Richard Stubstad Interview October 1, 2011

Richard Stubstad recently released some new evidence on his blog site regarding a 3rd MtDNA sequence from Dr. Melba Ketchum’s DNA project. This sequence is quite a bit different from the other sequences.

Robert Lindsay: What is the significance of this new finding?

Richard Stubstad: This sample may reflect the original sasquatch female going back to southern Africa some 60,000 YBP – the sasquatch Mitochondrial Eve as it were.

Robert Lindsay: Is the sequence related to any human sequences?

Richard Stubstad Yes, it is related to the oldest known branch of the Khoisan people of southwestern Africa, who are the most ancient people on Earth by DNA, and it’s from a specific lineage of them called L1Aa2. The Khoisan are also called Bushmen or Hottentots. These are the oldest humans that we have been able to trace by DNA, with the L1a2 branch being the most ancient of all of them. The L1a branch represents one of the two oldest living humans after the chimp-human split long before.

Robert Lindsay: The Khoisan live in southwest Africa, somewhat inland, around Namibia, Botswana and South Africa. What about Neandertals and Denisovans?

Richard Stubstad: The Khoisan are the oldest living tribe or clan of extant humans. The DNA of the other hominids you mentioned is much older, correct. However, they are believed to be extinct, while the Khoisan are extant.

Robert Lindsay: Is this part of the group that left Africa?

Richard Stubstad: According to the literature, this is one of a handful of sub-Saharan clans that never left. I am not sure if they left Africa, because to-date there is no DNA evidence of them having done so or not.

Robert Lindsay: If they never left Africa, how did they mutate into sasquatch? Sasquatch was birthed in Africa?

Richard Stubstad: Good question! The is the very first evidence that, in fact, the L1a2 branch of the Khoisan did migrate into Europe, Asia and the rest of the world – “Out of Africa” as they say. But not as a modern human – as sasquatch. However, it may only be the maternal side of the DNA equation, since Sample 3 was a mitochondrial sequence, not a nuclear sequence.

Robert Lindsay: Do you have any idea where in North America this sequence came from?

Richard Stubstad: It came from a habituation site. A photo of the region where this site is located is shown on my website. But I can’t tell you exactly where it came from, no. Having said that, I can say it was not very close to the habituation sites of Samples 1 and 2.

Robert Lindsay: Ok, I think it came from Florida. How sure are you about this sequence, statistically speaking?

Richard Stubstad: I am not as certain about it as I was with the other two sequences, because it is a sample of one, and you can’t generalize from a sample of one. Thus I don’t have the statistical proof of this one that I had for the first two samples.

Robert Lindsay: How sure are you that this came from a real sasquatch and not some other animal or a human?

Richard Stubstad: The reliability of the source of this sample was every bit about as good as for the first two samples. I am familiar with all three of the sample providers, and I’m almost certain it was an actual sasquatch habituation site. This was a habituation site, and the sasquatch had become used to eating human food at the site, presented to it/them as “gifts” over the course of several years.

Robert Lindsay: How was the sample obtained, and what did the sample consist of?

Richard Stubstad: The sample was obtained by a food trap, and the sample was saliva.

Robert Lindsay: Since the sample is within human ranges, what is the possibility that the sample is from a modern human that came to the site and ate the food?

Richard Stubstad: I think the likelihood of that is very low. The creature was sighted and photographed on numerous occasions by very reliable habituators. Either these habituators are the cream of the crop of hoaxers, or the sample came from a real, living sasquatch.

Robert Lindsay: Is it possible that the sequence is from a human living in the US?

Richard Stubstad: That’s not likely. The chances that it came from a random human are almost zero. A “feral” human would have had to have been eating off the sample food – very unlikely. First of all, the sequence is not located in GenBank, and GenBank is the most thorough database of human DNA on Earth. The sequence is not in the database, nor is there any GenBank sequence close to it.

It is possible that a female slave could have come to the U.S. from Africa and then mated with a sasquatch. But that’s very unlikely – especially in light of the polymorphisms present in Sample 3’s sequence.

Robert Lindsay: What’s the likelihood that the sequence is from some random African-American human who had ancestors from Africa via the slave trade?

Richard Stubstad: There were few if any slaves who came from that (interior) region of Africa. Also, there are close to zero Khoisan people currently living in the U.S.

Robert Lindsay: What are the odds that hoaxing is involved?

Richard Stubstad: I would say less than 1% because of the associated evidence and the personalities involved. It’s not from Tom Biscardi. I don’t think that he would hoax either, but he would certainly be accused of hoaxing, or someone could fairly easily hoax him, as we all know by now.

Robert Lindsay: You have some results from nuclear DNA, correct?

Richard Stubstad: Yes, I have results from one gene from samples 1, 3 and 4. There is a polymorphism in that gene that is not present in any samples in GenBank, the most thorough human DNA database that exists in the world. If that polymorphism is not found in GenBank, it’s generally not found in humans.

Robert Lindsay: So the polymorphism is non-human then?

Richard Stubstad: Yes. So far we have six sasquatch DNA sequences, none of which were perfectly matched in GenBank.

Robert Lindsay: So you have three mitochondrial and three single-gene nuclear DNA samples that don’t match any in GenBank, and if it’s not in GenBank, it’s not human.

Richard Stubstad: It’s possible that some extant human samples may not be in GenBank. I don’t think the data in GenBank covers 100% of all extant, modern humans. The likelihood of a “new sequence” from a modern human drops as you get more and more consecutive samples not matching. The likelihood that all six of these samples that have no matches in GenBank all came from modern humans is as close to zero as one could imagine.

Robert Lindsay: The likelihood is infinitesimally small. So the samples are non-human?

Richard Stubstad: I believe so.

Robert Lindsay: Can you tell me the type of gene that was tested for NuDNA?

Richard Stubstad: I can’t tell you specifically, but the gene is called the “MC1R” gene.

Robert Lindsay: Can you tell me more about the Ketchum paper?

Richard Stubstad: There is a rumor floating about that she has still not been able to turn in a peer reviewed paper.

Robert Lindsay: That’s a disaster.

Richard Stubstad: Of course. This is a distinct possibility that I predicted around the beginning of 2011. Her paper quite possibly won’t be good enough to make it through peer review.

Also, I hear through the grapevine that a third party tested the so-called “bigfoot steak” from Justin Smeja and found “excessive contamination” of the sample.

Robert Lindsay: That’s too bad. But I still think that Smeja’s sample is from a sasquatch. Did they test the whole sample or only part of it?

Richard Stubstad: I’m sure they only tested part of it. But I still think there is something there that Ketchum has found in the nuclear DNA of that “steak” and several other samples. I believe this because she tested the whole NuDNA sequence of both the bigfoot steak and several other samples (including Samples 2 and 3). After that, we heard absolutely nothing from her at all, not one word.

Robert Lindsay: So you think she is onto something then?

Richard Stubstad: Yes I do. But she may never publish in a peer-reviewed format. That’s one reason we are going to Europe to have a second round of testing done. If we beat Ketchum to the punch or she never publishes, that is fine with us, all the better. If she never publishes, our findings will be good for science in any event.

If Ketchum does publish, she will need further studies to back her controversial findings up, and the European results can help add weight to her findings. Either way, it’s a win-win situation for both parties – and for our beloved sasquatch (plural).

Robert Lindsay: What is the name of the people doing the testing?

Richard Stubstad: I can’t tell you that, but it’s a public state research facility, so there is no profit motive, just scientific curiosity – in short, “good research”.

Robert Lindsay: The profit motive is what complicated things with Ketchum?

Richard Stubstad: You think? And probably fame as well. She would like to be remembered in all eternity as the “discoverer of sasquatch,” just like Einstein is revered for discovering that we actually live in a four-dimensional universe of space-time, not a Cartesian three-dimensional one.


Filed under Animals, Anthropology, Apes, Bigfoot, Genetics, Mammals, Physical, Science, Wild

83 responses to “Richard Stubstad Interview October 1, 2011

  1. Maurice Cloud

    Very well done gentlemen! Dr. Ketchum is indeed looking more and more dodgy with each passing day, which only increases our hopes and, yea, even expectations, for your study Richard. A burden to be sure, but made easier (I should hope) by your commitment to openness and transparency. Cheers!

  2. Thanks, Bob & Marice!

    I’m just making this entry so I can find my way back into my own interview thread.

    I’m not very Internet savvy.


  3. Oh, yes, and I hope Bob doesn’t mind if I post my Webpage here, in case someone wants to read my three sasquatch DNA articles:

  4. Joerg Hensiek

    “Of course. This is a distinct possibility that is what I predicted around the beginning of 2011. Her paper quite possibly won’t be good enough to make it through peer review.”
    I love the “Melba bashing”. But the content of the statement cited above is not correct. if a scientific journal has accepted a paper, this paper will be published one day in the future – sooner or later. A reviewer might say he or she wants some (perhaps drastic) changes to it, but if those changes are executed, the journal will publish it. If a paper does not meet the required standards it will not be accepted by the journal itself in the first place. Every paper that already has reached the peer-review process is “good enough” to become published one day. This is the rule here in Europe as well as in the US.

    • Maurice Cloud

      Cheers Joerg! You are by and large correct in your clarification but for one wee bit . . . Your “If”‘s loom large. Peer-reviewed journals — be they scientific, literary, historical in scope — must first accept the paper . . . the particulants you mention then come into play. It is this detail I believe Richard was addressing, to wit: Dr. Ketchum’s paper — and are we certain she even has one in play? — may still be an orphan. She certainly had the opportunity this weekend to strut her stuff at the Honobia conference but apparently was nowhere to be seen. Perhaps her GPS was having a little lie down . . .

  5. Joerg:

    Guten tag, mein herre!

    Actually, on publishing peer-reviewed Journal articles, my own experience — albeit in the Civil Engineer world, not the world of genetics and DNA, is this:

    1) An Abstract may or may not be submitted to a particular Journal first, depending on their normal process of publishing.

    2) If an Abstract is in fact required, the Journal goes ahead and responds with either a “yes, please submit your full manuscript” or “no, this paper will not be considered, so do not submit your paper.”

    3) If the full manuscript is asked for after the acceptance of the Abstract, or if one is allowed to simply submit a complete article on any subject at any time, the authors send in the manuscript FOR PEER REVIEW.

    4) Peer review then responds (eventually) with one of three options:
    a) The paper is rejected outright;
    b) The paper is accepted, but only with required changes, subject to another peer review;
    c) The paper is accepted as-is, or only with minor or editorial changes;
    d) If c), above, or b) after a complete re-write, the paper is published in said Journal.

    Is this process different for (say) Nature Magazine?

    Goerg, I have heard your version of the peer-review process before, but I have never experienced it personally, even though I have been through peer review maybe a couple dozen times during my carrier — usually successfully, but sometimes not. When I was not successful, it was generally the final version of the manuscript (already submitted — otherwise how could they do their peer review?) that was unacceptable or inappropriate, as the case may be.

    Maybe you know something I don’t?

    Auf wiederhoeren,

    Richard Stubstad

  6. One more thing, all:

    I am NOT “bashing” Ketchum. She has her own ways of doing things, which are certainly justifiable to her, regardless of what they are. I certainly hope she is successful using her all too secretive approach; I just don’t think she will be as long as a major peer-reviewed Journal (like Nature) is involved. Just look at the stuff that Paabo (with umlauts over both a’s) and Green from the Max Plank institute have published over the years. These papers are ALWAYS done in collaboration with a large number of scientists, not only from the Max Planck Institute, but Harvard and many others world-wide.

    Ketchum meanwhile is a good scientist, and she definitely means well. While I think it was a shame that both she and I, and several others, didn’t continue our work together after the first four sasquatch DNA samples were in-house and partially tested, she did what she thought she had to do — hired a lawyer, or several lawyers, and then she was off and running on her own, even though several of us had already paid for her to test the DNA samples WE submitted to her, and expected results from.

    I’m sorry, but I simply do not agree that this is good science. Time will tell if her peer reviewers think so. If one of them is from the Max Planck Institute (which is likely), God help her, because no one else appears to be doing so.

    The folks from the Max Planck Institute are simply the best, and BY FAR the most knowledgeable in the world on a subject matter such as sasquatch DNA.


    • Susi Sedlak

      The folks from the Max Planck Institute are simply the best, and BY FAR the most knowledgeable in the world on a subject matter such as sasquatch DNA.
      How could they be the best with BF DNA? So far I know of no results being released, so have samples been sent to them?
      Yes, They are world renowned, but they need the evidence to analyse, and since there is no precursor evidence except for DNA, will they verify a new species off of second hand DNA samples?

  7. apehuman

    You know a very good read is the battle over recognition of H. erectus as it’s own kind.. (and I guess still rages on some levels)…

    as for the secrecy, “conventional science”…. I think it is famous battles like those (and even Leaky) that drives the more recent “open access” movement in anthropology and also the genome project?

    Isn’t that incredible really…so..this data to me…should also go right in the genome data banks…open, period.

    Yes, yes to such a lab as max Planck involved…the more data and comparisons from more and better sources a plus

    I personally do not “cotton” to someone “owning” the discovery of Bigfoots….in my mind, and many, this is about recognizing a type of primate, witnessed by thousands and reported for decades….. who is the discoverer? This is one for the public domain..or at least liberal sharing of credit…doesn’t sound like that is Paulides plan anyway….see his own words

    Ketchum deafening what? She needn’t talk to Bigfooters right?

    So all the NDA’s etc and lack of real data to participants (if true) and hiring of IP attorney (I saw that in cases over entertainment law) is not so cool really.. I would be concerned she actually try and patent part of the genome..a gene that varies or something. (I am not up on biological patent law…but I will if it goes that way…..I have strong feelings about patents of naturally occurng species genes…anyway)

    Nor am I fond of the teasers we have endured since 09….or the very commercial aspects of all parties (it seems) involved…

    on the other hand..LOl no one is producing much else…or so it seems….

    Why aren’t her nuDNA or genome stuff in the genome project data bases?

    I don’t really understand that community…the advances so amazing

  8. Joerg Hensiek

    Guten Tag Richard and Maurice,

    thanks very much for your answers. After talking just yesterday to a professor of Chemistry, my “universal approach” to define and explain the peer-review process seems to have been a little bit too “simplistic”, I have to admit. In fact, this professor told me that indeed some papers are refused in the course of the peer-review process. Therefore the ways peer reviews are put into practise seem to vary across journals and disciplines and perhaps even countries and continents. My own expercience concerning this matter refer to the social and economic sciences here in Germany as well as in Holland and Britain. Over here the editor-in-chief passes the abstract as well as the paper to his relevant editors – and already at this stage they decide if a paper will be published one day or not. The “submitter” (hope this is the correct English term for it) of a refused paper has then no other choice than to address another journal. In the case that the paper has reached peer-review the authors can be SURE that their paper will be published in the end. If one of the reviewers of let`s say three reviewers disapproves of a paper, the journal passes the paper to a fourth reviewer. In the end it could look like this: the paper might have undergone so many changes and the publications date is 2 or 3 years after submission, that the situation in my opinion is almost as bad as not having been accepted.
    But again: in the natural sciences it really might be different. And perhaps in North America it is different from Europe. Sorry for that!
    But the reason I commented on this is not because I am a typical German wisenheimer. Even I feel that Melba Ketchum might not be the nicest person on this planet and some negative remarks about her might be indeed very close to the truth, I just wanted to defend her in the current process of “Melba bashing” (please, Richard, allow me to use this expression). If I recall her and Adrian Erickson`s comments expressed in different radio interviews on US “online sasquatch radio stations”, the following points were made:

    1. The paper was submitted by early December 2010 and was already accepted by end of January/beginning of February 2011. It then entered the peer review.
    2. The paper is authored by six authors and not just Melba.
    3. They will not comment on the paper until publication date.

    Therefore remarks on why everything takes so long and everything is done so “secretly” are – in my opinion – not valid.
    1. It is absolutely normal that the peer-review does take so long – especially when it is such a “delicate” subject as to validate the existence of bigfoot. The simple fact that the journal acted so quick in accepting the paper for peer review shows that the paper has a high standard of quality.
    2. Ketchum was successful to find five other authors who contributed to the paper. Therefore she seems to be more cooperative than comments on this blog and other blogs suggest.
    3. The “secret ways” Ketchum approaches are again very normal in the world of science and she is indeed subject to the “non-disclosure” agreement with the journal. But like Richard I welcome the new approach of more open processes – it brings much more transparency into scientific affairs. However, this cannot hide the fact, that Ketchum`s way of doing thing is – still – the most common way of actiong in the world of science – and nothing which is unusual, strange or even “unethical” (Richard: here I am talking just about the paper, not the NDAs between Ketchum and her “partners”).

    And do not forget:
    We are not talking about a new species of butterfly – we are (probably) talking about a “new” human being!!! I think it more than understandable that Ketchum – after committing so much work in recent years – dreams of being a new Darwin or Humboldt or Einstein. Most people would think and act this way, let´s be honest. I also would like to know that this news species gets named after somebody more decent – for example John Bindernagel – but, well, that`s the way it is…She knew that she could suffer much potential ridicule for being involved in such a project and STILL decided to do it. Therefore she deserves at least a fair share of the glory!

    Just one piece of information by Ketchum seems strange to me: In her latest comment on the publication of the paper (I think it was July) she said it will be published in the last quarter of this year. How does she know? Because, and here I am very sure, jornals will inform the authors about the publication date of their paper between 3 to 6 weeks before official publication. But not so many months before this date…

    Eventually some personal words to you, Richard (please forgive my clumsy English): I have heard of your “critical state” of health. I wish you drastic improvements to your state of health and many healthy and happy years to come – so that you are not just able to witness the “discovery” of bigfoot, but also the impact its discovery will make on this world in the next decades.

    Bis bald, Joerg

  9. Joerg:

    Thank you for your kind and thoughtful comments. And yes, I agree with Bob Lindsay — your English is excellent — FAR better than my German.

    While I see your points, I have to tell you that I know Melba fairly well, and she is not the person she appears to be for those who have not met her. The strangeness of expecting publication in “the last quarter” have been preceded by other strange events. A recent event was that she told someone that she still hadn’t even submitted the paper yet (and that was only a couple weeks ago). Of course, with all these conflicting reports, one has to take it all with a grain of salt, because what she says is not necessarily the facts of the matter. And then again it may be exactly what the facts are — one never knows. I never really figured her out in that regard when I knew her well and was in daily contract.

    Another thing very few people realize. You don’t really get to meet the real Melba until you meet her in person. Erickson and I have both met her several times, and spent considerable time with her getting this project going.

    Sure, she did stick her neck out, perhaps against her better judgement — as I did after doing considerable “forensic” research on the subject of sasquatch. This occurred after she and I met (in person) in January of 2010. We had a fruitful meeting (that lasted several days) and eventually we were off and running with “preliminary” screening tests.

    Soon, without her informing Erickson or me about the other party, about another set of specimens brought to her by Erickson, Adrian and I finally figured out what was going on. She had entered into basically conflicting agreements (NDA’s) with Erickson, me, and Biscardi. Finally, Adrian and I talked it over and decided to try to work together, all of us, and possibly others. This was discussed in the physical presence of Melba, in fact in Santa Monica, California where we were, together, discussing media options and meeting with media executives in the L.A. basin.

    Even though certainly Adrian, but also many others, including Bindernagel, Byrne, Green, Biscardi and many others have spent COUNTLESS additional hours in an attempt to prove the existence of sasquatch. In other words, Melba doesn’t have a patent on hard work. The discovery is NOT hers alone, as you point out. Yet when any of us move towards a collective effort, she abandons ship and signs more new agreements. I don’t know if you’ve seen the newest NDA’s, but it is very difficult to understand how ANYONE would sign these things. In them, she gets 99% of the credit, and the sample submitter(s) get an honorable mention, as it were.

    Both Adrian, Robert Schmalzbach, me, and even Tom Biscardi got her pointed in the right direction, and we paid her for the testing of the first dozen samples or so. As soon as Melba realized — through our COLLECTIVE efforts, that we had almost certainly identified a new subspecies or hominid, we were out because SHE wants all of the credit.

    Originally, I was a co-author on the paper — in fact I wrote the Introduction and sent it to one of our other co-authors at the time, someone who actually WAS imminently qualified for this work — a geneticist with a Ph.D., not an Engineer (me) nor a Veterinarian (Melba).

    Today, both the geneticists and I are out. I hope she has used reputable co-authors who were allowed and able to truly contribute, and not just become window dressing like all the others. Otherwise, as you know, the peer review process will be VERY rough.

    In fact, if I don’t miss my guess, that is precisely what is happening right now.

    The work Melba does isn’t even close to Paabo & Green’s work by any stretch. She simply doesn’t know nearly as much as those folks do Have you seen their paper on the identification of the Denisovan?

    It is truly impressive. I hope Melba’s paper is equally good — but I doubt it.



  10. Joerg Hensiek

    Many thanks for your answers and your nice compliments, Richard and Robert!
    Richard: I hope you will be successful (and perhaps even more rapid than Ketchum) with your own current DNA project!
    Robert: Hope we will hear more exciting “bigfoot news” from you in the very near future.
    I cannot wait to be honest….

  11. This whole Sasquatch DNA study has become alot more complicated that what it should have been. The pie is only so big and nobody wants to give up their piece. As usual, human nature hinder’s what should have been a very exciting time of discovery & the sharing of knowledge. I only hope that NDA after NDA doesn’t totally abolish (or seal away forever) the information that has been derrived & accumulated from the samples and DNA analysis that has been conducted on them. I hope this is not another example of greed, money & stardom prevailing over the sharing of knowledge and the acknowledgement by science of a new species.

    Richard I wish you the best of luck and I hope you are successful.

    Kind regards,
    Allan R.

  12. Ken Wilson

    Thanks for the refreshing news Richard. I’m heading to your website which will hopefully provide my simple mind something it can wrap itself around. I’ll need a dictionary and a couple on encyclopedias to hang out with you guys!
    Thanks again.

  13. Ken Wilson

    Once again Richard on the site when I “click here” a blank page comes up. Incredibly irratating as I am very curious to read all of the articles and view the pictures. Any suggestions?

  14. Send me your email address here:

    And then I’ll send you the three PDF’s.


  15. dane

    This is getting so caught up in NDAs,contracts,etc… I will bet that
    this whole thing falls apart and never comes to fruit because this
    whole thing is going to end up as a massive law suit .
    All this BS flying back and forth,and draging there feet to make sure
    they all become famous.
    What is going to happen is, Good Ole’ Jeb and his friend Buckweat are going to be racing around on some old dirt roads in the mountians on a saturday night ripper,come around the corner and smash one.
    Then,it will be revealed to the world by some local 6:00 evening news

  16. wrmckinney

    Publish the sequences already on the internet.
    Establish a ‘squatch DNA database site.
    Reverse PCR your samples, and give them away to other labs.
    No need for peer review or publication in a journal if you are right in your
    sequences, and interpretations.

    • Maurice Cloud

      Or that Richard is intent on following scientific protocol . . . Stubstad has, and on more than one occasion, repudiated the proprietoral paranoia and obsession with secrecy that earmarks virtually every other group involved in this endeavour. Butt(it’s a big ‘un, so two t’s . . .) this is not the same as abandoning the necessary principles inherent to substantiating the critter’s existence. Simply put, the three p’s — principle, procedure, and practice — must be followed. Of everyone I know involved in this pursuit Richard is far and away the least driven by ego and greed, He is not looking to have anything named after him . . . except, perhaps, a grandson or two. The wait is frustrating certainly, but anything less and all we’re doing is burning daylight just to grumble at the effort . . . Have patience. Cheers!

  17. Re: Richard Stubstad- I can only read so many nauseating statements until I have to respond.
    First, Richard didn’t submit any of the first four samples in the DNA project, period! Richard arrived and ASKED if he could help, he did not have ANY samples when he offered to assist, he wasn’t a researcher, he wasn’t a DNA expert, he wasn’t a geneticist. It was obvious when Richard asked to assist, our project was well on its way, we had momentum, several groups were involved and MANY specimens, NONE from Richard. I do not believe that Richard Stubstad has EVER personally found one sample that he submitted.

    Richard has made many statements about Dr. Ketchum that are categorically not true. He made statements about the doctors demeanor and ability to work with others, he should look in a mirror. I do not know of ANY of our groups participating in the project that have had issue with anyone’s personality, including Dr. Ketchum, this is someone’s blatant attempt to embarrass and humiliate. You will notice that NOBODY inside the project is talking, we RESPECT what our NDA’s state and will not compromise our integrity by talking about results.

    Richard’s opinions about the Max Planck institute are opinions, nothing else. His statement about Dr Ketchum’s ability to work with others are OPINIONS, not fact. I have personally talked with Richard about his violation of trust and deciding to ignore the integrity of the group and the DNA findings by going public while ALL OTHERS have sat on the sidelines, every one,,,,,but Richard!!! Richard would never admit in a public setting that he doesn’t know all the facts about test results yet he will attempt to sound like an expert as though he knows everyone’s findings, he DOESN’T. Richard refused to engage in a cogent conversation on this topic and immediately started to talk about irrelevant issues. The issue, when you join a TEAM, the goals of the team and the decisions by the team are primary, personal goals are secondary, some people do not understand this and have difficulty working in a team setting.

    Richard has made implications about his knowledge of where the scientific paper is being submitted, hmm. If he does know, someone is violating their NDA or committing a federal felony by wiretapping, which one is it, Richard? You imply to have intimate knowledge, where did you get it, or, is this fabrication?

    Richard has wanted to have his 15 minutes of fame since the time he tried to join our project. He attempted to garner as much information as possible while he was around, but, he wasn’t privy to the multiple test results from the specimens that the various groups submitted, thus his limited knowledge.

    I would ask all readers to respect what we are attempting to accomplish. To continue to pander to others who have limited knowledge, you are potentially compromising a scientific event. Scientific Journals WILL NOT peer review work that has been released to the public. Richard is trying to destroy our work by releasing limited data into the public arena thus giving the appearance to journals that an insider is talking, which IS NOT the case. Our project IS NOT about secrecy, it’s about following a scientific peer review process to get facts regarding the biped established as fact, nothing else. Great claims take great evidence and significant time, please be patient.

    Richard’s purposeful acts are highly orchestrated with a select few who have the financial and strategic resources to keep a myth alive. Richard’s alignment with certain individuals should give everyone an insight into who HE believes is credible and honest……

    David Paulides
    North America Bigfoot Search

    • What Paulides is saying is NOT true; almost none of it at all. To-whit:

      1) The “Ketchum” study was NOT well underway when I arrived at her Texas lab in January of 2010. She told me at the time she had seen but ONE sample from Paulides — as reported in his Tribal Bigfoot book, and ONE sample from a purported Yeti. She found these VERY limited DNA test results “interesting” on these two pre-January 2010 samples, but unfortunately she didn’t have any DNA left from the specimens she had originally to continue the DNA work on either.

      2) A lady named Shannon Sylvia, Java Bob Schmalzbach and I, meanwhile, had made connections with Ketchum and discussed the DNA project with her at length before proceeding. This occurred during November or December of 2009.

      3) As a result, Tom Biscardi showed up in person at the aforementioned Texas lab in early January 2010 with five samples, only one of which eventually showed “promise” according to Ketchum — the toenail from Larry Jenkins (delivered but not found by either Biscardi or me) in NW Arizona.

      4) By this time, Ketchum had found out that two of Biscardi’s samples (hair, both of them) were from common animals, not a sasquatch. She also correctly identified the “hand of unknown origin” as a bear paw.

      5) The jury is still out on the fifth Biscardi/Stubstad/ sample — a relic bone or tooth from a 9′ plus skeleton found in Oklahoma. Ketchum thinks this skeleton, although very tall, was from a common American Indian. Maybe so, but I’m still not so sure.

      6) In March or so of 2010, Erickson showed up, in person in the Texas lab, with about six samples; all of which I believe were “viable”. It took us a while to realize that we were all working for the same cause, but eventually we figured it out and tried to work together. While Ketchum wasn’t particularly interested in, for example, Erickson & I cooperating with one-another, we did and still do cooperate. But we do not belong to the same organization. I don’t belong to ANY sasquatch organization, in fact. This is by design because I believe WE HAVE TO CONNECT THE DOTS, something the sasquatch research community has dismally failed to do in the past.

      7) After Java Bob Schmalzbach separated company with Biscardi, Ketchum also signed an NDA with him. JB immediately sent her a “release” to use the toenail specimen, since he was also involved in obtaining it together with Biscardi, plus another “skunk-ape” encounter specimen from the four corners area. It was JB who asked JC Johnson, in fact, to send a sample from this encounter to Ketchum directly — in good faith AND with some paperwork.

      8) Soon thereafter, we discussed a cooperative approach with one-another, and Paulides as well, but he didn’t want to participate with us.

      9) After the first two samples were tested (and paid for, in part by me) for the complete mitochondrial DNA sequence, it was I who found the statistical connection between the two, not Ketchum. This was essentially because the GenBank search engines are not designed to identify new hominids or whatever we want to call the sasquatch (pl.), but rather to find one’s own relatives and roots, etc., for ordinary modern humans. Being a statistician and engineer, I figured out how to utilize these search engines by going back to the “original” mitochondrial sequence that science figures was there at the time of that particular Haplotype’s “Eve” and using that sequence to search the vast GenBank database.

      10) Neither of the first two samples INCLUDED IN THE CURRENT “KETCHUM” DNA PROJECT were from Paulides. I was told about one from him, as reported in his own book, but I was told there were no other samples from him, but that he was trying to get more. His first sample, that pre-dated the five samples delivered by Biscardi, was used up prior to the beginning of our collective DNA project.

      11) By the time WE (not Ketchum alone) had analyzed fairly extensive DNA data from the first three samples, at the encouragement (and money) from Erickson, she began to test a single gene on the nuclear side. This is because we had ALL figured out by then that we’d need more than the mitochondrial (maternal) origins of this creature to find out WHY it was different from modern humans, and how these differences were almost certainly reflected in the nuclear DNA.

      12) Three nuclear DNA (single gene) sequences were sequenced by Ketchum, all of which were “within human ranges” but none of which existed in GenBank. This made six out of six (3 complete mito and 3 nuclear single gene) sequences that at first glance appeared “human” (or nearly so), but WE all realized that there was one problem with the conventional scientific theory that this whole sasquatch phenomenon was/is a hoax, or a mistake: All six of them were NOT present in GenBank; not a single one of them. So — indeed WE (again, not Ketchum alone) were on to something. It should be mentioned here that NONE of these first six samples were obtained from, or though, Paulides.

      13) How the above series of events establishes that Paulides and Ketchum were “well under way” with “their” study is beyond me. Unless Ketchum was lying to me, and I don’t think she was. Later (after approx. April of 2010), I understand that Paulides did submit one or more additional, viable samples. But this does not constitute a project that was already “well underway” prior to the five samples delivered by Biscardi and the six or so delivered by Erickson and the one submitted through Java Bob Schmalzbach from the four corners area.

      14) Therefore, beyond the single “interesting” hair sample that Paulides asked Ketchum to test sometime during 2008 (it may have been one year earlier, so don’t quote me), to my knowledge absolutely zero testing was ongoing — until the ad-hoc team of Biscardi, Stubstad, Sylvia (Shannon), Java Bob, and Erickson arrived on the scene in early 2010. We ALL contributed to getting the current DNA project going, and in the right direction. We accomplished this goal in reasonably short order, and we paid to have this done. To my knowledge, Paulides paid zero (at least for the current project) through at least the middle of 2010. He may or may not have actually paid for his own submitted samples — AFTER the project was well underway, as he puts it. I don’t know that, one way or the other.

      15) In addition, SINCE WE PAID FOR ALL OF OUR DNA TESTING and received very few test results except for those I have reported on, how does this make the project Ketchum’s? Please note that, in deference to both Ketchum and, now, Paulides, I have NOT released any actual sequencing data; only my own analyses which I admit are limited; mainly by the lack of additional data, mind you not the statistical package I employed.

      16) Finally, I offered to extend the existing NDA that Ketchum and I had between us between January and through October of 2010. In November of 2010, she refused, and instead offered a “better” NDA for me to sign. On the advice of my lawyer, since her lawyer obviously drew her new NDA up, I didn’t sign. Enough said about my lawyer’s comments. Frankly, I’d be surprised if Paulides signed it; he is obviously smarter than that.

      I used the term “ad hoc”, above, because in fact none of us are either formerly or informally connected with one-another. When Ketchum entered into a separate NDA with Erickson, he didn’t know about my NDA with Ketchum, for example. Also, I didn’t know about Erickson until his test results started to show up. Still, we all tried to cooperate as best we could. The only “break-up” within this ad-hoc group was between Java Bob and Biscardi. JB is no longer associated with SFBI or Biscardi, and I doubt that he ever will be again.

      No one is “financing” any of our ongoing work on the discovery of sasquatch through DNA, except the significant funds sent by Erickson to Ketchum. Other early (2010) DNA tests were paid for by me, but these were not for nuclear DNA testing, so the $60k or so that Erickson sent Ketchum is by far the largest number involved. None of us have paid one-another, and we are all working for free, just as I suspect that Paulides is doing. The difference is: Paulides has an agenda; he writes sasquatch books — pretty good ones at that, and I for one indirectly support HIS work by buying his books retail !

      And no, we are NOT undermining the “Ketchum” study as it’s called now. We hope that Ketchum DOES produce a good, peer-reviewed article. What we do know, however, is that the peer-review process by and large is NOT a slam-dunk, regardless of the content of the paper or the number of labs involved. It is also about credibility and collaboration with other institutions and individuals who ARE geneticists — for example, the Max Planck Institute. I am not touting the Max Planck Institute because it’s “just my opinion”. If one reads even one of their NATURE Journal articles, ANYONE can see that they are excellent and incredibly knowledgeable researchers. Also I mentioned this Institute as an example, not the be-all and end-all of world-wide experts. Jeeze, Louise!

      No, my work is not “for 15 minutes of fame”. Nor is it “highly orchestrated”. Nor is it “for profit”. I haven’t made nickle one on this project, and I don’t expect to. I am FAR from famous, even for 15 minutes. My only honorable mention is that I’m apparently able to induce a feeling of nausea on the part of a famous bigfoot author — David Paulides! I’ll take that as a compliment, David.

      What should be obvious to both Ketchum and Paulides by now is that the discovery of sasquatch as a subspecies or new hominid (or whatever it turns out to be) is not going to be easy, even if Ketchum’s paper makes it through the arduous peer review process. In fact, it will create even more controversy than previously. Accordingly, WE MUST CONNECT THE DOTS and quit the mudslinging. Leave that to our Congress; they do enough of it to make us All nauseous.

      Accordingly, while wishing Melba and David all the best, we are launching a parallel DNA study, but this time in Europe where the political and legal climate is more conducive to objective, scientific studies. Also the profit motive isn’t there, so we can’t be accused of trying to recover our collective investments in the sasquatch discovery process, such as it is. And most importantly, it is not inundated to the point of nausea with NDA’s and litigation attorneys, such as the somewhat infamous “Hank” that Melba hired last year sometime (I don’t know if he’s still involved, though).

      Ultimately, Ketchum and Paulides will reap the credibility of the European (not my!) test results as much as the rest of us. This parallel study will, hopefully, arrive at at least some of the same conclusions Ketchum will arrive at in their parallel study. Our only goal here is to have the European study done independently without an agenda or lawyers involved. This is science, not the adversarial legal system that prevails in our country, ladies and gentlemen.

      I honestly don’t understand what Paulides is insinuating. Of course I didn’t personally find any of the first five samples submitted by Biscardi. But I knew about them, and found out who WE could work with in this country — or so we thought. Biscardi didn’t personally find any of the five samples he submitted either. Erickson, ditto for his six samples. And I didn’t ASK to assist. Melba and I agreed to support one-another (AND the sample providers), and we did that until my NDA ran out in October of last year.

      So — what’s the beef anyway?

      David P., I have NEVER shunned a “cogent conversation”. The accusations leveled above by you, sir, do not exactly appear to be “cogent”, for starters, let alone civil by any stretch. If you want a cogent conversation, David, give me a call. You have my number (and I have yours, still).

      Richard Stubstad

    • Maurice Cloud

      Mr. Paulides, word is that you’re an ex-copper, which sounds about right given the high levels of vitriol in your attack on Richard. Please holster your guns and throttle back on the testesterone ok . . ? Richard is quite capable of defending himself and has done so, but I cannot allow your assault on him — and, please, let’s have no quibbling on this point, it was an assault, I mean, really, “Richard wanted to have his fifteen minutes of fame,” and veiled threats of lawsuits, etc . . . Sounds to me like a nerve has been touched . . . But what I most object to is your(probably unintentionally) amusing claim that your group, ” . . .is not about secrecy”. Bollocks! Your “group” was not forced to operate in any way other than that which it chose, and that is indeed a numbing secrecy enforced with NDA’s, hovering attorneys, and the occasional flash attack on the integrity of anyone willing to call your bluff. I’ve never had so much as a jot of sympathy for Biscardi, but if your “group”(and a few others that come to mind) is/are the alternative, then I’m suddenly liking the guy. Super PR Mr. Paulides, well done there! Finally, your proprietorial, patronising, and condescending tone that the rest of us amateurs should bugger off and leave the job to the select few in the know reveals you to the point of redundancy . . . The stage has gotten bigger Mr. Paulides. Get used to it. Cheers!

      • Ken Wilson

        Cheers Maurice!!
        Mr Paulides certainly is letting his “copper” side show. I have had a daughter go missing who ended up dead, murdered by her boyfriend. I say this not for a bit of sympathy, but to show that I can clearly see what is going on in David’s programmed mind. None of the police agencies wanted to work together to find my daughter. Instead they worked seperately in hopes of finding her alive thus proving themselves to be Super Cops. When this did not happen, they ran from the case as fast as they could. I believe that certain people would rather have the fame and fortunes involved in proving these creatures exist rather than protecting them. Follow the money to find your answers I guess.

        • Maurice Cloud

          Cheers Ken! No sympathy then. But I hope you will allow me to express my condolences over such a heart-rending tragedy. Our children should not pass before we do. That this does indeed occur is a sadness far beyond the capacity of words to express. Cheers mate! If you’re of a mind to do so why don’t you contact Robert sometime to get my personal e-mail address so that our conversation is not always guided by what is occurring on his otherwise very excellent and commendable site . . .

        • Marice and Ken:

          I have both of your private email addresses. I will now send them to both of you. You won’t have to ask Bob (Lindsay) to do so.


  18. This is a test.

    OaO (Over and Out),


  19. Thanks for the support, Maurice.

    In spite of his apparent self-righteous personality, I can say this about Paulides on the positive side: One of the best books, maybe even the best book, on sasquatch in general is his latest: Tribal Bigfoot.

    I would highly recommend reading it. Compared to the tirade from him above, a completely different and polite David Paulides comes out.

    Good job there, David!

    One more thing I recalled too: Ever since Melba decided to ask everyone to sign a new NDA made up by her lawer(s), David sent me an email that was equally scathing–maybe more so.

    I then asked him if we could talk by phone, to have a truly “cogent” conversation as he put it above.

    He responded by email that, “he didn’t want to talk to me; he would get too angry”.

    So much for a cogent conversation!



  20. anon

    Tribal Bigfoot is a great book. This conversation is quite incredible. The NABS does not reveal it’s members or donors, I asked once.

  21. Maurice Cloud

    Many thanks Richard. Say, aren’t your fifteen minutes about up . . ? Cheers!

  22. All:

    Even though my fifteen minutes is about up, or – more accurately – never even started, I have a few additional points:

    1) I’ve been “corresponding” on the Erickson Project thread on Bigfoot Forums, in good faith and complete openness (without breaking and NDA’s that I may have). Today, a couple of folks that frequent their thread finally got the better of my patience. They do not appear to be interested in what I have to say, and/or they don’t believe me (which is fine), so why should I try?

    2) So now I’m solely on LIndsay’s threads, in spite of the Bigfoot Forum’s absolute disdain, whether of Bob’s threads or Bob himself, personally. Or maybe because of that. What these folks advise against is more likely to be good instead of the opposite!

    3) Since this particular thread is about an interview with me, I have to say one more thing about the above interview, which I did say on the Bigfoot Forum’s thread: Bob Lindsay guessed during the interview that a particular photo from Article 3 on my website was from Florida. This photo shows, among other things like a forest with various tree types, etc., a waterfall that is quite high. Bottom line: Bob guessed wrongly; it is NOT from Florida.

    Well, folks, that’s about it for now as for as “DNA News” is concerned.


    • Maurice Cloud

      Hmm . . . A deciduous forest in autumn dress, a full-throated waterfall . . . I’m guessing Guam. Guam is, erm, in the northern part of North America yes? Geology was always my weakest subject at school. Anyway. All our friends should post their guesses too. Is there a prize Richard??? Cheers!

  23. Ralphie Boy

    Someone please answer these questions for me….are the BBB complaints about the Ketchum lab accurate? It would seem to be, since the complaint mentioned upthread is similar…that work was paid for and DNA results never received. If this is so, was her lab’s unreliability known before she was selected to conduct this research? Has she done the DNA tests herself, in house, or were these samples sent to other labs? If so, how many labs and of what reputation? What was the rationale for selecting her? Seems strange to select a vet with a spotty record to entrust with potentially groundbreaking materials. Seems to me Paulides mentioned in a previous posting that she merely logged the samples in and forwarded them for testing. Is this true? (If I am incorrect here please advise!!) The unfortunate infighting only serves to muddy the waters, and may be serving in lieu of content or results. As I have mentioned before this is exactly what I believe. Ketchum’s no-show at the recent conference is telling in that regard. I think it’s called the bob and weave.
    As to if Paulides had a career in law enforcement, one only need read his
    unliterary, plodding and pedestrian writing style to know this is someone who has written a lot of police reports. (we might be getting to the wrath part here.) The police sketch artist approach he used was admittedly sensible and came from his experience, but from time to time he exhibits an insensitivity to his interviewees…in terms of their culture… and seems oblivious to what they might be telling (or NOT telling) him. He never answers the question as to why his Amerindian contacts describe these beings as looking (somewhat) like Amerindians, but others outside that culture have not. Is this a projection of the witnesses? Will he use sketch artists for sightings outside Hoopa to make a more generalized description of this population?
    In any event, I know there are individuals who have made their lives’ work (or the better part of it) to prove the existence of these beings and I am
    saddened that this hype will eventually and probably most certainly disappoint them.
    Thanks for any answers, and for being a reasonable place for discussion.

    • Yes, the complaints are accurate.

      Yes, the materials were sent out to 6 different labs, and I believe she sequenced them herself.

      She was chosen because no other DNA lab would test for Bigfoot! Seriously.

      The results exist all right, or at least Ketchum says they do, and I believe her.

      She was supposedly called away at the last minute to fly to Europe to meet with peer reviewers.

      This is clearly projection of witnesses, but others have also described BF’s faces as looking like “old Indians.” These were non-Indians who said that. One of them told me so himself.

      • Thanks, Bob; mostly correct, although I would have been a bit more circumspect about my wording!

        The only error, Bob, in what you said is your belief that “Ketchum sequenced the DNA herself” along with other labs.

        Her lab isn’t properly equipped to do many of the DNA tests that were sent out to other labs. For example, the entire mitochondrial genome, as well as the nuclear genome. All these were sent out, and I believe that some of not all of the labs were “reputable”. None of the labs knew, however, what they were dealing with, at least initially; therefore, they were told we were investigating a “tribe of humans”, so they used human primers instead of more “universal” primate primers.

        Personally, I doubt that this biased the results, since when they ran into difficulties with a common primer, I would imagine they adjusted their primers and found out the actual DNA sequences, albeit after quite a lot of extra work in some (or all) cases.

        Having said all of the above, I am not confident that every single sequence (letter) reported from the outside labs is correct. Still, in my three articles on my website, they don’t have to be 100% correct in order to reach the overall statistical conclusions that I did.

        Ketchum sequenced single genes or portions of the mito herself, in her lab; I believe her results are in all likelihood 100% correct. She is extremely careful about her work.


  24. anon

    Thanks for the threat Robert and also thanks to posters for their contributions.

  25. anon

    Freudian….I meant ‘”thread”

  26. anon

    stumbled on this forum and it appears some interesting opinions and perhaps inside knowledge on nuDNA results…

    but notice on a post by “Ed Smith” the caution about just how thee results will possibly muddy waters and to continue the hard field work and documentation..and the hope trained anthropologists will be getting in the field based on these efforts.
    It’s still a long way off…proof and a responsible, compassionate response to our Wild cousins situation

    • It seems to me that “Ed Smith” here does know what he is talking about. However, some 2,350 claimed samples and 236 probable sasquatch (pl.) or about 10% of these seems like an AWFUL lot !

      On top of that, they are claiming at least 2 “Target Types” which I assume to mean haplotypes or haplogroups, maybe even subspecies, probably 3 and possibly 4 DOES complicate things somewhat.

      Out of the 3 mito sequences I’ve seen, there were two vastly divergent haplotypes — with a “split” of approx. 90 mtDNA pairs from one another (one of these is discussed in this thread).


  27. Ralphie Boy

    “the complaints are accurate” and “she id extremely careful about her work’
    ????? what gives? can’t be both.

    • The complaints are mostly that she didn’t give any results at all, not that she gave wrong results.

      • Correct.

        When I said she was careful with her work, I meant sequencing work to arrive at correct DNA sequence results, not any other aspects of business acumen.


      • One more thing about Ketchum’s BBB rating & customer complaints.

        While they are accurate, we must always keep in mind that there are at least two sides to every story. At one point, I confronted Melba about one specific case, and to be truthful, her side of the story was not totally without merit.

        I didn’t know about many of her complaints, and judging from my own personal experience, I do not think she always delivers what is agreed to. In fact she doesn’t. That’s why I only have 3 mito and 3 single gene nuclear to work with. Erickson, meanwhile, has nothing other than what I have of his paid-for sequencing. In fact, he paid for a whole lot more sequencing than I have of his.

        I paid for one mito sequence I never received as well. The amount of money involved from me was minor compared to Erickson’s experience.


  28. Ralphie Boy

    sorry should be “she is”

  29. Pete Williams

    A question for Mr. Stubstad, are you able to determine how many chromosomes the Sasquatch have?

  30. Hi, Richard here again, back from a one-day salmon fishing trip–of all places, within the city limits of Sacramento, California.

    We did will indeed, thanks. King (Chinook) salmon, no less.

    Regarding chromosomes, we can of course find this out, and we will be considering this aspect seriously in the upcoming study. As of now, I don’t have any chromosome data, one way or the other, so I just don’t know.

    Meanwhile, on another blog in which I no longer participate, someone (screen name “parnassus”) entered, in part, a thorough critique against my DNA/statistical work, which in part reads as follows:

    I have read Stubstad’s webpage http://www.footprint…ichard_Stubstad and I don’t understand all of what he is doing, largely because he doesn’t tell us which mtDNA locations show mutations and he doesn’t give a source (that I noticed) for his numbers.

    … (many details left out here; mainly just bashing)

    According to Stubstad’s graphics, the two mtDNAs are human, (and they are) and differ by “5 or less” base pairs. He doesn’t tell us what mutations these are, which muddies the water a little bit. But that is probably insignificant. He says that means that there is only a 1.9% chance that this degree of similarity of mtDNA’s could be explained by chance. Now, in the first place, what would it mean if Stubstad were correct (he isn’t, but what would it mean if he were correct)? It would pretty much mean that it there is a possibility (not proven) that either:
    a) the source organisms were related, or
    b) there was another non-random reason for these two samples getting to Ketchum’s lab (you can fill in the word “hoax” here.)

    … (many details left out here; mainly just bashing)

    However, Stubstad’s schtick, his math, is not correct up to this (1.9%) point. He misses badly in his assessment of the chance of two humans differing by 5 or less base pairs, by chance. He doesn’t tell us how he came up with that number, but I, unlike Stubstad, am willing and able to show you the real numbers.

    If you look at the graph here http://www.talkorigi…homs/mtDNA.html entitled Distributions of Pairwise Sequence Differences among Humans, etc, and you will find a histogram of how many base pairs are different between pairs of humans. Look at the all the upright black bars for 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 base pairs differences. Add up the %’s shown in the y-axis and you come up with at least a 20% chance that two random humans will differ in their mtDNA by 5 or less base pairs.

    Game over.

    A 20% chance of non-randomness in science is of no consequence. The reality likely is that these mtDNA sources are just two humans of European ancestry, ie. white folks (how rare!!….”NOT” ) who share a common ancestor a few thousand years ago. Wow…NOT. I could say the same thing about me and the girl who is sitting at the next library table and probably not be far off.

    … (many details left out here; mainly just bashing)

    So, to my way of thinking, (speculation coming….) since Stubstad was Ketchum’s “statistical consultant” initially (wtf?), I think it was he who fed her this cockamamie story about a 98% chance that these were bigfoot samples. (Realistically, I think he volunteered his services). I think she bought his schtick, and she went public on the radio, blah blah. yadda yadda.

    … (many details left out here; mainly just bashing)

    ps: in a recent interview with Robert Lindsay, I believe that Stubstad indicated that if a sequence wasn’t among those human sequences in GenBank, it wasn’t human. How big a “NOT” can I give that statement? Jesse James wasn’t in there either. Does that mean he was a bigfoot???? There are something like a few thousand human sequences in GenBank. How many humans have lived/are living on the earth? you do the math. If you needed proof that the man is out of his depth, that should be it. Nothing personal. I’m sure he’s a fine man and a heck of an engineer.

    My retort to the potentially well-meant debunking offered above, in four main parts:

    1) Actual mutations or polymorphic sites: Sorry, but I have intentionally not published these specific site data because I believe Ketchum/ Paulides/ want to publish these details. I have chosen not to publish these for the time being in deference to these folks. Depending on how long it takes them to publish the data in a peer-reviewed Journal or elsewhere, I may do so eventually, but not yet. I understand Ketchum’s paper is in peer review now and has been for some time. I’m willing to wait with these details (however interesting these polymorphic sites are) just to give these other folks the benefit of a doubt.

    2) The two mtDNA complete sequences for Samples 1 and 2 differ by five pairs and are “within human ranges”: This part of the critique is true. They were only different by 5 base pairs out of 16,569. They were also within human ranges. The part I attempted to emphasize, however, is they are genetically related to a 15,000 or 20,000 year old “mitochondrial Eve” human DNA from sub-glacial Europe. Neither sequence fits into any existing European Haplotype, except the the “H” (European) part, called in the literature H-star when no European Haplotype (and there are many) identified to-date fits with the two purported sasquatch DNA sequences. While there are nine humans living today (or recently) that are within three or four base pairs compared to each of these two sasquatch samples, these real humans don’t match up with their own polymorphisms compared to the two sasquatch samples’ polymorphisms — none of the “strange or mutation” polymorphic sites, in fact. So even if Samples 1 and 2 were both hoaxes, or even coordinated hoaxes, it would be highly unlikely for the hoaxers to figure out how to find a very rare, actually non-existent Haplotype European of sub-glacial origins to “donate” a toenail and blood to these hoaxers. Some of these researchers may or may not be great at what they do — trying to document the existence of bigfoot — but they are simply not sophisticated enough to figure out a’ priori — how to identify the rarest of all European haplotypes and find two different humans that are “distantly related” way back some 20,000 years ago to the same clan of late stone-age humans.

    3) There is NOT a 1.9% chance that the two samples came from the random North American population — white folks or otherwise: The critique is highly mistaken. The chances of two random humans — whether in North America or elsewhere, even Europe, have such intimately related mtDNA is about 1.9%, probably even better than that (for example 1-1/2 percent). The study the critique refers to about any two random humans having a 20% chance of being 5 or fewer mtDNA pairs apart is based upon the likelihood of “hitting” one of the common haplotypes (such as the CRS), a good chance of doing so indeed because they are so common within today’s population. What we have here is a VERY uncommon haplotype that is only well-matched (within four pairs) in the database by nine individuals, and if one stretches these nine out to the next level, something like 50 individuals total having DNA within 5 pairs. So using fairly basic math, since there are more than 5,000 complete human mitochondrial sequences in GenBank, 50 out of 5,000 is in fact 1%, not 20%. A 20% result would have occurred if we had found the Arizona sample and the Northeastern sample to be somewhere around the CRS sequence. From that, there would have been perhaps 1,000 sequences (or 20%) within plus or minus five pairs of the CRS, because several European haplotypes are still that closely related to the CRS. But we are not dealing with a common haplotype — in fact, we are probably dealing with two different sasquatch individuals, only distantly related. Quite a lot of supporting documentation also exists surrounding these two samples, which I cannot go into here due to an existing NDA with one of them.

    4) The final major critique apart from general bashing and trolling, as that unnamed blog calls it, is that I “fed” Ketchum with this 1.9% story (which is true) and that “if it’s not in GenBank, it’s not human”: Indeed I did the DNA analysis in collaboration with Ketchum and reported the (actually conservative) 1.9% chance of being a sasquatch to her. But she wasn’t and isn’t stuck with these findings — most likely she knows as well as I do that they are true. And of course I know that ALL humans are not covered, even on the mitochondrial side alone, by the data in GenBank. This fact is true: the first two could have been random humans (there ARE nine of them in GenBank), but the chances were very, very small indeed. In fact, there is a 2% chance or so that these WERE random humans, just as the critique says. But only 2%, and that’s a statistical fact.

    It is also very strange indeed that out of (now) three complete mito sequences and three single-gene nuclear sequences, none of the six exist in GenBank at all. Sure, they may all be modern humans, but even without doing any calculations, the chances of every single sasquatch sequence, six out of six, all not having modern human counterparts in GenBank is very slim indeed — probably less than the proverbial 2% mentioned above. To top in all off, ALL the polymorphic sites (that I can’t mention here, as explained above) from these six sequences are undocumented in both the literature and GenBank except one where very little else in the sequence matched up in any event.

    Nice try, sir, but no dice. You’re WAY off.

    Richard Stubstad

    • Maurice Cloud

      Cheers Richard! Goodness but you have struck a nerve! These assaults upon you are beginning to sound a bit too repetitive and contrived. But the larger question is a very simple “Why?” Are they pestering Ketchum with the same intensity of doubt and accusation, or are they ok with her work(oh! that’s right, her’s is shrouded in secrecy . . .) . . . which of course opens the door of curiosity, are these true advocates of scientific principle and academic discourse, or are they merely Melba’s myrmidons . . ? Cheers!

  31. ws

    Parnassus is also skeptical of Ketchum’s study. He hasn’t said she’s hoaxing but he does think she misinterpreted her results and is now backpedaling. I’m not sure how he arrived at that conclusion.

  32. The particular Blog site that Parnassus is a member of is very interested, as a whole, in attacking anybody and everybody, looking for possible and impossible loopholes in their story — a debunking forum, if you will.

    I have a tendency to believe they are doing this as a form of internal entertainment, not serious debate, the latter of which is very much needed.

    Parnassus totally misunderstood what I said and reported. I have to believe that he knew better, and that he was just “trolling” as they call it on that particular blog site. He is not alone there in their trolling techniques by any stretch.

    For me, it got so absurd that I finally quit being open and honest; all they did was look for loopholes. If they couldn’t find any, they made some up.


  33. Gary B

    Mr. Stubstad, I have some questions regarding your dna analysis and the critique of it by Parnassus. I assume that the other blog you refer to is BFF or JREF? I have commented here before that none of this has any provenance or chain of custody and is only verified by whomever provided the samples. I believe you have said that at least one of these samples came from an habituation site and that is where I see a problem. If these creatures can be habituated why can they not be photographed, why can’t the collecting of samples be less haphazard and why all this secrecy? To many of us looking at this from the outside this all seems like one giant fairy tale with the preconditions of not killing one, not trapping one and non-disclosure agreements everywhere just a smokescreen for a lack of real, testable, repeatable evidence. I’m sure you have considered your bigfoot as human argument and the views of Meldrum, Bindernagel et al and their heavy investment in an apelike critter with a ‘mid-tarsal break’ and the arguments between those two views that will ensue. At some point a real report that was recieved from a real lab must be published. I have read many entries on this forum without seeing any convincing evidence which is the general state of affairs regarding bigfoot since the coining of the term in the 1950’s. Thanks for your time.

    • Excellent comments, Gary.

      Yes, the “other” blog was one of those two. ‘Nuff said there.

      In fact, all three mito sequences were from habituation sites; one was the toenail site in Arizona, which stretches the definition of “habituation” a bit, but still the creature, or creatures, DO frequent the site. I have been there and I have seen circumstantial if not convincing evidence quite on my own.

      The other two are truly habituation sites, were the residents “made tentative friends” so to speak with their primarily nighttime visitors. In fact, excellent photographic and/or video evidence, both heat-sensitive and daytime formats, exist for Specimens 2 and 3. These have not been released yet by the resident habituators pending completing of the DNA study. This, Gary, isn’t up to me–it’s up to them.

      Sample 4 (still unreported by me or anyone else) was verified as bigfoot DNA by Ketchum’s team at the time, which including me. However, she never let me see the mitochondrial results; only a single gene from the nuclear results. My take, based on only the nuclear DNA results I saw, is that indeed the creature was a bigfoot. To state that unequivocally however, based on DNA evidence alone, I cannot do. I don’t have the data.

      Sample 4 was not from a habituation site by any definition, however. Associated video and photos of the “crime scene” as it were have been posted on the internet previously, and to me these supporting data are convincing. However, in deference to the current Ketchum team, which includes David Paulides by his own admission and a Mr. Ed Smith, who I cannot figure out if or how he is connected to the current Ketchum DNA project, I will not yet release the location & circumstantial evidence surrounding Sample 4.

      I only have access to data from four samples (1 through 4), with only nuclear single-gene data for Sample 4. So that’s all I can report on, sir.

      I am one of the “culprits” who is solidly against killing ANY of these creatures, whether for scientific reasons or otherwise. This is in part because I believe we can prove their existence without killing one, and in part because they certainly appear to be at least partially “modern human”, however ancient their human mitochondrial DNA may be. Sorry for that, sir, but that’s my moral and ethical standard that is less of a principal with me and more of a feeling.

      I would probably have the same attitude if the sasquatch (pl.) turned out to be part-Ape, like the Meldrum camp believe they are.

      In the end, both camps may be correct. There indeed appears to be two entirely different haplotypes out there, and more likely three or four, each of which will have their own hybrid mixture of human and, well, “pre-human” of some kind.

      We have no control over Ketchum’s work. We have no idea what’s going on in peer review. We do know that the peer review process is not as easy as Melba believed it would be; never has been, and never will.

      Meanwhile, we’ll be off to Europe with additional sasquatch samples, in November (next month), and we’ll be dealing with a European laboratory and bevvy of scientists who do not require NDA’s, for the reasons you stated above. However, we cannot report on any results yet from this “parallel” study because it hasn’t even started.

      All the best, sir,


  34. Ken Wilson

    Good luck in Europe. Hope the pitfalls involved with studies and people in this litigious country will not follow you and your fellow researchers there. Thank you for your efforts. Are there any sites where I can see the “pancake” video. I was late getting to know about your studies. I haven’t even been able to find any mentions of said video.
    Thanks again for you and this blog!

    • The “pancake video” was for a few weeks available on-line, back in about 2006 I believe. Since then Adrian Erickson bought it and he also bought the property where the footage was taken. This was indeed one of his five or so habituation sites throughout North America.

      I have seen at least part of the pancake video footage, and I would say it is of very poor quality. It was by far the worst footage of all the other footage I’ve seen taken by Erickson and his team.

      The pancake video footage, such as it was, has been the subject of a great deal of skepticism and debunking. Its quality is in fact so poor that I think the detractors are correct in being highly skeptical about it.

      However, other footage (taken later) from the same habituation site tells me that in all likelihood the pancake video is the “real deal”. This conclusion is also supported by limited DNA data I have seen from the same site.

      None of these Erickson videos are available — not even the pancake video. They will be released as soon as we have access to supporting DNA evidence. Due to the extreme prejudice AGAINST the existence of sasquatch as an extant hominid, both parts of the evidence will be needed. Neither can stand on its own — these creatures are too close to modern humans to know for sure without such evidence.


  35. I would just like to personally thank Robert Lindsay & Richard Stubstad. Despite the fact that tere are many people like me, I’m sure, that may be growing impatient at the way these DNA studies have become bogged down. It still is extremely important and ground-breaking work and the importance of it can’t be lost in all of the politics & NDA’s that are trying to suck the momentum & significance right out of it.

    I commend the two of you on your perseverence & mental fortitude. Keep up the great work.

    Kind regards,

  36. Ladies & Gentlemen:

    I have been following some of Lindsay’s other threads, and a great deal of confusion and disinformation is being disseminated by certain parties in these that essentially maintain that either a) sasquatch doesn’t exist; or b) sasquatch is an “animal”.

    The apparent meaning of “animal” in these cases does not include Homo sapiens sapiens, but rather apes, monkeys, chimps, bears, etc. I’m not sure whether Neanderthal or Denisovan would be classified by these folks as “animals” or humans.

    I am not totally disputing a), above, that sasquatch may in fact not exist at all, but I am 97% (or better) certain that sasquatch in fact DOES exist.

    Assuming for at least a few moments that I MAY be right on that score, the second one is b), that sasquatch is some kind of animal and NOT “human” by any common definition thereof.

    To this latter point, I can say that I’ve personally reviewed (and in part paid for) the mitochondrial DNA sequencing of the entire genome of three purported sasquatch DNA samples, as detailed in my website. All three were within human ranges; not “well” within, but still within human ranges. I have carefully reviewed the other circumstantial bits and pieces of evidence associated with all three sample sites (Arizona; the northeastern USA, and another location within North America quite far from both Arizona and the northeast, and I am even better than 97% convinced all three samples came from real, live sasquatch (pl.).

    I can also report that other investigators have, over the past 10 or 15 years, conducted limited DNA studies on dozens of purported sasquatch samples, and — according to David Paulides — 95% of these came out within human ranges (all tests were done on the mitochondrial side; not the nuclear DNA). Some may have been hoaxes, but probably some were not (eg. the Snelgrove Lake, Ontario, Canada sample).

    My conclusions, which are NOT totally based on conjecture — quite to the contrary — are: A) sasquatch in all likelihood exists; and B) sasquatch is a form of human, not an “animal” by the definitions offered above.

    Of course, if Homo sapiens sapiens and all other past and present hominids are classified as “animal”, well then OK. Sasquatch, like you and me, ARE animals. But, I dare say, a rather distinct species or subspecies of animal. Namely a hominid, or a human being in the broadest sense of the word.

    Please keep this in mind when offering up “scientific” investigations into this “animal” called sasquatch.

    Richard Stubstad

  37. apehuman

    Richard there are so many threads on this on this site I am not sure which this may/may not be relevant to.
    you mentioned going to the NRDC..

    here is a link to the USFS Forest Planning Rule site:

    over 300,000 people and groups put in comments on the new Forest Management proposed rule (comments closed May 2011) will be the standard for the next ten years.

    SW Center for Bio-diversity has comments on #459… scroll down to find PDF’s of comments. I am sure the NRDC has some is searchable by commenter but not text body.

    First page of Bio-diversity comments goes to how the FS must identify resource/species needs, etc….and compares the new planning rule with past..

    it’s dense stuff.
    But, I think the Bf community should work more directly with these Public opportunities to go on the record. Not sure, but there may still be one more comment round after this Planned Rule..can’t recall and don’t want to look up. I had actually contacted the SW region in 2010…to attend the regional round tables…could get no one to go or assist…and chickened out in the end..or just plain lazy. Only so much one person can do

    I regret I didn’t at least write a letter.

    Wouldn’t it be sweet if every BFer sent in comments with their digital media or lab results/. Of course one must find the right window to jump through, most are closed.

    • Ape Human:

      I’m pretty sure going “public” in the sense of a governmental organization will actually set us even further back than we are now.

      The reason: The folks in these publicly funded groups (the military; the USFS; fish and game; BPL; whoever else too) have some higher-ups who in all likelihood already know about sasquatch, and probably who widespread (albeit rare) these creatures are as well. The rest of the folks in these organizations have either been told that sasquatch is a myth; and if and when they find out it is not a myth, they are told to keep quite about it because “it will create panic” amongst the lay public or some such excuse.

      The real reason they don’t want to deal with the factual existence of sasquatch is not panic at all, though. It is:

      a) It would add too much administration to protect these creatures; they are already over-extended with everything else, such as the spotted owl and Muslim extremists and whatever else they think is important.

      b) Since business interests actually fund the politicians, and they in turn spend our tax money, etc., these organizations will obviously protect commercial interests before sasquatch. Such as: logging; on-shore oil drilling; gas drilling; road building; and hunting.

      c) Lawmakers would probably have to create a whole new category of laws, in addition to the laws we have covering 1) animals and 2) humans. Since sasquatch is in all likelihood much closer to “human” than “animal”, they cannot apply either set of existing laws.

      d) Assuming for a moment that sasquatch is 99.9% “human”, say DNA wise or even otherwise, they cannot apply typical human laws because we modern humans are a member of an agrarian society of humans and sasquatch is a hunter-gatherer. Hunter-gathers require maybe 100 times as much land to survive, per person, than agrarians. Is this fair?

      You can see the problems here, if we don’t get the environmentalists involved on our behalf, sooner rather than later — not the forest service!

      Under a) through c), above, the best political and practical solution is to kill ’em all, regardless of their species or subspecies classification. They cannot live as a modern human; that is clear. They have to be hunter-gathers, and that requires a whole shit-pot of land, all forested to some extent at least.

      Discovery of the “subspecies” is the least of our problems. Where to go from there will be the real challenge; I say the environmentalists.


  38. apehuman

    Don’t disagree with the idea that the Gov knows and “manages” at a certain level. But, the thing about the official rule planning process is comments must go on the RECORD, where they remain forever. What BFers lack is an official record of any evidence or even opinions. We must point people to websites ans popular books or varying credibility. No, it won’t change the rule process, now anyway, but it begins the accumulation of the BF “world’s” views in an official Government document, the Federal Register and with the web now, online for the whole world to see. Again though, the real weight would be the signatures and names added to whatever evidence was presented…can I even imagine 200 BFers signing a shared comment?

  39. David

    Until there is a body all this DNA shit don’t mean nothing and it will do nothing to preserve the species. In order to prove the existence produce a body have a complete autopsy done and then it can be entered into the crypto and DNA data banks and that will prove their real. Otherwise everyone can talk till they are blue in the face because that is all it is talk. When the animal is proven to science and to the people in this USA anyone can shoot and kill them any time they want. With enough time I will produce a body and I will do more for their protection than all your talk talk talk cause that is all it is. OH I now have 22 seconds of vid from my flir scope that has shocked the shit out of my family. I am getting closer howdy apehuman did the site I turned you onto help you and far as what you were looking for. Later all.

  40. David

    Ok any of you watch Bigfoot definitive guide. Those scientists said the same thing I’ve been saying. They need a live specimen,bones,and teeth or a dead BF would ignite the scientific community. That is how these animals and the only way these animals will get laws to protect them. DNA,pics and video isn’t going to do it. Absolute Proof!!! Later

    • David:

      Be my guest; bring in a body and see what happens.

      If you can. The first thing they will check for is DNA, which will be similar to the DNA we already have.

      And then you won’t hear a peep out of “them”, whether on the DNA results or the body.

      And by the way — these forest folks are not animals unless we humans are also animals. Go ahead, then, shoot me too. For scientific reasons, of course.


  41. Gary B

    Why does anyone think these thing need protection? If one believes in bigfoot then the fact that no bodies or parts thereof have ever been presented seems to make the point moot. I think that renders the existence of bigfoot to all but impossible but if you are a believer the thought that they will be killed seems unjustified.

    • I believe there have been a number of bodies “contributed” over the past couple of decades, or more. In each case, the authorities invariably cover up the evidence, and then try to get us to believe that sasquatch doesn’t exist. One more body–unless it remains in private hands totally (not a University or any other public entity)–will also be covered up, if it is “turned in” as proof-positive.

      Meanwhile, the DNA results came from somewhere. Sasquatch DNA does not come out of thin air, or from hoaxes or from spirits or legends. Sasquatch DNA, as it turns out, has some subtle but definite difference between modern humans and sasquatch. On the nuclear side, the differences for some of the sasquatch genes are considerable.

      As I’ve said before — believe it or not — there is a 97% chance that sasquatch exists, simply based on some undocumented mitochondrial DNA results that do not exist in GenBank. Based on Samples 1 and 2, the odds are only 3% that either of these were hoaxed, or misidentifications.. Sample 3 was even further removed from the GenBank database’s closest matches.

      Good luck indeed if one of you, or anyone, turns a body into any publicly funded institution. I can almost assure you it will disappear.


  42. It is one of the mysteries of Sasquatch isn’ it? That in fact ample evidence has been produced over the years and yet never quite rises to public scrutiny. So, the weight of the evidence, for many of us, is preferable than killing. Personally, whether “ape” or “human” or a “hybrid” I find the idea of personally killing or capturing one repugnant. And, I am not so sure “proving” will result in the type of protection that would be anymore meaningful then they now enjoy through their own efforts (and perhaps Laverty helped with the Wilderness system). So, for me which is worse: continued amateur activities such as you describe David (or any of us) and the continued fueling of “hunting Sasquatch” shows as the species remains unproven, or scientists and policy makers stepping in to determine what rights they shall have as “animal primates” or a “race?” I’ m not sure, but my training as a modern human and my vote for humanity, the planet and our future I tend toward conventional science and the Rule of Law. And with that in mind, given the odd nature of the contued “Myth” and the governments “ignorance” I am motivated to see humane methods brought forth to, if not prove, raise attention to career anthropologists. Hopefully, if they are there first we shall react more responsibly (as we are now with certain Amazon tribes) than we did in 1858 – killing what? 59 adult gorillas to get at 11 infants, all but one of whom died in transit to England. We can do better today David. Read something new.

  43. David

    Read something new. I am talking fact and your DNA won’t prove shit to the scientific community and without their support.The DNA will never be entered into the data banks as any kind of animal. There is not one animal that is in the data banks that there isn’t a specimen of that is what you don’t get. These athropologists they want evidence and proof not DNA. Apehuman remember the word amature when you can live off the land and so forth well we will talk. When you go to college and earn a degree in wildlife biology then we will talk. When you get the facts right then we will talk. If I kill a male and present it not to government authorities but in a paticular may I will make history, and do more to protect the species in a day than your DNA will ever do. That is a FACT!!! Like Moneymaker unless it walks up and shakes his hand it isn’t nothing but a TV show. But he is a fake anyway just google his name and read.

  44. Skylar

    The Erickson project..Sierra kills and Dr Ketchum’s DNA studies are all unfortunately beginning to look like Hoaxes….I hope im wrong…but…..

  45. Ken Wilson

    How reliable is this Standing Character? His video is pretty compelling!

    • Known hoaxer and all of his videos are said to be hoaxes.

      • Ken Wilson

        Thank you Sir!

        • Richard here:

          Lindsay is probably right. ‘nough said on that score.

          Re. the oldest mito sequence out of the three we have, it is “L1a2” from Southern Africa, which is one of the two oldest human female origins known to exist today — 40,000 – 50,000 years old. This may well be the original mitochndral eve of all North American sasquatch; however a sample size of three is hardly adequate to know for sure.

          Good observation.


  46. Ken Wilson

    I’ve been a bit out of touch lately. What in the world is going on with the Erickson Project?? Seems that he has all but disappeared!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s