Showing posts with label Richard Stubstad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Stubstad. Show all posts

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Richard Stubstad: Sasquatch Proof Requires 100% Certainty, I'm at 97%

Richard Stubstad continues to use statistical mathematics to understand Bigfoot DNA
In case you missed it, Richard Stubstad is quite an active commentor on this blog. Especially on posts that are about him and his research. You can read our previous coverage of Richard Stubstad.

Recently we have become more familiar with his role and perhaps his opinion on the ongoing Bigfoot DNA research; Melba Ketchum's and his own parallel research.

Richard has taken the opportunity to clarify his support for Dr Melba Ketchum and further explain his statistical approach to the DNA data. Below are his own words:

1) Actually, I worked with Ms. Ketchum for almost a year. I did not make any "genetic" conclusions whatsoever; essentially, I connected the dots (the first four samples) and examined, statistically, the relationships between these using GenBank.
2) No, I do support Ms. Ketchum's work 100%. I hope she gets her paper published sooner rather than later. My point was and still is: at least two parallel studies (regardless of who is first) will be needed due to the highly controversial nature of the subject matter.
3) Really, the only thing I don't like about how she works is her secrecy throughout. I think this secrecy hurts our "industry" as it were. In fact, since she has 20-some fresh samples (relics are not yet included in her work), of course she knows a whole lot more than I do about results.
4) Secrecy to that degree, I maintain, is detrimental to our search for both the existence and nature of sasquatch.
5) I worked with Melba through the first four of her 20-some samples.
6) In the event, Sample 1's mito dna (all 16,569 pairs) came out within modern human ranges.
7) Melba and I, while being somewhat disappointed in this result agreed to test Sample 2 as well (whole mito genome again), and lo and behold Samples 1 and 2 both indicated that their mitochondrial "Eve" lived in the sub-glacial region of Europe some 15,000 or more years ago.
8) The odds of this happening using the modern human population in GenBank were less than 2%. Meaning the odds of us happening to identify a new hominid were some 98% or better. Ms Ketchum didn't notice this connection, but rather she took each sample on its own and surmised they could have been hoaxes or misidentifications.
9) Both Adrian Erickson and I pointed out to her that by connecting the dots between Samples 1 and 2 (mito only), it was definitely worth pursuing further, so Sample 3 was tested for the mito genome (full loop) next.
10) This sample indicated a sub-Saharan mito Eve from perhaps 50,000 years ago more or less; totally at the opposite ends of the human family tree, although still within modern human ranges.
11) THe number of differences between Samples 1 & 2 vs Sample 3 was about 90 pairs (almost the maximum that exist in the modern human database).
12) Still, the statistics changed by virtue of having three mito sequences instead of two, so the odds of a hoax or misidentification changed from less than 2% to 3 or 4%.
13) Erickson then funded a nuclear DNA study, which began in earnest. The first gene tested was MC1R, and the results were equally or even more astounding. Samples 1, 2 and 4 all showed the MC1R sequences to be outside of human ranges (in the database), with two of three (2 and 4) as 100% identical.
14) Sample 1 was also not within modern human ranges, but it differed from 2 and 4 by two pairs (out of 950 or so).
15) Bottom line: I am 97% certain that SASQUATCH EXISTS. I am not at all certain what its genesis is, but IT EXISTS. I am not positive of this conclusion, only 97% certain. This is evidence but not proof. Proof requires 100% certainty.

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

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Is Richard Stubstad Leaking Info about The Erickson Project?

We know Richard Stubstad as the defender of Todd Standing. Other than that we really don't know the guy and we don't know of his other contributions. He offers his contributions on his website, we can only assume he is referring to himself in third person.

Richard had absolutely no knowledge of or interest in sasquatch until the summer of 2009, when he attended a Stubstad family reunion in Kansas and his cousin Gordy called him “narrow minded” for not bothering to look into the matter. Since this insulted him to no end, he agreed to do so. Much to his surprise, the documented evidence in favor of the existence of a hominid called sasquatch (or bigfoot) was convincing enough to further perk his interest. Suddenly it dawned on Richard that the science of DNA forensic analysis had matured and had already been utilized for all sorts of scientific “proof”, including the genetic mapping of the evolutionary tree of life from a scientific point of view and the placement in this tree of life of a well-known, extinct hominid—Neanderthal man. Ergo—by obtaining DNA samples from several purported sasquai (the plural version of sasquatch—hereby officially coined) and “connecting the dots” as it were, it could be determined once and for all whether or not such a hominid actually exists—without needing a “type” specimen (a body)...

He continues on to his connection to the Erickson Project.

Within a few months, Richard made contact with Adrian Erikson, Robert Schmalzbach (“Java Bob”), Shannon Sylvia and Dr. Melba Ketchum, among others, and initiated the mitochondrial sequencing of several purported sasquatch samples through Dr. Ketchum’s DNA diagnostics laboratory in Texas. Much to his surprise, once again, the first two samples—submitted by two totally independent and disparate researchers and from research sites in two widely separated states or provinces—turned out to be intimately related to one-another, DNA-wise, making the statistical probability of two independent hoaxes or misidentifications somewhere in the 2-3 % range. Accordingly, Richard’s statistical conclusion from only having analyzed the mitochondrial (prehistoric maternal origins) sequencing of these first two samples alone is that there is a 97-98 % certainty that the sasquai indeed exist—right outside of our own back door, so to speak!

Finally our friend, Robert Linsay, reports this message Richard Stubtad.

I know most of the “players” involved in the DNA work; in fact, I have helped in some of the analyses from a statistical point of view. I have no prejudice as to whether the sasquai exist or not, but from the DNA I have seen and analyzed, I’ll give it a 97% chance that sasquatch in fact does exist (therefore no caps on the words sasquatch or the plural form sasquai).

As far as the exact race or species – I primarily have seen only some of the mtDNA sequences; that part is 100% Homo sapiens sapiens (assuming the samples I have seen are not hoaxes). Still, sasquatch could possibly be a hybrid species that is reproductively viable.

I doubt that Dr. Ketchum’s is the only DNA lab working on “Bigfoot DNA.” I believe (but don’t know for sure) that at least one, and possibly two or three others labs, are also working on Bigfoot DNA.

I favor the new hominid designation: “Homo sapiens sesqueqiencis”, in part in deference to the a Plains American Indian tribe’s spelling of sasquatch and in part in deference to the newly-discovered ability of Neanderthal Man to mate with Cro Magnon et al., thus officially Neanderthal is now called: “Homo sapiens Neanderthalensis” (with a capital “N” because Neanderthal Man is reportedly extinct).

Based on the mtDNA of several purported sasquatch samples, statistically the “sapiens” part of the above-suggested Latin name is 97% certain.

Unless the whole thing is one huge and well-coordinated hoax.

I doubt it; some of the sasquatch players who have provided confirming samples would never cooperate with one another – never in a million years.

For you skeptics, put that in your pipes and smoke it.

Check out more at Robert Lindsay's Commentary

Richard Stubstad
The Erickson Project
Robert Lindsay's Blog

Saturday, April 30, 2011

In Defense of Todd Standing

Well somebody has to do it (defend Todd Standing, that is). His mother wont return our phone calls and and his sister has denied all knowledge. The first part is a joke and the latter is true. For the record, Louis Standing was very kind and polite both times we contacted her.

No, no! Its not us, we are not in the defend Todd Standing Camp. In fact, he is one of only two individuals we continually mock here; Tom Biscardi and Todd Standing. These two controversial characters are considered hoaxers by some, and there is not much tolerance for hoaxers in this community of Sasquatch searchers. Nor should there be.

With that said, we also know how smart our fans are and they can form their own opinions. The gist of his letter is Adrian Erickson bought all of Todd Standing's films and material and that is why his site and youtube channel disappeared. We have mentioned our concern with with the Erickson project purchasing Standings materials before.

Below Richard Stubstad references our post titled Todd Standing Jumps the Shark, and takes the time to defend Todd. Let us know what you think. Without further ado...

My name is Richard Stubstad, and my rather intense but admittedly limited involvement in the bigfoot or sasquatch world is briefly summed up at the following link: Basically, what I did both before and after all the hoopla about Todd's purported "Jumping the Shark" is research at least what could be fairly conclusively researched, and either confirmed or denied.

Firstly, Todd didn't really Jump the Shark; his footage etc. was bought out and he was therefore forced to shut down his website as it originally existed. Actually, this would support the theory that many of you seem to have that he is making "tons of money" from his work (hoaxed or otherwise). I don't really know how much money he has made, in total, to-date. I do know however that his work is continuing, but now with better equipment in his possession. I also believe (but do not know for sure) that the amount of money he's made to-date is FAR less than what he has spent over the last several years on either taking real videos of sasqaui (the plural of sasquatch) or hoaxing these videos & pictures.

