Guest Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 There's a long and muddled tale of how Stubstad became involved with Ketchum. Frankly as I've said privately to folks off list, I know what I've been told. Now I'm just waiting. Business as usual so it really doesn't affect me either way. I'd like to think something positive coming out of the Ketchum study, and who knows? Like I said business as usual and if and when it comes out, then let's ponder and speculate. As far as Robert "Lindsay," which is technically now an alias (no longer a pseudonym), as he's using that name on some social networking sites, his rantings and musings are that of someone rather, unique. Definitely not my taste. Although, I am not 100% sure of how he got involved, but I have some strong leanings. It's something they've all kept close to the chest. As for Stubstad (had some involvement with the Erickson project, until he was removed, moved onto Biscardi, and paid for the Biscardi samples.My understanding is that the Biscardi samples were nil.) He then went on to form a business called Science Alive LLC, with himself, former Biscardi VP, Robert "Javabob" Schmalzbach, and Ketchum, who backed out of the partnership. As soon as the NDA expired for Stubstad, leaks went public via "Lindsay." However this information was a bit outdated and has had no real new information about the study since the beginning of 2011. Now that being said, Stubstad, has been revealed to be a Biscardi contributor and facilitator, at least for a time. He continues to hold association with Schmalzbach, who in turn still has an association with Biscardi. Erickson's involvement with the Ketchum project, was the submission of several DNA samples, the same as NABS and several other persons and organizations. That's it. Aside probably with some NDA vs. NDA issues between Erickson and Ketchum. With that being said, the above statements, are facts. I have the paper trails and the admissions to prove it. As far as "Lindsay's" animosity towards me, may be very well justified, as I revealed who he really is, but more importantly what he is. Sometimes it just goes with the territory. As far as the Erickson project Mann Rd. location, from late 2006 - sometime in 2008/2009 it was owned by Erickson's property company,(name escapes me at this time, something like (Odyssey Property Management, Canada) whom purchased it directly from a couple (whom shall remain nameless), and bought them a new house about 2 miles away. The same couple anonymously tried to get money out of Biscardi, for access to their new property, stating the creatures had followed them to their new home. The new owner, the 503c, is run by the scientist whom investigated the claims in 2006-2007, Dr. Hadj-Shiek, unless something has changed recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 And just when things are getting really interesting, their website goes offline? A website costs almost nothing to maintain, there's no financial reason it should go offline unless they're so bankrupt people are showing up with moving vans to repossess office furniture. That doesn't sound like what would happen to someone who has DNA evidence and amazing ground breaking footage. Also, no one with "ground breaking footage" should be broke. Why not? Because you say so? I could have the most amazing, high-definition, "count the individual hairs on the body" BF footage and it in and of itself isn't worth the film it's captured on if I can't find a buyer. And any buyer, even a sympathetic one is going to want some bona fides established before they plunk down the cash, esp in this environment on this topic. And again, as in all things bigfoot, people calling for critical thinking and wondering out loud if the whole project is BS are the ones who are shouted down, not the ones making the outlandish claims with no evidence. The naysayers have no problems making THEIR claims with "no evidence", so what is your problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Maybe I am late to the scene, but if he isn't "Robert Lindsay" then who is he? Looks like you did a good job of digging, I hadn't seen those connections made before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Why not? Because you say so? I could have the most amazing, high-definition, "count the individual hairs on the body" BF footage and it in and of itself isn't worth the film it's captured on if I can't find a buyer. And any buyer, even a sympathetic one is going to want some bona fides established before they plunk down the cash, esp in this environment on this topic. The naysayers have no problems making THEIR claims with "no evidence", so what is your problem? Yes, of course because I say so. I imagine there's this great market for the footage (and apparently they did too, hence the documentary). Certainly I could be wrong, this is the Internet, and I am just some guy spouting his opinion. There are plenty of people out there who say the footage is valuable. And in the Erickson case, it's not really the footage that's most valuable, the footage has value, but it's the habituation site experience that's more important. "Here's the video, and here's a trip to a blind where you can see them up close" is what they're really selling, the repeatability, if you will. Am I wrong about that? that is certainly the interpretation I've had the whole time, since first hearing about the project. They have a location where the beast can be seen on a regular basis, that's the gold mine. But the video footage is still worth hard cash. Even still, as per your example, how could you collect evidence as good as the leaks we've heard (direct close up of face, showing nose, eye, teeth, hair etc, movement, interaction etc) and that be considered worthless? At the very least you could pay-per-view it, or