Sierra Shooting from A-Z

[Guest slimwitless]

I'd like to clear a few things up for whom it may concern. I was there on site on the Sierra trip. As a matter of fact I organized the effort. Dr. Meldrum is being 100% truthful with everything he has stated. When the sample was first smelled by John M, he did at first get a little excited because he thought it smelled very similar to another sample he'd smelled in the past. Never did Jeff say, (this is what we're looking for). As a matter of fact Jeff never got excited about the sample. It was interesting to him, but when the initial examination was done, he had no conclusion. He said his gut reaction was 50/50 or less. I know this because I was standing there. So was Bart Catino and James bobo Fay. Paul Graves was also there. And I have the entire event on video.

As far as the cadaver dog is concerned, it did show up with Jeff and John and its handler. We were not instructed to stay out of the area until the dog arrived because the original dog plan had fallen through, and Jeff had been working on a back up plan with a local handler, but it was not guaranteed. We did not know that the dog was for sure until it showed up. If we knew the dog was a for sure thing we would have left the area alone. Another problem was we had very limited time, and the entire area needed to be searched. The other thing to consider is the dog probably wouldn't have worked anyways. That dog was trained to search for human remains. No idea if it would have worked with Sasquatch. Also, you can't just give a trained cadaver dog a piece of flesh and expect that to work. It simply doesn't work that way. You can ruin a trained dog that way.

Finally, the reason I invited Jeff and John. I worked with Dr Meldrum for five years with the North American Ape Project. I have massive respect for this man. He has risked his career, and made many many sacrifices along the way helping out us researchers, going out on a very lonely limb because he knew that there was just too much evidence to ignore. I will be forever grateful for his diligence in the face of every kind of skepticism. I felt he above all deserved to be there. I invited John because I believe that he's a fantastic biologist, and he also deserved to be there. Both of these gentlemen are two of the most honest people I've ever met, and I consider myself very lucky to be fortunate enough to work with them and call them my friends.

Sincerely,

Derek Randles

www.olympicproject.com

[dudeman]

That 90% human statement makes me think some evidence points to a divergence date of about 500,000 years ago, about the same as neanderthals. It is hard to know what he meant by 90% human since it isn't a very precise or technical way to explain something. It sounds like something someone might say to someone who didn't understand genetics so they got the gist without an in depth explanation.

Aren't chimps like 98% human? I thought their DNA was only 2% or so different than ours. At least in layman's terms.

edited to continue w/thought

Edited January 27, 2012 by dudeman

[bipedalist]

All drama aside, is it safe to say Meldrum doesn't think the sample is from a Bigfoot? The comment, "He decided that it probably was not a Bigfoot due to the presence of guard hairs" is not highlighted in red. It seems to me that puts his opinion at odds with Ketchum's findings. They can't both be right. Am I wrong?

Henner's research and criteria are fairly well-known. Thanks for posting the videos though, it's great to have more people be familiar with the hair characteristics, as that should reduce some cries of "wolf" when what people have may actually BE wolf hair.

Interstingly, the Sierra shooting sample displays none of these characteristics.

• The sample has a pronounced medulla. (Sasquatch is suspected to have only slight to no medulla)
• There are guard hairs and an undercoat (We do not expect an undercoat with primate/squatch hair - something Dr. Fahrenbach did not get into in this interview)
• There is strong tapering of the hair whereas primate hair is usually bluntly worn, vs tapered. (This is another characteristic that was not mentioned in this particular interview.)

More question marks surrounding Ketchum's results

What follows is partial quote/partial capsulization.......<<<<<<<

In the John Green bk., Sasquatch The Apes Among Us, p. 284-85, his account from the Grangeville Idaho County Free Press carried the story of Frank Bond, from Council, Idaho, who claimed to have seen a pair of humanoids, seven and eight feet tall, covered with silver-grey hair, while he was fishing alone near French Creek on June 16, 1968. The owner of the property , game guide, and former government trapper Wayne Twitchell, checked the location and found half a dozen light-colored hairs, which the newspaper sent to Ray Pinker in LA, a vet. of 36 yrs. in police crime-lab work who was then professor of police science at Cal. State Coll. LA (?now UCLA).

A newspaper story attributed to Professor Pinker had the statement that the hairs had both animal and human characteristics but did not match any sample he had but they resembled animal hairs in showing a variation of color and thickness from the root to the tip, whereas human hair is uniform in color and thickness but that the scale pattern on the outside was similar to that of human hair and while there was no continuous medulla or core visible to the center as would be the case with almost all animal hairs. There were both coarse outer hairs and fine hairs from an undercoat. All were light in color.....so Green was asked to have as many known white hair samples from known local animals sent to curators in LA while taking all suspected sasquatch hairs he could to LA to see if they could validate the Idaho sample. The tedious work........resulted in the Idaho sample being the only one with the unusual characteristics. He then goes into a long explanation that if the hairs are not plucked from the animal itself there are problems with attribution. So these Idaho samples were unidentified but with similarities to both human and non-human samples. >>>>>>>

Just some more thoughts on the matter using older references and documented discussions.

Edited January 28, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

Aren't chimps like 98% human? I thought their DNA was only 2% or so different than ours. At least in layman's terms.

edited to continue w/thought

Yeah, but that would probably mean 90 percent human genes of the 2 percent or so we do not share with chimps.

I have elaborated a bit on that in Ketchum thread.

