Erickson Project

[Guest RioBravo]

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.

Could you elaborate on this statement?

Thanks in advance.

[Guest Stubstad]

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?

Thanks for asking.

Recently, Paulides entered a scathing message on one of the Robert Lindsay blog sites, essentially bashing me but also claiming that "he and Ketchum" had started the DNA project "long before" either Biscardi, Erickson, Java Bob and I had done so.

Well, that's not what Ketchum told me in January of 2010 when I first met her to get started on the testing of 5 purported sasquatch samples delivered a few days earlier by Biscardi.

Here is my response to Paulides:

1) The “Ketchum†study was NOT well underway when I arrived at her Texas lab in January of 2010. She told me at the time she had seen but ONE sample from Paulides — as reported in his Tribal Bigfoot book, and ONE sample from a purported Yeti. She found these VERY limited DNA test results “interesting†on these two pre-January 2010 samples, but unfortunately she didn’t have any DNA left from the specimens she had originally to continue the DNA work on either.

2) A lady named Shannon Sylvia, Java Bob Schmalzbach and I, meanwhile, had made connections with Ketchum and discussed the DNA project with her at length before proceeding. This occurred during November or December of 2009.

3) As a result, Tom Biscardi showed up in person at the aforementioned Texas lab in early January 2010 with five samples, only one of which eventually showed “promise†according to Ketchum — the toenail from Larry Jenkins (delivered but not found by either Biscardi or me) in NW Arizona.

4) By this time, Ketchum had found out that two of Biscardi’s samples (hair, both of them) were from common animals, not a sasquatch. She also correctly identified the “hand of unknown origin†as a bear paw.

5) The jury is still out on the fifth Biscardi/Stubstad/et.al. sample — a relic bone or tooth from a 9′ plus skeleton found in Oklahoma. Ketchum thinks this skeleton, although very tall, was from a common American Indian. Maybe so, but I’m still not so sure.

6) In March or so of 2010, Erickson showed up, in person in the Texas lab, with about six samples; all of which I believe were “viableâ€. It took us a while to realize that we were all working for the same cause, but eventually we figured it out and tried to work together. While Ketchum wasn’t particularly interested in, for example, Erickson & I cooperating with one-another, we did and still do cooperate. But we do not belong to the same organization. I don’t belong to ANY sasquatch organization, in fact. This is by design because I believe WE HAVE TO CONNECT THE DOTS, something the sasquatch research community has dismally failed to do in the past.

7) After Java Bob Schmalzbach separated company with Biscardi, Ketchum also signed an NDA with him. JB immediately sent her a “release†to use the toenail specimen, since he was also involved in obtaining it together with Biscardi, plus another “skunk-ape†encounter specimen from the four corners area. It was JB who asked JC Johnson, in fact, to send a sample from this encounter to Ketchum directly — in good faith AND with some paperwork.

Soon thereafter, we discussed a cooperative approach with one-another, and Paulides as well, but he didn’t want to participate with us.

9) After the first two samples were tested (and paid for, in part by me) for the complete mitochondrial DNA sequence, it was I who found the statistical connection between the two, not Ketchum. This was essentially because the GenBank search engines are not designed to identify new hominids or whatever we want to call the sasquatch (pl.), but rather to find one’s own relatives and roots, etc., for ordinary modern humans. Being a statistician and engineer, I figured out how to utilize these search engines by going back to the “original†mitochondrial sequence that science figures was there at the time of that particular Haplotype’s “Eve†and using that sequence to search the vast GenBank database.

10) Neither of the first two samples INCLUDED IN THE CURRENT “KETCHUM†DNA PROJECT were from Paulides. I was told about one from him, as reported in his own book, but I was told there were no other samples from him, but that he was trying to get more. His first sample, that pre-dated the five samples delivered by Biscardi, was used up prior to the beginning of our collective DNA project.

11) By the time WE (not Ketchum alone) had analyzed fairly extensive DNA data from the first three samples, at the encouragement (and money) mainly from Erickson, she began to test a single gene on the nuclear side. This is because we had ALL (not only Ketchum) figured out by then that we’d need more than the mitochondrial (maternal) origins of this creature to find out WHY it was different from modern humans, and how these differences were almost certainly reflected in the nuclear DNA, not the mitochondrial DNA.

