Robert Lindsay triple-tag-teamed by Bigfoot Hunters Tim Fasano, Tom Biscardi and Java Bob on Erickson Project


This is getting good. Grab your popcorn everyone. The Erickson project and Robert Lindsay just brought more people out of the woodworks. Robert Lindsay, after posting another update on the Erickson project received some unwanted attention today. Robert quoted Tom Biscardi as being a "womanizer", not "having a good personality... he is a crass, vulgar, condescending, arrogant, egotistical and highly narcissistic man." Biscardi has never heard of Robert Lindsay or his blog before, but Tim Fasano have been keeping tabs on Mr. Lindsay.

So what did Fasano do after reading mean things about his buddy Biscardi? Fasano brought up Robert's comment to Biscardi and some other guy name Java Bob and this was how their conversation went:


WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2011

Robert Lindsay: Seprating The Truth From The Myth
A Conversation With Tom Biscardi and Java Bob
By Tim Fasano

I had a conference call today with Tom Biscardi and Java Bob about certain revelations that came out in Robert Lindsay's blog. Linday published some very interesting tid bits about the machinations going on between the Erickson Project, Melba Ketchum and Tom Biscardi. I did not contact Tom, he called me.

Tom calls me every week to keep me caught up on events and to see how I'm doing. He is a friend; I am not an associate. I am a YouTube poster and I work alone. I will go out in field when invited by others but I prefer to work alone. They say as you get older you know what works best for you and have no need to seek out superficial friendships. I welcome input, but after requiring decades to find out how my feet make contact with the ground, I like to keep it that way.

I conversation I asked Tom if he had ever heard of Robert Lindsay. He said he had not. That, of course meant he had no idea what Lindsay was bloging about him at his site. I told him, and he laughed. He called Java Bob on the phone and we had a three way (not the kind Linday is thinking of). Tom asked Java if he knew a Robert Linday and he said, "He's a blogger." Java Bob also added that he never goes to the sight because he does not want to give him any hits.


These are some of the things Lindsay claims:

Ketchum has an unfulfilled NDA With Biscardi:
"It is interesting that the Ketchum Project people attempted to trash us as being associated with Tom Biscardi. Biscardi, whatever you think of him, has been an essential element of the Ketchum Project. Many times we needed folks to run samples from wherever to Ketchum’s lab in Texas. All of these illustrious Biscardi-hating investigators could not be bothered to do so. Only Tom Biscardi would step up to the plate, and so he was used. 
Ketchum has an agreement with Biscardi to do the work on his own samples and to send him the results. She has never fulfilled her end of the bargain, hence she can be sued by Biscardi. However, Biscardi probably lacks money for a lawsuit."

Most of this is true and Lidsay does a good job of pointing out how Tom has been sending work to the Ketchum people and not to Erickson. The problem here is that Erickson has been sending his samples to the her as well. She has assumed ownership of them and gotten a Hollywood agent during this process. We all know the kind of 'check mate' she is contemplating. Lindsay is also right that Tom, and his people have been running samples to the her lab in Texas. She never has fulfilled her end of the bargain, and can be sued by Biscardi. You are wrong about Biscardi lacking money.

Biscardi was the producer of two of the most successful shows in Las Vegas last year and has even been the promoter of an Ossie Osborne tour. Guys that can do that, don't lack money. Look it up. Google is your best friend. Vegas headline shows and rock concerts make millions for the promoter. Biscardi does not need money.

Tom Biscardi - Hoaxer or not?

"After quite a bit of investigation, including an interview with Java Bob Schmaltzbach, I have concluded that Tom Biscardi is not a hoaxer. Java Bob went through a long history with me about the Georgia Boys’ fake Bigfoot body saga. It appears that both Biscardi and Java Bob were hoaxed by the Georgia Boys. Biscardi had no idea it was a fake. He was on the phone having Java Bob run tests on the thing when Bob discovered that it had a rubber foot.
It was then that that Java and Biscardi realized that they had been had. Recall that Biscardi forked over ~$50,000 for the fake dead Bigfoot. Why would he lose all that money if he was in on a hoax?
The truth is that Biscardi is not a hoaxer. Instead, he is a gullible, not particularly bright, narcissistic, showboating sort of guy who works as a Las Vegas showman. He believes anyone, so he gets hoaxed himself all the time. Biscardi also believes very much in Bigfoot, and he has 4 excellent daytime sightings and many more nighttime sightings. He has made some positive contributions to the Bigfoot field. In short, the popular image of Tom Biscardi as a hoaxer seems to be mistaken.
Biscardi does not have a good personality. He is a crass, vulgar, condescending, arrogant, egotistical and highly narcissistic man. Most people who associate with him for a while leave him because he is so hurtful. He hurts his own friends and even his own family with his callous remarks. Like many such types, he hasn’t the slightest clue about his culpability in these interpersonal scenarios. He has contempt for nearly everyone else in the Bigfoot world, who he typically refers to as bottom feeders.
Biscardi is not a Rhodes scholar, but he’s not stupid either. At best he has about average intelligence or so. He has an engaging, extroverted but brash personality."

You are right that Tom gets hoaxed and that he is not a hoaxer. However Robert Lidsay, you have never meet the man and are in no position to know his personality. You are a professional and know that personality can only be judged by first hand encounters, not hearsay. You wrote that he hurts his own family. how could you possible know anything about his six children and how good of a father he is. Tom is a great father and his children love him. When he was with me on a Bigfoot outing, his kids were always calling him on the phone. That seems like a good sign to me.

Lets see Mr. Lindsay, he, like your buddy Adrian Erickson, is smart enough to become a multi-millionaire on his own. I don't know how you measure intelligence? Its not always which California University you have an advanced degree from.

You said he is a womanizer. This is weak and way out of bounds. You say he is "one of the wildest, most out of control and notorious womanizers in the Bigfoot world." He is single and may date a women. Is that not allowed. Do you date women Mr. Lindsay or do you go the other way?

He financially ruined Java Bob Schmaltzbach.

Why were Tom and Bob on the phone talking like old buddies. Java Bob laughed at what you wrote and so did Tom. None of the lies you have been told are true. Tom has helped Java Bob get a book deal with a large advance. Java Bob is currently writing his book and is should be a best seller - so much for ruining a mans life.

Mr. Linday, you talk about things you can't possibly have any knowledge of. I am sure that is what they taught you in journalism school. Here's something you won't be able to ignore.

You stupid Erickson Project will flame out like an old drag. The science is pseudo-science and will never be excepted. Your videos are fake. Tom Biscardi has already worked that property you have in Kentucky and has a link to their outing on his webstie. You got nothing Robert..nothiing but a fake video that Moneymaker sold you for twenty grand.

Source: www.bigfootresearcher.com

Comments

  1. Biscardi The Womanizer's Best Pick-up Lines:
    --------------------------------------------
    10. Hey Baby, let's go to your place and I'll demonstrate some wood-knocking.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 9. You know what they say about a guy with a big hand and a bigfoot....

    ReplyDelete
  3. This guy creeps me out. Kinda like an obnoxious bowel movement you just want to flush and never think of again!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you mean Robert "Bob" Lindsay? if so, you're totally correct. as far as i'm concerned, he's a big pain in the ass.

      Delete
  4. hahah...tim fasano is just one big (bad) joke..the erickson project is just one big fake??? why??? because biscardi told him so!!!! biscardi!!!!! hahaha...biscardi and fasano and "java" bob...this trio of horror is better than even the best episode of two and a half men...hahaha, please do not stop, Tim....hahaha

    ReplyDelete
  5. In my opinion, Lindsay is simply a shill for the Erickson Project. I have no further intention on reposting so-called 'leaked' information...basically because the actual parties involved with the Ketchum study are under a NDA. I have been informed that, up until now, ERICKSON IS NOT PART OF THE INVESTOR GROUP. For various reasons (which I will not get into), Erickson has not been in the loop (so to speak)...but he or his associates have been spoon-feeding information to Robert Lindsay in a campaign to somehow prove their legitimacy. Like I had stated previously, some of the information Lindsay is posting is indeed true...but the context and other important facts have not been presented (yet). Stay tuned...Lon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. never ever believe Lindsay. he has more crap in his head than a fully grown blue whale does in its ass.

      Delete
  6. Quite some attitude there Shawn. In making the case that Lindsay's an ass, don't make an ass out of yourself. Kind of distracting don't you think? All I really got out of this is that you're mean as a snake. You personalize where it's not necessary. Your accusations are not backed up by much. Overt rudeness and disrespect don't make your case more. It just makes that the issue more than what you're trying to address. Your friend got slandered by a blog journalist who has by your own admittance been mostly right about the going ons in the Bigfoot scene. He has reasons to report what he does, not pull them out of thin air. Your friend got picked on and it ruffled your feathers. Yours is an emotionally based response. You have a lousy sense of humor, but at least you can dish out an obnoxious amount of sarcasm and insincerity. And maybe you're tired of no comments at your site so you're trying out your own brand of controversy. I dunno. Maybe you should make yourself more useful by making more than half ass attempts at editorial commentary on a single subject, instead of reposting the impressive work of other bloggers ... that is, whenever you're not posting phony Bigfoot videos. Tom Biscardi got a nice phone call from his son. Big deal. Java who? Is that all you got? Other than feeling offended you're lazy and unserious.
    You want you point out that Lindsay is guilty of some of the things I criticize you for, fine. You stoop lower than him and to lesser effect, so I guess it doesn't matter. Two wrongs don't make right, you unpopular hypocrite. In me you have a 5th comment. I hope you feel better now
    ! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're one to talk. You called Sahwn a hypocrite when you come off as being one by tellin' him that two wrongs don't make a right. Sounds to me that you should take your own advice since you seemed to be attackin' him.

      FYI, Shawn has every right to criticize Lindsay for the jerk he is. If he didn't do that,that Rob guy would likely go too far in bein' a lyin' prick.

      If I didn't know better, I'd say that you masturbate to Robert/Bob.

      Delete
  7. Technically, you're the 6th comment :)

    I think you misunderstood what was written, Shawn was posting what other people had said and was coming from a neutral standpoint. The paragraphs between the YouTube video and Michael Jackson was what Shawn wrote, everything else was the other people.

    As for your attacks on Shawn, not cool. This guy makes sure to attribute and link to his sources, unlike some Bigfoot bloggers out there. I've talked to the guy by phone before and he's a nice guy, he only talks positively about all the people in the Bigfoot field. As for this post, common, admit it, there is so much bickering between the Bigfoot people that it is funny. -- Mary

    ReplyDelete
  8. Looky there commenter #6, while I was writing my comment it appears that he realized you may have misunderstood him and made it clear where his commentary ends and the others begin. Looks like he pays attention to his audience, even the mean ones.

    :) Mary

    ReplyDelete
  9. The post above is by Tim Fasano, not me. Robert Lindsay is one of the best Bigfoot journalist out there, so don't expect me to say anything bad about him. Unless Robert is involved in some kind of elaborate hoax to fool us all, he has my absolute respect.

    FYI, Pageview is king here, not comments. As long as people enjoy reading this blog, I will continue to post interesting videos and articles.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good improvement, Shawn. I've been confused a few other times, especially when reading lengthy Lindsay quotes. Blocking others' text that way will be very helpful!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tom Biscardi LOL. That's a good one, Tom Biscardi. Hehe.

    ReplyDelete
  12. My stuff is not meant to be taken entirely seriously. I write a lot of this in a mock National Enquirer scurrilous style because I've never written that way before and I wanted to see if I can do it. It's all kind of a big joke in a sense, a parody, like the Bigfoot National Enquirer.

    The personalities of a lot of these BF people are completely ridiculous. The whole scene reminds me of professional wrestling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so stupid that a shit-eating troll on steroids like you still exists. you make me wish that you got aborted.

      Delete
  13. Commenter # 6 here. Unimportantly, commenter #5 hadn't posted when I started typing .. I was on and off the comp and she'd posted her comment by the time I finished. Second, it's good to be wrong sometimes. I was shocked and thought Shawn must have had a duplicitous, split personality, which in the Bigfoot world, is not cool. So the good news is I can admit when I'm wrong, the bad news is I was wrong. I slipped a detail in reading and mistook another's word for Shawn's. I'm fucking sorry dude. Most of what I wrote cannot be attributed to you but to Tim Fasano. As for this blog, I never had a problem with it until now, and now I don't have a problem with it again. I tune into it everyday, so I must like it. Shawn is an asset to the community.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Anonymous Above. It's cool :) I had a feeling your rant was misdirected, and it was my fault actually. This made me change the way I blockquote others so readers don't get confused over which one is my writing and which is other people's. Hope this helps.

    Appreciate all your comments!

    ReplyDelete
  15. "The whole scene reminds me of professional wrestling."
    Good one, Lindsay. Yes, very much so with some, especially those employing the ridiculous over-the-top dramatic and fright music for their intros and backgrounds. Expect the Bigfoot Slasher to be lurking around every bend.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Too much drama. I just want my monkey man!

    ReplyDelete
  17. "gullible, not particularly bright... He believes anyone, so he gets hoaxed himself all the time." Here, in a nutshell, we have the world's opinion of the entire community of self-appointed Bigfoot investigators. The best thing you could do for this creature is to leave it alone. But if you lot won't do everyone a favor and just quit, I would like to suggest that using spell check would be a small but achievable step towards respectability (I'm looking at you, too, Shawn).

    ReplyDelete
  18. To Lindsay, You confess and Enquirer style...something unfamiliar to you and yet you chose that style for this (actually) important story. You pulled the rug out from under yourself..the fact is Lindsay..they do exist and in numbers that might shock you. I go with estimates in excess of 5,000 and lean more toward 10,000 or more.
    It does appear however, I think it was the previous blog, that you are writing as though someone is whispering into your ear. It makes it hard to beleive the details/attitudes b/c they don't appear to be yours and yet no voice is identified for those "insights."
    Otherwise, it's the internet..and the 21st Century..old ways of keeping secrets..some in and some out, have changed. Thank God! Or bloggers who don't care if they are "in" with the Bigfoot crowd....

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi, Richard Stubstad here...

    In fact, most (but not all) of what Lindsay says about the Biscardi-Java Bob-Erickson trio is true.

    The only thing is that none of the three are linked more than as "acquaintances" at best. Only Biscardi and Java Bob were every formally linked; but they no longer are.

    Lindsay has a pretty good network of connections & information sources. He is right most--but of course not all--of the time.

    So don't sell him TOO short, just because he likes to irritate people just to see what happens.

    As far as Erickson being part of the "investor group", in fact he was one of the folks who first paid up A LOT of cash for Ketchum to test a number of well-vetted sasquatch samples, from several sites. In fact, he posted up some $60,000 (or more) as far as I understand, for both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA -- WHOLE GENOME -- testing. I would say that constitutes "an investor", wouldn't you? The problem is that Ketchum, once she lawyered up, wanted Erickson (and me, and Java Bob) to sign a different NDA than the one that originally existed between them, and to my knowledge probably still does exist.

    So, essentially, Ketchum took Erickson's money and laughed all the way to the bank.

    She did the same thing with a considerably lesser amount of my money, but I really don't care. Maybe she needs the money more than I do. Whatever.

    At least I got some (but not all) of the sequencing back that I paid for. That's at least better than Erickson made out.

    While I believe that Ketchum is still on the right track, just like WE were when we worked together through about October of 2010, I have no idea where the project has gone since then.

    And -- just for the record -- Paulides was the first to deliver a sample of what was likely a real sasquatch to Ketchum, probably back in 2007 or so. However, Ketchum used up all of the DNA on a single type of DNA test -- which in fact was published in Paulides' book, "Tribal Bigfoot". That was ALL that Paulides contributed to the project before Biscardi and Erickson delivered more samples, and at least some of the samples were tested for DNA.

    So the order of truly viable sasquatch sample contribution was:

    1) Paulides (hair), approx. 2007; one DNA test result written up in Tribal Bigfoot (a good book, by the way).

    2) Biscardi (toe nail and others, in January 2009); only the toenail was proven to be from a real sasquatch; most of the other samples were not tested as of October 2010.

    3) Erickson (several viable samples, the first two of which tested positive as sasquatch, in approx. March 0f 2009.

    4) A "four corners" sample directed by Java Bob to Ketchum in approx. April of 2009; this tested as a likely sasquatch as well.

    I personally worked with Ketchum on the data analysis of the first three of these samples. The 4th sample was also tested for mitochondrial and most likely nuclear DNA, but I only know of a single gene result on the nuclear side, which matched 100% one of the first three samples but no other in GenBank.

    After this, a whole lot of samples were provided and paid for by others, which are called "the Investors" in the above commentary.

    The initial contributors mentioned above (Paulides, Biscardi, Erickson, Java Bob, and Richard Stubstad, have been kept in the dark about all subsequent results except Paulides, who initially contributed very little, but has subsequently likely contributed a lot more.

    That's the story, folks. Sad but true. I'm not pulling your legs.

    Richard Stubstad

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?