This may lead to the proof of an extant race of hominids
On this page so far: Who is Richard Stubstad, Sasquatch DNA News, RICHARD STUBSTAD—RETORT TO STEVE KULL's BLOG SPOT, and Richard Stubstad commented on Chronology of the Recent Bigfoot Shooting Story
Who is Richard Stubstad
Engineering and Statistical Analyst:
Richard Stubstad is a Registered Civil Engineer and Statistician who graduated from U.C. Berkeley (MSCE) in 1969. He lives in Ojai, California and is married to Zitta Stubstad. The couple has five grown sons and one grown daughter living in various parts of California, plus a second daughter who lives in Indiana during her husband’s 5-year residency program as a physician.
Richard had absolutely no knowledge of or interest in sasquatch until the summer of 2009, when he attended a Stubstad family reunion in Kansas and his cousin Gordy called him “narrow minded” for not bothering to look into the matter. Since this insulted him to no end, he agreed to do so. Much to his surprise, the documented evidence in favor of the existence of a hominid called sasquatch (or bigfoot) was convincing enough to further perk his interest. Suddenly it dawned on Richard that the science of DNA forensic analysis had matured and had already been utilized for all sorts of scientific “proof”, including the genetic mapping of the evolutionary tree of life from a scientific point of view and the placement in this tree of life of a well-known, extinct hominid—Neanderthal man. Ergo—by obtaining DNA samples from several purported sasquai (the plural version of sasquatch—hereby officially coined) and “connecting the dots” as it were, it could be determined once and for all whether or not such a hominid actually exists—without needing a “type” specimen (a body). In Richard’s mind, killing or maiming such a creature would be ethically and morally wrong, especially since at least some of them reportedly look so human-like and, most likely, very few (if any) of these creatures remain—at best living in scattered, remnant pockets within some of the remaining heavily wooded and more remote areas of the U.S. and Canada.
Within a few months, Richard made contact with Adrian Erikson, Robert Schmalzbach (“Java Bob”), Shannon Sylvia and Dr. Melba Ketchum, among others, and initiated the mitochondrial sequencing of several purported sasquatch samples through Dr. Ketchum’s DNA diagnostics laboratory in Texas. Much to his surprise, once again, the first two samples—submitted by two totally independent and disparate researchers and from research sites in two widely separated states or provinces—turned out to be intimately related to one-another, DNA-wise, making the statistical probability of two independent hoaxes or misidentifications somewhere in the 2-3 % range. Accordingly, Richard’s statistical conclusion from only having analyzed the mitochondrial (prehistoric maternal origins) sequencing of these first two samples alone is that there is a 97-98 % certainty that the sasquai indeed exist—right outside of our own back door, so to speak!
Meanwhile, further DNA testing of both the mitochondrial and/or nuclear genomes of a number of purported sasquatch samples continues, reportedly by more than one laboratory in the U.S. and abroad. Since a 97-98 % certainty level in statistics is not considered to be conclusive scientific proof, more data are needed and indeed have likely been analyzed. All that remains, then, is to connect the rest of the dots.
Currently Richard continues to assist, as needed, as a statistical DNA data consultant with various interested parties in completing and publishing the DNA-based proof of the existence of a living hominid—sasquatch. The rest of the story, ladies and gentlemen, will soon be history. Read my lips—no red herring this time around!
To read more, goto Richard's new website at: http://www.sciencealivenews.com/
Who is Richard Stubstad
Sasquatch DNA News
Sasquatch DNA Research — June 2011 Update by: Richard Stubstad
Stubstad on expedition—during a highly unsuccessfultrout fishing trip & search for sasquatch.
"Based on the evidence meticulously gathered, it was obvious to even the casual observer that neither the brook trout nor the sasquai exist".
As previously mentioned in Richard Stubstad’s recent sasquatch DNA biography; see above
Testing of a large number of purported sasquatch samples continues unabated, reportedly by several DNA laboratories worldwide. In fact, a great deal of interest has recently blossomed for this relatively new scientific approach to sasquatch research, in no small part as a direct result of what is detailed in this article. As mentioned in the Stubstad Bio above, the first two mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) samples—both consisting of fresh tissue and/or blood—were genetically related to one another mtDNA-wise. This was truly an unexpected outcome in light of the fact that the two disparate research groups initially responsible for obtaining these two samples were totally unconnected.
As mentioned in the Stubstad Bio above, the first two mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) samples—both consisting of fresh tissue and/or blood—were genetically related to one another mtDNA-wise. This was truly an unexpected outcome in light of the fact that the two disparate research groups initially
responsible for obtaining these two samples were totallyunconnected.
In fact, in 2009 when both of these samples were obtained, it would have been utterly inconceivable that these two very diverse groups would ever cooperate with one-another, let alone devise an elaborate scheme to defraud the public and the scientific research community alike.
The resulting outcome was extremely unexpected, because... hold your hat... both samples tested 100% Homo sapiens',(human), not a new hominid as the most serious and credible sasquatch researchers had long-since surmised. [BTW, as opposed to popular public and scientific sentiment, there really are some serious folks out there working on this mystery.] However, having said this it must be kept in mind that mtDNA tests only reveal a tentative clue about the ancient mitochondrial,(maternal/female), origins of a particular creature or hominid. If the paternal,(male),origins,determined through analysis of the nuclear DNA (nuDNA) are also 100% human, then the results should also reveal 100% human DNA sequencing.