12) Three nuclear DNA (single gene) sequences were then obtained by Ketchum, all of which were “within human ranges†but none of which existed in GenBank. This made six out of six (3 complete mito and 3 nuclear single gene) sequences that at first glance appeared to possibly be from modern humans, but WE all realized that there was one problem with the conventional scientific theory that this whole sasquatch phenomenon was/is a hoax, or a mistake: All six of them were NOT present with a 100% match in GenBank; not a single one of them. So — indeed WE (again, not Ketchum alone) were on to something. The most skeptical of this initial DNA team, specifically Ketchum and I, were now both convinced that indeed sasquatch DOES exist. Excitement reigned amongst this initial ad-hoc group that WE were indeed on to something. It should be mentioned here that NONE of these first six samples were obtained from, or though, Paulides.

13) How the above series of events establishes that Paulides and Ketchum were “well under way†with “their†study is beyond me. Unless Ketchum was lying to me, and I don’t think she was. Later (after approx. April of 2010), I understand that Paulides did in fact submit one or more additional and possibly viable samples. But this does not constitute a project that was already “well underway†prior to the five samples delivered by Biscardi and the six or so delivered by Erickson and the one submitted through Java Bob Schmalzbach from the four corners area.

14) Therefore, beyond the single “interesting†hair sample that Paulides asked Ketchum to test sometime during 2008 (it may have been one year earlier, so don’t quote me), to my knowledge absolutely zero DNA testing was ongoing by Ketchum — until the ad-hoc (informal to say the least) team of Biscardi, Stubstad, Sylvia (Shannon), Java Bob, and Erickson w/his associates arrived on the scene in early 2010. We ALL contributed to getting the current DNA project going -- and in the right direction. We accomplished this goal in reasonably short order, and we paid to have this done for every single test conducted -- the first six tests and, subsequently, other tests, including the nuclear DNA tests. To my knowledge, Paulides paid zero (at least for the current project) through at least the middle of 2010. He may or may not have actually paid for his own submitted samples — AFTER the project was well underway, as he puts it. I don’t know that one way or the other; the monetary contributions by Paulides are conjectural on my part.

15) In addition, SINCE WE PAID FOR ALL OF OUR DNA TESTING and received very few test results except for those I have reported on, how does this make the project Ketchum’s and, now, Paulides'? Please note that, in deference to both Ketchum and Paulides, I have NOT released any actual DNA sequencing data; only my own analyses which I admit are limited; mainly by the lack of additional data, mind you, not the statistical package I employed.

16) Finally, I offered to extend the existing NDA that Ketchum and I had between us between January and through October of 2010. In November of 2010, she refused, and instead offered a “better†NDA for me to sign. On the advice of my lawyer, since her lawyer obviously drew her new NDA up, I didn’t sign. Enough said about my lawyer’s comments. Frankly, I’d be surprised if Paulides signed it; he is obviously smarter than that.

So there's the actual history, not Paulides' hysterical version of the history he posted on the Lindsay blog site.

Richard

[Guest Stubstad]

Could you elaborate on this statement?

Thanks in advance.

For the single gene tested initially, there was only one non-human polymorphism out of approx. 1,000 NuDNA sequences. I expected more.

On the other hand, I still expect more than just one per gene; we simply need more genes, in fact we need the entire nuclear genome.

Ketchum has the latter, from at least the six samples submitted by Erickson, because he paid for these to be tested (approx. $60,000). But she won't tell him or anyone else a thing about the results. Instead, she has abandoned her original (ad-hoc) team in favor of those who signed her new "99%" NDA.

This is still probably OK, since it has inspired the rest of us to launch a parallel study -- a transparent one that will, hopefully, support Ketchum's conclusions and database. And vice-versa.

Good luck to all investigators indeed!

Richard

[Guest HairyGreek]

So there's the actual history, not Paulides' hysterical version of the history he posted on the Lindsay blog site.

I don't read Lindsey's stuff. That's about as nice as I can be about it, so let's leave it at that. You gave me way more info than I asked for and didn't answer my questions. Please reread them and state your answers clearly and more succinct. I am not interested in any bickering between you, Paulides, and Lindsey or what happens on his blog.

[Guest Stubstad]

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?

How? As stated very thoroughly in my lengthy entry, below or above.

When? Preliminarily in November or December of 2009. Finally in January 2010.

Before or After? After; but before I was all that convinced of its existence to the tune of some 97%.

After the "97% revelation" in my own mind, and several others as well, was I still involved with Ketchum? Within a few weeks afterwards, no.

I added the last question myself, since I'm working on my own now and ever since approx. November of 2010, not with Ketchum et.al. However I still consult with other researchers and scientists alike quite a lot.

Richard

Edited October 6, 2011 by Stubstad

[Sasfooty]

Richard, I've been thinking about how the first "leak" that Silver Fox posted, said that the first DNA reports showed that the mother originated in Europe (France?). Was the DNA that turned out to be from Africa totally different than the European?

In the interview you did with him recently, he insinuated that the sample with African roots came from Florida. If so, is it your opinion that the "Skunk Apes" and the "Sasquatches" from different parts of the US could have different origins?

Edited October 6, 2011 by Sasfooty

[Guest HairyGreek]

So Richard, would it be fair to say that you had no dog in this hunt until after you met Ketchum and saw what she was working on and now you are involved in a race with her for results, teaming with some of the topics biggest hoaxers under the banner of "transparent research"? No real way to ask this without sounding combative. Just what I see when I read between the lines.

Also, can you provide any proof of any work that you are currently doing with Erickson? Emails, etc.? It would help me understand why you post on this thread outside of possibly trying to undermine what is being worked on by "spilling the beans" prior to completed research being presented in a proper and verified way. I apologize if you find my bluntness too abrasive. I too believe in transparency. Just for different reasons and under different circumstances.

[Guest Bsal9872]

Richard, have you seen any video of a sasquatch that convinces you they are real? Maybe something the public hasnt seen? I understand you wont describe the video itself, but ARE their videos we the public havent yet seen?

[Guest]

Now hold on just one minute. The time frame here does not jive and I smell something rotten in Denmark, namely a Dutch speaking engineer. I distinctly remember Bipedalist and I suggesting you do your own study back when you first showed up on the forum in June/July 2011. You acted like the thought had never crossed your mind to do such a thing.....You were getting really exited about it, people were considering sending you samples for your trip to Europe....but you have had your own thing going since Nov.2010? Doesn't sound particularly transparent to me.

[Guest]

Bsal9872 wrote:

"Richard, have you seen any video of a sasquatch that convinces you they are real? Maybe something the public hasnt seen? I understand you wont describe the video itself, but ARE their videos we the public havent yet seen?"

I'm with Bsal on this one. DNA and NDAs aside, I believe that a high quality video could get us all much further down the road to solving this thing - despite all the "you can do anything with video these days" arguments. Richard, does the Erickson/Ketchum package contain any game-changing visuals in your opinion?

Edited October 6, 2011 by tuckybuzzard

[Guest slimwitless]

Here's my slant on Bsal9872 and tuckybuzzard's questions: Do you think what you've seen in Erickson's footage could be faked WITHOUT CGI? In other words, could it be done the old-fashioned way...you know, like Bob Heronimous in a suit of horse hide, a giant furry diaper, big foot boots and short hair glued all over his exposed musculature? Okay, I'm kidding about Bob. What I want to know is if it could it be faked by a person in a costume? (I ask because you've mentioned computer generated graphics in the past as a reason why it's difficult to have complete certainty in modern video and stills).

[Guest Stubstad]

Richard, I've been thinking about how the first "leak" that Silver Fox posted, said that the first DNA reports showed that the mother originated in Europe (France?). Was the DNA that turned out to be from Africa totally different than the European?

In the interview you did with him recently, he insinuated that the sample with African roots came from Florida. If so, is it your opinion that the "Skunk Apes" and the "Sasquatches" from different parts of the US could have different origins?

Correct. The "mito-Eve" of Samples 1 and 2, the first from Arizona (the toenail) and the second from the Northeastern part of the U.S., originated in sub-glacial Europe some 15,000 or 20,000 years ago -- maybe more. Furthermore, each of these creatures had the SAME "Eve", thus one could say they are from the same mitochondrial haplotype in scientific terms.

The mito-Eve of Sample 3 meanwhile was as different as Day and Night from Samples 1 and 2. Due to the firestorm that ensued when I posted pictures of the actual habituation sites for Samples 1 and 2, this time I only posted a "generic" picture of the general region where Sample 3 was obtained.

I've been to Florida maybe 100 times (I have an office there), and have pretty much covered the entire state, and personally I have never seen a waterfall such as the one I posted on my website ANYWHERE in Florida. So let's just say that Lindsay guessed, but he is wrong.

Even so, my educated guess is that indeed the Skunk Ape, if it exists, is most likely an ENTIRELY different haplotype or "clan" of sasquatch than the type represented by both Samples 1 and 2.

Whether Sample 3 is from the reported Skunk Ape region or not, I won't say so as not to create yet another firestorm, but looking at the picture I posted, it was NOT Florida.

I have heard, but I cannot verify from the data available to me, that there may be as many as four different sasquatch haplotypes in North America. So seeing such a result wasn't a total surprise to me, but the difference between Samples 1/2 and Sample 3 DID astound me.

What was implied by Sample 3 however, is the following scenario [assuming all three samples were from real sasquatch (pl.)]:

Sample 3 may or may not represent the original mito-Eve of Sasquatch. That particular sequence, today with a number of mutations or polymorphic sites, originated at least 50,000 years ago, in Africa, from an existing "pre-human" or middle stone age human female. Pending identification of the male side of the sasquatch, whatever this hybrid sasquatch was at the time, may well have been the beginning of the subspecies called sasquatch today -- both male and female. We still don't know though whether the original male haplotype was the same as the female's from Sample 3 or not. I doubt it, but I don't know for sure.

In theory, then, this emerging clan of sasquatch (pl.) likely migrated "out of Africa" like the rest of us did back around the same period of time. All of our ancestors then migrated into the middle east, Asia, and -- viola -- southern Europe, where one (or more) of the sasquatch males of the later stone age -- happened upon an exciting blind date with a homo sapiens sapiens female living in sub-glacial Europe about 20,000 years ago and, well, a new haplotype of sasquatch (another hybrid) was born and, to a degree, thrived and eventually made it to North America along with the "original" sasquatch who still harbored the earliest mito-Eve DNA that Sample 3 came from -- "Skunk Ape" or otherwise during the late Wisconsin Ice Age (via Beringia).

There will likely be more sasquatch haplotypes found before this astounding investigation is over. I heard that the Ketchum project has identified four possible haplotypes or subspecies, but that the data was only extensive enough to confirm two of these. Certainly, this will come out once the Ketchum report is published -- not before.

If one thinks about it, having three or four different "tribes" of sasquatch out and about in the U.S. and Canada certainly should have helped maintain a healthy genetic diversity within the subspecies -- assuming their paths cross from time to time. Otherwise, the sasquatch would have likely have met their ultimate demise already -- through a process that is called a "genetic bottleneck" with too much inbreeding and genetic decay to survive.

So it all makes sense, but the above is mainly conjecture on my part. All I know is that the difference between the mitochondrial DNA of Samples 1 & 2 vs. the mito of Sample 3 is no less than 90 pairs! This is about the same as the difference between today's European DNA and the DNA of the oldest remnants of the Khoisan tribes from southern Africa! By comparison, Neanderthal is around 200 mito pairs removed from the CRS and Denisovan is about 400 pairs removed.

Interesting. We hope to find out more, both through the European study about to get underway and Ketchum's study obviously well underway as we speak.

Richard

Edited October 6, 2011 by Stubstad

[Guest Stubstad]

Now hold on just one minute. The time frame here does not jive and I smell something rotten in Denmark, namely a Dutch speaking engineer. I distinctly remember Bipedalist and I suggesting you do your own study back when you first showed up on the forum in June/July 2011. You acted like the thought had never crossed your mind to do such a thing.....You were getting really exited about it, people were considering sending you samples for your trip to Europe....but you have had your own thing going since Nov.2010? Doesn't sound particularly transparent to me.

Jodie:

I'm "holding on" for deer life!

Here's the actual timeline:

Nov. 2010 - Ketchum & I (and others) parted company.

Dec. 2010 - I began working on papers and additional data analysis on my own, but much of it was already done by then and, in fact, shared "transparently" with Ketchum and one of her other coauthors for the scientific paper.

May 2011 - Finally, I decided to break the silence and I created my own website with an introduction of myself and a little blurb on sasquatch DNA.

