of Festival & Raffle Prizes Awarded (Steel Tent)
    Note: Possibilities of time changes for certain speaker’s presentations due to last minute availability. Add on speakers are also possible due to current research projects and current events.

    1. Cheers all! Is anyone in the know as to whether Dr. Ketchum and David Paulides will still be speaking at the Honobia event this weekend? If Dr. Ketchum, especially, has cancelled what shall we read into that . . . assuming of course that she maintains her Stygian silence???

  11. a little searching the web today….and found this thread by Alex Hearn, a new name in Bigfoot research that seems to be popping up with claims of inside info with the Ketchum Project. This discussion is cached, removed apparently from his website. Seems many are frantically trying to re-write their histories. Other cached pages show some choice ideas about other researchers and Bigfoot evidence.

    Seems Biscardi met his match for double dealing.

    I had to use the cached vversions to read all the pages, this is just link for first page of that thread. Looks like there are many more “deleted” threads

    http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=alex+hearn+azcro+ashfork+toenail&type=W3i_DS%2C136%2C0_0%2CSearch%2C20110416%2C16491%2C0%2C8%2C0&fr=w3i&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=alex+hearn+azcro+ashfork+toenail&d=4602766385092349&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=5e66984a,4e083c39&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=2nyQvWZypdj9cw.vvciuTA–

  12. Here is a link to one of the more vocal New Names” in this DNA thing…Alex Hearn. He’s commenting on forums and poscasts as though he is the inside guy on Ketchum and NDA’s and goes way back in Bigfoot Research. The heavys I know don’t know him.
    A search of his forum with keywords related to Biscardi and the Ashfork Arizona (see also old Biscardi website on Arizona) toenail reveal a deleted thread that indicated Hearn is working hard to erase his past and reinvent his role. These are cached and one must used cached versions to read it all. There are more deleted threads..with some choice self aggrandizing claims. Seems Biscardi met his match in double dealing.

    http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=alex+hearn+azcro+ashfork+toenail&type=W3i_DS%2C136%2C0_0%2CSearch%2C20110416%2C16491%2C0%2C8%2C0&fr=w3i&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=alex+hearn+azcro+ashfork+toenail&d=4602766385092349&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=5e66984a,4e083c39&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=2nyQvWZypdj9cw.vvciuTA–

  13. I would love to see just one of these clear pictures Erickson has. My interest would really go through the roof!

  14. A kind-of interesting thing just happened to me on Bigfoot Forums. I was accused by a moderator of “trolling”. Which evidently means trying to inflame or accuse someone of something.

    What I actually did is state that I didn’t trust Derek Randles. Mainly because he has changed his story, significantly, from one version to the next about the Sierra Kills. But also because he really isn’t allowed to tell the truth based on his (likely) NDA with Ketchum.

    I won’t ask this on the Bigfoot Forum site; but please tell — how is this “trolling”? Did Randles or did he not change his story — sometimes very significantly? Did Randles visit both the site and the shooter shortly after the killings, or did he tell the truth on Blog Talk Radio when he said he hadn’t done any of these, ever, nor had he ever “passed on” the bigfoot steak?

    What’s up with the Bigfoot Forums? Should I simply bow out, because it’s ok to lie, as long as it is done politely?

    Richard Stubstad

    1. Cheers you troll you! For what it’s worth Richard I would take your word over Randles’ anyday under any conceivable circumstance. A considered, rational voice always rankles the bogtrotters. Don’t sweat it. Cheers!

    2. I’ve read as much on this topic as anyone and I have to say I haven’t found any major discrepancies in Randles story. At the time of the radio show, he said he hadn’t visited the site or met with the shooter in person. Both those things happened later (around the time of your excursion with Robert). Randles did claim (and maintains) the shooter sent the flesh to the Ketchum. This conflicts with the shooter’s comment that he sent it to the OP but he could have misspoke . “I sent it for the OP”, etc. They should clear it up. Remember, if they have something to hide they could easily just stop posting.

      My opinion is based on the public back and forth going on in the forums and blogs. I don’t have any inside information so your mileage may vary. That’s not to say there aren’t things that bug me about the story. There are – but a lot of the things that bother me fall into the category of “I would never have done that”. If that’s how I judged truthfulness, I wouldn’t believe anything on the news. The only thing we can do is wait and see how this plays out.

      1. I have not been able to catch Randles in any major lies, and I’m not even sure if I have caught him in any minor ones. Either he’s largely telling the truth or he chooses his words carefully.

      2. Here’s the obvious discrepancy – Randles version differs from Smeja’s version. Randles says the Bigfoot was in a meadow, far away, not approaching them, and that Smeja thought it was a bear but the friend wasn’t sure. In Smeja’s version, the Bigfoot was on the road in front of them, at a much closer distance, that it approached them in order to intimidate, that they knew they were Bigfoots or specifically in Smeja’s words “a monster”, that the friend pleaded w/ him to not shoot it many times over several seconds, and that the Bigfoot turned around and hightailed it after seeing Smeja raise his rifle.

        1. Smeja says that the BF was in a meadow, not a road. And I’m not sure about the turning around part either. That may or may not have been true, not sure right now.

          The part about the road and turning as if to run away is from the original version I think.

          We really need to get that Taxidermy.net thread.

        2. Smeja’s said that he uses the term road in the broadest sense of the word. I’ve understood him to mean that it’s basically an overgrown logger’s road.

        3. Smeja’s version or Ken Walker’s version? Without the taxidermy.net posts, we have no idea. Speaking of Ken Walker, where did he go? He posted on taxidermy.net some time ago that he was writing a book on this very topic. Anyone know?

      3. A profound chasm, I think, between being caught out in a barefaced lie and continual pettifoggery, obfuscation, and conversation-crushing silence . . . The OP is on record as stating that they will publicly release any reasonable trail-cam images they capture(one assumes they wouldn’t bother with blatant jokes, to wit: a moron in a monkey suit), and yet rumor has them sitting on just such a provocative image. And what does the public get but . . . silence. The proprietorial narrow-mindedness these ‘organizations’ embrace is stupefyingly scornful and counter-productive . . . Cheers!

    3. I think you need to leave. They banned me, and they may well ban you too. Randles has a lot of pull on that forum, he’s a big guy, a hot shot. He’s in deep with the people who run the forum.

      I would just leave that forum if I were you.

  15. It is now my understanding — of course I could be wrong — that Randles in fact visited both the site and the killer (and the driver) within a couple of weeks of the shooting.

    Anyone else have this “inside” information? It makes sense — since the Olympic Project sells itself on doing actual field investigations, not “telephone interviews”. I really don’t think they would have “stayed away” from THIS event … unless Randles sent someone else.

    I have a feeling that there is a bit of CYA going on, possibly because both Randles and Ketchum know fully well that the sasquai are at least partly human — meaning Homo sapiens sapiens.

    Another thing happened: When I first heard about the “Sierra kill(s)” last November, I didn’t believe it, at least not initially. I didn’t even bring it up here; Robert Lindsay did. I later read a post or an email from Randles himself, where he said something like “there is no bigfoot body” or “we have no body”.

    Of course, since at the time I believed in Randles as much (or as little) as the next guy, I took that to mean there hadn’t been a bigfoot killed. I believe Randles intentionally mislead us to believe the latter by stating the former. Maybe (or even likely) the Olympic Project does not have body; but maybe the shooter does?

    Talk about playing with words!

    Still, I understand that Randles’ hands are tied; he has a practically insurmountable NDA with Ketchum; he has a potential law suit on his hands as an accomplice to murder, even if “only” a mother and child bigfoot. He has a potential influx of cash to be made, say, if “someone else” happens to have a body. In short, he simple can’t tell the truth unless it is nondescript.

    Richard

    1. There is no evidence that Randles visited the shooter or went to the site right away. However, Randles said he could not make it down there for 10 months because he could not afford, was too busy with work, etc. However, we know that right after the shooting, the OP was notified of what happened, and they said they could assemble a group to go down there within a day or so.

      Mr. Randles chooses his words very, very well. He should have went into law.

  16. Nope, socialism doesn’t cause riots, capitalism does. The riots were caused by 30 years of neoliberalism and increasing inequality in the most unequal capital city in all of Europe. Followed by savage cutbacks in the social safety net. Socialism has been shredded for 30 years now in the UK. The more socialism, the more social peace, the less strife, the less crime and the fewer riots. The less socialism, the more radically unequal capitalism, and you have lots of social strife, lots of protests, lots of riots, and sooner or later you have political violence, typically an armed Left.

    Wealth gets redistributed one way or another. If the state does not redistribute wealth, the people will do so themselves by rioting, looting, street crime and eventually an armed Left. That’s an iron law, there is no getting around it.

    As the UK shreds socialism more and more and becomes more of a radically capitalist state, you will see more unrest, more violence, more riots, more crime, etc.

  17. PS, you’re not allowed to talk like this one this blog. Rightwing politics is not allowed. So if you keep doing it, I will ban you. I advise you to just talk about Bigfoot or other stuff instead.

    PS. I’m not much of a Commie anyway. I was thrown out of the local party on the grounds that I wasn’t a Communist. They thought I was too pro-capitalism.

  18. Robert is in favor of the “golden mean”, just as I am. Equalize everything too radically so that everyone receives the same income and people lose the incentive to work much more than the average person does. On the other hand, laissez faire capitalism, which the Tea Party and Republican idiots want to bring back, has been proven time and time again to be unworkable. It inevitably leads to extreme and intolerable inequality, leaving a large mass of people unemployed not because they are unwilling to work, but because they are unable to since a “pure” capitalist economy attains economic “equilibrium” even at high unemployment rates. Scandinavian socialism is probably the best compromise so far, but it requires a well educated populace.

    1. I more or less agree with this statement. I don’t like to classify myself anymore, and the Commies keep saying that I am not one of them. The problem of folks not working very hard under Communism is well known. I would say that I am just a socialist. I support most kinds of socialism to one degree or another.

      Belarus seems to have done very well with a mixed social market economy. So has China, but China has developed a lot of problems. I am much more enamored of Belarus.

    1. Any source for that? I noticed this on their website:

      Rapid Peer Review: average time to first decision just 33 days

  19. This isn’t supposed to be a political forum, but I must say I’m in agreement with Bernardo. I have the advantage of having lived in Denmark for about 10 years, and indeed their system seems to be as close to “ideal” as I’ve ever seen. It is not without its problems, though, since people are people and equally imperfect to any “system” they create.

    The bit about the Tea Party is especially relevant. Do they want us to go back to the Wild West mentality, or Haiti-style “hands-off” government?

    The interesting thing about the Tea Party is that it has probably damaged the Republican (moderate wing) party irreparably, such that Obama probably doesn’t even have to campaign to win 2012. He may as well just go fishing, or even searching for bigfoot.

    Richard

  20. Marice:

    Think about it from their (the OP) point of view.

    They are in all likelihood under an NDA from Ketchum that essentially allows them zero and allows her anything she wants to do under the sun.

    How can they then live up to their supposed “image” of being open?

    On the sites I have seen lately, I notice a profound and deafening silence from these folks. Or is this the calm before the storm?

    Richard

    1. A fair point Richard, but does Ketchum’s control(right word?) extend to her having final say on non-lab matters . . ? Cheers!

    1. You’re right Richard, that’s impressive musculature . . . With all due respect to Robert I still maintain that the EP needs to get out ahead on this one and release their vids. It goes without saying that they will be called hoaxes by some if they do, but that’ll be the scenario regardless . . . Little to be lost, I think, much to be gained in an effort to reorient what is fast becoming a circus to an open discussion about what continues to be the most singular biological event since Darwin. Cheers!

  21. Well, folks, that just about does it for Bigfoot Forums as far as my participation. They appear to be stacking the deck in favor of certain Political Leaders and accusing the rest of us for “slander” or “trolling” when it is only us Proletariat making entries.

    Soon, they can simply preach to the choir.

    All men and women are created equal, but some are clearly more equal than others.

    Richard

  22. I have hypathetically envisioned a BF carcass scenario numerous times in my research and would not have proceeded like this group has.
    All of this advanced publicity on a purported BF DNA find is reminiscent of the hype that preceeded the Biscardi “BF in a freezer” stunt.

    NOTE TO SELF: If you genuinely have proof…show it (don’t hype it).

    If I were to have come upon a BF carcass, I would do the following…

    1) Collect an irrefutable sample (i.e. a hand, head, foot, finger, etc.). This could be done within minutes and would easily be transportable from the site. No long drawn out DNA study would have to be done immediately to prove what you have. This person was allegedly a hunter who surely was prepared to haul out his game. In the case of the juvinille BF, as was described, would not have exceeded the size of the game the hunter was prepared to extract. Why then would they not have attempted to recover the carcass of the younger BF?

    2) If a camera is on hand (most people carry cell phones with cameras)…take pictures!

    3) Return to the site ASAP with the means to remove the rest of the carcass(s).

    4) If the only evidence collected was unidentifiable tissue scraps, conduct all DNA sequencing BEFORE ever discussing it publically. All forensic work woul done in absolute secrecy.

    5) Avoid collaborating with any outside groups who had nothing to do with the origianl find. The fact that the “project” has morphed into an Erickson + Olympic + BFRO + (?) collaboration is very suspicious. Why share your find with mutiple groups when it is rightfully your discovery? It would appear that this is an attempt to gain credibility, obtain funding, and share the blame in the event of a failure.

    I predict another major press conference soon in which a lot of publicity (notoriety) will be the only thing that comes of it; followed by a mea copa that the presenters were duped. That and another black eye to the research community as a whole. The “proof” will remain likely be refutable and circumstantial, if not proven to be yet another hoax all together.

    Put up or shut up!

    Beast Regards,
    SSG Todd M. Neiss
    Joint Base Balad, Iraq
    http://about.me/toddneiss

  23. When will people realise that the idea of a large primate living undiscovered in the PNW (or whatever other area they propose) simply isn’t possible.
    There is no bigfoot/yeti/sasquatch people, accept reality.

    1. I agree with your sentiment, but it seems that against all possible odds, and in spite of the fact that it seems impossible, these things actually do exist. I know this because I have seen the evidence. As insane as it sounds, apparently they do somehow exist.

  24. Robert,
    What evidence have you seen? What you have been reporting is nothing but ‘he said,she said’ stuff. There is still no physical evidence for the existence of bigfoot and the usual footdragging, backstabbing and hoaxing persist in the pro bigfoot camp. I think that SSG Neiss in his comment probably has it about right. No bigfoot was killed in California because bigfoot does not exist in California or anywhere else.

    1. 1. I know a few people who have seen Bigfoots right up close and personal, one guy 7 times. He is a former university science professor.

      2. John Bindernagel, PhD wildlife biology, and Leila Hadj-Chikh, PhD biology, have both seen them with their own eyes. Hadj-Chikh on many occasions.

      3. I have a friend who has seen the Erickson footage. It is better than the P-G film, and there is no way on Earth that the Erickson footage could have been faked by the EP videographers.

      4. I have seen enough conclusive video, in particular, Chris Noel’s thermal video from Texas which could not have been faked. Other videos are conclusive to me also.

      5. My friends have been told the results of the DNA study, in which 20 BF individuals have been sequenced by Dr. Ketchum. Dr. Ketchum is not lying about her findings, and believe that her science is good.

      6. The Sierra sounds audiotapes are conclusive. They were not hoaxed, the sounds could not have been made by humans, and there is no other animal in the Sierras that makes those noises.

