Erickson Project

[Guest COGrizzly]

Well, I'm about done, anyone else? There's just so much one can take. So much crap.

Yet, I still stand by the folks I've spoke with and believe them.

But this is just so SAME_OLE.

[Guest jtorres3995]

Trying to figure how to post.

Edited October 5, 2011 by jtorres3995

[Guest jtorres3995]

OK Tim, fair enough. I doubt whether you or most anyone else is more frustrated than I am, or Adrian Erickson and his wife for that matter too.

Again, I do have 3 mitochondrial sequences (complete) and 3 MC1R gene nuclear sequences, but I will have to check with several others to see if I can release these data. Personally, I would like it if someone else would look at these data afresh, but I have to tread lightly here for now. Here's why:

We (a small group of us who are not longer connected with the Ketchum study that we started back in January of 2010) have arranged to take new, purported sasquatch samples to a public European research lab around the middle of November (next month). We will likely only have about a half-dozen viable samples, plus a few questionable ones. We already have an appointment to spend two or three days with the lab during November (the exact dates don't matter, but they are cast in stone).

This European lab is likely to begin DNA testing "right away", whatever that means over there. We won't know until we discuss the entire state of affairs with them vis-a-vis earlier and/or ongoing work, and mainly the data I have used to reach some pretty exciting conclusions on the mitochondrial side. I've posted these conclusions on my website, as you know, but sans the actual data (for now).

I will report back on this thread: 1) How many samples we actually end up with by the time we head across the pond, and how many are likely from actual sasquatch (pl.); 2) How quickly we are likely to hear about test results from the Lab during our meetings with them; and 3) The European lab's likely interest in publishing a peer-reviewed Journal article on their findings, including an expected release date of this peer-reviewed paper or article.

Meanwhile, rumors float about re. Ketchum's study, and many of these rumors are frankly self-contradictory. I have absolutely zero knowledge about how she's doing with the study, let alone whether or not she has actually turned in a paper on sasquatch DNA to a peer-reviewed journal, and if she has, which journal? The bottom line with Ketchum is: Let's all wish her the best of luck with her work, and hopefully this work will concur with the "parallel" DNA study in Europe that is about to begin. I honestly believe that neither "her" study nor ours will be enough to convince a highly skeptical world that, indeed, sasquatch exists. This particular battle is just the beginning of a likely uproar, especially amongst the so-called scientists who have obviously formed their opinion a priori -- or the vast majority have, that is.

I believe that Erickson will release his video, or at least part of it, concurrent with either the conclusion of Ketchum's study (and we have no idea when that will be), or the conclusion of our European study, whichever comes first.

That's about the best I can do, ladies and gentlemen. Everything is lined up on the "transparent" side of things; the not-so-transparent work ongoing in one form or another, let by Ketchum, is a total unknown at this point in time.

Richard

Mr. Stubstad, I just want to thank you for taking the time to answer questions on this forum. I know that you don't really have to answer any questions. And I appreciate that you share your knowledge with us. It also shows us (with your continued work and forum response) that you are committed in having the truth come to light. Just wanted to say thank you, and please keep us inform. We are all waiting to see the outcome of this study. And with you conducting your own DNA study, it will only prompt Dr. Ketchum to finalize/wrap-up her paper. Nothing better than competition to push each other to take the next step (that's the American way). Anyways, please keep us inform and Thank Your for your dedication.

Edited October 5, 2011 by jtorres3995

[Guest jtorres3995]

Got it.

Edited October 5, 2011 by jtorres3995

[Guest]

Agreed, thank you Richard!

[TimB]

Thanks Richard- that's more information in one post than all of the posts made 6 months prior.

Tim B.

[Guest slimwitless]

On the other hand, the Max Planck Institute folks with some 20 world-wide coauthors wrote up the two sequences found in the Denisovan relics. The paper is nothing short of perfection & thoroughness.

Several "releases" on the subject were made during the entire process that lead up to the publication of a NEW hominid or subspecies. Including the publication in GenBank of the complete mitochondrial genome.

In other words, we were all kept appraised of the progress DURING the preparation of the paper.

Richard

I'm pretty sure if she started out by publishing compelling sequences from an undiscovered, living hominid, she'd end up in the footnotes of someone else's paper. You have to admit there's a different dynamic to analyzing purported bigfoot samples to coaxing genetic information out of a 40,000 year old finger bone. One is considered a legitimate and honorable scientific pursuit and the other is the subject of open ridicule and derision. If it were me, I'd wait until I had an airtight case. I have no idea if Ketchum is building that case but since you're running a parallel study predicated on being open and forthright, I guess there's not much left for anyone to complain about. I'm with you. Just don't take too long, okay Richard? It's a fickle crowd.

Let me ask. Do you have confidence in your initial samples?

[BobbyO]

I don't know when the name changed, but it was definitely called matilda.jpg initially. Evidence of this: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=1037&view=findpost&p=42315

Well all i can say is that i downloaded it on February 8th & then it was called:

this_is_just_an_artists_rendering_dont_make_a_big_deal_out_of_it.jpg

I even remember Posting acknowledging this file name but i can't seem to find what thread i posted it on, i'll keep looking..