Eventually I purchased for a whopping $5 each all three of Todd’s videos and had a look-see myself, as did several of my "bigfooter" friends. After some time expired (a month or two after the release of Video 4), I finally called Todd up there in Edmonton and had about a one-hour conversation with him; not so much to find out whether his stuff was hoaxed or not (he’d of course say it wasn’t hoaxed, regardless) but just in case it wasn’t hoaxed, then what about some of the details that you folks have brought up, and other details no one mentioned yet? While his explanations to my questions seemed a little outlandish, well, so is the idea itself of a hominid called sasquatch, so what did I know? I for one have never seen one, or even seen anything I could mistake as a sasquatch. Ergo, does sasquatch exist? Does a wolverine exist? Maybe the former, definitely the latter, even though I’ve never seen either.

Todd and also his wife also explained to me that it wasn't even Todd's camera that he used on "Expedition 4"; it was his stepson's camera and he didn't bother to check the date on it, let alone reset the date before he departed on this purported one-man, half-cocked as he probably was.

Next, I can report what I got out of the conversation, over and above any conclusions about whether or not his stuff is the real deal: Todd is a very spiritual guy, with a whole lot of “faith” in what he calls the First Nation peoples—the American Indian tribes. He has obviously relied on the history and knowledge that these Native Americans possess, even though most of their history is not recorded in writing but rather has been passed down through oral traditions. He also relies heavily on the First Nation folks' knowledge of the wilderness, both regarded bigfoot and otherwise. Conclusion: Todd is definitely a kind-of “romantic” and is quite an eccentric, at least on European-American terms and maybe even on anyone’s terms. Having said that, I still don’t have much of a clue whether his stuff is the real deal or not—after all, once again, I wasn’t there!

I also asked Todd whether he gathered any supporting evidence during his Video 4 expedition, for example something we could extract DNA from, such as hair roots or swatches of blood. “Well, no,” Todd explained. He “didn't really believe that DNA sequencing could be carried out that would prove or disprove the existence of such a creature, so I didn't bother to look for any evidence apart from the video footage and pictures from his stepson’s camera.” He also didn't bother to cast any tracks, and in fact I doubt if he had any plaster of Paris with him—too much stuff to carry along on a one-man wilderness trek, to be sure.

I beg to differ with him on the DNA part of what he said, and I told him so. He said that he could try, this year (2011), to get some hair (with roots) at least. We'll have to wait and see, then, if he does so. He said he would, but I don’t really know if he was serious (let alone honest).

Last but not least, when the folks on the various bigfoot forums who claim to “know” that Todd Standing actually hoaxed some or all of his materials, I did check out the assertion that his purported Search and Rescue of October 2010 was also hoaxed. I did this with the help of a forensic-type friend of mine who is also peripherally into the bigfoot-associated business, and he (or she) quite easily found the following local newspaper clipping:

RCMP Report

Columbia Valley Pioneer October 22, 2010 Edition (Weekly regional newspaper)

Submitted by Staff

Sgt. Marko Shehovac

Columbia Valley RCMP

• On October 19th, Columbia Valley RCMP were contacted regarding a man who was dropped off in the back country and had not returned. The 37-year-old from Edmonton was dropped off in the Mitchell River area, off Settlers Road, approximately 47-kilometres from Invermere, on Tuesday, October 12th. He had arranged to be picked up from there on Sunday. When he failed to return he was reported missing to the police on Sunday night. Invermere Search and Rescue were contacted and while searching for the man, discovered his sleeping bag. No other equipment was located. Police were aided by a police service dog out of Cranbrook. On Tuesday, October 20th, additional Search and Rescue from Kimberley and the RCMP helicopter arrived to continue the search. At approximately 10 a.m., Search and Rescue came upon the man, who was unhurt. He explained that he had been unable to get back on time for his pick up. The Detachment would like to thank both Invermere and Kimberley Search and Rescue for their assistance in resolving this matter.

While the above newspaper clipping doesn't really prove anything about whether Todd Standing hoaxed his Video 4 or not, it does mean that at least part of what he maintains towards the beginning of the video happened, and DID in fact happen, pretty much as he explained in his now off-line Video 4. It also shows that the RCMP et. al. apparently withheld his name—unless there was, all of a sudden, someone else of the same age and hometown as Todd's, and on the same exact date who was also "rescued" in the same general area? Or: unless I'm actually hoaxing the above newspaper clipping? If you'd like a web link to this very clipping, please contact me by email ( and I'll send you the link, just in case you really are such a die-hard skeptic that you believe I'm in on the so-called "obvious" Todd Standing hoax(es) as well?

Best of luck to all of you, whether you are a bigfoot believer or not. It is certainly true that much of the existing evidence HAS been hoaxed. I personally doubt that ALL of it has. The best quality film or video evidence—the P-G Film and the Todd Standing footage—well, I don't really know for sure and I probably never will, since no DNA exists that can be associated with either.

Richard Stubstad

Ojai, California
Please read our terms of use policy.