Since the nuDNA part of the species or subspecies-specific equation of these two samples is still unknown, we must qualify the following conclusions since we know very little about whether the creature called sasquatch (assuming here for the sake of argument that the sasquai truly exist as a living, extant hominid of some kind) is 100% human, or conversely a so-called hybrid species that is reproductively viable (non-sterile). While it is unusual for the male and female origins of a particular species to be different from one-another, it is certainly not unheard of. In all likelihood, such anomalies have occurred numerous times over the past million years or more. In fact, these two samples could either end up proving the existence of a reproductively viable hybrid hominid species or the DNA results may end up indicating that sasquatch is a 100% human, (stoneage or ancient), race or tribe; or even possibly a much more modern feral human. Without the nuDNA data at our disposal, we still do not have the conclusions we seek.
To be more specific, whether hoaxed or otherwise the mitochondrial origins of what are termed “Sample 1” and “Sample 2” in the following discussion are clearly and unequivocally from the “Franco-Cantabrian glacial refuge” (see mtDNA chart towards the end of this article). The closest matches in Gen.Bank for both of these widespread and extremely fresh samples totaled nine Gen.Bank sequences. Eight of these well-matched sequences pinpointed their own so-called “mitochondrial Eve” as a female Homo sapiens(aka. Cro Magnon) who lived in this sub-glacial area of Southern Europe some 15,000 years ago, around the peak of the late Wisconsin ice age. This very approximate dating of our potential sasquatch mito-Eve should be qualified with a plus or minus 5,000 years— maybe more— but the point is that this stone-age female “Eve” lived on the European side of the planet sometime during the late Wisconsin ice age, at a time when most of Europe and the northern portions of North America were glaciated.
All nine best matches, meanwhile, were from Haplotype “H*” (one of today’s most prevalent European haplotypes). It should be stated that out of at least 5,000 complete mtDNA genome sequences contained on file with the extensive Gen.Bank database, no 100% matches were found for either Sample 1 or Sample 2. Most of the nine Gen.Bank best matches were associated with peer-reviewed, technical journal articles that, among other things, proclaim that “the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area was indeed the source of late-glacial expansions of hunter-gatherers that
repopulated much of Central and Northern Europe from ~15,000 years ago.”
During the late Wisconsin glacial period, if the sasquai actually existed and were nomadic hunter-gatherers that frequented forested areas, what would have been their likely route of migration? Certainly not northwards into Western Europe which was ice-covered as far southwest as the Pyrenees and as far south as the southern perimeter of the Alps.
Ice-free land areas during the late Wisconsin Ice Age. This depicts the ice-age continent of Beringia.
Migration (somehow) into Northern Africa also seems highly unlikely, as this area was reportedly a desert wasteland at the time.
The only conceivable migration path was first eastwards and then northwards into Southeastern Europe, the Middle East,
and then further eastwards into India and China and finally traversing towards the northeast into the continent of Beringia —see map to the left. Beringia’s landscape would have offered the hunter-gatherer the resources needed to support
life—far away from the glaciers and the arid desert regions far to the southwest of Beringia. Still today, in fact, most if not all of these Eastern European and Asian areas have produced numerous historical and contemporary reports, along with
somewhat compelling circumstantial evidence of creatures similar to the North American descriptions of the sasquai, albeit with different localized names such as the Almasty in Russia and nearby Georgia; the Yeti in Nepal, Tibet and India; and the Yeren in China.
At the time of the peak of the late Wisconsin glacial advance, a veritable continent, now referred to as Beringia, existed due to the ocean’s water level being at least 400 feet lower than it is today (see Beringia map above). This effectively made Northeastern Asia and Northwestern America a single swath of land measuring at least 1,000 miles wide from the Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean in the north to the northern parts of the Pacific Ocean in the south. Thus it is indeed quite conceivable that the Paleo Indians, who made their way across these lucrative and relatively ice-free hunting grounds at the time, were not the only groups of old world migrants. All migrates, after literally thousands of years here in the Americas, would have been unaware that they would eventually become landlocked, with no land-based method of return to their native Asia or Europe, as the case may have been.
The first of these two samples, “Sample 1” (see photo on left)
from the Southwestern USA, was found in an area where circumstantial evidence of two different sets of footprints had been seen and photographed. One of these sets, most likely from a large male, had a foot length of some 22” and a walking stride length of five feet (see photos below).
Purported sasquatch footprints after a snowfall in the fall of 2009, in the same immediate area where Sample 1 was found during June of the same year. While the tape measure is difficult to read, the photographer who took these pictures and measured the foot- and stride-length (the same person who found Sample 1 and whose footprints can be seen to the far left) reported that the stride length was exactly five feet, while the length of each barefooted print was 24”. Since snow has a tendency to exaggerate foot length measurements, a conservative estimate of 22” was reported. Notice the characteristic mid-tarsal break in each consecutive footprint as well as the in-line (one-footdirectly-in-front-of-the-next) pattern oft-reported in credible sasquatch footprint records.
Sample 2 was also a viable blood/tissue sample:
Sample 2—even a small amount of blood can be sufficient to test the entire genome.
While the preceding photos do not in themselves constitute any more than weak circumstantial evidence that the blood & tissue specimens obtained and tested were actually deposited by real-life, living sasquai (in 2009), their authenticity is bolstered by the mtDNA analysis shown in the human relationship chart below.
Human relationship chart—mtDNA evidence supporting the close relationship between
purported sasquatch Samples 1 and 2.
Based on the above chart, the following conclusions are evident:
The two purported sasquatch specimens are closely related to one-another—Sample 1 has two polymorphisms while Sample 2 has three polymorphisms.
Various mtDNA sequences are shown along the x-axis as examples. [CRS = Cambridge Reference Sequence.]
Most likely, these two specimens—widely separated within North America—share the same “mitochondrial Eve” who probably existed somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 (or more) years ago, based on the number of mutations or polymorphisms present in their mtDNA genomes.
This mitochondrial Eve was most likely European in origin, belonging to some version of Haplogroup H*. This haplogroup occupied the so-called “Franco-Cantabrian glacial refuge”, covering the late Wisconsin glacial period when most of Northern Europe was covered by glaciers. This is around the middle of the same epoch when the continent of Beringia existed, creating a 1,000 mile wide Asian-North American land bridge.
The odds of a random hoax or misidentification for either Sample 1 or Sample 2 are 2% or less statistically. The two purported sasquatch samples were not physically connected whatsoever; rather they were obtained from two disparate groups and individuals from twowidely separated geographic locations within the continental United States during 2009. Thus the odds of either being a hoax or misidentification are less than 2% (3% conservatively).
No current Gen.Bank Homo sapiens genomes perfectly match either Sample 1 or 2.
Several ancient-ancestry Europeans from Haplogroup H* match Sample 1 within 3 pairs and Sample 2 within 4 pairs.
This translates to an approximately 99.98% mtDNA match of the entire genome for both purported sasquatch specimens.
As indicated in the foregoing discussion, verification that these two specimens—whether hoaxed, misidentifications or real-life sasquai—could be from a newly identified and extant tribe of Homo sapiens or feral humans is certainly not proven. All that is really proven by the above analysis is that both samples lead back—possibly far back into the late Pleistocene or later stone age—to an individual human (Cro Magnon) female that somehow got into the genetic mix—willingly or not—at least 10,000-15,000 years ago. While these data are not scientifically conclusive, they are nevertheless quite compelling
and should provide the necessary impetus for further sampling and testing—not only on the mtDNA side but, even more importantly, on the nuDNA side.
Some more mis-information on a blog that seems to need some corrections. Read this retort from Richard Stubstad!
RICHARD STUBSTAD—RETORT TO FOLLOWING BLOG SPOT:
Taking the following accusations by Steve Kulls point by point (Stubstad's responses in CAPS) :
July 25, 2011
The DNA Game
Last night on Squatchdetective Radio, I revealed an almost two year investigation of the Ketchum Report, regarding the involvement and subsequent expulsion of Biscardi elements in the project. KETCHUM SIGNED AN NDA WITH BISCARDI PRIOR TO STUBSTAD (I) ARRIVING IN TEXAS TO DISCUSS THE SAMPLES THAT BISCARDI DELIVERED THERE, IN PERSON. BOTH BISCARDI’S AND STUBSTAD’S NDA HAS NOW EXPIRED.
I urge folks to really weigh heavily on what is being leveled by Biscardi investor Richard Stubstad, whose public partner in crime is “Java Bob” Schmalzbach. I DIDN’T “INVEST” IN BISCARDI. I PAID FOR THE SEQUENCING OF SEVERAL DNA SAMPLES, INCLUDING THE ONE FROM LARRY JENKINS THAT BISCARDI DELIVERED AS WELL AS OTHERS NOT CONNECTED TO BISCARDI WHATSOEVER. I HAVE NEVER SENT BISCARDI ONE THIN DIME, BUT I DO SPEAK WITH HIM FROM TIME TO TIME. I TRY VERY HARD TO REMAIN NEUTRAL IN ALL MY DNA DEALINGS, WITH NO AFFILIATIONS WHATSOEVER. BISCARDI WILL TELL YOU HIMSELF THAT I HAVE TOLD EVERYONE IN THE BUSINESS, INCLUDING HIM, TO “CONNECT THE DOTS” BY WORKING TOGETHER WITH SAMPLES/SPECIMENS FROM SEVERAL INDEPENDENT SOURCES. OTHERWISE THE FINDINGS WILL BE SUSPECT FROM THE WORD “GO”.
Stubstad was originally thought to be leaking information from the Erickson project, when in reality his information came as a direct result of cozying up to Dr. Melba Ketchum, due to being a Biscardi Investor, by paying for samples which included, the infamous, “Hand of Unknown Origin,” some hair samples, bone samples from the controversial Texas Skeleton find, and a toenail. NOT TRUE. THE ONLY SPECIMEN I PAID FOR FROM THE FIVE THAT BISCARDI DELVERED TO KETCHEM WAS THE TOENAIL THAT LARRY JENKINS FOUND ON HIS PROPERTY. WHEN I ARRIVED IN TEXAS IN JANUARY OF 2010, KETCHUM HAD ALREADY DETERMINED THAT THE TWO HAIR SAMPLES WERE FROM COMMON ANIMALS, NOT SASQUAI. SHE DIDN’T THINK THAT TESTING OF THE GIANT SKELETON RELICS WERE WORTHWHILE BECAUSE SHE THOUGHT THE GIANT WAS A NORMAL BUT VERY TALL (> 9 FEET?) AMERICAN INDIAN, SOLELY BASED ON THE ANATOMY OF THE SKELETON AND THE FACT IT WAS BURIED WITH AMERICAN INDIAN ARTIFACTS. THE HAND OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN DIDN’T INTEREST HER MUCH EITHER, AS SHE THOUGHT IT WAS FROM A BEAR PAW (WITHOUT THE CLAWS). IN THE EVENT, I MADE A $2 BILL BET WITH HER THAT IT WAS NOT FROM A BEAR (REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT ACTUALLY WAS). I DON’T KNOW IF SHE EVER TESTED IT, BUT SHE HASN’T RETURNED IT TO EITHER THE MAN WHO OWNED IT OR TO BISCARDI.
