Guest Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Ok Richard, then the engineer who speaks Danish still smells pretty ripe to me. So now the real research started after July 2011.....you know this back pedaling doesn't exactly inspire confidence, not that you owe us anything, but I can think of better things to do with my time than come on a forum and spin yarns. I just want to point out that in the last few days you also misrepresented Erickson's involvement with the Russian skulls. Now was it deliberate? I don't know. Probably more likely that you aren't nearly as personally involved as you would like people to think you are, other than contributing funding and doing some preliminary statistical analysis on a few samples. Now I'm beginning to think that perhaps your study want produce anything enlightening either. I can already hear the reasons: 1. The samples were damaged in transit. 2. Europe ran out of enough material from all of the samples to do the nuclear testing. 3. They lost the samples but I really suspect that some foreign government confiscated them or some bizarre religious faction broke in to the lab and stole them. 4. I've been crossed again, I lost the rights to the samples to the lab and have no control over the research that may be published as a result. 5. They want to hold the results back until the Yowie and Yeti samples can be analyzed for comparison and contrast. 6. The WHO confiscated my samples. And those are just a few of the scenarios that come to mind in my over active imagination. If you are sincere Richard, you have my humble apology ahead of time. However, I'm pretty good at getting a feel for how people are, and in your case, seeing will be believing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dudlow Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 ‘Stubstad’: While, as I’m sure you realize, I admittedly take a harder than average line on the unconditional protection of Squatchy – to the extent that I place Squatchy before science - nonetheless I want to acknowledge and thank you for all the hard work you have put into this DNA project and for bearing with the criticism you have endured for its sake. In spite of your own difficult personal challenges at the moment you have persevered where I am sure others would have called it a day. I take my hat off to you, sir! I truly hope you come out a winner in both regards. - Dudlow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 6. The WHO confiscated my samples. Cool scenario! I didn't even know Pete Townsend was into bifgoot! Ok, sorry, bad attempt at humor...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Well I know I can sound harsh, and I am not unsympathetic when it comes to Richard's health condition, but still, he drives me nuts with all of the back pedaling and selective discussion. He knows it, I tell him enough about it. Unfortunately for me, I'm one of those folks that has a hard time when people don't say what they mean or mean what they say. Just spit it out, for goodness sakes, like forgetting to mention that the mitochondrial DNA he analyzed had some kind of similarity to the Russian mtDNA. I think that's a significant fact to forget to mention when he first started talking about his analysis...does no one else think that? Seriously.....it's like having your grandmother in the car with you during a hit and run accident and by the time the cop gets through talking to you she says, " Oh by the way, do you need the license plate number? " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 His physical health has nothing to do with holding him accountable to his statements and actions that he has made on multiple public forums. He shouldn't be treated anymore differently then anyone else. If it is his mental health, then that is another issue entirely. Regardless, nothing being written is against forum rules as far as I see and everything asked is legitimate. I would still like to know why this whole thing is coming off like him trying to one-up his former boss while scrutinizing her work, her integrity, and her prudence in the process; all in a discussion that should be about Erickson that he has made about himself. If he is involved in the Erickson Project, I for one would like to see some proof of that before I can buy anything said by a guy coming off as a disgruntled ex-employee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) At this stage its all here say, Stubstad or the Erickson project have not come up with any evidence to support any part of these stories, DNA or the like. Maybe we should rename this thread to Stubstads project as he appears to have the most imput here. Edited October 7, 2011 by yowiie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 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). This sounds almost like it is straight out of Jean Auel's Clan of the Cave Bear series of books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Many (such as "Mike," in Enoch) describe two basic types of Sasquatch, one looking more gorilla-like and the other looking more human-like. Richard's narrative about the haplotypes could explain this. Very intriguing indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stubstad Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) Ok Richard, then the engineer who speaks Danish still smells pretty ripe to me. So now the real research started after July 2011.....you know this back pedaling doesn't exactly inspire confidence, not that you owe us anything, but I can think of better things to do with my time than come on a forum and spin yarns. I just want to point out that in the last few days you also misrepresented Erickson's involvement with the Russian skulls. Now was it deliberate? I don't know. Probably more likely that you aren't nearly as personally involved as you would like people to think you are, other than contributing funding and doing some preliminary statistical analysis on a few samples. Now I'm beginning to think that perhaps your study want produce anything enlightening either. I can already hear the reasons: 1. The samples were damaged in transit. 2. Europe ran out of enough material from all of the samples to do the nuclear testing. 3. They lost the samples but I really suspect that some foreign government confiscated them or some bizarre religious faction broke in to the lab and stole them. 4. I've been crossed again, I lost the rights to the samples to the lab and have no control over the research that may be published as a result. 5. They want to hold the results back until the Yowie and Yeti samples can be analyzed for comparison and contrast. 6. The WHO confiscated my samples. And those are just a few of the scenarios that come to mind in my over active imagination. If you are sincere Richard, you have my humble apology ahead of time. However, I'm pretty good at getting a feel for how people are, and in your case, seeing will be believing. Jodie: Yes, I agree, the "worst case" scenarios, the six you mention for example, may well occur. I don't think they will, but you never know. I do believe that the lab & scientists associated with this European lab are also sincere and will do a good job, on top of being transparent about it. They are, by the way, also HIGHLY qualified. We will know more when we show up there with some samples, most likely during November (next month!). I don't blame you for thinking I am not sincere; our "crowd" as one could call us bigfooters collectively do not have a very good track record on openness or altruism. I doubt that most of this crowd knows what the latter word means. For better or for worse, I do know what it means, and I am sincere, Jodie, both in my approach to this project and being altruistic about my work. I mentioned what I recalled about the Russian skull (not skulls), and I admit I may have been wrong. But I remembered it that way, and I don't think that Adrian was lying to me about it. But I may well have remembered wrongly (some day I will ask him). Honestly, Jodie, my memory is not what it used to be. I'm becoming even more forgetful than the proverbial "absent minded professor" I used to be. I hope my rational facilities are still in-tact (my wife assures me that they are), but beyond a doubt my memory is fading (my wife also agrees that this is the case). Of course, I hope I do not have Alzheimers, but even if I do I'm pretty sure that prostate cancer will take me out before any other disease or "mental handicap" does. At least part of the reason for my mental (memory) situation is a debilitating array (knows as a "cocktail") of drugs I'm using to fight advanced prostate cancer. But consider the alternative. I'm still willing to fight it out, much like I have heard John Green is doing for the very same disease, instead of deciding that the cure is worse than the disease. For the medically inclined amongst you all, suffice it to say that my PSA reading from this past Tuesday was 563.49 - let's round their ridiculously accurate number to 563. Regardless, that's high - very high [normal range - 1 to 4]. My sasquatch "research" didn't start in July of this year. It started, in earnest, in cooperation with Ketchum, Schmalzbach, Sylvia, and Erickson, in January of 2010. What began in July (actually May) of this year was that I began to write articles about the research I had already done previously. Sorry to say, but the way this DNA research works is as follows: Mitchondrial DNA sequencing produces a series of DNA "shapes" of four types, called and reported as: A, C, G and T. For a statistically- and data-oriented researcher such as me, the comparison of one DNA sequence to another becomes just that - statistics and data. My statistical analyses ARE correct. My statistical conclusions ARE correct. My opinions about whether are not "sasquatch exists" or not are almost certainly (97%) correct. My conjecture about the NATURE of sasquatch as a hominid may well be incorrect. The latter category of what I have written are all opinions, and I admit that; I admitted that in my articles, posted on my website, too. I also admit I have virtually zero knowledge about nuclear DNA; sasquatch or otherwise. I have only studied mitochondrial DNA extensively, mainly in relation to published materials on humans, Neanderthal, and now Denisovan. So even though I'm not a geneticist, I can still manage to read technical articles written by geneticists and, invariably, statisticians by the way. Accordingly, I do understand hominid mitochondrial DNA quite well. Nuclear DNA not well at all. Likewise with Ketchum; she is "Dr." because she's a veterinarian, not a geneticist. Her career path eventually carried her into animal forensics, which in turn led her into learning about DNA (both mito and nuclear in her case, and to her credit) much the way I learned about mito DNA - reading and personal contacts with geneticists. So neither of us are really "qualified" but both of us are scientists. I'll do my best on what I'm calling the "parallel" European study, and I'm sure Ketchum is doing her best on "her" study -- or what morphed into her study, that is. Regardless, it's all a win-win for everyone, unless one of the six scenarios take place that you warned about, above. Since the European paradigm, as opposed to our North American counterpart, has become extremely transparent (even to the point of publishing the Denisovan mito sequences before doing the research on the Denisovans' relationship to Homo sapiens sapiens), I don't think any of your scenarios will play out. But I could be wrong - I just hope not. Richard Edited October 7, 2011 by Stubstad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stubstad Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Well I know I can sound harsh, and I am not unsympathetic when it comes to Richard's health condition, but still, he drives me nuts with all of the back pedaling and selective discussion. He knows it, I tell him enough about it. Unfortunately for me, I'm one of those folks that has a hard time when people don't say what they mean or mean what they say. Just spit it out, for goodness sakes, like forgetting to mention that the mitochondrial DNA he analyzed had some kind of similarity to the Russian mtDNA. I think that's a significant fact to forget to mention when he first started talking about his analysis...does no one else think that? Seriously.....it's like having your grandmother in the car with you during a hit and run accident and by the time the cop gets through talking to you she says, " Oh by the way, do you need the license plate number? " Gee, whiz, Jodie! I didn't mention the Zana DNA because it is not particularly supportive of our, more thorough, data. The sequencing carried out is simply inadequate to draw even any tentative conclusion. There are MANY other purported sasquatch DNA sequences out there, all of which are WAY too limited. Another example is the Snelgrove Lake sample (Meldrum and Nelson). While none of these disprove that they could have been from a sasquatch, they didn't prove they WERE from a sasquatch either. Theoretically, they could ALL have been from "modern humans". What WOULD help is to carry out a complete nuclear and mito DNA analysis on these samples - then we would know. I understand that Ketchum is doing exactly that on a part of the Snelgove Lake sample; time will tell what she finds out. The previous mistakes made were almost all made for the same reason: the DNA researchers concluded that they were ALL human contamination or hoaxes before sufficient DATA were in-house. They also failed miserably to - connect the dots. That's what I'm trying to do, Jodie, and so are you. Can't we get beyond all the bashing & debunking or whatever you'd call it and work TOGETHER? Thanks in advance, Jodie! Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stubstad Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Cool scenario! I didn't even know Pete Townsend was into bifgoot! Ok, sorry, bad attempt at humor...lol Just to show you folks that I DO have a life beyond sasquatch research, my wife and I will be seeing the theatrical version of "Tommy", with Roger Daltry singing the entire Rock Opera at the Pantages Theater in Hollywood (right by the "walk of fame" or whatever it's called), on October 19th! While Pete Townsend will not perform (he has lost his hearing, by and large), his brother will be there, along with a huge case of supporting musicians. The other two original WHO members have since passed away. I'll keep an eye out at the Pantages that evening for "The Sasquatch of the Opera". Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stubstad Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 At this stage its all here say, Stubstad or the Erickson project have not come up with any evidence to support any part of these stories, DNA or the like. Maybe we should rename this thread to Stubstads project as he appears to have the most imput here. My goal was to not be a "Booger" any longer. I was insulted. Now, I'm a "Wildman" and I like it that way. I feel like a wildman sometimes. I do have some evidence (the actual DNA sequences; 3 complete mite and 3 single-gene nuclear), but in deference to Ketchum, and now as it turns out, Paulides, I will probably not publish the actual sequences - at least not for a while. Let's give Ketchum and whoever she's in cahoots with just now a chance! Richard PS: Besides, as I said, the evidence I have is only 97% conclusive, statistically. The whole thing could still be a hoax (3% chance it is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stubstad Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 His physical health has nothing to do with holding him accountable to his statements and actions that he has made on multiple public forums. He shouldn't be treated anymore differently then anyone else. If it is his mental health, then that is another issue entirely. Regardless, nothing being written is against forum rules as far as I see and everything asked is legitimate. I would still like to know why this whole thing is coming off like him trying to one-up his former boss while scrutinizing her work, her integrity, and her prudence in the process; all in a discussion that should be about Erickson that he has made about himself. If he is involved in the Erickson Project, I for one would like to see some proof of that before I can buy anything said by a guy coming off as a disgruntled ex-employee. OK, Hairy Greek, that does it. If you don't want to hear what I have to say, why should I go to the trouble to say it? Bottom line: I shouldn't. I was NEVER employed by Ketchum. We were partners, along with other folks, and it was only Ketchum herself that was getting paid. She is NOT my former boss. My former boss is: Curt Beckemeyer, Applied Research Associates Executive Vice President, an Engineering Company. Check him out; he has nothing whatsoever to do with sasquatch research. I am not "involved" in the Erickson project. Still, I have an NDA with Erickson that is still in effect. We do speak from time to time, in particular about DNA. As such, I don't know much about the Erickson project except what I've been told by Adrian, his wife, and Dennis Pfohl. I've also seen some of their footage, organized as a documentary, still unreleased for reasons I've given you. Now, sir, I must get back to work doing my engineering, and equally importantly, spearheading (not running) a parallel DNA study using new samples. Good luck, all, and please feel free now to get back to the subject line of this particular thread - The Erickson Project. Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 OK, Hairy Greek, that does it... Don't worry Stubstad. I am sure you are due a few responses shortly about what a great hero you are for all your time here. They will be clamoring for more of your transparency shortly. Feel free to put me on ignore if you don't like my line of questioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 It's like this Richard, for every misstep you take, it takes 100 right steps for the negative impression to leave. I haven't seen you take 100 right steps yet. That said, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, not that you needed it. Your illness and treatment are a very justifiable explanation for what I see as inconsistencies in your posts, and to some extent in your judgement. Be that as it may be, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your information. However, a lot of folks are interested in what you have to say, so continue to enjoy sharing the information that you have with the other forum members without my badgering (unless, of course, it's something way over the top, and I feel compelled to comment). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts