Erickson Project: Two Bigfoots Shot Dead, Legal Wrangling Over DNA and Death of Subjects

Things are heating up over the Non-Disclosure Agreement deal participants of the Erickson Project supposedly signed. It's a long story, but this all started when Robert Lindsay reported on Richard Stubstad's Sasquatch DNA "leak". And just last week, Robert scooped up an unbelievable story about two Bigfoots shot dead by a bear hunter.

The Erickson project somehow got a hold of the tissue samples and we're now waiting for the DNA test results to come back from Dr. Ketchum. Some of the participants who were kept in the dark are now stepping forward, and lawyers are gearing up for what seems to be a much bigger battle over the DNA test results and how it was acquired.

Read the conversation below between Richard Stubstad, Alex Hearn, and Robert Lindsay:

Peter Byrne
July 4, 2011 at 11:18 AM
THE TWO BFOOT BODIES SIGHTING/FINDING/SHOOTING STORY?
BUNKUM!
I’LL TAKE BETS ON IT.
PETER BYRNE.

Richard Stubstad
July 4, 2011 at 2:53 PM
Peter:

Never met you; nice to hear from you man! That is, you Grand Old Man.

I already bet Dr. Melba Ketchum that neither of these kills were the real deal; but rather the typical hoax. However, our bet was more out of principle than to earn any significant cash–a $2 bill (two ones just won’t cut it).

Since I’m already on her scheiss list (if you know German), I haven’t hear from her–one way or the other–how her testing of the first “kill” sample came out, except the mito was Homo sapiens sapiens. Other samples she has tested that were in all likelihood the “real deal” also tested 100% “modern” human; however I doubt if ANY of her nuclear testing came out 100% human. However, I still don’t know that–I’m only surmising at this point, and not totally with blinders on either.

Good luck to you, sir!

Richard Stubstad

Richard Stubstad
July 4, 2011 at 11:30 AM
Hey, ‘ol buddy Robert L.!

I hate to differ with you, but in fact the chart you listed is for the mito DNA, not the nuclear. Here is the correct mito chart, somewhat enhanced, in terms of distance from the Cambridge Reference Sequence, the CRS (roughly):
CRS = Zer0 Polymorphisms
Typical (isolated) African tribe = 80
Neanderthal = 200
Denisovans = 400
Chimp = 2,000
Sasquai = Between 10 and 90 (based on only three complete sequences)

In all cases above, the nuDNA is MUCH further away from the CRS (assuming they even have the nuDNA for the CRS) for each and every one on the above list. This is because, among other reasons, there are literally millions of DNA bases in our nuDNA while there are “only” 16,569 in our circular mtDNA genome.

While Adrian Erickson may have more updated information than I do, I kind of doubt it. As I said before, during the part of the Texas DNA study I was involved in, to my knowledge at least Adrian didn’t get ANY DNA information from Dr. K whatsoever; everything he knew, though, about the sequencing HE paid for, I shared with him because we have an NDA (Erickson and I) that allows us to share such information.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that’s the extent of my own knowledge at this point. I would point out, however, that FURTHER mtDNA testing may have revealed yet another “haplotype” of sasquai that ARE that far away from the CRS. If Erickson or someone else knows about this, however, I sincerely doubt that they have the data to support this claim, which was likely verbally transmitted, if at all.

I’ll believe it when I see the DATA on the mtDNA side. On the nuclear side, I absolutely believe the 37% of the way report; but not the 750 pair part. The differences on the nuclear side should be in the thousands or tens of thousands, not just in the tens or hundreds.

Lastly, while your write-up on what may have actually happened during the shooting incident, it is STILL just a story, at best third-hand. Also, as you point out, the story changes from time to time, so WHO KNOWS, really?

Personally, I don’t believe it but it may be true, I admit. Maybe I just don’t WANT to believe it. For sure, it does NOT match a sasquatch MO–eg. “running towards the truck, waving her arms”. A “normal” sasquatch Mom would IMMEDIATELY head into the bush and TAKE HER YOUNG AWAY AND HIDE. They are simply NOT confrontational.

