Erickson Project

[Guest slimwitless]

Maybe it's just an astute lawyer who wants to sell to another (Ketchum's) lawyer eventually?

I'm sure that it could even be some big name BF'er's group that has had legal representation on staff in the past or has relatives with a legal background (e.g., *cough*::TB::*cough*)

To be fair, that lawyer also has experience with technology and intellectual property. He might actually be the logical choice. Besides that, I have other (pretty good) reasons for suspecting he's her lawyer. But...if it's absolute certainty you want, you're in the wrong place.

[Guest]

For example, while I believe that sasquatch is a subspecies or subhuman that goes back in time at least 15,000 or 20,000 years, and more probably as much as 60,000 years, I can see from the data that if this "ancient" theory is correct, the sasquatch (plural) has mated with ordinary Homo sapiens sapiens from time to time and place to place.

Richard - If I gather right, you think the sasquatch is a subspecies of H sapiens, but this is based on only thirty-some mitochondrial genes with little junk DNA available (and maybe one nuclear gene)that you did statistical comparisons on?

The genealogy you've calculated is of the mitochondria only, not the 23,000 or so nuclear genes that make the whole animal. (And it's those nuclear genes that do all of the "cool" stuff like determining morphology and behavior; the mitochondria does metabolism and some cellular stuff - important but the effects are out of sight except for making you alive)

In other words, you have only seen the, presumably, modern human females who have interbred with a possibly completely separate hominin species.

That's very interesting in itself, but judging from the information that you seem to personally have, you and I don't know how closely or distantly those 23,000 nuclear genes are related to us.

Maybe this is a confusion about the word "subspecies?"

Edited September 30, 2011 by tsiatkoVS

[Guest Stubstad]

tsiatkoVS:

You are exactly correct. It is ONLY when the mitochondrial side is from exactly the same "subspecies" that we can conclude that sasquatch is some kind of "human", albeit relatively ancient.

I have a strong suspicion that the male side, in fact, is quite different, but recall that is about the time I was excluded from further data analysis.

I don't think I was excluded because Melba found out the whole thing (that is, the first four samples) were hoaxes. I believe that we would have wrapped up the project together, and declared the whole thing to be one huge mistake, or hoax, or both.

I think she found out something REALLY exciting on the nuclear side that most likely pointed to some kind of hybrid hominid subspecies that only she currently knows the details about. That won't last much longer, since we will have other nuclear tests done, on new samples, forthwith and find out anyway.

Ultimately, we (that is us scientists) will have to work together and support one-another's data to prove to the scientific community that this creature actually exists, and it is a combination of Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens XXXXXX. The only remaining question is: What is "XXXXX"?

Very good insight into all this, tsiatkoVS. Please understand everyone that my use of the word "subspecies" is for lack of a better term. The DNA researchers that uncovered the Denisovan genome (or most of it) didn't even go so far as to call the Denisovan a subspecies. They are still working on a better characterization, and they have come a lot further than the rest of us have with sasquatch.

Only Melba (currently) knows both the male & female origins of sasquatch. Maybe she'll say something this weekend at that Oklahoma conference?

Hold your breaths!

Richard

PS: You were right BobbyO, the "edit" function is wonderful.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Stubstad

[Guest]

We used to discuss the merits of the evidence in the old bf forum. But now it seems that we are discussing "evidence" that only a few select people have had an opportunity to examine. I am tired of hearing about these non-disclosure agreements. I am lawyer and I can tell you their not worth the paper their printed on. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't waste my time arguing about the merits of evidence that the rest of us are not privy too. It is time for those who are setting on this game changing evidence to "put up or shut up".

[Guest]

Thanks for replying so quickly, Richard.

You are exactly correct. It is ONLY when the mitochondrial side is from exactly the same "subspecies" that we can conclude that sasquatch is some kind of "human", albeit relatively ancient.

I guess what I was getting at: the mitochondria doesn't determine the species. E.g. you could theoretically have a single chimpanzee male x modern human female crossing(ignoring chromosome number differences causing the child to be a mule). The offspring would certainly be half chimp and half human for all of the nuclear genes. But if that individual, if female, goes back to a pure chimp population and there are a number of generations of females following her, the modern human genes get washed out, all things being equal, while the modern human mitochondria remains. I don't think we'd consider one of the later chimps to be H. sapiens just because of that little mitochondria.

All that said, that at least some (all?) of the mito' samples you saw are some version of H. sapiens, if from sasquatch, suggests alot of intermixing - and then you get the reverse situation where sasquatch are getting diluted into the much bigger modern human population and the sasquatch nuclear genes are disappearing. (Unless there is a really strong selection effect culling out the "too human" sasquatch - always a possibility; being born without body hair and with a puny size might not be conducive to living the sasquatch life style)

The reports of the behavior and morphology of sasquatch pretty much yell out that they are a separate species even if they do have a few(?) modern human nuclear genes and mitochondria floating around in their population.

[Guest Stubstad]

We used to discuss the merits of the evidence in the old bf forum. But now it seems that we are discussing "evidence" that only a few select people have had an opportunity to examine. I am tired of hearing about these non-disclosure agreements. I am lawyer and I can tell you their not worth the paper their printed on. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't waste my time arguing about the merits of evidence that the rest of us are not privy too. It is time for those who are setting on this game changing evidence to "put up or shut up".

Fair enough, BigFootNis. I guess I'm one of the culprits.

I have seen most of the Ketchum agreements, and you are right--they are by and large not worth the paper they are written on.

The one I had (now expired) was probably worth something, but that's mute because it expired in the meantime (in October of 2010).