June 2011 - The second post to my website was made, covering Samples 1 and 2 -- but not the actual sequencing, just the statistical conclusions.

The next day (or so) - I'm interviewed (on the telephone) by Lindsay, based on this article.

The next day (or so) - All hell breaks loose.

July 2011 - I finally figure out how to enter this forum, and our interaction on Bigfootforums begins.

July 2011 - The idea DOES occur to me, due to many of your suggestions and ideas, that a parallel DNA study would be good to do in any event.

July 2011 - I discuss the idea with others (no names here).

End of July 2011 - Contact is made with several European labs; one of these is chosen, and they write back that they are "exited and interested" in a parallel study.

Starting September 2011 - Several samples have by now been gathered, and these are all being "pre-screened" by a forensic expert.

October 2011 - Well, here we are. The future is still hard to predict -- especially the future -- but things are looking pretty darn good for a win-win DNA study that will likely lend more credence to either this DNA study or the Ketchum study done on their own. Unless each study reaches significantly different conclusions.

And Jodie, just for the record -- I don't speak Dutch, I speak Danish. Dutch is spoken in Holland aka. the Netherlands. Danish is spoken in Denmark. They are not quite as different as night and day, but still, I'm almost clueless in Dutch. Some day, I'll go over the entire Anglo-Saxon language group with you.

LOL

Richard

Edited October 6, 2011 by Stubstad

[Guest Stubstad]

Here's my slant on Bsal9872 and tuckybuzzard's questions: Do you think what you've seen in Erickson's footage could be faked WITHOUT CGI? In other words, could it be done the old-fashioned way...you know, like Bob Heronimous in a suit of horse hide, a giant furry diaper, big foot boots and short hair glued all over his exposed musculature? Okay, I'm kidding about Bob. What I want to know is if it could it be faked by a person in a costume? (I ask because you've mentioned computer generated graphics in the past as a reason why it's difficult to have complete certainty in modern video and stills).

I really don't know how to answer these questions accurately, because I am not an audio-visual expert whatsoever. The bottom line, though, is: No, I don't believe any of the Erickson footage has been faked in any way whatsoever - CGI or otherwise.

I only saw the footage (probably an "outtake" at that) on a computer screen. Even though the footage, or at least most of it, is in HD, the format was too small to say "yes, this is the real deal, for sure." So let's say I'm the same degree certain about the footage as I am about the existence of sasquatch through DNA evidence -- 97%.

The only reason I don't raise this 97% to what I really feel (>99% certain) is to err on the side of caution, just in case EVERYONE I've talked to and who has furnished DNA samples that are in all likelihood sasquatch (pl.) has pulled one huge, coordinated hoax on me and everyone else who has crossed their paths over the last five or ten years, or more.

Thanks,

Richard

[Guest Stubstad]

Bsal9872 wrote:

"Richard, have you seen any video of a sasquatch that convinces you they are real? Maybe something the public hasnt seen? I understand you wont describe the video itself, but ARE their videos we the public haven't yet seen?"

I'm with Bsal on this one. DNA and NDAs aside, I believe that a high quality video could get us all much further down the road to solving this thing - despite all the "you can do anything with video these days" arguments. Richard, does the Erickson/Ketchum package contain any game-changing visuals in your opinion?

'Tucky Buzzard:

The only reason that the Erickson videos, along with most other videos and pictures out there, are not "game changing" is that the sasquatch is too close to homo sapiens, both genetically and structurally, to come up with something that couldn't have been faked.

The only differences I know about are: Body hair; small differences in arm and leg length vs. body length; more stoutly built; tall adults; acute senses; and maybe a midtarsal break on their feet. Add to that the emerging realization that sasquatch is not a single "haplotype"; it is at least two, and possibly four or more haplotypes, due to cross-breeding with humans from time to time. I'm expecting that a Northwestern USA or Southwestern Canada sasquatch will have American Indian mito DNA, if some of the stories from these Native Americans are really true -- abductions, etc. that is.

Erickson feels (and I think correctly so) that -- due to the many similarities and few differences between Homo sapiens sesqueqiensis and Homo sapiens sapiens, his videos should be released concurrent with one or another DNA study. You can always be accused of faking videos etc., but you can't fake DNA sequences. All you can do is make errors in the sequencing process -- yet another reason a parallel study is sorely needed.

Richard