Some day soon, I will visit my son in Truckee & take a drive up there to see if the terrain etc. matches the idea that “they were stuck on the roadway” & had nowhere else to get in our out.”

I’ll let you know–all of you.

OaO,

Richard Stubstad

Alex Hearn
July 4, 2011 at 1:40 PM
Robert, Richard is part of the Erickson Project, in as much as he has an NDA with Erickson. If he is speaking here, then it is with Adrian Erickson’s blessing. It’s not a leak! It sounds like you guys are playing some kind of game and are both in bed with Erickson. So basically this sounds to me like some kind of propaganda page and or disinformation page being put out by Erickson. Are you doing this knowingly, or have these people tricked you? Erickson’s reputation in the research world is kind of speckled to say the least. I’m not sure why, I know very little about him, and on the surface his quest seems honorable. However those people that have the other opinion must have their reasons, wouldn’t you say?

AGAIN: Anything Richard is saying, must have been allowed to be said by Erickson, because Richard has a NDA with Erickson. NDA=NONE DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT.

Richard also had an NDA with Melba Ketchum, when he was helping her with what ever he says he was helping her with. So, even if that NDA ran out now, and he refuses to sign another one. When he was working for her, it was valid! So morally he is wrong to speak about anything he learned from her or about her samples. Even if he thinks, because it ran out, that he can speak about her data and samples now, he may not be able to. The correct and moral thing to do would be to not speak about it, of course, but it may even still be a legal issue too. I have never seen that NDA, but anyone that is speaking about this stuff when they have been asked not to, is very evil and very untrustworthy if you ask me.

Please make sure this conversation doesn’t drift to any of the Data from the sample that I have helped contribute to Melba Ketchum’s DNA study on behalf of it’s owner. I have already explained to Richard that I and the owner of the sample, do not want him talking about our sample and any DATA that comes from it. He has no right to speak about it, show pictures of it, or show pictures from the property that it came from either. Unless he has a contract that allows him too talk about this data, or these pictures directly from the owner. They are the owners property and not his. We have revoked those rights from him, even if he did have a contract. He refuses to remove the pictures of the sample from his webpage, and continues to speak in public. Even the data he paid for, is property of the sample owner and is not his, he paid for it on behalf of someone else. Again the person I am working for has no contract with Richard, so Richard has been requested to stop speaking about the DATA as it pertains to that sample. If that is what he is speaking about, then he needs to show us all a contract with the sample owner, that gives him this right. Otherwise both you and he may be in copyright violations, at the very least.

Robert best wishes, to you. Maybe you’re not as evil as these men? I guess we will soon know. This will also be posted in my blog, on Facebook in my notes and on various other sites. Like Allan R’s who you also visit, in case you see fit to delete it here.
–
Alex ^¿^

Robert Lindsay
July 4, 2011 at 4:26 PM
Hello there.

I do not believe that any of my informants, and I have a few, are violating any kind of NDA’s with anyone. This comes up a lot. I ask questions, and people say, I have an NDA about that, and I can’t talk about that. Or I ask if I can quote that, and they say yes, or quote this but don’t quote that, or don’t quote anything having to do with so and so, or don’t quote anything, or quote me as anonymous, or this or that. There is a lot of stuff I heard but can’t report on because it’s off the record (OTR) and I’m not allowed to talk about it. Anyway, if anyone is violating any NDA’s, that is their problem, no?

I’ve never met or spoken to Adrian Erickson in my life, but he is definitely one of the people who everyone always says, “Don’t quote anything having to do with Erickson!” Erickson is not behind any of this. I assumed he would hate me for telling me this, but I was told that he does not. This was very surprising to me, as I’m a bit afraid of him myself! Erickson was concerned, and you can quote me on this, that I was using too broad of a term for “Erickson Project.” Adrian wishes to define “EP” as a very minimalist organization – Adrian, Leila Hadj-Chikh and Dennis Pfohl, and that’s it! Everyone else involved with them, including Melba Ketchum, is “not part of the EP.” I think that’s ridiculous, and I refused to run a retraction. Ketchum is listed on their page as doing their DNA work. She’s not part of the EP? GMAB! I think Erickson is doing this for legal reasons. He also wanted it made clear that the EP had nothing to do with killing 2 Bigfoots or with their bodies. True, but the EP did DNA test flesh from dead Bigfoots. I assure you that this is not part of some disinfo project on the part of Erickson. I actually think he is above that sort of thing. He is one of the few folks in this game who is not motivated much by ego from what I can tell.

I speak very little with Dr. Ketchum. She is not easy to talk to, often demands retractions, makes veiled threats, etc. She has told me things, but generally wishes them OTR, and I honor that.

I am also very much aware of your sample that I referred to in an earlier post. I know a lot of things about it, but I could not report on them yet because it was all OTR!

And you just threatened me again, so I am going to have to ban you again, unfortunately.

Alex Hearn
July 4, 2011 at 1:59 PM
Looks like I may have missed a typo or two, please forgive me – OLD EYES!

Richard Stubstad
July 4, 2011 at 2:23 PM
Alex & Robert:

No, I didn’t speak to Adrian Erickson about my answer to Roberts post, above. Also, I do not believe that Robert’s post is totally correct, while it may be partially correct–I can’t really know anything about that “kill” because the information is fourth-hand AT BEST.

Regarding “me” refusing to sign a continuing NDA with Melba–not true. SHE is the one that refused to sign the SAME NDA we had originally, albeit with extended dates. I was the FIRST to offer her an amended NDA, which again was essentially the same NDA we had before, but with at least a year’s extension on the cut-off date (more if needed).

What she offered me instead, obviously didn’t come from her. It came from one of her string of lawyers, as you will see below. Alex, my lawyer (now I didn’t start this adversarial legal business–she did) not only advised me to NOT sign her “new and improved” NDA; but also that it wouldn’t be valid even if I did. He advised me further that her attorney, not her specifically, was a dangerous person and all her current approach would lead to was the ultimate failure of her project–for LEGAL (litigious) reasons, not scientific ones.

Having said all this, I’m still not absolutely sure this was the reason we had a falling out. The falling out may have been due to our disagreement over this purported kill, or kills, here in the Sierra’s of California that Robert Lindsay has reported on here. While I heard the same stories (more or less) he reported, I never said anything because I still don’t believe it. In any event, I was totally against such a kill (if true, this was MURDER) while Melba thought it was A-OK “for scientific reasons” to kill one of these noble creatures. I then asked her, “well, what’s the difference between Biscardi telling you he would kill one if he could and you condoning such a kill now, all of a sudden?” She answered that, “I want it done for scientific reasons and Biscardi wants it done for publicity.” I told her that wasn’t enough of a difference for my ethical standards–especially since we agreed from day one that our plan was to protect, not kill, these creatures. In other words, I told her, we wanted to get this project completed without any killings, not with a killing.

That was pretty much the last time I ever heard from her, except to hear that the mito from the purported kill was “human” and therefore she felt she had won the bet we made (a $2 bill, out of principle, not for profit).

I sure hope she has to pay up; I guess I may find out some day. I know NOTHING about the nuclear DNA of this purported kill–which obviously would either prove her to be the proud winner of a $2 bill; or conversely she found out the mito was ALSO 100% modern (not ancient) human and therefore probably from a cadaver at a mortuary as I suspected (or hoped).

As far as the rest of your arguments go, Alex, we can take those up off-line, since I’ve never said, to Robert or anyone else, that “your” client(s) have anything whatsoever to do with anything at all I’ve reported on.

Finally, I have NOT reported any actual sequences; only some generalities. If MELBA had signed THE SAME NDA we had before that expired in October 2010, but with an extension, I would have NOT reported on any of these findings. Furthermore, they are my OWN findings that I passed onto Melba–in good faith–after which for whatever reason, she threw ME out, and not the other way around. Of course, she could do so since we had no NDA any longer, but only at her own peril. SO SAD !!!

Here is Paragraph 2 of the NDA her attorney wanted me to sign instead. Did YOU sign such a ridiculous and unenforceable NDA, Alex?

