Sierra Shooting from A-Z

[Guest slimwitless]

Although I've been visiting this forum for years I've never felt compelled to sign-up and join the discussion. However, this story has piqued my interest. Somehow the details and involvement of so many players (a few with solid reputations) have left me with some hope that there may be a kernel of truth here. I did a little investigating on taxidermy.net and figured out the identity of the supposed shooter. From there I was hooked.

Anyway, I tuned in to the recent radio interview with Lindsay and Derek Randles and was left with a few observations:

Lindsay is prone to opining in much of his reporting. For example, he doesn't believe certain aspects of the shooter's story because of presumptions about the man's character. He thinks the story of origin of the steak is false because bigfoots bury their dead, etc. I think a more disciplined approach is in order. Still, he deserves props for breaking the story.

Derek Randles impresses me with his no-nonsense demeanor. Perhaps foolishly I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. He clearly believes the shooter (and the witness). He suggested repeatedly there's "more to the story". He also seemed like he was hinting at something in regard to the shooting site. Unfortunately no one on the program asked the right questions. Has the OP visited the site since the shooting? I think there's more telling information here that hasn't been discussed. Derek sounded supremely confident that the science of the flesh backs up the central premise of the shooter's story. If he's getting hoaxed, it's from two directions.

What to believe? If this is a hoax, it's an elaborate hoax. Sticking a costume in a freezer is one thing but this would be a whole new level of chicanery. We have a thread started by the "shooter" on another forum. He eventually asks that the thread be removed. Why? (I think much could be divined from those posts but the thread is gone). We have a reputable taxidermist buying into the tale. We have Stubstad present with Ketchum when they receive the flesh sample and hear the story. The rumor apparently circulates for months in the inner circles of bigfooting until Lindsay's source goes public. We have the Olympic Project taking the shooter under their wing. Are they being hoaxed by a rival organization? Could they be in on it? Randles seems like a solid guy.

The shooter's MySpace profile is now private after Stubstad made some oblique comments about some of the images there. Stubstad has stopped posting. He seems like a stand-up guy although I don't agree with his premise that Ketchum or anyone else is somehow "pro-kill" for wanting to involve this sample in the study. Was he an unwilling dupe? Randles says we'll have more answers "very soon". To add to this, The Erickson Project is also involved in the Ketchum study as is Paulides. Perhaps tangentially, heavyweights Meldrum and Bindernagel are involved with Erickson at some level. If the story goes national and then turns out to be false, it seems to me there will be very few people left in this field that can be taken seriously.

I'm just not sure. The story sounds incredible but we're talking about Bigfoot here. I've always thought if these creatures existed, a hunter would eventually kill one and the truth would come out. Is this particular shooting story that far fetched? I don't see why. I tend to place more credence in the thing precisely because it's not neatly wrapped up with a bow on top.

I guess I'm saying I'm cautiously optimistic. I haven't fallen for any of these tales before; perhaps this will be my "fool me once" moment.

[Guest]

agree with everything slab has said.

biggest inconsistancy for me was the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the 'hairy steak'.

8" long? didnt Derek say it was cut in half, hence the edge? So how big was the original piece that was shot off?

Is it possible that a piece this size can be shot out of an animal?

And someone close to Derek please persuede him not to talk to SF about the true sequence of events.

I would rather hear it first hand from the man himself.

Hey....blogtalk radio with Derek, Adrian and Melba!!

who's up for that?

Steve K....step up please

Edited July 10, 2011 by megatarsal

[bipedalist]

Adrian, Melba and Paulides popped up on Bigfoot Buster BTR but weren't particularly revealing.......Slim Pickens from this point on out I think unless that question that was asked that was never answered about what sheriff's department and who on game and fish staff was contacted is answered.

[Guest]

Surely Derek can answer that one? it can't be covered by the NDA as its incidental to the DNA analysis.

Edited: Quoted preceding post. Chris B.