I still have an NDA with one sample contributor (not Ketchum). Whether this agreement is enforceable or not, I sitll intend to abide by it because it was entered into in good faith by both parties. While I released (on my Website) a great deal of DNA data analysis that covers some of the DNA in our limited sasquatch database, I haven't yet released the actual data. Now that you mention this idea, I will ask the other party to OK this ahead of doing so.

Still, I have other (purported) sasquatch DNA data that is not covered by any NDA. Are you suggesting that I release these data first, even before the data from the sample providor where an NDA is still in effect?

When I released the analysis of the data, I intentionally didn't release the actual data, not only due to the existing NDA that covers part of these data, but because the data doesn't belong to me alone; it also "belongs" to Ketchum and the other sample providers. Since no one seems to worry a whole lot about me, would you suggest I go ahead and release these data anyway, perhaps here in this forum along with my own website?

Lastly, here's the problem with the "worthless" NDAs out there with Ketchum (I don't have one of these, thankfully). For the active lawyers on one side or the other, the FIRST thing they want to to is litigate, not the last thing. The case would of course be dismissed for reasons that both of us know very well--the "post-Stubstad" NDA's are so far out in left field that they are almost comical.

The problem then becomes the cost of defending a lawsuit, even if the case is frivolous. I know that this is a very large part of the reasons you are not seeing real DNA data yet, even though these data now, finally, exist.

If you advise me to post the data I have that are NOT covered by any NDA--worthless or otherwise--I will do so. Still, I may be sued by Ketchum et.al., even if for frivolous reasons. Especially if she actually pays her lawyer to do so. Oh, well, I'm an old man so that's not going to go very far at all, even if I just sit back and smoke cigars.

I will also now proceed to get permission from the one sample providor I have an active NDA with. That would enable me to release the sequencing data for three complete mtDNA genomes, and three single-gene nuDNA datasets.

The mtDNA genome data cover Samples 1, 2 and 3, while the nuDNA data cover Samples 1, 3 and 4. I don't know what happened to Sample 2 with respect to this single gene data, but probably it exists in the hands of Ketchum, along with hoards of other nuDNA and some mtDNA data.

Richard Stubstad

Edited September 30, 2011 by Stubstad

[Guest]

Richard, you are not that naive, you better ask somebody first before you go posting anything like that on the forum. I can pretty much tell you already what the answer is going to be but I might be wrong, so go for it.

[Guest Stubstad]

Indeed! Will do. Among others, I've now asked BigFootNis, plus one other attorney who posts here & elsewhere. Let's see what he/she says first.

I guess I am also getting pretty tired of hearing this-and-that about DNA data no one is allowed to see, just as BigFootNis has become.

Interestingly, though, I only have one NDA that is still in effect, and that one only covers parts of the DNA data.

I guess my feeling is, or soon will be, that I'm getting too old & frail to wait around for these Legal Eagles to get their act together.

Data is data. Why hide it ad-infinitum?

Did you know that a partial mtDNA profile was aleady published for Zana & Khwit, the former a possible sasquatch (or an almasty in the local language) and the latter a half-sasquatch assuming Zana was really such a creature?

That published mtDNA profile matches (within a single pair) one of our three mtDNA sequences.

Other potential sasquatch (pl.) are also have partial mtDNA data published. Many of these (possibly the real ones?) were also consistent with the data from Samples 1 and 2; perhaps lessor so re. Sample 3, which makes sense when you think about where many of these originated.

OaO,

Richard

Edited September 30, 2011 by Stubstad

[Guest]

Fascinating, but I didn't think they ever found Zana. You know your timing is truly ironic.

[Guest]

Richard- maybe if its info that your posting on your blog site, you can just put a link up here for those interested in viewing it.

Jodie is right- in effect that those who run this site, when they hear legal terms being tossed around, might not want it being actually "posted" here.... In fact i'm relatively sure they wouldn't. In the event of any unforeseen legal wrangling, we at the BFF would like to stay out of it. Allowing a link to your blog site doesnt really seem harmful, and still gets the desired objective completed.

I'm looking into it behind closed doors, but my above suggestion might be something to consider (for now anyway).

Art

[indiefoot]

Legally enforcable or not, IMO, aggreements should be kept if possible. The material will come out soon enough. I would hate to see a journal publication of BF DNA get sidetracked over this. JMO

[Sasfooty]

I am tired of hearing about these non-disclosure agreements. I am lawyer and I can tell you their not worth the paper their printed on.

Yet lawyers get paid big money for drawing them up.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't waste my time arguing about the merits of evidence that the rest of us are not privy too. It is time for those who are setting on this game changing evidence to "put up or shut up".

If your time is being wasted here, I'd say you're the one wasting it, unless somebody here is forcing you to read the arguments.

The ones who are "setting" on this evidence aren't the ones arguing about it, & they don't owe it to anybody to "put up" until they get good & ready.

[BobbyO]

I am lawyer and I can tell you their not worth the paper their printed on.

Are you really BFnis ??

[Guest Stubstad]

And: What does "nis" stand for? En nisse (Scandinavian)?

Richard

[HOLDMYBEER]

Data is data. Why hide it ad-infinitum?

Richard

I think the unspoken point is that a non-disclosure agreement can be used to hide the fact there is nothing compelling in the data. A NDA can be used to hide any number of things; it can be used to hide cooperative efforts, it can hide misguided efforts, it can hide failures of competence that impinge on credibility. Over the past year the sasquatch community has been preoccupied with NDAs. I wonder why. It would seem an unlikely resort for anyone that is trying to brings truths to light.

I am not saying all of this NDA stuff is hiding failure of competence or even masking fraudulent activity. I am saying the invocation of an NDA has a history of implementation on both the sides of 'light' and 'darkness'. (Please understand I don't accuse Richard of being on the dark side....Richard, please understand). I will say, however, that every time anyone plays the NDA card I have to wonder.