Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Erickson What?! Its called the Ketchum Study! Sasquatch DNA Drama Continues

** UPDATE: Please read the correction supplied by Richard Stubstad on Apr 8, 2012  in the comments below.

 A couple of comments from Richard Stubstad indicate Dr Melba Ketchum as the "Official" lead on the Sasquatch DNA research. It is now called the Ketchum Study. Whenever Stubstad refers to the Erickson Project Ketchum Study, "Ketchum" is in quotes. We don't know why. It could be the internet equivalent of underlining her name three times, with arrows pointing to the name.

In a post we did earlier about Dr Meldrum titled, "Meldrum is Interviewed by NPR and is criticized by Wired Magazine" Stubstad responds and breaks the news of the new title of the Sasquatch DNA research:
 "I have discussed with Jeff Meldrum some of the DNA findings and conclusions I reached early on in the "Ketchum" study (as it is now called).
I did not hear the interview, but I think he is extremely intrigued about the progress that other scientists have made in the discovery process, now in terms of complete DNA genomic sequencing.
While neither Meldrum nor I am in possession of irrefutable proof that "sasquatch exists" as a new hominid or subspecies of an existing or past hominid, we do have compelling evidence that this is so -- far beyond the footprints, Double-pleaked normal Distribution of footprint lengths and widths, dermal ridges, and questionable video and film footage.
The latter is at least possible to hoax; but not DNA.
Richard Stubstad
Dec 28, 2011 12:38:00 PM 

In another comment to the post, "Robert Lindsay Gives Biscardi Benefit of the Doubt." Richard offers Biscardi's early role in the Erickson Project Ketchum Study:

Your take on Biscardi is probably correct. It's all about publicity (he's from the Las Vegas show scene, you know?).
Java Bob once told me that Biscardi's MO is: "bad publicity is better than no publicity at all".
The interesting thing is: Now and then he is correct; using the "saturation" method, he's bound to be.
We (that is, an ad-hoc group as the proverbial "we") are currently collecting potential sasquatch DNA samples for a so-called "parallel" study by a non-North American research lab. We have about a dozen samples so far, and we are (of course) vetting these samples before accepting them into the study. Guess who provided the first sample -- once again? Biscardi, that's right. Our vetting procedures indicated his sample was likely from a sasquatch (75% certain; we can't do any better than that without first doing DNA sequencing).
For the "Ketchum" study, he also provided the first samples for the currently ongoing project. Out of five samples, only one tested positively certain as being a hominid other than typical modern human or chimp, etc.
Some of the others were not tested; one may also be from a sasquatch; I just don't know, since it was never tested (to my knowledge).
By comparison, Erickson submitted six DNA samples to the "Ketchum" study; I know for a fact that the first two of these were both from "an unknown hominid", as it were. I have also heard the other four were equally viable -- and non-modern human.
The moral of the story is: Some folks do their homework well; some do not. Both manage to contribute to the state-of-the-art come hell or high water.
Richard Stubstad
Dec 28, 2011 12:27:00 PM

You can go to Richard's Website


  1. I use "Ketchum" in quotes because it started out as a collaboration between several researchers, including Ketchum, and most of our purported sasquatch specimens were sent to other labs for various kinds of DNA sequencing.

    What ended up happening is that Ketchum found out (through yours truly and a geneticist that was involved from the beginning) that we were actually on to something very, very important, so she "lawyered up" with a deal that the hired gun(s) who specialized in litigation would only benefit if Ketchum made money, so the rest of us who were in from the very beginning -- and in fact got her pointed in the right direction -- were pretty much jettisoned in the interests of and advise from her attorneys.

    Even an extremely well-qualified geneticists was canned for no good reason at all; this was indeed a shame because she DID have a Ph.D. in genetics and was really very, very good. In the event, Moneymaker reported that one of the reasons her first submission to a peer reviewed journal was turned down was lack of a "zoologist" and -- I dare say -- geneticist on the research team.

    The first rejection also mentioned (according to Moneymaker) lack of a "scientifically verifiable hypothesis". Of course, I don't know which hypothesis Ketchum came up with (I had heard about quite a few of these early on) at the end of the day, but really no hypothesis is needed at all. All we have to show are differences between known hominids and sasquatch (or the Yeti, I suppose) without further comment.

    It is also important to show similarities, both on the mitochondrial and nuclear sides, to both existing and extinct hominids, including what are known as "modern humans".

    Obviously, the relationship between sasquatch specimens and DNA and what are known as "archaic hominins" should also be closely examined for further clues.

    Richard Stubstad

  2. A slight correction:

    "pre-vetting" of the Biscardi sample revealed a probability function that amounted to a 75% odds in favor of this sample coming from a sasquatch.

    Subsequent vetting, this time under a microscope and comparing with other (hair) samples came out 90% probable, not 75%. This was done by Shannon Sylvia, the industries best "vettor" in my humble opinion.


    1. Thank you for the correction. I have added an update to the post indicating your slight correction provided by your comments.

  3. Another very interesting article!! Keep up the great work!!!


Let's keep the language clean, keep in mind we have younger fans and we want to make this the best bigfoot website for bigfoot news and bigfoot research.

Please read our terms of use policy.