Guest slimwitless Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) apparently the footage adrian bought was legit...but then he sunk all his money into ketchum.Alot of money..millions and she has gave him nothing. She should be prosecuted if you want my opinion. Anyways she told me Biscardi submitted a toe nail that came back as bf. There is your red flag right there...Not to mention the bigfoot "steak" has been examined by people with knowledge of what canine hair looks like. They said it was coyote. I really dont think this was a hoax on adrian's part just that Ketchum seen the $ and ran with it!! This is the first time I've heard anything about Erickson sinking millions into Ketchum's study. Stubstad claimed Erickson paid about $70,000 for nuDNA testing of his samples. It appears (at least publicly) Ketchum and Erickson have reconciled. That doesn't seem to fit with what you're saying. According to Stubstad, Biscardi was acting as a middle man when he submitted Larry Jenkins toenail to the study. Despite what you may have heard, we don't know if that sample is even in the study. Ketchum should exclude the thing (if it really tested "positive") just to avoid any association with Biscardi. On a Biscardi-hosted radio show (with Stubstad and Lindsay as guests), Biscardi came across as somewhat belligerent towards Ketchum and the study. It seemed like he was even hinting at legal action. That's not exactly what I'd expect if he's part of an ongoing hoax. As far as the coyote, you're referring to Meldrum's examination of a salt-dried sliver of the original sample (supposedly not much larger than the size of a pinky-nail). Accounts on this vary. Some say he found guard hairs which aren't found in primates. Bart Cutino said it was an issue with "tapering" on the recent MNBRT interview. It could be Meldrum is wrong about what he saw (there's more to the story here) or it could be he's wrong about what he expects. A hair and fiber expert is reportedly one of the co-authors on the paper. We'll have to see what they conclude. Edit to elaborate on size of salt-dried sample. Edited January 17, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Stinky Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) apparently the footage adrian bought was legit...but then he sunk all his money into ketchum.Alot of money..millions and she has gave him nothing. She should be prosecuted if you want my opinion. Anyways she told me Biscardi submitted a toe nail that came back as bf. There is your red flag right there...Not to mention the bigfoot "steak" has been examined by people with knowledge of what canine hair looks like. They said it was coyote. I really dont think this was a hoax on adrian's part just that Ketchum seen the $ and ran with it!! NFLer has the comment regarding the hair appearing to be coyote hair been confirmed ? If true how could this tissue pass through microscopic screening and the initial DNA screening process ? Looks like we won't know if this information is legitmate until this all comes out. Unless DR can comment on this. The Stink Edited January 17, 2012 by Big Stinky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I wasnt personally told myself from erickson so all I have is what I heard from a person...so not my word.I didnt know biscardi was a middleman at all. When ketchum told me was that it was biscardi who submitted it. I just assumed. I personally hope it's all true. I just dont know what to think about it.everyone I have talked to says something differnt. Maybe I shouldnt of posted at all. btw I didnt realize meldrum looked at it...but I will have to ask him.Is there a site I can go to where that story is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) You've talked with Ketchum? Why not ask her when this thing is coming out (and report back). As far as the hair morphology question, read the Henner Fahrenbach thread in this forum from a few months back. Pay attention to the posts by "Ginger3" and "General". In that thread, I speculated the person that examined the sample was Meldrum (read the thread to see why). It wasn't until later that my suspicions were confirmed. The only public acknowledgement is probably Bart Cutino's recent comments on MNBRT radio. I asked Meldrum what he thought about the Sierra Shooting on another Blogtalk show. He said the story probably "wasn't all it's cracked up to be" and that there were a few "red flags". I can't read his mind but I'm pretty sure he's talking about the hair morphology. I'm also guessing he's playing it safe for the time being. I'm not sure he'd be attending this if he thought the whole thing was a scam. Edited January 17, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 There were 100 samples of which 20 were included in the final round of testing as they wanted to focus on the fresher samples and leave the bones and teeth for later.. There are "bones and teeth" too? Wow. So, no one else sees a problem with this sudden flush of physical evidence after centuries of nothing but stories? Have the bigfoots suddenly let their guards down? Is it somehow easier to obtain a piece of a bigfoot that a photo of a bigfoot now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I did ask her.She said it would be out on 12/31/11. which has came and went.I spoke with her early december. Anyways she said she had released erickson from the nda and he could put his stuff out on his own.which didnt make since to me.He paid her right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Sas, hair and scat have been collected for some time. Gigantopithicus teeth number around a hundred, with some jaws. What is it that you are suspicious about? Parts is parts, and Wally Hersom has been bankrolling this work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) There are "bones and teeth" too? Wow. So, no one else sees a problem with this sudden flush of physical evidence after centuries of nothing but stories? Have the bigfoots suddenly let their guards down? Is it somehow easier to obtain a piece of a bigfoot that a photo of a bigfoot now? Well........... Have we looked properly before now? I'd also guess that there are probably an awful lot of photos and plenty of film-footage that are being deliberately with-held until the results of the Ketchum study are released. This looks seriously well co-ordinated to me, with the Olympic Project being determined not to get this wrong after having seen all sorts of previous amateurish attempts fail to meet the required standards. So I see a "sudden flush of physical evidence" as evidence of purposeful collecting and an immense effort at keeping secrets. None of us will actually know whether there is sasquatch bone and teeth, let alone flesh, hair, blood, saliva etc. in the study, until this study is published, and even then, we'll probably need it to be explained to us in single-syllable words! This forum will be picking over the published results, and the back story, for years after the event. I will say that I am looking forward to Saskeptic's first post after publication almost as much as I am looking forward to reading the study, and to seeing the Erickson documentary. I am anticipating that post to be the litmus test of whether we are in for another few years of doubt and argument, or whether it's a "done deal". Mike Edited January 17, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 snippage I will say that I am looking forward to Saskeptic's first post after publication almost as much as I am looking forward to reading the study, and to seeing the Erickson documentary. I am anticipating that post to be the litmus test of whether we are in for another few years of doubt and argument, or whether it's a "done deal". Mike I thought Erickson's company went under, the websites are all offline, and all you're hearing from their camp is crickets chirping. Was there a consensus or inside information that indicated they're still active or the movie is complete OR sold off to some interested third party? I really thought their outfit was done once the websites all went offline at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 17, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 17, 2012 Only the players know, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Sas, hair and scat have been collected for some time. Gigantopithicus teeth number around a hundred, with some jaws. What is it that you are suspicious about? Parts is parts, and Wally Hersom has been bankrolling this work. The "teeth" was a single big tooth belonging to Mike Rugg in Northern California. Mike sent it in to Ketchum but now says it is not included in the study. To my knowledge he has not said whether he has gotten a specific report/result from her. He had some dentists look at it but I kind of think he has never had it looked at by wildlife biologists. Edited January 17, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Anyways she said she had released erickson from the nda and he could put his stuff out on his own.which didnt make since to me.He paid her right? It also doesn't make sense as an NDA would have nothing to do with his material. Nobody signs an NDA that allows someone else to prevent you from releasing material you own. What likely occurred is that there is an agreement, contract, NDA whatever you want to call it about Erickson mentioning the results of her tests in his documentary. And I seriously doubt she would give him the permission to release anything about her work before she releases it herself (or the journal does, etc blah blah whatever the situation is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Parn, the numerous teeth of GigantoP I referred to were collected in China and environs(sorry, I can't remember where I picked this up). You are correct that only one tooth is thought to be part of Ketchum's project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Sas, hair and scat have been collected for some time. . . . And summarily rejected as bigfoot evidence in just about every study with which I am familiar. That's why these "100 samples" are significant: If all those researchers who claimed physical evidence down through the years were wrong, why would we assume that the people who provided material for Ketchum to analyze were suddenly right? Gigantopithicus teeth number around a hundred, with some jaws. What is it that you are suspicious about? Parts is parts, and Wally Hersom has been bankrolling this work. Sure, but Giganto teeth would not provide an ambiguously human result when analyzed, contrary to what we think has been the result from Ketchum's analysis. If bigfoot is something, it could be human or it could be Giganto (or something else). It could not be human and Giganto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I will say that I am looking forward to Saskeptic's first post after publication almost as much as I am looking forward to reading the study, and to seeing the Erickson documentary. I am anticipating that post to be the litmus test of whether we are in for another few years of doubt and argument, or whether it's a "done deal". Mike Mike, Saskeptic is an ornithologist. I respect his knowledge greatly, as well as a few other ney sayers on here, but the only litmus test for me is feedback from geneticists, anthropologists, etc....if they ever read the published paper. It might disappear into obscurity if the journal isn't too well known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts