Shocking announcement about a major Bigfoot story about to break. A source just told me this:
Here is the big news Robert, but unfortunately I can’t tell you anything more about it or expand on it. But by the end of this month, a shockwave is going to be sent through the Bigfoot community. That’s all I can say at the moment. But things are happening now that are gonna change everything.
What does he mean by that?
Why does the hair on steak from the Sierra Kills look so much different from other Bigfoot samples? Interestingly, the Sierra shooting sample displays none of the typical characteristics of what we know as Bigfoot hair.
For one, the sample has a pronounced medulla, whereas Bigfoot is suspected to have only slight to no medulla. There are guard hairs and an undercoat, but we do not expect an undercoat with primate/Bigfoot hair. There is strong tapering of the hair, whereas primate hair is usually bluntly worn instead of tapered.
In the John Green book, Sasquatch The Apes Among Us, p. 284-85, Green discussed an account from the Grangeville Idaho County Free Press that told of the story of Frank Bond from Council, Idaho. Bond claimed to have seen a pair of humanoids seven and eight feet tall and covered with silver-grey hair while he was fishing alone near French Creek on June 16, 1968.
The owner of the property, game guide and former government trapper Wayne Twitchell, checked the location and found half a dozen light-colored hairs which the newspaper sent to Ray Pinker in Los Angeles, a veteran of 36 years in police crime-lab work who was then professor of police science at Cal State University LA.
A newspaper story attributed to Professor Pinker quoted him as saying that the hairs had both animal and human characteristics, but did not match any sample he had seen. The hairs resembled animal hairs in showing a variation of color and thickness from the root to the tip, whereas human hair is uniform in color and thickness.
The scale pattern on the outside was similar to that of human hair, and there was no continuous medulla or core visible to the center as would be the case with almost all animal hairs. There were both coarse outer hairs and fine hairs from an undercoat.
All were light in color, so Green was asked to have as many known white hair samples from known local animals sent to curators in Los Angeles while taking all suspected Bigfoot hairs he could to Los Angeles to see if they could validate the Idaho sample. The tedious work resulted in the Idaho sample being the only one with the unusual characteristics.
Green then went into a long explanation that if the hairs were not plucked from the animal itself there would be problems with attribution. So the conclusion is that these Idaho samples were unidentified but with similarities to both human and non-human samples.
What is interesting is that this sample, which resembled the Sierra Kills sample in morphology, was silver-gray, as was Smeja’s.
What does the hair on the steak from the Sierra Kills look like? First of all, Meldrum is not correct that primates do not have guard hairs. Some monkeys definitely have guard hairs, especially the smaller ones, and many monkeys have underfur. For instance, the Japanese macaque survives in temperatures all the way down to -4 degrees F.
I have spoken at length with someone who has obtained a photo of a piece of the Sierra Kills steak and has studied it deeply.
Here is what he says:
The steak has hair, not fur. The hair is quite long, about 5-6 inches long. It kinky like pubic hair. While there may be some hair underneath, there is mainly just this kinky pubic hair that you can see well.
There are no guard hairs on the sample as you might expect to see on a dog, a fox or a coyote. That is, there is no second row of hairs under the main hairs where you can push under it and see rows and rows of progressively finer hair. In other words, while there may be some underfur, there do not appear to be any guard hairs. Instead of guard hairs, it looks as if there may be some sort of light underfur.
In places, this kinky pubic hair is thick, but in other places it is not. It looks like “dirty hippie hair.” It’s not greasy or shiny, but it does have a tendency to clump.
It does not resemble coyote hair in any way, shape or form. In fact, the source said that the notion that it is coyote hair is so ridiculous that he can’t believe Meldrum made that comment. The source said that while Meldrum may know anatomy and locomotion, he doesn’t know animal hair very well.
Why can’t it be coyote hair? First of all, the hair is way too long for a coyote. Nevertheless, there are some coyotes that have hair this long. But even in those cases, the consistency and shape of the hair is so different from the hair from the steak that it is “laughable,” in the source’s words.
In color, the sample does not even resemble a pale yote or coyote as many are saying. Instead, it resembles bear hair, specifically hair from the belly of a bear, more than anything else. On the other hand, this is not bear hair. Bears don’t have hair that looks like this.
What does the Sierra Kills steak smell like? Dr. John Mionczynski said it smelled like “burnt honey” and it reminded him of the smell from the Bigfoot that came near his tent one day. Smeja says that the steak smells like a coyote plus very bad human body odor, like in someone who sweats a lot and has not taken a shower in several days.
What does the baby Bigfoot shot at the Sierra Kills look like? A source who has seen the drawings from the artist who is working with Smeja for the upcoming book described it thus:
First of all, it does look like a chimpanzee. But it also looks like a little Black kid at the same time. A cross between a chimp and a Black child, if you will. It has a long forehead and eyes that are much closer together than ours are.
There is little nose line going up the face towards the eyes, and this gives the impression that the eyes are almost touching. Instead, the nose is more flat and gorilla-like. The ears are also huge, but not in proportion to the huge head. Rather the large ears are simply an affect of the large head. The overall picture is very strange-looking but at the same time, very human looking.
Questions about Ketchum’s handling of the Sierra Kills sample. People are asking whether or not the Sierra Kills sample was included in Ketchum’s study. Yes, it definitely was. They are also asking if it is possible that the sample could be contaminated with human DNA, and they wonder if all of the samples were contaminated with human DNA. A source close to the study told me that Ketchum went to great lengths to rule out human contamination of the sample.
Yet another question is whether Ketchum took samples from the steak from the surface or deep inside the flesh. The same source told me that she definitely got the samples from deep inside the flesh.
Ketchum DNA study samples were sent all over the country to a number of labs, including prestigious labs. A source told me this, and that some of the labs were highly regarded university labs. At least some samples were tested blind at eight different labs.
Ketchum not correct that my scoops are jeopardizing the publication of her DNA study. Reading about the Ingelfinger Rule under which Ketchum is trying to shut down all premature leaks about her study, we did some research on this rule. It turns that the main person who is not supposed to leak information about the study is the author or authors. In this case, it would mean Ketchum and her five co-authors. If anyone else leaks information, as a general rule, the journal will not pull the article.
Rob Alley a possible co-author of the Ketchum study. Alley is a professor in Alaska and is the author of a book on Bigfoot in the Alaska region. He is also a member of David Paulides’ NABS. However, looking at his NABS’ page, he appears to be deeply involved in the Ketchum study. In fact, not even looking at that page, we already knew from a source that he was deeply into this study. Into it in what way, I do not know. I would guess that he is one of the co-authors though.
Derek Randles on Blogtalk Radio with Chuck Prahl. This was an interesting show. Randles spoke well. We didn’t learn a whole lot of new information, other than that a piece of a rib bone with some flesh and hair stuck to it was found during the search of the Sierra Kills site in July. This bone has not yet been tested, and it is not known why the searchers felt that this is a Bigfoot sample and not from some other animal. Randles also revealed that Justin Smeja has boots with the blood of the young Bigfoot on them. These have not yet been tested either.
Randles as usual made a couple of pokes at this site. So far, Meldrum, Randles, Tyler Huggins and Bart Cutino all back up Meldrum’s story of his behavior when examining a piece of Bigfoot from the Sierra Kills. On the other hand, my source contradicts all four of these men. Both sides say they have video that will back up their version of Meldrum’s behavior. At this point, it is 4-1. While I think my source is right, I can’t be sure. For now, I am just saying let’s move on, and I don’t know what went down at that site when Meldrum was examining the piece of Bigfoot.
I also don’t understand why this is so important. Meldrum was looking at a piece of Bigfoot. We know that for a fact. While he was looking at it, Meldrum said he was neutral and was not sure what it was. Later, he came out and said he thought it was a piece of coyote. The problem here is that what Meldrum was looking at was a piece of Bigfoot. Therefore, my version, which has him saying, “This looks good,” actually looks better for Meldrum. But he doesn’t see it that way.
Randles also implied that my interview with Smeja was not in his own words. Bart Cutino more or less stated that it was a gigantic lie. Cutino’s charge is not correct. It is true that the interview was paraphrased, but Smeja states that the interview is a correct representation of the conversation that I had with him. So that settles the story. Whether or not it was paraphrased is of no consequence.
More on Matt Moneymaker and drugs. We really don’t want to beat this dead horse too much, but we continue to get reports of Moneymaker’s drug use. Ordinarily, this is not topical, but since he is such a big personality in the community, we felt we ought to touch on it.
First of all, Wally Hersom funded the BFRO for a number of years. He paid Matt a salary, but sources say that most of it “went right up Matt’s nose,” that is, he had a cocaine habit. After a few years, Hersom called up Matt and asked, “What do you have?” Matt responded, “Nothing.” Hersom figured out that the salary wasted on drugs so he quit funding the BFRO. Hersom is still mad about this. I do not think it was good behavior on Matt’s part to do this, as he basically ripped off Hersom. But that’s what addicts do, hey.
We also received information from a person on the set of Finding Bigfoot. This person affirmed the previous rumor that Matt had been too loaded at times so they could not shoot with him. The source also said that this did not just happen once or twice. Instead, Matt was “often” too loaded to shoot. I’m not sure what the community feels about this, but I think they ought to know. Bottom line is Matt has a drug problem and he’s frankly out of control. Time for an intervention?
More on Finding Bigfoot. Someone else on the set of the show (a different person from above) affirmed for us what I have always suspected, that FB is not about finding Bigfoot at all; instead, it’s just entertainment. The source said when they were picking witnesses, it didn’t matter who had the best story. Instead it was all about who had the best story for TV.
Latest rundown on samples for the Dr. Melba Ketchum DNA study.
Samples submitted: Over 200
Presumptive for Bigfoot/Yeti: Almost 100
# of Bigfoot/Yeti individuals represented: 20-28
Details of samples:
5 hair samples from Golden Ears Provincial Park in British Colombia, representing 5 separate creatures, gathered by Erickson Project.
1 toenail from Larry Jenkins in the Grand Canyon area of Arizona.
1 blood sample from JC Johnson in the 4 Corners area of New Mexico (skunk in a drainpipe sample).
1 blood sample from Crittenden, Kentucky, gathered by Erickson Project. Sample was obtained by gluing glass shards on a feeding plate.
1 hair sample from David Paulides’ NABS known as the Ulibarri sample from Hoopa Valley, California.
1 hair sample from Larry Surface in southern Ohio. Surface shot the controversial nighttime Bigfoot video that was pulled from the web recently.
1 hair sample from Scott Carpenter in the Great Smoky Mountains, Eastern Tennessee.
1 slice of Bigfoot flesh from Sierra Buttes, California from the adult male Bigfoot shot dead by Justin Smeja.
1 large sample of saliva from the Olympic Project obtained via a Bigfoot licking a camera.
1 hair sample from SE Oklahoma collected by TEXLA Cryptozoological Research, whoever they are. Description here.
1 Yeti hair sample from Josh Gates collected in Bhutan.
That is only 15 of nearly 100 successful samples. We have no idea about the rest.
Best samples: Smeja’s Bigfoot steak and JC Johnson’s skunk in a drainpipe Bigfoot sample.