[BobZenor]

Aren't chimps like 98% human? I thought their DNA was only 2% or so different than ours. At least in layman's terms.

edited to continue w/thought

It depends on how you measure it. They can compare how the DNA associates with each other. I don't recall them ever putting a percentage on those sorts of tests. They could measure the relatively short segments of DNA which was all they used to be able to manage. I think they come up with something like 98% to 99% the same using that method where they are comparing sequences.

They have more recently done much larger segments and shown that many large sections have moved around or been duplicated and I think it was like 95 percent doing that sort of analysis.

The most common test they use to place something in its evolutionary position or how distantly related it is is by sequencing the mtDNA. We are about 91% the same sequence as a chimp which they roughly translate to about 5 million years since we shared a common ancestor. Some extend that because the clock isn't precise and fossil evidence of an earlier biped made many doubt the 5 million year dating. The percentage is most useful if you are comparing it to other animals. Small changes could have huge effects except for the mtDNA. They try to compare non coding regions of mtDNA.

Edited January 28, 2012 by BobZenor

[bipedalist]

What follows is partial quote/partial capsulization.......<<<<<<<

In the John Green bk., Sasquatch The Apes Among Us, p. 284-85, his account from the Grangeville Idaho County Free Press carried the story of Frank Bond, from Council, Idaho, who claimed to have seen a pair of humanoids, seven and eight feet tall, covered with silver-grey hair, while he was fishing alone near French Creek on June 16, 1968. The owner of the property , game guide, and former government trapper Wayne Twitchell, checked the location and found half a dozen light-colored hairs, which the newspaper sent to Ray Pinker in LA, a vet. of 36 yrs. in police crime-lab work who was then professor of police science at Cal. State Coll. LA (?now UCLA).

A newspaper story attributed to Professor Pinker had the statement that the hairs had both animal and human characteristics but did not match any sample he had but they resembled animal hairs in showing a variation of color and thickness from the root to the tip, whereas human hair is uniform in color and thickness but that the scale pattern on the outside was similar to that of human hair and while there was no continuous medulla or core visible to the center as would be the case with almost all animal hairs. There were both coarse outer hairs and fine hairs from an undercoat. All were light in color.....so Green was asked to have as many known white hair samples from known local animals sent to curators in LA while taking all suspected sasquatch hairs he could to LA to see if they could validate the Idaho sample. The tedious work........resulted in the Idaho sample being the only one with the unusual characteristics. He then goes into a long explanation that if the hairs are not plucked from the animal itself there are problems with attribution. So these Idaho samples were unidentified but with similarities to both human and non-human samples. >>>>>>>

Just some more thoughts on the matter using older references and documented discussions.

So we have a forty year old circumstance similar to what has been rumored in the Sierra sample event? Anybody know of other accounts of Sasquatch hair found with guard or underhairs?

[Bonehead74]

Not mention the color from that account is silver-grey. Remember Justin's description of the adult and it's similarity. Interesting.

[Guest]

All drama aside, is it safe to say Meldrum doesn't think the sample is from a Bigfoot? The comment, "He decided that it probably was not a Bigfoot due to the presence of guard hairs" is not highlighted in red. It seems to me that puts his opinion at odds with Ketchum's findings. They can't both be right. Am I wrong?

The evidence thus points not to a feral human, or an ape, but to a werewolf!

[Guest slimwitless]

The evidence thus points not to a feral human, or an ape, but to a werewolf!

This happened in the late afternoon on a date with no moon (much less a full one). Otherwise, yeah...why not. But seriously, stating the sample can't be Bigfoot because no great apes have an undercoat is like saying the footprints can't be made by an ape because all great apes have a divergent big toe.

Ginger3 hinted there was some attempt at DNA analysis on this sliver provided to Meldrum. Ironically, it seems the results (if there are any) would be covered by Ketchum's NDA. Justin should provide a small piece to an independent lab just to confirm whether or not it's canid (don't even mention Bigfoot). I'm sure we could "crowd source" the expense.

I have to say I'm a bit by perplexed by Bart Cutino playing down the authenticity of the sample. Maybe he wouldn't agree with that characterization but that's how it read to me. Again, I hope they test the blood on Justin's clothes. It's the only non-circumstantial evidence.

Edited January 29, 2012 by slimwitless

[Guest parnassus]

The evidence thus points not to a feral human, or an ape, but to a werewolf!

Or a man in a coyote-skin suit.

Edited January 29, 2012 by parnassus

[Guest slimwitless]

Fun with Google Earth! I opened up the Haskell Peak area near Gold Lake and placed two overlays at separate altitudes. In these images, the "whitest" areas are below 7150 feet, the gray intermediate band represents an altitude of 7150 to 7250 feet (where the shootings supposedly occurred). The areas without any transparent layering are above 7250 feet. Both images are set with the shadowing that matches the position of the sun on October 8th.

If you zoom in, you can see roads and other details. We've heard the road ended in a meadow. This isn't the best example but I show it because there are two roads here that end in the intermediate band and are therefore at the right altitude.

I have found a spot that seems to fit the description of two valleys and a meadow but the "road" is barely visible and may not even be a road. There's another interesting spot but it's above 7250 feet. Looking at the zoomed satellite images, I can almost imagine the day when we'll be picking out blobsquatches from space. Good times.

[Guest]

We are planning an expedition there sometime in August. We'll have dates soon.

[Hairy Man]

Will that be a public expedition like the ones you are doing with Meldrum in the Olympics?

[Guest RioBravo]

Fun with Google Earth...

Nice.

[Guest]

Will that be a public expedition like the ones you are doing with Meldrum in the Olympics?

Ya, a little different format though. Remote camp and no presentations. Grind research.