“2. Ownership of Research Results. Assistant agrees that Researcher shall be the sole and exclusive owner of any and all discoveries, ideas, concepts, inventions, know-how, systems, methods, processes, scientific testing results, proprietary information and data, and other things of value conceived, reduced to practice, expressed in a tangible medium, or made or learned by Researcher, whether alone or with others, in connection with the Research (jointly and severally the “Results”). Assistant further agrees that Researcher shall be the sole and exclusive owner of all intellectual property rights and other rights, arising out of, in connection with and/or relating to the Research and Results, including, without limitation, all copyrights, patent rights (including all divisions, reissues, reexaminations, continuations and extensions thereof, and all foreign equivalents thereof), trademark rights, goodwill, know-how, trade secrets, industrial rights, and moral rights (jointly and severally the “Rights”) Assistant irrevocably waives the enforcement of any and all moral rights which may have accrued to Assistant. In addition, Assistant agrees to cooperate and do any and all lawful things requested by Researcher necessary or useful to ensure that the ownership by Researcher of all Research, Results and Rights is protected. As the sole and exclusive owner of the Research, Results and Rights, Researcher shall have the sole and exclusive right to exploit the Research, Results and Rights worldwide in any medium, whether now known or hereafter existing, without any monetary, compensatory, attribution, credit or other obligation to Assistant.”

Dr. Melba Ketchum
July 4, 2011 at 10:33 PM
Richard and the others backing him,

I am really enjoying all the fiction being posted,it is laughable. I don’t even care what you say because you have no data to know anything at this point and all you have is guesses. I know where your messed up info is coming from now also so be not deceived. However, Richard, you are lying and misquoting me which like I say is entertaining with one exception and that is saying I am pro-kill for any reason whatsoever. I am publicly calling you a liar. I have literally thousands of clients and many friends who would tell you I wouldn’t even spay a pregnant animal or euthanize anything that had any hope for survival. I love all living creatures and would never advocate a kill. I really feel sorry for all of you egotistical, greedy, and emotionally ill individuals. I guess you are saying this to give credibility to your threat to “make me the sorriest woman on the planet”. Yes, of course that got back to me too. Let’s just tell it how it is. You are ticked off because I didn’t want to be a part of your money making scheme because the two of you were unethical and you are angry that I distanced myself from you even though I offered an NDA with more teeth since you violated the first one blatantly prior to the offer of the second NDA you took offense to. The way you are living is not how life should be lived. Just remember you reap what you sow. I hope you are all blessed in spite of your hatred and bitterness.

Dr. Melba S. Ketchum


Richard Stubstad
July 4, 2011 at 11:13 PM
Melba:

Nice to hear from you again, albeit in a slightly different forum. I still plan to pay you–if I lose–those two bets we have for a $2 bill (each); unless they cancel out, of course. Still, though, I expect to collect on both bets (do you recall them, exactly?).

I realize your lawyer told you to offer me the second NDA, since it was written in “legalese” and not either of our “laymen’s” language. As I said, though, my attorney advised me otherwise, so sorry–thanks but no thanks.

Are you now denying that you told me, when I told you I hoped that “Sierra kill” was false or a hoax, you said, “I hope it isn’t”? Then I said why, to which you said, “because it is for science”? Isn’t that advocating a kill, or do you actually deny saying this?

When I then asked you what the difference is between Biscardi advocating a kill and you advocating a kill, you said, “because I’m advocating it for scientific reasons, while Biscardi is just showboating (or some such), or doing it for publicity?” You know I didn’t agree with you (about the Sierra kill(s)). Is THAT what turned you off, Melba?

Please confirm or deny.

Are you also saying that the data for the mtDNA sequencing for the first two samples were incorrect? I understand from you that they were sequenced by an excellent “subconsultant” lab. Were the sequences therefore incorrect? Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying my statistical analyses were incorrect?

Thanks, and good luck on those $2 bill bets (or at least one of them). As I said, I’m willing to pay–and I will do so–if I lose. I know you can’t say anything yet about winning or losing these!

Richard

PS: I don’t know who you mean by my “backers”. No one is backing me. I can take care of myself, thanks.