In an ironic twist, prior to this information coming out, another popular Blog, The Bigfoot Lunch Club, leveled that Stubstad was a Todd Standing defender. Birds of a feather ... NOT TRUE. WHAT I SAID WAS THAT I WASN’T SURE THAT TODD STANDING’S STUFF WAS HOAXED. I’M STILL 50-50 ON THAT. MY POINT WAS THAT FAR TOO MANY FOLKS (LIKE STEVE KULLS) JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT WEIGHING ALL THE EVIDENCE FIRST. TO THIS DAY, IN FACT, I DON’T BELIEVE THAT BISCARDI HOAXED THE “GEORGIA BOYS” FREEZER CASE, BUT RATHER THAN THE GEORGIA BOYS HOAXED HIM TO THE TUNE OF $50,000 PLUS EXPENSES. BISCARDI WAS SIMPLY TOO GULLIBLE TO DISCERN FACT FROM FICTION—IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT SOUNDS TOO INCREDIBLE TO BE TRUE, IT PROBABLY IS. AND I’VE TOLD HIM THAT ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION.
Mind you, as I stated on the show, Biscardi never has shown to the public an original thought. None of these materials submitted were discovered by
him, only given to him by other researchers, most of which were prior to Biscardi’s well known attempted hoax of 2008. AGAIN, I DON’T BELIEVE HE HOAXED THE 2008 FIASCO HIMSELF; BUT RATHER THOSE TWO COPS FROM GEORGIA HOAXED HIM TO EARN THE BIG BUCKS. IT IS PROBABLY TRUE THAT NEITHER BISCARDI, ERICKSON, MONEYMAKER, PAULIDES, OR ANY OTHER “ORGANIZATION” FIND THEIR OWN SAMPLES, IN PERSON, BUT RATHER “CONNECT UP” WITH AN AD-HOC TEAM OF SORTS, DEPENDING ON WHO CALLS THEM & SHOWS THEM (FOR EXAMPLE) A HABITUATION SITE WHERE THERE IS ACTIVITY. DID DEREK RANDALS HIMSELF FIND AND SHOOT SASQUATCH (OR TWO) AND THEN SUBMIT A SLAB OF MEAT TO KETCHUM? NO! DID RANDALS EVEN VISIT THE PURPORTED KILL SITE? NO! DID HE EVEN TALK TO THE PURPORTED SHOOTER FACE-TO-FACE? NO! [AT LEAST NOT ACCORDING TO RANDALLS HIMSELF ON THE VERY SAME RADIO SHOW MENTIONED BY STEVE KULLS.]
To Dr. Ketchum’s credit, these characters have all been expelled from the report, and the owner of the toenail, Larry Jenkins, has also expelled the Biscardi-Stubstad connection from his finding as well. I AM STILL GOOD FRIENDS WITH LARRY JENKINS, AND I HAVE EVEN VISITED HIM ONCE AT HIS HABITUATION SITE FOR SEVERAL DAYS & NIGHTS. STILL, I’M NOT CONNECTED TO ANYONE IN PARTICULAR IN THE SASQUATCH RESEARCH FIELD, AND I TRY TO LISTEN TO EVERYONE AND CONSIDER THEIR EVIDENCE AND CHARACTER (OR LACK THEREOF). STEVE KULLS HOWEVER STRETCHES MY ABILITY TO “REACH OUT”, EVEN MORE THAN BISCARDI EVER DID.
This all occurred when Stubstad came to Dr. Ketchum, trying to have an idea with a company which would market the findings. A company was formed with Stubstad and Java Bob Schmalzbach, called Science Alive LLC. KETCHUM, SCHMALZBACH AND I ALL AGREED TO FORM THE TEXAS LLC FOR SUBSEQUENT MEDIA MARKETING OF THE DNA FINDINGS—AFTER THE PEER REVIEWED PAPER WAS ACCEPTED. IN FACT, OTHER SAMPLE SUBMITTERS WERE ALSO INVITED TO JOIN US, BUT IT WAS KETCHUM WHO GOT COLD FEET—AFTER THE FACT—NOT THE OTHERS. AT THIS TIME, EACH OF THE ORIGINAL THREE OWNERS (KETCHUM, SCHMALZBACH, AND STUBSTAD) HAS CONTRIBUTED $115 IN INCORPORATION FEES, AND NO MONEY HAS PASSED THROUGH THE LLC WHATSOEVER. AS SUCH, IT IS CURRENTLY INACTIVE.
The venture was short lived as became apparent as to what Stubstad’s and Schmalzbach’s motives were. When Ketchum informed them they were out, then began the assault by Stubstad, with some stealth planting of information by Schmalzbach, who has remained a silent participant in the matter.
ALL THREE OF US HAD IDENTICAL MOTIVES, WITH KETCHUM IN FACT AT THE HELM. SO IF ANYONE HAD “BAD” MOTIVES, WE ALL DID EQUALLY. KETCHUM DIDN’T EVEN WANT OTHER SAMPLE CONTRIBUTORS INCLUDED IN THE LLC (EG. ERICKSON), BUT RATHER SHE WANTED COMPLETE “OWNERSHIP” HERSELF, REGARDLESS OF THE DIVISION OF OWNERSHIP WHICH REMAINED UNESTABLISHED AND STILL HASN’T BEEN ESTABLISHED, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. SHE TOLD ME THAT THIS WAS ON THE ADVICE OF HER OWN PERSONAL LAWYERS.
Then came out of the blue, an unknown blogger by the name of Robert Lindsay, whom coincidentally lives in Biscardi’s neighborhood, whom became the
de-facto mouthpiece for Stubstad-Schmalzbach. ROBERT LINDSAY LIVES NEAR FRESNO, CA, AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE BISCARDI LIVES IN LAS VEGAS. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, LINDSAY HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH BISCARDI. HE IS A REPORTER AND HE DID INTERVIEW ME FOR HIS BLOG.
Personally, I believe it was done by design, that the leak had been rumored to be from the “Erickson Project,” which allegedly Stubstad had a
miniscule role in before being expelled from that project. I NEVER HAD A ROLE IN ANYONE’S PROJECT EXCEPT THE DNA STUDY ITSELF. SAMPLES WERE SUBMITTED FROM VAROUS PERSONS AND PROJECTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ERICKSON AND BISCARDI AND THEIR VARIOUS CURRENT AND PREVIOUS ASSOCIATES. WHAT THEN? YES, I’M EXPELLED FROM DR. KETCHUM’S PROJECT, BY HER, BUT NOT BY ANYONE ELSE’S PROJECT. HOW CAN I BE EXPELLED FROM A PROJECT I’M NOT INVOLVED IN BEYOND DNA TESTING ANYWAY? MEANWHILE, THE TEXAS LLC STILL EXISTS BUT IS INACTIVE.
In actuality the leak was from Stubstad’s involvement with Biscardi, not from Erickson, as much of the information being put forth was from the
baseline findings of the toenail and nothing else. Again I emphasize the word baseline, and it is unclear whether the toenail passed muster to
actually be in the project. THERE WAS NO “LEAK”. THE WORK I DID & DULY INFORMED KETCHUM OF AT EVERY STEP WAS REPORTED BY ME—BUT ONLY AFTER I WAS “EXPELLED”. A TOTAL OF FOUR SAMPLES WERE INVOLVED IN THE DNA ANALYSIS, ONLY ONE OF WHICH WAS THE TOENAIL. ALL OTHERS WERE FROM OTHER SOURCES. AND WHY SHOULDN’T THE TOENAIL BE INCLUDED? I PAID FOR THE SEQUENCING, AND I WAS THE ONE WHO INDICATED TO KETCHUM THAT WE MAY BE ON TO SOMETHING BASED ON THE MITOCHONDRIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SAMPLES 1 AND 2. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, SHE (OR HER LAWYERS) DIDN’T THINK SHE NEEDED ME ANY LONGER, SO I WAS OUT—JUST LIKE THAT. HOWEVER, I’M STILL INTERESTED IN AN OPEN AND TRULY OBJECTIVE STUDY BY A CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC LAB (OR LABS) WHO ISN’T INVOLVED WITH ANYTHING BEYOND THE DNA SEQUENCING AND PEER-REVIEWED SUBMISSION OF THE DATA AND ANALYSES.
We all must remember that the DNA submitted to this project, originally came from groups and individuals aside from the Biscardi faction, and they
in reality were late comers. I suspect it was “Mr. Media Attention,” trying to get in on the act, as in their business plan it clearly states that, “should someone else find Bigfoot, it would cause a loss of faith in SFBI’s abilities…” Well I think 2008 did enough for the educated public
to realize that already. WHEN I ARRIVED ON THE SCENE IN TEXAS IN JANUARY OF 2010, KETCHUM TOLD ME SHE ONLY HAD TESTED ONE POSSIBLE “SASQUATCH” SAMPLE FROM A YETI PLUS ONE SAMPLE OF HAIR FROM PAULIDES. AS SUCH, I BELIEVED AT THE TIME THAT THE FIVE SAMPLES SUBMITTED (BUT NOT NECESSARILY “FOUND”) BY BISCARDI WERE FIRST WHERE THERE WAS SUFFICINT ACCESSIBLE DNA TO CONDUCT EXTENSIVE AND CONCLUSIVE DNA TESTS. THE BISCARDI NDA INDICATED AS MUCH, TOO. ERICKSON CAME INTO THE PICTURE A MONTH OR TWO LATER, AND HE WASN’T TOLD UNTIL HIS TESTING WAS UNDERWAY THAT IN FACT SHE ALREADY HAD TESTED THE TOENAIL (BUT NOT THE OTHER FOUR SPECIMENS DELIVERED BY BISCARDI).
Now that they’ve been excluded, what is being done, is a series of misinformation being put forth to disrupt an otherwise, wise and legitimate
attempt, and sour grapes. NO, SIR, NO MISINFORMATION AT ALL … NO SOUR GRAPES EITHER. FACTS ARE FACTS, NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.
