Blockbuster news! We have it on good authority that the Dr. Melba Ketchum study has not only proven that Bigfoots exist, but that they are an existing relict hominid. But that’s not the big news; you already knew that. So what’s the big news? A source inside the Ketchum camp has informed me that the Ketchum study folks not only have proven that these hominids exist, but they have identified the exact hominid that the Bigfooots are! “They know which one it is,” is how it was related to me. That means, apparently, that the Bigfoots are a known hominid, known from the fossil or possibly DNA record. It’s a hominid that is already known and exists in the scientific record. Not only that, but this known hominid has managed somehow to survive to the present day! So a known relict hominid, well known to science, never went extinct and instead survives to this very day. I asked the source which identified hominid the Bigfoots are, and the source either would not or was not able to tell me. There are parts of this that I do not understand. Do they mean that they have identified the hominid on the nuclear side? Because on the MtDNA side, the Bigfoots are 100 Are there known relict hominids which are hybrids of human on one side and an unknown relict hominid on the other? I don’t know, and so much does not make sense about this information. Could it be Neandertal? Maybe, but Neandertal was not human on the MtDNA side, and I believe Richard Stubstad said that Neandertals were ruled out on the nuclear side. Could it be Denisovan? Possibly, but I do not believe that the Denisovans were human on the MtDNA side either. Could it be the Red Deer Cave People recently found in China? Possibly, but I believe that we lack DNA for these relict hominids. However, they do have a backwards-sloping forehead, and this is what true Bigfoots have and most hoaxes get wrong. It can’t be Flores Man – they are far too small. What about Heidelbergensis? This has always been my favorite for the Bigfoots. However, I believe we have no Heidelbergensis DNA. Nor do we have DNA from various forms of Erectus and whatnot. So how is it that they think they know which hominid it is? My source told me that they may know if they have an actual Bigfoot specimen, which he suspects they do. The source thinks that the Ketchum study retained a full Bigfoot specimen from the Sierra Kills. In that case, they could compare say the skull from the Kills with existent skulls of say, Heidelbergensis. David Claerr has written many fascinating pieces on this topic. In one of his articles, he implied that he had seen Bigfoot skeletons either in museums or in private collections. I asked him to elaborate, but he was not able to do so due to agreements with his sources. The Ketchum camp really, really does not want this information getting out now, so I have been told. But this information comes from a new source inside the Ketchum camp who is best described as “disgruntled” with the way things are going. I wish I could tell you more about this, but this is apparently a deep secret among the study folks, and it was hard enough to come up with this tidbit. But we will see if any elaborating information comes out in the future due to this revelation. Ketchum received two Bigfoot steak samples, one from the baby and one from the adult male. We reported this a while back, but no one believed us so we will repeat it as I just heard it one more time. When the initial samples were sent in from the Sierra Kills, there were two samples. One sample was reportedly from the baby and one was from the adult. How do we know this? Because Ketchum told a close associate (who we cannot name) that that is what she received. She also said that one had hair resembling the color of the baby’s hair, and the second had hair resembling the adult. Subsequently, all talk of the second sample vanished, and now it apparently doesn’t exist. All reports now only discuss “the sample,” which is from the male. So what about the second sample she received? What happened to it? My source told me they think it’s been buried. The source thinks the entire body of the baby was retained initially, and it is presently with Wally Hersom, though that is just speculation. The baby is theorized as being secreted away, apparently, all in an effort to keep Justin Smeja, the shooter, out of jail. The source also told me that they thought that Ketchum’s Hollywood publicist and attorneys told her that anything relating to the baby Bigfoot is “kryptonite,” and that it has to be buried. It’s all pretty wild stuff, and I’m not sure how true it is. But we do know that Ketchum said she received two samples, not one, and that she described them to a colleague as coming from two different animals. What happened after that? Who knows? It’s all so mysterious. Additional hints that Smeja’s body recovery story may not be correct. A friend of mine listened to Smeja’s interview on the radio a while back, and he said the Smeja sounded quite honest up until the part about the body recovery. At that point, he felt Smeja did not sound fully honest anymore due to his voice tone and sentence structure and whatnot. There are other clues. On Bigfoot Forums, “the general” was asked why he shot the baby Bigfoot in the throat. He responded testily that he didn’t want to damage the head. The implication was that he wanted the head for evidence, and this is why he shot the baby. Smeja’s driver has already told us that Justin shot the baby for evidence. In addition, on Bigfoot Forums, Justin described exactly where the bullet entered and left the body of the adult Bigfoot. He said it entered 3 inches below the nipple and exited at a precise point in the opposite lung. My source said there is no way he could determine that at 80 yards, and that he must have inspected the body after he shot it. On the radio show referenced earlier, Justin was asked whether he was sure the adult was dead. He answered twice, emphatically, that the adult was dead. The second time was in response to a question, “Are you sure it’s dead?” “I’m sure it’s dead,” Justin answered with finality. My source told me that that no hunter ever says he is sure he killed an animal unless he inspects to body to make sure it is dead. Update on the Erickson Project. We don’t have much, but a source close to the Erickson Project said that the word from Adrian Erickson on the release of his film is “soon.” My understanding is that the paper and the movie are still to be released in tandem. Sorry we don’t have any more than this. Publication date for Ketchum’s paper. This depends on what the window is between acceptance of a paper and the publication of that paper. Does anyone know what that window is? If you can figure out what the window is, you can get a time frame of a possible early to late publishing date. I would also like to know if papers are ever accepted for publication (pass peer review) but are then killed for one reason or another. If this ever happens, then maybe there’s a slight chance it will not publish at this venue. As for me, of course I have no date at all. Reason for all the secrecy in the Ketchum camp? An observer has hypothesized that all of the secrecy is not necessary in order to not jeopardize the paper; instead, it originates with the needs of Ketchum herself, who has some mysterious need or desire for all this privacy. I asked a source why she was so hyper-secret if it’s not needed for the integrity or existence of the paper, and the source said, “She wants to be next Jane Goodall or Diane Fossey. She wants to run around in the woods and study these creatures. She wants to be to Sasquatch what Fossey and Goodall are to chimps and gorillas. And she thinks that all of the leaks somehow get in the way of all of that.” MK Davis breaks down Paul Freeman’s great Bigfoot video. The famous Freeman video from 1994 is widely considered to be authentic. Unfortunately, it has very poor resolution. MK Davis, whatever his other faults, is excellent at video work. He has enhanced a scene from the end of the video that some said showed the Bigfoot picking up a baby and walking away with it. I was never able to make out that aspect of the video, so I could never comment on it. But in MK Davis’ great enhancement, it looks very much like the Bigfoot in the video does pick up a baby Bigfoot at the end and put it in its arms. We have seen a number of videos where adult Bigfoots pick up babies and go away with them. The most famous is the Memorial Day footage. Another one is the Beast of Gum Hill video, where the Bigfoot crosses a creek in front of the couple riding ATV’s in a creek and picks up a baby on the other side. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jfalypfvpnk] Strange photo of possible Bigfoot in the Basque country. Here is a strange new photo from the Basque Country. There have long been reports of Bigfoot type things (not sure exactly what type – maybe Almas?) roaming these mountains. I was surprised at how spectacular, stark and rugged the Basque mountains are. I don’t what the thing in this video is – to me, it looks sort of like a man. Doesn’t seem to be shaped like a Bigfoot. On the other hand, maybe Almas are different. Back story from the blog where it appeared:
The witness, Joxan (Basque name), and his 14 year old daughter took advantage of a day off for an excursion through the area. After passing the peak of Bianditz, they took the path of the three cromlechs going to Errenga (Errenga and Bianditz are peaks in the Basque Country). At that moment, they heard a loud whistles, and about 200 meters away, they see something moving Penas-Errenga that catches their eye. At first they thought it was a dog, a person, a monkey or a bear, despite bears having disappeared from the area a century ago. Witnesses see a man covered with hair, he was wearing “a kind of leather poncho” and moves at a quick run up the mountain, while emitting loud whistles. These sounds, long sustained, seemed to be answered from a nearby peak and also from the surrounding woods.
Reading the blog post in Spanish, subsequent investigation is questioning the reality of this photo and investigators are wondering if it is a manipulated image of some sort.