I haven't changed the file name to that, from " Matilda ", for sure..

Efrum's Post was on the 26th Feb i believe..

Weird..

[BobbyO]

I can't find it..

I can find reference to it, but i can't find it..

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/8165-erickson-project-artist-renditionsketch-hypertrichosis/page__view__findpost__p__93728

[Guest]

Yes Richard. Good luck on your European gene decoding. Kudos on the time and effort you're putting into this.

I hope you find something really interesting, and publishable, with your nuclear genes. Probably helps to get out of the North American scientific culture for this, and the Max Planck Institute (for Evolutionary Anthropology I'm assuming) is probably the most qualified and most open to this sort of thing as you hinted.

The modern human mitochondrial sequences by themselves, even if far outliers, if interesting in themselves, still don't tell us much beyond that a particular descent line had modern human females in it. (Which leads me to wonder if some of your conviction is based on your three nuclear genes?)

If some of the nuclear genes turn out to be highly divergent from H. sapiens, the mito DNA in conjunction with that will be. . . very interesting.

[Guest Stubstad]

Yes Richard. Good luck on your European gene decoding. Kudos on the time and effort you're putting into this.

I hope you find something really interesting, and publishable, with your nuclear genes. Probably helps to get out of the North American scientific culture for this, and the Max Planck Institute (for Evolutionary Anthropology I'm assuming) is probably the most qualified and most open to this sort of thing as you hinted.

The modern human mitochondrial sequences by themselves, even if far outliers, if interesting in themselves, still don't tell us much beyond that a particular descent line had modern human females in it. (Which leads me to wonder if some of your conviction is based on your three nuclear genes?)

If some of the nuclear genes turn out to be highly divergent from H. sapiens, the mito DNA in conjunction with that will be. . . very interesting.

Thanks TSiatkoVS, and all of your others who have shown support for my "parallel" work, as it's now turned into.

As far as the remarks on the Nuclear gene I've seen; yes, indeed, without having seen those along with the mito sequences, I would not have been as confindent as I am about the results. On the other hand, the one nuclear gene data I've seen is not very "divergent" from human ranges either; but it IS divergent. It will likely be in other nuclear genes where the holy grail resides.

In fact, it will NOT be me who does further "genetic" work over and above what I've already done. It will be the European institution. It will be THEIR "take" (not mine), and their study to publish. The difference is that it will be done transparently, as opposed to the way we do business here in the U.S.(and Canada).

I'm not as confident about our new samples as I was about Samples 1 through 4 in the Ketchum-led (actually Stubstad, Erickson, Schmalzbach, Ketchum, and even Biscardi-led) study; still, we will know soon enough, won't we?

Maybe some of the samples we bring over to the lab in Europe will not be the real deal. Some will be, though, I am very confident about that.

Richard

PS: TSiatkoVS, couldn't you come up with a more memorable & spellable screen name that THAT? Besides, I can't speak Russian.

PPS: Before anyone can ask or complain as the case may be, Biscardi is included above because he personally deliverd five purpored sasquatch samples to Ketchum's lab in early January 2010 or late December 2009, even before I got there to work with her and well before Erickson showed up with (I believe) six samples, the first two of which were also the real deal. Biscardi of course was convinced all five of the one's he deliverd were the real deal. In the event, though, one turned out to be a bear paw, two were hair from ordinary animals, one hasn't yet been tested to my knowledge (Ketchum thought it was from a Native American skeleton, not a bigfoot), and the fifth one actually WAS the real deal. No. 5 was the toenail found by Larry Jenkins at his habituation site in NW Arizona. Biscardi delivered it because he was the first one to show up at Larry's cabin, back in 2008 or 2009 (can't recall). Of course, this was the extent of Biscardi's contribution -- the delivery of 1 good sample, and 3 or 4 louzy ones.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Stubstad

[Guest slimwitless]

Thanks. And congratulations on becoming a "Wildman".

[Guest Stubstad]

Geeze, I even LOOK like a wildman in the picture I posted.

Briefly, here's what happened on the trip where that picture was taken:

It was my first "sasquatch hunting" trip ever (occured back in late 2009).

After the trip, I was convinced that sasquatch was nothing more than an Indian legend; no footprints, no fish (we tried fishing as a conselation prize), and not even any squirrels or any other mammals.

The temperatures there in the Marble Mountains were below zero -- farenheit. Not even a hairy sasquatch could have survived that weather ... I bare did myself, and I was dressed for it.

Later, I changed my mind about the existence of sasquatch; certainly not based on that particular "hunting" trip, but based on the DNA evidence I've discussed in the forum.

Above, I mentioned that I could vouch for two of Erickson's six (or so) submitted samples. It is probably safe to assume that all six of Erickson's samples were the real deal. I haven't seen the data from four of these, though, so I cannot vouch for that based on any stand-alone scientific evidence. The first two certainly appear to be the real deal based on (partial) DNA evidence.

Richard

[Guest Stubstad]

Are we done with this topic for now, then?

Richard

[Guest HairyGreek]

Actually, I have a question. Maybe I missed this somewhere. How and when exactly did you become involved with Dr. Ketchum and was this before or after cultivating an interest Sasquatch?