[Guest Dudlow]

And now Cryptomundo has published a brief on the seemingly dubious business ethics of the Ketchum DNA laboratory in Texas, which has accumulated no fewer than 19 Better Business Bureau complaints, most of which are unresolved, regarding breach of contract and failure to perform after having received full payment for services never satisfactorily rendered.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/erickson-project-news-5/

This whole thing is sounding more and more like a soap opera every day. I think I'm about ready to just climb into a freezer somewhere and close the lid -- like maybe in Georgia?

- Dudlow

[Guest slimwitless]

Adrian, Melba and Paulides popped up on Bigfoot Buster BTR but weren't particularly revealing.......Slim Pickens from this point on out I think unless that question that was asked that was never answered about what sheriff's department and who on game and fish staff was contacted is answered.

The moniker is actually slimwitless (although I respect Pickens work in Dr. Strangelove). Did someone ask that question on the show? Randles said he would answer any question not covered by the NDA. I think it popped up in one of these threads and you're right, no one answered - but then, maybe he didn't know names, etc. That's an interesting point though. A few years back in my home state there was a reported sighting by a father and son boating on a lake. They went to the game commission and reported the sighting. Rather than being laughed at, a conservation officer went out and supposedly photographed a footprint. This is a midwestern state with very few sightings. Perhaps the novelty of the report led to a completely different response. But yeah, that is interesting.

[Guest krakatoa]

I find it difficult to believe there is nothing to all of this. If a report has been generated and is out for review, it has to be based on something tangible, testable, and quantifiable.

There is simply no way that a scientist would attempt to fake a paper on "nothing". Not at the expense of their professional credibility and potentially invoking civil and criminal penalties.

Let me introduce you to Pons & Fleischmann.

Or more recently, and with much more relevance, Woo Suk Hwang.

[Guest Silver Fox]

Although I've been visiting this forum for years I've never felt compelled to sign-up and join the discussion. However, this story has piqued my interest. Somehow the details and involvement of so many players (a few with solid reputations) have left me with some hope that there may be a kernel of truth here. I did a little investigating on taxidermy.net and figured out the identity of the supposed shooter. From there I was hooked.

Anyway, I tuned in to the recent radio interview with Lindsay and Derek Randles and was left with a few observations:

Lindsay is prone to opining in much of his reporting. For example, he doesn't believe certain aspects of the shooter's story because of presumptions about the man's character. He thinks the story of origin of the steak is false because bigfoots bury their dead, etc. I think a more disciplined approach is in order. Still, he deserves props for breaking the story.

Derek Randles impresses me with his no-nonsense demeanor. Perhaps foolishly I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. He clearly believes the shooter (and the witness). He suggested repeatedly there's "more to the story". He also seemed like he was hinting at something in regard to the shooting site. Unfortunately no one on the program asked the right questions.

Has the OP visited the site since the shooting? I think there's more telling information here that hasn't been discussed. Derek sounded supremely confident that the science of the flesh backs up the central premise of the shooter's story. If he's getting hoaxed, it's from two directions.

What to believe? If this is a hoax, it's an elaborate hoax. Sticking a costume in a freezer is one thing but this would be a whole new level of chicanery. We have a thread started by the "shooter" on another forum. He eventually asks that the thread be removed. Why? (I think much could be divined from those posts but the thread is gone). We have a reputable taxidermist buying into the tale. We have Stubstad present with Ketchum when they receive the flesh sample and hear the story.

The rumor apparently circulates for months in the inner circles of bigfooting until Lindsay's source goes public. We have the Olympic Project taking the shooter under their wing. Are they being hoaxed by a rival organization? Could they be in on it? Randles seems like a solid guy.

The shooter's MySpace profile is now private after Stubstad made some oblique comments about some of the images there. Stubstad has stopped posting. He seems like a stand-up guy although I don't agree with his premise that Ketchum or anyone else is somehow "pro-kill" for wanting to involve this sample in the study. Was he an unwilling dupe?

Randles says we'll have more answers "very soon". To add to this, The Erickson Project is also involved in the Ketchum study as is Paulides. Perhaps tangentially, heavyweights Meldrum and Bindernagel are involved with Erickson at some level. If the story goes national and then turns out to be false, it seems to me there will be very few people left in this field that can be taken seriously.