      7. The Sierra Kills must have taken place because the slice of flesh cut from the dead BF was sent in to Ketchum’s lab. People are now implying that it tested positive as a BF. I know the MtDNA tested positive as human, and there’s no way that piece came off a human, so it must have come off a BF.

      Somehow, these things must exist.

    2. Well, the Erickson tape for sure exists, I can tell you that. I know this because my friend has seen the whole thing.

      I agree with you about the backstabbing, footdragging and hoaxing, but that has always gone on in this game. Hopefully, when we get poor, we can get rid of these losers and replace them with some real scientists.

  25. 20 individuals have full nuclear DNA mapped? So then if the EP, Pauides and Op all have 3 to 5 individuals on average with say multiple samples per individual at also 3 (just guessing here) in that “100 samples” number we hear, that leaves about 50 indiviual sample holders “in” beyond these, unless many other groups have more than one. But, it doesn’t seem so. Perhaps a few…so lets knock it down to about 30 that might be lonely “individuals” caught in all this just waiting to be validated?

    http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2011/08/erickson-project-mike-and-dr-ketchum.html?showComment=1313633575845

    If many were disgruntled it might be enough for the Class Action type suit, but it would require a number of them agreeing, which doesn’t seem likely. But, if so then there might be many arguments to revisit the NDA.

    Just listening/reading the web I count:

    EP about 3 to 6 individuals
    Paulides, maybe 3 or so
    OP who knows
    Johnson – irrg pipe 1 individual many samples
    Larry jenkins toenail
    and apparently this guy with a tooth?
    Ohio individual with hair

    and so on…maybe three or four more I can’t recall names or posts….

    sounds pretty definate with regard to the results and exciting..

    any predictions? we don’t have an H. erectus genome do we? My vote is H.erectus/H.sapien of some type that has evolved since the last erectus fossils…how recent? 17,000ypb on recent ones. Or the Russian Denislova (sp?) genome…very cool stuff. Really want to see this taken with something more than Sas “hunting” shows and go to some anthropology by Cambridge or something…..say goodbye to Monster shows I hope!

  26. I can definitely add to some of the above take on the number of samples that Dr. K has “in-house”:

    1. Last I heard, no “relic” samples were being used in “Round 1” of testing; this would include the tooth extracts from Michael Rugg. It would also include any other relics that cannot be considered “fresh” samples.

    2. Dr. K did say at one point that she fully intends to run another round of testing with relic samples. However, let’s first wait for the Round 1 report, eh?

    3. EP: Probably all six samples have been tested, as all were “fresh” and sufficiently large to do both mtDNA and nuDNA testing. Plus, Adrian Erickson paid for both, for all six samples. The problem (for him) is: he has virtually no data from these tests, because Dr. K doesn’t want to give it out, at least not until (and if) she gets a peer-reviewed paper under her belt.

    4. I don’t know about the Paulides samples; the estimate of 3 sounds as good as any (I’d suspect more, but who knows?). Nor do I know how many are “relics” and how many are fresh, or whether any or all are extensive enough to conduct both mito and nuclear testing.

    5. From what I have seen (very little), the irrigation pipe sample from a sasquatch-skunk encounter show the real deal; and VERY fresh at that. Counting this single encounter as “several samples” is stretching the definition of a sample too much, as it was obviously from the same sasquatch.

    6. The “Ohio” sample: my understanding was that there were several (meaning more than one) “individual” samples from here and there; I don’t know how many, or how good these samples are.

    7. The OP: Upwards of 100 samples sounds too good to be true; therefore it probably is. Are there duplicates there (meaning from the same sasquatch)? Are some or even most of these hoaxes or misidentifications? Are some relics? No one knows.

    8. In light of the fact it took the EP at least five years to “habituate” their six unwilling sample providers (the sasquai) in order to end up with six almost certainly genuine sasquatch samples, it indeed sounds more than a bit of a stretch to give the OP even a quarter of what they report — 100 samples, no less!

    9. All in all, it would be my guess, currently, that Dr. K has included around 20 fresh samples in her analysis, probably most of these both mtDNA and nuDNA. There may well be more where only the mtDNA was tested, but as stated earlier, this genome is less interesting than the nuclear genome, since most samples will likely show Homo sapiens sapiens of various origins due to “sleeping around” or whatever such a thing was called thousands of years ago.

    From the three mito genome sequences I have seen, none were either Denisovan or Neanderthal — not even close. However, this does not mean that the nuclear genome could indicate one of these two possibilities on the male side of the lineage; or maybe something else, eg. Homo erectus. There are no Homo erectus sequences of any kind to my knowledge in Genbank or elsewhere. Most sources indicate Homo erectus died out AT LEAST 250,000 years ago, although the transition from erectus to sapiens is blurred.

    OaO,

    Richard

  27. Yes, IF we (or “they”) define Solo Man as Homo erectus. Anatomically, this is questionable. To my knowledge, Solo man has not been sequenced;even the mito genome, or has it? If so, please provide a link & I’ll have a look based on the data I have from the early Ketchum et.al. study (when we were still trying to sort out whether sasquatch was real or not).

    Using more commonly accepted relic classifications, I would say that Homo heidelbergensis is closer. Here’s an excerpt from a recent article dated 25 March 2010:

    DNA of ancient Siberian human uncovered
    25 March 2010

    The DNA of an ancient unidentified Siberian has been revealed. The Denisova human shared a common ancestor with modern humans and Neanderthals (cranium shown on the left) about 1 million years ago. The Denisova human could be an off-shoot of Homo heidelbergensis (shown on the right).

    To see the full article & pictures of two related skulls, see:

    http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2010/march/dna-of-ancient-siberian-human-uncovered62927.html

    I think that Homo erectus has been used as a catch-all phrase when folks don’t know where else to classify something. So sasquatch may well be classified as such by “the experts”, but not me. I believe that that particular sub-human died out AT LEAST 100,000 years ago, and 2 or 3 times longer ago.

    What we have in the sasquai is a much newer lineage; that’s why there’s still evidently a mixture of Homo sapiens sapiens and whatever the male side of the equation turns out to be (possibly totally unclassified, and possibly simply a stone-age Homo sapiens offshoot).

    We’ll see — now we need some more SAMPLES to test, in addition to Dr. K’s ongoing and never ending story.

    Richard

  28. As for samples, what about Mike Rugg and his tooth? In a recent YouTube video he said you obtained a sample from an interesting tooth in his possession. He said Ketchum moved his tooth to the back of the queue because she had more recent samples to test. Anyway, Rugg was presented with the new NDA but hasn’t signed (at least not when he made the video). He may be willing to participate in another study. Did you have an opinion on the origins of that tooth?

  29. Yes, indeed, I know a lot about the so-called “Bigfoot Tooth”. I was there when a local (California) dentist extracted “shavings” from the interior of the tooth; these shavings were immediately sent off to Melba Ketchum. I believe that was around the middle of 2010.

    I have no opinion on the origins of the tooth, but it was indeed VERY large & could have been from a sasquatch. It could also have been from something else, such as a pig. I have no idea, really, without doing some DNA testing. The “back of the queue” issue isn’t limited to Michael Rugg’s Bigfoot Tooth. It is ALL relic samples; or at least that was the case as of October or November of 2010.

    Dr. K simply had so many fresh samples, she didn’t have time to start testing the relic samples (and there were several of these as well).

    She may well test them during “Round 2”; and she may not get beyond Round 1. Nobody knows; we can only speculate or “believe” because to my knowledge, no one has any data and no one has critically reviewed her paper with sufficient DNA and genetic knowledge to do so with any degree of authority (including me).

    Again, I would have suggested one (or more) of the researchers from the Max Planck Institute in German (or other highly qualified institutions and individuals) to join in and be a co-author. Personally, I doubt that Dr. K has done that, but who knows?

    If she hasn’t, it is likely that her paper submittal, even if it passes some form of peer review, will create more controversy, not less. In such a case, other “parallel” or confirming studies will be needed, which is my interest at present.

    Re. the “specimen agreement” sent to Michael Rugg; if I were him, I wouldn’t sign it because my own lawyer said it was “ridiculous”. My reading of the agreement is that Michael could not legally take the remainder of his tooth (which he has in his possession) and do any further testing on it without her permission.

    At a minimum, he should wait until she completes Study No. 1 (with fresh samples only) and see how that works out.

    I have already spoken to him about further testing; he may or may not participate; again, who knows?

    Richard

    1. 7 different experts examined Mike Rugg’s tooth, all dentists. All said it was human, but way too large to be human. One expert thought it looked Neandertal, another said it looked like Meganthropus.

      1. And this is where it begins to get dodgy innit? Genetic drift becomes as mercury where we’re still not entirely certain what population of humans/proto-humans were how many where and when. Sample A and sample B are exactly that, microcosms of a macrocosm. This is a multi-disciplinary investigation sore in need of a unifying hand. Instead we have a geneticist in Texas apparently attempting to scent mark everything in existence, and ‘organizations’ making extravagant claims whilst refusing to publicly document them . . . And most amusing, no end of bogtrotters who have made, and will continue to make, the claim that he/she/they have “discovered” a critter who has been around longer than bowels and continents, err, vowels and consonants . . . Cheers!

  30. The entry above is better (more humorous) than the old MAD Magazine. Steve B. can reinvent that relic periodical, and be the editor-in-chief without a staff–he can do it all ! And with a last name like Byrne, he can claim an intimate relationship to Peter Byrne and maybe the other three of the Four Horsemen of the Sasquai.

    The one part I can help with is OTHER PARALLEL STUDIES. At least one is ongoing; maybe more.

    Let’s get another one going, folks? Any samples–tested for free–if properly vetted?

    Richard Stubstad

    1. Not sure. I think it is more that I am not getting very many new leads on new stories. People have gone quiet, and I am having a hard time working with a source to write my next installment. They are afraid of retaliation, so I have to work with them very closely on what to write.

      But the big players are starting to plant their own stories out there, for instance, the 2 part Erickson story.

      I do think that something is up. Ketchum has a publicity photo on her Facebook site. She will be speaking with Paulides on October 1 in Honobia. Erickson is starting to leak his own stuff.

    2. BTW, thank you very much for the enhancement of Erickson’s sleeping BF shot. You did a great job on it. I need to write that up.

      In part, I’ve just been too tired to write much of anything. And sort of discouraged too. I get that way a lot.

  31. Re. the question about one of the parallel studies.

    If we can figure out how to communicate by phone, yes I can tell you, Maurice. Any ideas without posting a phone number, publicly, here?

    Richard

    1. Cheers Richard. Robert will be passing it on to you if he hasn’t already. Looking forward to talking with you!

  32. sorry to the room…my internet went down and guess i posted this after the above discussion on the pic….my bad

  33. Steve, no need for apologies it was funny and humor is a necessary commodity in this discussion. Had Sagan been around longer I suspect he might have rethought his opinion(bias) re: Sasquatch. He embraced, however minimally, the Lorenzean predicate that a proper scientist is prepared to discard handfuls of preconceived ideas by the time he/she sits down to breakfast . . . Something of a toff apparently but nonetheless a wonderful advocate for scientific enquery in our country. And I agree with your assessment of Demon Haunted World . . ., one of his finest books. Anyway. I’m hoping your own investigation of this critter comes to fruition(or did I misread your post and you’ve already launched?) and that you will publicly document your findings . . . Cheers!

  34. Sad to say, but there is another Bigfoot blogspot:

    http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/bigfoot/melba-ketchum-2011-bigfoot-dna-study/

    by a gal named “Autumn” (evidently from the Oregon Bigfoot Blog) who published a scathing entry from Melba Ketchum that calls me a “liar, publicly, among many other untruths. Twice, I have tried to enter the following retort, and it is each time erased within a day or so; Robert, thanks for publishing it here.

    This women is getting downright nasty:

    Autumn:

    I also think you did a good job, above; however perhaps by necessity and perhaps by inadvertent design, you left off a few salient details. Before I post these, however, I have a few remarks of my own:

    I sure like the fact that most of you folks that responded are anti-kill, even if someone else has done the killing. I personally believe that this very issue is what sealed the deal re. Dr. Ketchum and I, who had frankly worked quite well together before this story of the “Sierra Kills” came out. I was shocked and was still in disbelief when Dr. K told me about the so-called “bigfoot steak” in front of her. The big problem I still have with these purported kills (regardless of who is telling the true story; perhaps none of these are true) is that the shooter did NOT appear to know these creatures had already tested out (through mtDNA) as at least partly human. To him, it was just another animal, so he is excused to some extent, since he was evidently bear hunting at the time. But to Dr. K and also Derek Randles, they most likely both knew that the sasquatch is, in most if not all cases, partly human; therefore, by extension they are “accessories to the fact” of a homicide by an unwitting shooter. When I was told of the possibility, I didn’t want anything to do with it, since I thought that the previous group of participants with Dr. K were all anti-kill and wanted to get the DNA job done without killing a creature.

    On the matter of Dr. K’s entry, in public, to me personally, where she calls me a liar, I can state unequivocally that I am NOT lying about anything at all. Of course, it is as easy for me to say that as for Melba to call me a liar, but still I want to state that for the record. A misunderstanding — maybe; but a liar — no way!

    Here were my short & sweet responses to her post (from two separate blogs):

    July 4, 2011 at 11:13 PM

    Melba:

    Nice to hear from you again, albeit in a slightly different forum. I still plan to pay you–if I lose–those two bets we have for a $2 bill (each); unless they cancel out, of course. Still, though, I expect to collect on both bets (do you recall them, exactly?).

    I realize your lawyer told you to offer me the second NDA, since it was written in “legalese” and not either of our “laymen’s” language. As I said, though, my attorney advised me otherwise, so sorry–thanks but no thanks.

    Are you now denying that you told me, when I told you I hoped that the ‘Sierra kill’ was false or a hoax, you said, “I hope it isn’t”? Then I said, “Why”, to which you said, “Because it is for science”? Isn’t that advocating a kill, or do you actually deny saying this?

    When I then asked you what the difference is between Biscardi advocating a kill and you advocating a kill, you said, “because I’m advocating it for scientific reasons, while Biscardi is just showboating (or some such), or doing it for publicity?” You know I didn’t agree with you (about the Sierra kill(s)). Is THAT what turned you off, Melba?

    Please confirm or deny.

    Are you also saying that the data for the mtDNA sequencing for the first two samples were incorrect? I understand from you that they were sequenced by an excellent “subconsultant” lab. Were the sequences therefore incorrect? Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying my statistical analyses were incorrect?

    Thanks, and good luck on those $2 bill bets (or at least one of them). As I said, I’m willing to pay–and I will do so–if I lose. I know you can’t say anything yet about winning or losing these!

    Richard

    PS: I don’t know who you mean by my “backers”. No one is backing me. I can take care of myself, thanks.

    AND LATER ON ANOTHER BLOG I SAID:

    Melba:

    Oh, you posted the same thing (basically) on Robert Lindsay’s thread. So please refer to that thread for my comments & a reiteration of what I heard you say to me last year.

    Melba, you know fully well I am not lying, and never have. Have I made mistakes in my life? Sure. Have you? You think? But I’ve never lied to you and I never will.

    Finally, too, I never said anything like, “I’ll make you the sorriest woman on the planet.” I don’t know who said that, but please consider the source. In fact, I wish you the very best. I just don’t think your lawyers are helping you out–quite to the contrary.

    Richard (Stubstad)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.