Tuesday, December 13, 2011

The Erickson Project hair samples tested positive for Bigfoot DNA?

Four samples from the Erickson Project sent
into Ketchum's DNA project.
All reportedly tested presumptive for Bigfoot.

Below are photographs of hair samples from the Erickson Project taken from locations near Golden Ears Provincial Park, British Columbia. According to team member Randy Brisson, four samples from the Erickson Project were sent into Ketchum's DNA project and all reportedly tested presumptive for Bigfoot. A quote by Brisson from The Crypto Hunter's Facebook page says:

"The DNA Has already been done on this, Melba has many Samples from me, This is Sasquatch, I have Hair from many Sasquatch, all DNA Done."

- Randy Brisson
Bigfoot hair from the Erickson Project gathered in Canada in 2008.
Bigfoot hair from British Colombia via Randy Brisson.
Bigfoot hair from Golden Ears Provincial Park, British Columbia.

According to Robert Lindsay, Randy Brisson is a known hoaxer, but sometimes hoaxers can be right too.

One of the problems with these samples is that Randy Brisson is, in my opinion, a hoaxer!

He has released a photo of a purported Bigfoot hiding behind a tree that I feel must be a hoax. Only the head is popping up from behind a tree stump.

Further, Brisson has a terrible reputation with his peers. They come up to the park where he researches and go out on expeditions with him. Brisson reportedly falls behind and then starts throwing rocks at the group. After, he comes running breathlessly up from behind yelling, “Did you see that? A Bigfoot was throwing rocks at us!” (LOL).

He was reportedly caught red-handed a few times and told to knock it off, but the irrepressible fellow kept doing it anyway. Eventually most folks just stopped researching with him due to his antics.

What’s odd about this is that a known hoaxer has also managed to come up with some good evidence. This is not unheard of in Bigfoot circles, where hoaxing is epidemic anyway.

- Robert Lindsay

27 comments:

  1. Gee really that's what happenes to many of these so called BF researchers, they actually do have a sighting then spend the rest of their life trying to make it happen again, when it doesn't they need to fieed the fix of all these subscribers who keep egging them on everyday with their comments. So what do they do they start manufacturing evidence using their kids and best buddies to play bigfoot for the day. These guys are in it for fame now they want to maintain this confidence their subscribers constantly feed them so they make stuff up and they eat it up it becomes almost to much for these guys they need to constantly feed the Lion or they leave to some other guy who produces more red meat for the hungry hungry SUBSCRIBERS !

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's amazing what a BF researcher will do when you have this ravenous horde of Subscribers telling you day in and day out how great you are. Plus you soon find out they have plenty of cash and are willing to spend it on YOU ! Need a new HD camera, how about some new duds, electric bill not paid, Well there you GUY ask your Ravenous Horde they'll buy it for you ! All you Need is Some Wild and Crazy Bigfoot Footage to get them Rilled up !

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course there is a question mark at the end of the title of the article. At best, DNA testing will be labeled as "inconclusive." Forget DNA testing. It's another dead end waste of time. Collect a specimen.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bleached blonde Barbie Bigfoot !!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sometimes trying to wade through supposed hunters, supposed evidence and supposed DNA results, it feels a bit like having Kim Kardashian teaching us Algebra. She might possibly get a principle or two right purely by accident, but in general it'll be a sketchy source. I'm not sure who I would trust in the BF world except perhaps someone who has a reputation that is dependent on not saying asinine things and being an over the top character, like Jeff Meldrum, or Sarmiento, people who have a job that depends on their reputations.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Right trust those guys who never seen a Sasquatch, that just sit around on the Computer, or do you trust someone who knows the Sasaquatch and has Hair Samples, We know for a fact that the Hair Samples are thr Real Deal, We are on facebook, These pics are also Copyrighted Pics Taken off of facebook, The DNA was all done on this, Melba K also said so on his facebook, No more lies Lindsay.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would have to agree with the last post on this, This guy is a Great Researcher there in B.C.
    Have talked to many who know him and his Son.
    These People talking are Jealous, The ones talking have nothing to show, after years of been in this, They live close to him, and will backstab him. when the truth comes out do these people need to get a Lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Presumptive of Bigfoot"?

    That doesn't even make sense since we have no real proof of Bigfoot to begin with. Presumptive of nonhuman primate is a different matter.

    I'm with Autumnforest, singling out this guy and labeling him not trustworthy is like exonerating so many others with bigger names who are even less trustworthy.

    I too put Meldrum on the top of my trust list.


    Scott McMan
    Ghosttheory.com

    ReplyDelete
  9. The sixth comment is by Randy Brisson.

    Randy, I can see that you can't write a single decent sentence in the English language. You can't spell, punctuate or use grammar properly. You even describe Melba Ketchum, a woman, as a man.

    Your photo which appeared in the Russian press is a FAKE. Full stop, end of story. The BFRO conducted an investigation and determined that it was a FAKE. You lied about the location of the photo, saying it was near Pitt Lake, in fact, it was taken right next to the campground.

    A number of people saw you throwing rocks on your field trips. The rock throwing only happened when you were around. Then you would come running up and say a Bigfoot did it.

    The photos of copyrighted to Facebook? Really? I didn't get them off your site. I got them off Cryptohunters.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well I see Fasano's posting again...as the second Anonymous comment...sigh....

    ReplyDelete
  11. Scott:

    Ketchum has apparently identified a DNA sequence that is more or less shared by many of the specimens sent in. It is a long ways off from human, but it is a primate sequence. 28 specimens matched for this novel sequence. I believe Ketchum's paper will identify this sequence as "Bigfoot."

    The sequence is apparently a marker for Bigfoot in the same way that human sequences and red fox sequences mark out Homo sapiens and the red fox as distinct entities.

    The Bigfoot DNA is then some sort of a fingerprint.

    And: No tolerance for hoaxers. Randy has been caught hoaxing a couple of times already. He needs to be called out on that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Woah...go easy on the bleached blonde comments please. :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gentlemen prefer blond Bigfoots.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am curious how we get such a large hair sample. Anyone care to explain that? And why do I not see roots in those (poorly taken) photos?

    There must be a design for a hair trap or snare, but I am having no luck in finding it online anywhere. Clearly this is more than can be had from hanging strips of duct tape...

    ReplyDelete
  15. Seems Jeff Meldrum, Melba Ketchum, are his Good friends on his facebook Page, What does that tell you, Not trustworthy LOL, he has the goods, Wait and see, We see his facebook, and great stuff on there, He said DNA done, Backed up by Melba Ketchum, on there. This guy knows more about Bigfoot than anyone, Meldrum knows little compared to him, Ask many out there they will agree.

    ReplyDelete
  16. All you have to do to gauge Randy B's credibility is look at the pictures he has posted. Absolutely absurd. It is also not hard to find accounts of hoaxing activity by Randy that was witnessed by very credible individuals. Randy may have witnessed the real deal and he may have bona fide evidence as well, but his reputation is pretty much wrecked. Nothing he claims or submits should be paid any attention to.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It is not fair to compare Dr. Meldrum and Randy Brisson. Randy likely knows much more than Dr. Meldrum related to interactions with the species, habits, and behavior. These things are not Dr. Meldrum's concern and he focuses on where Bigfoot "fits" in the Biological world. For example Randy may know what Bigfoot prefer to eat- while Dr. Meldrum explains a very long "gut" allows them to digest foods humans can't. Randy finds the evidence and then Dr. Meldrum explains what it means on a larger scale.

    The fact Brisson has been attacked by the man everyone in the research community wants to stay far far away from, that being Robert Lindsey, only adds to his credibility in the eyes of most people. The statement that he is not respected by his peers is clearly made up- as his peers would never speak with Robert Lindsey.

    Brisson is regarded as one of the top researchers in the world, ask those who research the Yaren and they will tell you. Randy has a sense of humor and will try and scare expedition members early on to see if there are any who should not continue. One woman was very greatful and decided not to continue saying she will be jumping at any little thing and miserable.

    Consider the source of the criticism and you will see the same jealousy you see when he attacks others who have actual accomplishments in this field.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If the sixth comment is indeed from Randy Brisson then one thing is crystal clear- this is the most powerful quote of the day.

    ReplyDelete
  19. That is indeed the most powerful quote of the day. We're thinking about doing a post on it if we can very it was really him =)

    ReplyDelete
  20. To Grant in Iowa

    Heavy duty exterminator strength glue pads used to catch giant rats- in some places you would think they are cats. Nail them to trees very securely- 5 nails each side- then pull off the plastic to expose the glue- just bushing against it would leave alot.

    Also if you find a deer, or elk carcass and find bigfoot prints around- do not assume all the hair is from the dead animal because of the color.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Blondie, I agree with you that the second anon was once again Fasano. He just can not stand to read these post and not comment about money matters. LOL
    P.S You would think he would learn.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Robert,

    Without a specimen to back up DNA "evidence", officially naming something as "Bigfoot" is reckless.

    While I'd love to say yes, it is Bigfoot, there is something missing and it's the most important part, the body.

    Ketchum knows this and I think that is part of her apprehension to go all in and splash a big report out to the scientific community.

    Of course you have the contacts to her camp. I'd certainly love to know how she intends to get around that problem.

    As for Randy, I am not defending him but merely pointing out that others can easily be cast in the same light.

    Scott McMan
    Ghosttheory.com

    ReplyDelete
  23. The gold plated proof of a new specimen should arguably be a specimen in good condition plus Dna in good condition. A new species can currently be named without Dna as in a fossil. But this practice has led to mistakes being made where identities have been wrongly given, such as the young and adults of fossils shown as different species. Even where there is an unfossilised specimen wrong identification has been made only being resolved by later Dna analysis

    Denesova man was a few bits of bone not particularly different from any other bones which meant nothing. However Dna results were unique and this allowed a new species identification.

    This is part of the case for allowing species ID base on Dna even where there is no body. Possibly some provisional identity should be given even if this is only a number and name.

    A good specimen is of course hughly desirable but Dna will do, more so if there are multiple samples with the same but not identicl Dna.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The gold plated proof of a new specimen should arguably be a specimen in good condition plus Dna in good condition. A new species can currently be named without Dna as in a fossil. But this practice has led to mistakes being made where identities have been wrongly given, such as the young and adults of fossils shown as different species. Even where there is an unfossilised specimen wrong identification has been made only being resolved by later Dna analysis

    Denesova man was a few bits of bone not particularly different from any other bones which meant nothing. However Dna results were unique and this allowed a new species identification.

    This is part of the case for allowing species ID base on Dna even where there is no body. Possibly some provisional identity should be given even if this is only a number and name.

    A good specimen is of course hughly desirable but Dna will do, more so if there are multiple samples with the same but not identicl Dna.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I used to follow all this and then when the project seemed to be scrapped, I sort of stopped.I see everyone going on about the hair samples. Did the supposed flesh and blood not pan out? I am speaking of the alleged portion of thigh taken from the sasquatch that "hunter" claims he killed.

    Also I remember reading that the DNA was closer to Human than a chimp.. yet i see everyone saying non-human primate.. what did i miss?

    ReplyDelete
  26. First, there is absolutley ZERO...ZERO evidence that primates EVER lived in North America, much less Bigfoot.
    Second, After allegedly spending 20 to 25 YEARS searching for...bigfoot[s], the "expert" bigfoot team has not come up with a sing...le , unblurry, sharp, clear photograph of this...bigfoot[s].
    Third, apparently the whole of North America is "good squatch country" and even with the advent of digital photography, camera phones and advancing technology, there is still ZERO recognized proof that...bigfoot is anything but a fun myth that brings in a buck. [Keep buying those baseball caps folks].
    Fourth, These things must decompose really fast, I've been a backwoodsman , hiker and backpacker all of my adult life and have seen tracks, bones and living specimens of even the most elusive of creatures, from Bobcat to narwhal, never saw a bigfoot bone, never saw a bigfoot hide...NOBODY has.
    Most people remember what it was like as a kid to visit the local graveyard on Halloween and work ourselves into a wonderful fright. Every sound was a ghost, goblin, or zombie. None ever arrived. And as wonderfully spooky as it might be, such is the case with the bigfoot myth. Lots of fun! They're everywhere! Making some dough! Unfortunately, e­xtraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and here, there is none.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Personally I have never witnessed a shred of proof myself but I wouldn't put it past our species to miss something like an 8 ft - tall primate walking through the mountains. We've had plenty of discoveries that are akin to that sort of thing.

    Anyone saying with some certainty that these things don't exist know about as much as the people saying they do at this point.

    I'm also guessing the naysayers don't live in British Columbia. I know a few people personally that have seen very strange prints around...and I don't really know many people here :)

    ReplyDelete