The NABS’ role in the ongoing Sasquatch DNA study


Founded in 2004

I realize it’s been Bigfoot central around here lately, but all signs are pointing to a major roll out of information over the coming weeks, and rumors, intrigue, speculation, etc. are at an all time high.  I’ve never seen a frenzy like this before.

A few days ago, I emailed the North American Bigfoot Search (NABS) about their director’s, David Paulides, upcoming appearance at the Honobia Bigfoot Festival and Conference.  I knew he had close ties to Dr. Ketchum and has even handled inquiries for her about the DNA analysis she’s doing (or has done depending on who you ask).  So, I asked point blank what they plan to talk about. You can read their answer here: Updateon Dr. Ketchum’s scheduled appearance at Honobia Bigfoot Festival andConference.

In addition to that particular answer they included the following information:

In a past blog you had used the word “Erickson Project.” For clarity purposes, North America Bigfoot search did a due diligence search and found Dr. Ketchum and utilized her to start a DNA project for us. We worked with her for many months on several specimens, she was not working with anyone else at that time. Dr. Ketchum and NABS decided we wanted a cross section of samples from North America and David Paulides and Dr. Ketchum went onto Coast to Coast radio and solicited others who had bigfoot samples to participate in our study at no cost to them. Erickson along with dozens of others (Individuals and Research Groups) listened to that show and started to participate.

I had actually recognized my mistake on that particular issue a couple of weeks ago, and wrote a blog post about it (The Ketchum Report). To be frank, I’ve noticed a subtle effort on the part of the Ketchum camp to distance themselves from the Erickson Project.  I don’t know why exactly, but I’ve seen it noted and corrected a few times that The Ketchum Report and the Erickson Project are two separate entities.  I would go so far as to say that point has been stressed on a number of occasions.

Since I had the ear of the NABS, I decided to ask them a few questions I had on my mind.  Nothing too probing, just stuff I’ve been thinking about. Here are those questions and answers for your own edification.

1. Generic DNA question: Is it your understanding that DNA without a living specimen is enough for the scientific community to recognize the existence of a species?

DNA is the fingerprint of life, it is what identifies species. If DNA has been generally accepted by science as being the key identification factor of any species, why wouldn’t this be enough….If the DNA in this study is unique…

2. From an outsider looking in, there appears to be a high degree of mudslinging and discontent among a few of the Bigfoot organizations and personalities.  Would you agree and if so, what do you think accounts for this behavior?

NABS will not and has not slung any dirt, we won’t participate in that behavior.  If you look at the history of bigfoot research going back 50 years almost all of the major books had “ape” in the title. What happens to the level of sales of those books if the DNA comes back as some type of human? Most of the “Big-Name” researchers from the last 50 years have bought into bigfoot being an ape and have leveraged sales of their books, websites, TV appearances and lectures on the ape theory, what happens to their ability to generate income if bigfoot DNA comes back as some type of human? We believe that many of these researchers are quite nervous about their position going forward if their hypothesis is proven wrong. NABS does not understand why these same researchers have completely ignored what Native Americans and First Nations People have stated, bigfoot is human and it is another tribe…David Paulides went into this topic and explained our hypothesis very thoroughly in “The Hoopa Project” and Tribal Bigfoot”.

3. Some in the community have expressed concerns over the NDA issue.  There are those who have experience submitting peer reviewed material and say NDAs were never a part of their process.  I’m wondering if you can address the need for NDAs concerning this DNA study?  In particular, people have commented that this is an attempt to control the purse strings and keep all the profits.  Do you anticipate that the study will lead to opportunities to make money or is that even a concern?

Prior to coming into bigfoot research David Paulides came from a technology background. All technology projects are covered by NDA’s, they are all considered intellectual property and all have value. The bigfoot DNA project has value as hundreds of thousands of dollars has been committed to the project. The people who committed to the project have the right to control whatever portion of the information they deem necessary. The reality, when scientists deliver white papers to science journals, these papers will not get peer reviewed unless the scientists reviewing the document have the first look at the facts behind science. If people are talking about the reality and facts behind the study, then those scientists don’t have the first look and peer review does not occur. Dr. Ketchum wants scientists who are not involved in this project to give the study their stamp of scientific approval (peer review) as this will quell much of the attacks the fringe element has tried to generate.

We have all seen fiasco’s occur in the way crypto research has been handled in the past, the bigfoot DNA project will not follow that path, it will follow protocol established in the scientific community.

4. Whenever contacted about his documentary, Adrian Erickson’s response has been that he won’t release the video until the DNA is released. Given that it was the NABS that initially brought Dr. Ketchum into the project and started the DNA analysis, can you confirm that there is no contractual link between the Erickson project and the Ketchum DNA report?

We have no idea if a relationship exists or what therelationship is between Dr Ketchum and Mr. Erickson.

5. The DNA study aside, there have been a number of eyewitnesses that attribute very human-like behavior to Sasquatch.  If it is true that these creatures are more human than ape, yet not totally human, how do you think we should proceed as a society in dealing with their rights?  One would think that habitat preservation won’t be enough.  Won’t we have to take steps to ensure that their culture is preserved, as well?

We will go back to “The Hoopa Project” and “Tribal Bigfoot”. Witnesses signed affidavits to what they viewed and their signtings were recorded in Mr. Paulides’ books. The best law enforcement forensic artist in the world, Harvey Pratt was brought in by NABS to meet with witnesses and draw what they observed, it was shocking to us at the time. Witnesses described a very human looking biped, that is what Mr. Pratt drew and all of the witnesses validated the sketches in the books as what they observed. We will acknowledge that bigfoot has physical differences to the point that humans are different. If you were from a jungle tribe in the Amazon and were put in a room with an NBA player, then a first Nations person, a Chinese person and a Norwegian, the tribal member would be in total shock at the physical differences, these are the same differences you will see in bigfoot, again explained in Mr. paulides’ books.

If bigfoot has DNA confirmed as Homo Sapiens, laws are in place to protect the biped, nothing needs to be done.

If bigfoot DNA comes back as something different then us, then laws have to be written protecting the species from us….

And scene.  I appreciate the NABS for taking the time to answer my questions.  And now to step away from all things Bigfoot and get back to writing Book Five of the Oz Chronicles.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “The NABS’ role in the ongoing Sasquatch DNA study

  1. Ketchum, Paulides, and the linguistics expert would not be making the effort to speak at Honobia without a good expectation of the paper being accepted and published. The statement that Ketchum will speak about another subject if necessary is just defensive. These guys are bursting. The only question is if they have already passed through a preliminary objection to their paper and made revisions; I’d say they have.

    An enterprising person would check publication dates for likely journals. If the results don’t leak before the sell-by-date, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle.

    • Yeah, as I indicated in the post, I think it’s weeks away as opposed to months.

      I think the entire BF community is about to pop. If this turns out to be nothing, Prozac sales will go through the roof.

  2. Here’s a quote from the Nature site…

    ‘Material submitted to Nature journals must not be discussed with the media, except in the case of accepted contributions, which can be discussed with the media no more than a week before the publication date under our embargo conditions. We reserve the right to halt the consideration or publication of a paper if this condition is broken.’

    A press release precedes publication, so that journalists may contact the authors.

    the link, http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html

    What I’m doing here RW, is trying to look at the machinery of publication. But if you check Paulides’ site, he’s in the field until 8/23, so maybe everyone can chill out for a few more days.

    • Yes, the fact the NABS site is on hiatus and that Erickson did his first interview in months and that Dr. Ketchum has changed her Facebook photo to what looks like a publicity photo has not gone unnoticed. Derek Randles and Justin Smeja have both seemed to go quiet on BFF, as well. It appears the major players in this event are gearing up for something.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s