Stubstad and Lindsay did the Blog.Talk circuit, also omitting the connection to Biscardi, or mentioning that Ketchum was talked into a company that
she later thought was a really bad idea. KETCHUM WASN’T “TALKED INTO” ANYTHING. ARE YOU KIDDING? IF YOU KNOW HER, NO ONE CAN TALK THAT LADY INTO ANYTHING OTHER THAN A GOOD DINNER AT A NICE RESTAURANT PERHAPS. AGAIN, THERE IS NO CONNECTION OF ANY KIND BETWEEN ME AND BISCARDI, APART FROM WHAT WAS STATED ABOVE.
Now recently on Biscardi’s Radio show, Stubstad and Schmalzbach made a joint appearance. (I thought Schmalzbach wasn’t having anything to do with Biscardi anymore…”at least professionally”). SCHMALZBACH AND I DID NOT APPEAR TOGETHER ON BISCARDI’S RADIO SHOW. WE DID APPEAR TOGETHER ON ANOTHER RADIO SHOW, I THINK FROM A MAN NAMED JAN ALLEN FROM GEORGIA AS I RECALL. SCHMALZBACH HASN’T BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH BISCARDI SINCE THE WINTER OF 2010, AND I HAVE NEVER BEEN. AGAIN, THERE IS NO BISCARDI CONNECTION WHATSOEVER APART FROM THE ONE SAMPLE I KNOW OF THAT WAS ACTUALLY SEQUENCED, AT LEAST ON THE MITOCHONDRIAL SIDE (THE LARRY JENKINS SAMPLE).
As I mentioned earlier in another blog and on the radio show… here we go again, as Biscardi is claiming to have DNA from Arkansas, from three guys, (Mike Slavin, Rocky Slavin and Dennis Marsh) and is going to tell the world how he now has the DNA to prove Bigfoot exists. I DON’T KNOW ABOUT THIS, BUT ONE OF THE HAIR SAMPLES WAS ALSO FROM ARKANSAS, AND IT WASN’T BIGFOOT HAIR ACCORDING TO KETCHUM. I DON’T KNOW THESE GUYS, THOUGH, NOR DO I KNOW IF THEY WERE CONNECTED TO ONE OF THE FIRST SAMPLES SUBMITTED TO KETCHUM.
As we know, any DNA information from Biscardi is worthless, remembering the supposed “Hand” cover up the alleged, the misinformation about a
skeleton in Texas, and oh yeah, the DNA result from the freezer, which Biscardi changed and then sent out to researchers previous to his Black
Friday press conference. NONE OF THESE ACQUISATIONS ARE TRUE. I KNOW ABOUT THE GEORGIA HOAX, AND BISCARDI DIDN’T FOLLOW THROUGH ON THE DNA ANALYSIS PRIOR TO THE PRESS CONFERENCE. THE GEORGIA BOYS HURRIED THINGS UP BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT WITHIN DAYS, THE DNA WORK WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND WOULD HAVE REVEALED A PIG OR WHATEVER WAS INSIDE THAT SUIT. RE. THE “HAND OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN”—I STILL DON’T KNOW WHETHER IT IS
THE REAL DEAL OR NOT. KETCHUM THOUGHT IT WAS A BEAR PAW, BUT I’M STILL NOT SO SURE. THE TOENAIL, BY THE WAY, I BELIEVE—BUT DO NOT KNOW—IS
FROM A REAL SASQUATCH. SO WHY IS DNA INFORMATION “FROM BISCARDI” WORTHLESS? BECAUSE HE WAS HOAXED IN GEORGIA IN 2008? BECAUSE HE SUBMITTED
TWO HAIR SAMPLES THAT APPARENTLY TURNED OUT TO BE FROM COMMON ANIMALS? I BELIEVE WHATEVER HE COMES UP WITH IS A GOOD OR BAD AS THE SOURCES HE
GETS HIS SAMPLES FROM. THE GEORGIA BOYS WERE CLEARLY “BADDIES” WHILE LARRY JENKINS, ALSO BASED ON MY OWN RELATIONSHIP TO THIS MAN, APPEARS TO
BE A CREDIBLE PERSON.
Some of the Stubstad misinformation is that the Ketchum report is a one woman show. In reality the study is co-authored by, Dr. Ketchum’s own
words to me, by at least six people. WE WERE SIX CO-AUTHORS AT THE TIME I WAS THROWN OFF THE PROJECT UNILATERALLY BY KETCHUM. WE ALSO HAD A REALLY GOOD GENETICIST WHO WAS ALSO THROWN OFF, ALSO UNILATERALLY BY KETCHUM. THAT LEFT FOUR, INCLUDING KETCHUM. I DON’T KNOW WHETHER THE THREE OTHERS ARE IN OR OUT, NOR DO I KNOW WHO ELSE IS IN OR OUT FROM TIME TO TIME.
The Study is not out for peer review. In reality it is now as we sit here. (sic) I DON’T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT STEVE KULLS IS SAYING HERE. IS IT OR IS IT NOT OUT FOR PEER REVIEW? I DON’T THINK ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH KETCHUM REALIZES HOW DIFFICULT THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS IS. IT WILL TAKE MUCH MORE THAN A PH.D. IN VENTERNARY MEDICINE TO LEND SUFFICIENT CREDIBILITY TO A DNA STUDY IN ORDER TO PASS PEER REVIEW, PARTICULARLY IN THE PREMIER JOURNAL “NATURE”.
Also in reality, there were other labs involved in a blind study, and some of the samples were farmed out to other DNA labs completely for analysis,
as to maintain the report’s objectivity. YES, THERE WERE ALSO OTHER LABS INVOLVED WHEN I WORKED WITH KETCHUM. BUT THEY ARE NOT PROVIDING “CO-AUTHORSHIP” TO MY KNOWLEDGE AT LEAST. KETCHUM DOESN’T DO WHOLE GENOME SEQUENCING IN HER LAB, WHETHER MITOCHONDRIAL OR NUCLEAR. SO OF
COURSE SHE HAS TO SEND THE SAMPLES OUT. OF COURSE THAT’S A GOOD IDEA ANYWAY. DUH!
Now if all this information has your head spinning, let me reiterate, ignore the interference and “keep your eye on the ball.” THE KETCHUM WORK—EVEN IF IT PASSES SOME FORM OF PEER REVIEW—WILL NEED TO BE CORROBERATED BY AN INDEPEND TEAM OF RESEARCHERS. JUST LOOK AT HOW MUCH RESEARCH AND CORROBERATING AUTHORS IT TOOK TO VERIFY THE DNA FINDINGS FROM BOTH NEANDERTHAL AND DENISOVAN, WHICH ALSO LEAD TO THE DISCOVERY OF THESE TWO EXTINCT HOMINID’S RELATIONSHIP TO MODERN HUMANS. THE KETCHUM STUDY WILL FALL FAR SHORT OF THIS LEVEL OF EXPERTISE. IN FACT, EVEN HAVING THE OTHERWISE EXCELLENT GENETCIST ON-BOARD WHEN I WAS INVOLVED IN THE STUDY WOULD MOST LIKELY NOT HAVE DONE THE TRICK. THIS IS A FAR MORE IMPORTANT DISCOVERY THAN DENISOVAN OR NEANDERTHAL BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING AT THE POSSIBLITY OF AN EXTANT, NOT AN EXTINCT, HOMINID.
I urge all the readers to wait to the final result, and evaluate that information. The bottom line here with the Study is that SCIENCE will tell
us the validity of the work, not bloggers, pundits, interlopers or a lone scientist. NOT YOU EITHER, MR. KULLS.
And from the mouth of Dr. Ketchum, the study results will be out before the year is up. YES, INDEED. I HEARD THAT ONE LAST YEAR TOO.
Till Next Time,
Posted by Steve Kulls at 7:43 AM
Labels: Adrian Erickson, DNA, Javabob, Ketchum Report, Melba Ketchum, Richard Stubstad, Robert Lindsay, Robert Schmaltzbach, Tom Biscardi
Richard Stubstad commented on Chronology of the Recent Bigfoot Shooting Story.
In response to a comment by Robert Lindsay:
“I know most of the players in this story, and I believe that it is true. At least the shooting part. Here is what happened. 1. The shooter shows up on Taxidermy.net and starts a thread saying I just shot 2 Bigfoots, now what do I do? The shooter is well known on the site [...]”
Hi, everyone … I’m back with more on the bigfoot shooting story, in spite of the fact I said I’d bow out of that one maybe a month or so ago.
Why? Well, Robert Lindsay & I finally decided that someone needed to do an on-site investigation of the story — meaning we drove all the way up to the Frenchman Lake area in the California sierras & we both scouted the terrain, flora and fauna, and we interviewed about a dozen folks in the area. .
We also talked to my daughter-in-law (who lives in nearby Truckee, CA) and who is a self-described “empath” (I call her a psychic, which she says isn’t accurate). Starting with her “take” on the incident, she was going to drive with us to the area, but she couldn’t make it due to her regular job. She stared at the pictures of the purported shooter that we had printed from the internet, and she described him as “not a nice person at all” and someone with a lot of “issues”, mainly of the “redneck” or “tough guy” condescending type. She definitely didn’t want these pictures & autobiographical descriptions left in HER house — so we took them with us. Based on our lengthy visit with her (and my son, Paavo), she felt that “the shooter was definitely hiding something” but couldn’t pinpoint what it was. As far as my bottom-line question, “did he shoot a sasquatch or two?”, she said she didn’t have a strong feeling one way or the other.
The area directly to the west of Frenchman Lake (approx. 5,500 ft elevation) is an incredibly beautiful forested area with mainly non-deciduous tress & plenty of other flora and fauna. It is entirely wooded, with scattered meadows and streams. I really don’t know what “sasquatch habitat” should look like, but this habitat appeares to be ideal for just about any wild animal, including the sasquai–with plenty of clean, flowing water and food, both of the plant-based type and wildlife galore. There is even a herd of pronghorns towards the east, along with the usual Sierra Mountains “game” animals: deer, bear, bobcat, mountain lion, wild turkey, and even the occasional wolverine.
The only issue would be snow depth in the winter — it would be necessary, probably anywhere from 5,000 feet & up in elevation, for most large mammals to migrate down to lower elevations during heavy snowfall periods. Last winter, in nearby Truckee, the accumulated snow depth was maybe 25 feet, and all-in-all some 50 feet of snow fell during the winter season (probably somewhat less at Frenchman Lake — but still !). The sasquai, to survive in such conditions, would have to learn to make skis or snowshoes to survive the winters in the area; therefore — if they exist in the area of Frenchman Lake — they simply have to migrate to lower elevations.
As a side-note, the fishing wasn’t all that great. The lake reportedly is populated with non-native rainbow trout and with native western slope cutthroat.
Out of the ten or so “tourist” or fishing type folks we spoke to, none of them whatsoever had even heard about the incident. A few believed in sasquatch as an existing hominid, while most just laughed about the idea of it — let alone a dual kill ! I found this a bit strange, especially when 3 of the ten worked at the “local” general store, where groceries, hunting and fishing equipment, and God knows what else can be purchased.
We also interviewed three “officials” in the area: one was a forest service employee, one was a fish-and-game officer, and the last one was a deputy sheriff. The forest service fellow also had not heard of the incident; however he had heard of a recent sasquatch shooting some 20 miles towards the north, closer to Susanville. He said this incident was reported about two weeks prior. He didn’t necessarily believe either of these stories, but he didn’t disbelieve in the possibility that the sasquai exist as a subspecies or “new” hominid.
The second person, from fish and game, had just recently heard about the incident. After he asked his supervisor if he should investigate it, his supervisor told him “not to waste his time”.
The third person, from the sheriff’s office, hadn’t heard about the incident either, and he checked to find out if anyone had reported the incident last year, at the time the shooter himself claims he reported it to the “authorities”. There was no such report, whether from last year or more recently, from the shooter or anyone else.
All in all, my conclusion is: If this incident actually took place, it did not take place where both the shooter, Dr. Ketchum, and Derek Randalls said it took place. Also, while the area to the west of the lake looks to me as ideal habitat, it is also a State Game Refuge where NO firearms or even bows and arrows are allowed at ANY time of the year. And, while there is a roadway that fits the general description suppllied by Randalls and Ketchum, that roadway is entirely within the State Game Refuge and it would have indeed taken some balls (by both the shooter and the pickup truck driver) to drive in there, hunting bear or anything else, and escape without being noticed by anyone at all.
There was only one way in and out — the dead-end road that starts at the lake and goes to Dixie Mountain — and back the same way again.
My conclusion — if there was a shooting of one (or two) sasquai, it didn’t take place near Frenchman’s Lake. The Frenchman’s Lake story is at best a decoy. Duh
No one to my knowledge, other than Dr. Ketchum herself, has seen any of the purported DNA sequencing on the “bigfoot steak”. I don’t know why she would have lied about this, but who really knows why she does what she does? I doubt that Derek Randalls himself has seen the sequencing; even if he had, how would he know how to interpret it anyway?
If Ketchum really has a bigfoot steak, this story — in my opinion — is a decoy and it never took place, at least not near Frenchman’s Lake. And, the “steak” may or may not have been provided by the purported shooter.
I’m 60-40 against the validity of the story myself; but if it happened, it didn’t happen in the area as described in these blogs, or originally on the taxidermy.net forum.
Richard Speaks Out Again on the Robert Lindsay Blog:
There are definitely efforts by others to obtain samples too.
At the time, Dr. K was working pretty closely with both Adrian Erickson, to some extent Java Bob, and especially me on the mito sequencing, plus we had begun sequencing a single gene on the nuclear side to “see what we could see”.
The link between Sample 1 and Sample 2 was accurately articulated by me, but only after doing quite a lot of research in the literature and also comparing both samples’ entire mito genome to several very close samples in Gen.Bank to both of these samples, not just one at a time. Dr. K hadn’t really thought of using Gen.Bank in this manner, but this lead to pinpointing the common “mitochondrial Eve” of both samples to some 15,000 years ago in sub-glacial Europe.
Adrian & I especially looked at these data together, and the implications thereof; after that, Adrian paid for I think it was six nuclear genomes. I kept hearing from Dr. K that “they weren’t finished”, but now I believe she had seen enough evidence to REALLY see a difference between modern humans and sasquatch within the nuclear data; then I stopped getting any information, as did Adrian Erickson and Java Bob, and we were effectively isolated from the ongoing work.
I doubt that the work would have progressed as it did without the work of the three of us: Adrian Erickson, Java Bob, and me. The former two contributed both sasquatch samples; the former contributed a lot of money, and I contributed some money and the impetus to look into the nuclear genome in earnest.
Really, I don’t feel like a traitor at all; on the contrary, I would say Dr. K is the traitor here. On the other hand, what is she to do when she hires two or three lawyers and they all advise her that she only needs samples from us; not any help? It’s really too bad, but if she hadn’t lawyered up, I’m sure everything would have proceeded just fine and we would probably had a paper out by now — without the “Sierra Kill” sample(s), assuming they even exist.
It’s all quite a shame, but life goes on. Others are also working on sasquatch sequencing, and I am getting a lab from outside the USA involved so we can “parallel” Dr. K’s study. This will be needed whether she is successful or not. In spite of all this, I hope she is successful. That will depend a whole lot on the integrity and credibility of the REST of her coauthors (she says there are five others, whom I don’t know at all).
Has Richard Stubstad found the "mitochondrial eve" for Sasquatch?
Read about his latest find here:
(Use your browser back arrow to return to this page)
Go to: DNA News to see the latest updates to this page!
Return to: Table of Contents or HomePage