I don't disagree with the shooter's version over his character. My version of the story is from the original Taxidermy.net thread and the statements he made to folks from that site. That's why my version varies from Derek Randles' "latest, greatest" version. The shooter has changed his story a lot. My version is the shooter's original version, before he fancied it up.

I have a problem believing he left the bodies there because the people on Taxidermy.net think that is dubious. They say taxidermists don't leave bodies in the field.

I have issues with his going back two weeks later and finding a BF steak in the snow because this simply stretches credulity. More likely he took a slice, or more than a slice, with him that day.

But we really don't know one way or the other. Maybe he did go back two weeks later and find a piece, incredible as it sounds.

This is akin to a homicide case with an accused killer. Randles is demanding that I accept as "the truth" the accused killer's story in a homicide case! Forget that. Who says that is always the truth anyway? The Olympic Project never went back to that site.

Shooter asked that Taxidermy.net thread be removed because he was getting harassed and receiving threats due to the thread.

Stubstad can't be a dupe because he doesn't even believe the story is true. Right now, he thinks it is a 70-30 chance that it is a hoax. Stubstad left because of all of the unpleasant posters on this site.

Ketchum did say it was worth it to kill these BF's for science. Whether that makes her pro-kill or not, I am not sure.

Whatever you think of him, it's not possible that Randles is in on some kind of a hoax.

Nobody set up anybody. That's all just ridiculous.

[Guest]

Stubstat left because he realised he was adding fuel to the fire, epecially after Melba posted

[Guest Thepattywagon]

"The shooter has changed his story a lot. My version is the shooter's original version, before he fancied it up."

I was under the assumption that your version didn't come from the shooter, but from someone relaying HIS interpretation of the shooter's story to you.

[bipedalist]

Ah, the plot thickens......

[slabdog]

If the story goes national and then turns out to be false, it seems to me there will be very few people left in this field that can be taken seriously.

Bingo! That's why this is driving me crazy! There are too many honest, hardworking and dedicated researchers out there to not dot all the "i's" and cross all the "t's". Otherwise...this will be a mess and egg on everyone (except the skeptics') faces.

To the boys at OP:

Hate to put the pressure on you....but unfortunately you are the one up to bat.

Please reach out to someone in the field who has "been there and done that" when it comes to being taken in by hoaxers on a very public level and, using their past experience, make sure you are covering all your bases.

You can't beat experience!

Please cover all your bases so you can either:

A Out the hoaxer(s) yourself ...or

B Stand pat behind the evidence and run it up the middle with confidence.

Slabdog

Edited July 10, 2011 by slabdog

[Guest]

Although I've been visiting this forum for years I've never felt compelled to sign-up and join the discussion. However, this story has piqued my interest. Somehow the details and involvement of so many players (a few with solid reputations) have left me with some hope that there may be a kernel of truth here. I did a little investigating on taxidermy.net and figured out the identity of the supposed shooter. From there I was hooked.

Anyway, I tuned in to the recent radio interview with Lindsay and Derek Randles and was left with a few observations:

Lindsay is prone to opining in much of his reporting. For example, he doesn't believe certain aspects of the shooter's story because of presumptions about the man's character. He thinks the story of origin of the steak is false because bigfoots bury their dead, etc. I think a more disciplined approach is in order. Still, he deserves props for breaking the story.

Derek Randles impresses me with his no-nonsense demeanor. Perhaps foolishly I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. He clearly believes the shooter (and the witness). He suggested repeatedly there's "more to the story". He also seemed like he was hinting at something in regard to the shooting site. Unfortunately no one on the program asked the right questions. Has the OP visited the site since the shooting? I think there's more telling information here that hasn't been discussed. Derek sounded supremely confident that the science of the flesh backs up the central premise of the shooter's story. If he's getting hoaxed, it's from two directions.

What to believe? If this is a hoax, it's an elaborate hoax. Sticking a costume in a freezer is one thing but this would be a whole new level of chicanery. We have a thread started by the "shooter" on another forum. He eventually asks that the thread be removed. Why? (I think much could be divined from those posts but the thread is gone). We have a reputable taxidermist buying into the tale. We have Stubstad present with Ketchum when they receive the flesh sample and hear the story. The rumor apparently circulates for months in the inner circles of bigfooting until Lindsay's source goes public. We have the Olympic Project taking the shooter under their wing. Are they being hoaxed by a rival organization? Could they be in on it? Randles seems like a solid guy.