post it to youtube and post an advertisement to capture that revenue. it's not millions, but it's something. As far as my problem? the naysayers don't have the burden of evidence and something to prove. If I say you savaged my garden and I can prove it with video, and then don't show the video, where's the evidence? If you sent me video of a head to toe bigfoot autopsy, I would be pretty impressed and that video certainly could be evidence the community should get behind. Sure it could be hoaxed, but some things are harder to hoax than others, and a closeup is the hardest IMO because it shows the most mundane detail. I don't think I'm way off base here. If it's good footage, I really believe people would pay to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Last I heard the sight was not active anymore, so making a Disney ride out of it isn't going to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 One problem with your idea is that a Disney ride is always safe. A BF begs to differ. Danger is inherit with BF research. They are wild animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Not much new in it, but he added a new post yesterday, 11-28-11. Sorta admitted the DNA stuff is over his head. Taxidermy.net thread details. Etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Sounds like he has been reading the bigfoot forum again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Ya, he posts, we comment. He posts about our comments, we comment. It's a cycle. I would love to see the entire taxidermy.net thread unedited in it's entirity. I still say if Justin was or is practicing taxidermy, he did not put a body in the brush. Lindsay's snippet does not mention the little one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 I just can't imagine anyone leaving it behind, but Justin strikes me as a person that lives in the moment, he may have genuinely left it behind in a panic since bigfoot didn't occur to him at the time. Based on that Tax. thread, it was either a bear or human to him, it wasn't until after the fact that bigfoot came to mind. So who really knows ? I think it would be in their best interests if they do have a body stashed somewhere in case the study results aren't accepted by mainstream science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mxav Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2011/11/robert-lindsay-fallout-between-dr-melba.html#moretop What is with this "I can't talk about this and that, but let me tell you this other thing bs? Does he think he's bringing some unsavory situation to light, or is he just pot stirring? Pot stirring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 29, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 29, 2011 I would love to see the entire taxidermy.net thread unedited in it's entirity. Right, cough it up, or don't expect germane comments......still won't lead to any official sanctioning so what's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 I just can't imagine anyone leaving it behind, but Justin strikes me as a person that lives in the moment, he may have genuinely left it behind in a panic since bigfoot didn't occur to him at the time. Based on that Tax. thread, it was either a bear or human to him, it wasn't until after the fact that bigfoot came to mind. So who really knows ? I think it would be in their best interests if they do have a body stashed somewhere in case the study results aren't accepted by mainstream science. I kinda thinking there telling the truth about not having the body but do know who has the body, they probably had someone else retrieve it. well, they got us all playing clue online. smeja,in the woods,with the gun ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Right, cough it up, or don't expect germane comments...... The dog gone Germans got nothin to do with it. -Buford T Justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 I don't know what you count as meeting Paulides. I'm basing my belief on email communications I've had with him, and his behavior in a joint radio interview he had with Dr. K and Erickson. He insists that all communication intended for Dr. K goes through him and in the interview Dr. K deferred to him on a couple of occasions because it appeared as if she didn't know what she could and couldn't say. In my view, he has set himself up as gatekeeper. Granted, that is just my view. I tried to honor his wishes, and he was very cordial and polite throughout most our communications. But he lashed out at me at some point because he thought I was somebody else. When I pointed out his mistake, he said he would investigate my claims. As far as I know, his team is still investigating whether I am who I say I am. I’ve voluntarily stopped sending him emails asking his opinion on latest developments because I’ve never really received confirmation that he is the official conduit for questions about the study, and I didn’t think it was fair to Dr K that I assume he was simply because he requested that all communication for her go through him. As far as I know, she’s never made that request. I do apologize if I’ve offended you with my opinion. I meant to make the point that no one really knows where Paulides is on the ladder since no one else is talking. ‘North American Bigfoot Search’ issued the following statement on David Paulides, who is working with Dr. Ketchum: “If we stated that David Paulides/North America Bigfoot Search (NABS) and Dr Ketchum were going to speak about DNA then the implication is that the paper has been submitted, we cannot deny or confirm this has occurred. If the DNA paper has not completed peer review by the time of the conference, then Mr. Paulides and Dr. Ketchum either will not appear or will discuss other topics.†Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts