Erickson Project

[Guest Stubstad]

Well how did your lab work turn out? Are you still in remission? I hope everything is still good in that respect.

I guess by now you must have read the allegations on the Squatchdetective blogsite. Do you mind commenting on your past and supposed current association with Tom Biscardi or how you are connected to Lindsay? I would love to hear both sides and now is as good a time as any to set the record straight from your perspective. I think we would all be interested in what you have to say about it.

I've written up a retort--on practically every single point brought up by Steve Kulls (if that is the blog you are referring to?). I'll let you all know where it will be posted ... probably not here, because it is quite long.

Re. my health--thanks for asking. The short answer is not too good; I'm scrambling with my two medical oncologists for an alternate plan by next Tuesday (my next hospital visit).

Richard Stubstad

[Guest]

You PSA came back high? It has not spread anywhere else has it? I'm sincerely sorry to hear about that news. Right now, I know you have many more important things on your mind than bigfoot, but if you get a chance, let us know where your retort is so we can hear your side of the story. Richard, I hope you give up on all of this, and start putting your energy into things that matter more to you. The world is going to keep spinning whether there is a bigfoot on it or not.

[Guest billgreen2010]

hey jodie steve chris everyone i realy want to see these new sasquatch filmfootages in this new documentary when it comes out indeed to be continued.......

[Guest Stubstad]

You PSA came back high? It has not spread anywhere else has it? I'm sincerely sorry to hear about that news. Right now, I know you have many more important things on your mind than bigfoot, but if you get a chance, let us know where your retort is so we can hear your side of the story. Richard, I hope you give up on all of this, and start putting your energy into things that matter more to you. The world is going to keep spinning whether there is a bigfoot on it or not.

Re. "my side of the story" on Steve Kulls, please see:

http://www.footprintsinyourmind.com

It's right on the front page of that Website.

And yes, (Java) Bob Schmalzbach is a good friend of mine, but we are not tied together in any formal or legal manner except through an inactive LLC in Texas together with Dr. Melba Ketchum. In fact, when the three of us were working together (just to get the ball rolling with ALL sample providers), the three of us interviewed a producer to help us ALL release the media stuff (not only the DNA results) AFTER the technical, peer-reviewed paper submission. This producer also signed and abided by an NDA with the Texas-based LLC.

The only difference between then and now is that, by all appearances, Dr. K is doing her own marketing, with her own lawyers, and possibly with some of the sample providers that may achieve some kind of "honorable mention" in the Dr. K marketing campaign according to their particular NDA's with her. This occurred in spite of a signed NDA with the above-referenced producer on behalf of ALL of us involved with the LLC at the time.

Later, gator ...

Richard Stubstad

[bipedalist]

Thanks for your rejoinder Richard, it's always nice to have all the sides of a story and let the chips fall where they may. I certainly hope that the level of expertise exists to bottle these results on the top shelf though.

[Guest]

Re. "my side of the story" on Steve Kulls, please see:

http://www.footprintsinyourmind.com

It's right on the front page of that Website.

And yes, (Java) Bob Schmalzbach is a good friend of mine, but we are not tied together in any formal or legal manner except through an inactive LLC in Texas together with Dr. Melba Ketchum. In fact, when the three of us were working together (just to get the ball rolling with ALL sample providers), the three of us interviewed a producer to help us ALL release the media stuff (not only the DNA results) AFTER the technical, peer-reviewed paper submission. This producer also signed and abided by an NDA with the Texas-based LLC.

The only difference between then and now is that, by all appearances, Dr. K is doing her own marketing, with her own lawyers, and possibly with some of the sample providers that may achieve some kind of "honorable mention" in the Dr. K marketing campaign according to their particular NDA's with her. This occurred in spite of a signed NDA with the above-referenced producer on behalf of ALL of us involved with the LLC at the time.

Later, gator ...

Richard Stubstad

Thank you, Richard. That was the most sensible thing I've read in awhile regarding this whole mess. I think your criticism is fair regarding Dr. Ketchum's abilities and what her lab is capable of handling, yet from what you are saying, it sounds like she is referring out appropriately. I don't think what you have said in this statement detracts from anything her final results may show in the end. I'm not even convinced the previous discussion of the mDNA analysis will do her results any harm in the long run, whether it's accurate or not, although I can understand why it would make her mad. I think if the roles were reversed, you would have been angry too with or without an NDA. As you said, this study will have to be verified by repeat studies no matter the results. The science will speak for itself. In the meantime, I do hope your health improves and this downturn is just temporary. I hope you get the time and the opportunity to do another study of your own, if that is what you want to pursue.

[Guest Stubstad]

Thanks for the vote of confidence & for the encouragement re. my health.

I'm trying to get onto a clinical study, just today in fact, in Las Vegas. It's a new PCa drug called "XL184" (Cabozatinib) and of course I'm hopeful I can buy a few more years by participating in this Phase I/II trial.

Re. Dr. K., I guess what really happened is that we were both working very hard, in good faith and 100% confidence, until: 1) she realized that there would be some post-technical peer-reviewed paper "excitement" (to say the least), and that the way things were heading, she would have to "team up" with at least the major sample providers (never mind me) for the media stuff after-the-fact. Since the media won't be very interested in a lot of technical details about mt- and nu-DNA, with A's, C's, G's and T's until the cows come home, but rather in some videos, researchers who have been at this business for a long time, in the field (e.g. Meldrum), etc., I think she felt that she would have to share in the "glory" if you can call it that to a greater degree than she was comfortable with. So instead of lawyering up as a group, which we who have ALSO contributed over the years, rse should have done vis-a-vis the media, producers, etc., she lawyered up on her own. So you can figure out the rest of the story.

Therefore, it is likely that several of us will pursue a "parallel" study, notwithstanding what Dr. K figures out or publishes, because IF the sasquai really exist (and both Dr. K and I believe they do), it's not going to go as smoothly as she has been led to believe by her attorneys. A parallel study, therefore, will neither take anything from nor add anything directly to her work, but rather it will lead to further verification that her work is basically OK but still needs scientific verification by other co-contributing researchers, such as those at the Max Planck Institute in German, MIT and U.C. Berkeley, etc. in order to protect the sasquai as a species or subspecies.

If I hadn't publicly provided the impetus to show that there is a good possibility, DNA-wise, that the sasquai exist, well how would ANYONE else be interested anyway? Every non-involved scientist in the entire world thinks ALL of us--including Dr. K--are a bunch of kooks without better evidence that a bevy of normally distributed footprint lengths and grainy videos & films, like P-G.

Finally, just so you know I also have quite a lot of other DNA information, from several sources, but I haven't mentioned these data yet. For now, it's enough with Samples 1 and 2, chronologically, which is precisely what perked both Dr. K's and my interest alike & REALLY got the ball rolling (for her, anyway).

If I had been in her shoes, I would NEVER discard her because that is simply not ethical after all the work we did together. Still, I understand why she has done what she has done, legally. In a word, it's our adversarial system of doing business. The sasquai are far too important to consider merely profit and business as usual as a primary motivator to move forward and attain glory and recognition as an individual instead of a group of researchers.

Richard Stubstad

[Guest Dudlow]

The sasquai are far too important to consider merely profit and business as usual as a primary motivator to move forward and attain glory and recognition as an individual instead of a group of researchers. Richard Stubstad

You are absolutely right, 'Stubstad'. This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with the whole setup as far as events go that have been reported thus far. It is about Sasquatch, not about the scientists, not about their grants, not about personal glory and greed, and not about their Andy Wharhol 15 minutes of fame and talk show circuit comforts for the rest of their lives. It's about bloody Sasquatch. Now why can't they get that through their heads and learn to cooperate for a change and 'make nice' in order to do the right thing on behalf of Sasquatch?

- Dudlow

[Guest HairyGreek]

You are absolutely right, 'Stubstad'. This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with the whole setup as far as events go that have been reported thus far. It is about Sasquatch, not about the scientists, not about their grants, not about personal glory and greed, and not about their Andy Wharhol 15 minutes of fame and talk show circuit comforts for the rest of their lives. It's about bloody Sasquatch. Now why can't they get that through their heads and learn to cooperate for a change and 'make nice' in order to do the right thing on behalf of Sasquatch?

- Dudlow

I see whatcha did there....

[BobZenor]

I heard that she had other labs blindly, as in not knowing it was about bigfoot, sequence other samples or duplicates of her samples. If there are any divergent genes, like those on a 2 million years divergent y-chromosome, it is already verified as much as if any lab like Max Planck Institute did it. There might be some people who are going to suspect fraud if it isn't a well known lab. They are going to be in the position of pushing conspiracies if that is true. The sequences should speak for themselves and eventually "prove" this thing if bigfoot is a real creature. I am hoping she had enough sequenced to prove this ultimately.

Edited July 29, 2011 by BobZenor

[slabdog]

The sasquai are far too important to consider merely profit and business as usual as a primary motivator to move forward and attain glory and recognition as an individual instead of a group of researchers.

Doesn't that statement kinda conflict with your close association with this guy?

[Guest gershake]

Doesn't that statement kinda conflict with your close association with this guy?

http://www.footprintsinyourmind.com/

[Guest Stubstad]

http://www.footprintsinyourmind.com/

Yes and no. I wasn't involved in this "crazy" stuff until the fall of 2009--well after the "Georgia Boys" fiasco of 2008, which in fact I had only heard about peripherally in the news, including the conclusion it was a hoax. This was no surprise to me at the time, and it still isn't much of a surprise to me, even though I'm 97% sure this creature--in one form or another or both--exist "out there".

However, there are MANY hoaxes--not just this one. I believe, but of course do not know since I've never met Biscardi in person, that he was hoaxed by the Georgia cops involved, and wasn't personally in on the hoaxing. I cannot know this for sure, though, since I wasn't involved.

It certainly was a hoax, though, and I'd personally suggest you see one of two different documentaries called "Anatomy of a Bigfoot Hoax" or something similar before passing judgement on Biscardi himself about this particular, high profile hoax. I saw one of the two versions of this film, and--knowing at least one of the other players at the time--I'm pretty sure Biscardi was NOT involved, but was nevertheless naive enough to fall for the ridiculous sequence of events that only HE would fall for.

In fact, if it wasn't for some of these very same colleagues of his there would have been several successful hoaxes carried out--targeting Mr. Believer Tom Biscardi specifically, because he ALWAYS gives everyone the benefit of a doubt, even it the story is FAR too astounding to be true--therefore it probably IS too astounding to be true.

He (Biscardi) WILL, on occasion, listen to me, so next time we speak, I'll do my best--once again--and ask him to be more circumspect AND polite to the rest of you folks out there. In the end, he is his own worst enemy.

In conclusion, I don't know for sure whether or not Biscardi was involved in the HOAXING itself from Georgia in 2008. I just don't THINK he was. In general, I find the "Bigfoot Community" to be rather hasty in a rush to judgement--one way or another--without gathering and weighing ALL the evidence in a particular case. For example, the P-G film. Most of you folks probably believe with 99% or 100% certainty that it is the Real Deal. A significant percentage of the rest of you probably believe with the same 99% or 100% certainty that it was Bob Heironomous in a monkey suit that day in 1967. Personally, I don't really know for sure. I'd say I'm maybe 60 or 70% in favor of it being the real deal, but I recognize there may be some merit to the Heronomous claim that he was the man in the suit that day, to the tune of 30 or 40% certain. How can you all be so certain about all this stuff?

Richard Stubstad

[bipedalist]

How can you all be so certain about all this stuff?

Personal sightings with eyeshine involved help.

Interesting that the Ky. TV station video thread alludes to the possibility the Erickson

Sasquatch the Quest documentary will be out by the end of the year....so maybe the "blow

the PGF out of the water stuff" will be revealed just before the DNA presser (or maybe a

TV documentary will come out the weekend before a major presser). Drama, drama, you can't

beat drama.

You are right though in some respects it's very likely this "being" will be pursued vigorously

shortly after the announcements. I'm confident they will be as secure as they have in the past.

The level of applied effort required to determine they are in your own backyard is huge and not

every citizen has the capacity for that level of effort.

[Guest]

How can I be certain? I'm not, but I don't have an alternative explanation that really fits. Like you, bigfoot was the farthest thing from my mind until I moved here about 3 years ago. I go with my instincts in most cases, and my instincts are very rarely ever wrong. However, I tend to over think stuff and rationalize things away so I can still claim my sanity.