The shooter's MySpace profile is now private after Stubstad made some oblique comments about some of the images there. Stubstad has stopped posting. He seems like a stand-up guy although I don't agree with his premise that Ketchum or anyone else is somehow "pro-kill" for wanting to involve this sample in the study. Was he an unwilling dupe? Randles says we'll have more answers "very soon". To add to this, The Erickson Project is also involved in the Ketchum study as is Paulides. Perhaps tangentially, heavyweights Meldrum and Bindernagel are involved with Erickson at some level. If the story goes national and then turns out to be false, it seems to me there will be very few people left in this field that can be taken seriously.

I'm just not sure. The story sounds incredible but we're talking about Bigfoot here. I've always thought if these creatures existed, a hunter would eventually kill one and the truth would come out. Is this particular shooting story that far fetched? I don't see why. I tend to place more credence in the thing precisely because it's not neatly wrapped up with a bow on top.

I guess I'm saying I'm cautiously optimistic. I haven't fallen for any of these tales before; perhaps this will be my "fool me once" moment.

Pretty good summation, Slim

[Guest]

Gosh! I guess problem solved.

Apparently we can trust you without hearing your actual evidence?

Well of course you can! Why would you think you can't trust me and my sources sans evidence when countless times historically posters and BF fans have trusted posters who actually claimed to have evidence, but did not?

Is it really a stretch for me to ask that everyone just trust me and my sources that the DNA and EP amount to nothing? When I turn out to be correct, please just accept that I knew and thank me. That's really not much to ask for for getting the truth.

[Guest slimwitless]

I don't disagree with the shooter's version over his character. My version of the story is from the original Taxidermy.net thread and the statements he made to folks from that site. That's why my version varies from Derek Randles' "latest, greatest" version. The shooter has changed his story a lot. My version is the shooter's original version, before he fancied it up.

Sorry I missed that in your reporting. If that's how the shooter says it went down in his original posts then you're right to suspect the revised version of events. Honestly, if this were a hoax, why bother sanitizing the story later? In other words, why would you worry about what people think of you if you're lying in the first place?

I have a problem believing he left the bodies there because the people on Taxidermy.net think that is dubious. They say taxidermists don't leave bodies in the field.

I have issues with his going back two weeks later and finding a BF steak in the snow because this simply stretches credulity. More likely he took a slice, or more than a slice, with him that day.

But we really don't know one way or the other. Maybe he did go back two weeks later and find a piece, incredible as it sounds.

It is hard to imagine finding a piece of flesh that large. If the predators moved in, you'd think there wouldn't be much left at all.

This is akin to a homicide case with an accused killer. Randles is demanding that I accept as "the truth" the accused killer's story in a homicide case! Forget that. Who says that is always the truth anyway? The Olympic Project never went back to that site.

Why on earth have they not gone to the site to investigate? This is a big question mark for me. The longer they wait, the more likely crucial evidence could be destroyed or carried off. Randles seems to believe the shooter's story. To me, it's irrelevant at this point. The only real question in my mind is did the guy shoot a BF or not. Whether he lied about the details pales in comparison to that possibility. If these things exist, we need evidence before we can ever begin to protect them.

Shooter asked that Taxidermy.net thread be removed because he was getting harassed and receiving threats due to the thread.

Stubstad can't be a dupe because he doesn't even believe the story is true. Right now, he thinks it is a 70-30 chance that it is a hoax. Stubstad left because of all of the unpleasant posters on this site.

Ketchum did say it was worth it to kill these BF's for science. Whether that makes her pro-kill or not, I am not sure.

Whatever you think of him, it's not possible that Randles is in on some kind of a hoax.

Nobody set up anybody. That's all just ridiculous.

I didn't say there was a setup. I'm postulating on motivations. Could it be as simple as there's been an amazing discovery and some people involved are in way over their heads?