Archive for February, 2013

Today I read an article on the Huffington Post, in regards to what exactly some of my points have been made on this blog and by others. The article includes quotes from Dr. Jeff Meldrum:



“News reports last week suggesting that Bigfoot DNA evidence had been analyzed and confirmed through the peer-reviewed DeNovo Scientific Journal raised questions over the legitimacy of the publication.

Questions were also raised — and have still not been fully answered — about Texas veterinarian Melba Ketchum’s involvement with the journal, threatening the credibility of her five-year study of various alleged Bigfoot DNA samples.

Ketchum has felt that the scientific community tried to prevent her work from seeing the light of day.

"We encountered the worst scientific bias in the peer review process in recent history," Ketchum wrote on her Sasquatch Genome Project site.

"Several journals wouldn’t even read our manuscript when we sent them a pre-submission inquiry. We were even mocked by one reviewer in his peer review. We did finally pass peer review with a relatively new journal," she wrote.

Over the past week, some have alleged that Ketchum somehow "purchased" a little-known journal in order to re-register it under a new name — DeNovo Scientific Journal — and then publish her own results of over 111 samples of reported Bigfoot hair, blood, toenail, saliva and skin.

"I’m certainly not ruling out the possibility that there was a conspiracy of sorts, or a concerted effort to not give this a fair shake, given the controversial matter," said Idaho State University anthropologist Jeff Meldrum, a leading academic and recognized scientific authority on Bigfoot.

"To make an end-run around the process by erecting a facade in the form of a so-called new journal and allege that it is edited and reviewed, without providing any of that information on the public web page, it appears that she has undertaken an effort to self-publish, just to get it out there," Meldrum told The Huffington Post. "And, to boot, she’s charging $30 a pop for a copy of the paper."

Meldrum said he doesn’t think any credible scientific journal would shy away from the topic simply because of its controversial nature.”



Now I move onto a comment, which I am choosing to post here rather than under the comments sections. The commenter submitted some interesting details, but it is earmarked with a few disdainful, angry comments. However I did do some research into a PH.D he threw out there, and sadly it did not come from a geneticist.

I was pleased when I became aware of the ongoing DNA research that was underway and the new groundbreaking efforts that were being made by Dr. Melba Ketchum in Texas. I followed the numerous websites and radio interviews that were commenting about this research, and was very gladdened by the December 24th interview and the new interview on Monday, 2/18/13 Coast to Coast AM by George Knapp with Dr. Ketchum.

I have taken note of the fact that numerous highly opinionated individuals, who are Skeptics, have almost always made derogatory comments to the effect that the DNA findings must necessarily be flawed by some form of contamination for the results of the research to have shown the presence of Human Mitochondrial DNA in the samples that were in the Study

Dr. Ketchum spoke in reply to the matter of sample contamination many times, and detailed the efforts that were being made to forestall that problem. The Skeptics were obviously not listening clearly, because they continued to rail that there absolutely must have been contamination of the DNA Samples that were used in this Study, all 109 of them.

The true facts seem to be that an enormous amount of care had been taken by Dr. Melba Ketchum and her highly skilled associates, who used State of the Art Forensic Techniques to prevent even the remotest possibility of that happening, and my reading of the Study confirmed the rather obvious conclusion that most of the skeptics had unquestionably jumped to their conclusions without any real factual evidence, as usual.

The work done by the University of Texas Southwestern at Dallas has revealed that the three samples that Dr. Ketchum had submitted for Nuclear DNA sequencing were of very high quality, and highly purified, and capable of providing very valid results, using the Illumina Next Generation Sequencing Platform, with a statistical probability greater than 1:1000 of being correctly sequenced.
Obviously these were not “Contaminated Samples” as the Skeptics contended that they must have been.


“The team, led by Dr. Melba S. Ketchum, DVM, of DNA Diagnostics in Nacogdoches, TX, submitted a tissue sample, a saliva sample, and a blood sample to the DNA Laboratory at the University of Texas, Southwestern, who then sequenced the Three whole Nuclear Genomes using the Next-Generation Illumina HiSeq 2000 Platform. The University lab reported that the three genomes all attained Q30 quality scores above 88 on the Illumina Platform, which is significantly higher than the Platform average of 85, indicating highly-purified, single-source DNA with no contamination for each sample. The three Sasquatch genomes were reported to align well with one-another and show substantial homology to primate sequences.”

NOTE: The important fact to observe is that the three Q30 Scores of these three Genomes, with over 90 Gb of Raw seqence for each sample, (Comprising greater than 30x coverage), were 88.6, 88.4 and 88.7 respectively. The Q30 is the percent of reads that have the statistical probability greater than 1:1000 of being correctly sequenced. According to Illumina, a pure single source sample would have a Q30 score of 80 or greater, with an average Q30 score of 85. Contaminated or multiple source samples would have Q30 scores of 40 to 50.

Therefore, not only were the three samples that were submitted for sequencing, each determined to be totally UNCONTAMINATED and were from a single source, and the resultant quality of the sequences that were obtained from them was FAR ABOVE the average 85 score of the Genomes sequenced using the Illumina Next Generation Sequencing Platform at the UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. A Further comment made about the samples was: “The high quality of the Genomes can be attributed to the STRINGENT EXTRACTION PROCEDURES UTILIZED WHEREBY THE DNA WAS REPEATEDLY PURIFIED”. Dr. Ketchum obviously did a very good job of providing high quality samples that were capable of providing scientifically valid results.

NOTE: It would appear that the University of Texas Southwestern’s DNA Laboratory is rather sure that these are good Genomes, and that they were tested to be of very high quality.

How could you ask for much more than that?

One Genome would be more than adequate to prove the existence of a new species. Three Genomes is gross OVERKILL. It is a NEW Species.
David H. Swenson, PHD, a very well known expert made a very straightforward statement that sums up the situation to wit.
“My opinion of the creature is that it is a hybrid of a human mother and an unknown hominid male, Just as reported. For all practical purposes, it should be treated as human and protected under law.
Sasquatch is real, as proven by genetic analysis.”

My kudos to the Dr. Melba Ketchum and the BRAVE DNA researchers who refused to give up and quit. They will go down in History! The Skeptics will have an eternal meal of CROW PIE. I hope they enjoy it. I would imagine it has a bitter taste!

You will not be able to find any qualified Geneticist who can argue with the spectacular results produced by the UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DNA Laboratory. NOT WITH THOSE HIGH Q30 scores.
New species have been accepted by Science with as little as 16 Kb, with 6800 Base Pairs.

Just a very small number of base pairs. The sample size here was 90 Gb for each of three samples. See the Supplementary Data 7-10 By comparison the Bigfoot DNA data which was sequenced by the DNA Lab of the University of Texas at Dallas comprises as much as 2.7 MILLION Base pairs.

As a result of the data that he reviewed, David H. Swenson, PHD, a very well known expert made a very straightforward statement that sums up the situation as he sees it.

“My opinion of the creature is that it is a hybrid of a human mother and an unknown hominid male, Just as reported. For all practical purposes, it should be treated as human and protected under law.
Sasquatch is real, as proven by genetic analysis.”

I believe that this groundbreaking DNA Study was done with very great care and that the resultant findings are now thoroughly capable of proving to even the most diehard, outspoken Skeptics, that there is incontrovertible PROOF that there is an unclassified Biped roaming North America.

This evidence is backed up by the substantial work that has been done at instituions like The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas A & M University, and several other academic institutions and Professional Laboratories.
Richard Gibbs, one of the key scientists behind the Human Genome Project and director of the Human Genome Sequencing Center at Baylor College of Medicine, commented “As I read the paper I asked, is the evidence here compelling? I don’t know. Is there clear evidence of fraud? That’s not apparent”.

Dr. Ketchum and her esteemed colleagues are to be heartily commended for the dedication that they have shown in the face of derision from the mass attacks by huge numbers of Naysayers, Skeptics and Fools.
I urge everyone interested, and especially hardcore Skeptics to take the time to read this amazing DNA Study and to become aware of the incredible quality of the Science behind it.

Being a skeptic does not require that you cannot accept valid Scientific studies, that are done with a great deal of care and appropriate attention to detail by highly skilled professionals, at highly accredited institutions of Higher Learning!

On Monday, 2/18/13 I listened to the latest interview of Dr. Melba Ketchum on Coast to Coast Am by George Knapp. Having previously heard her interview on 12/24/12, I can only say that any of the Naysayers must not have ever listened to either interview, because they only need to hear them and if they were to listen with an open mind, they would have much more information to go on. Also, If you have not read the DNA Study Article, you should not comment on it.

                                                                   -Charles Bootjer 2/19/13

Thank you for your detailed response. In summary you make a couple of points which I’d like to address.

  • I have no problem with the study, I have concerns of what the geneticists are saying, which brings up the nagging questions that MUST BE ASKED for science to be satisfied.
  • It has failed because so far in the Science world it has not proven anything, YET. Although unorthodox in the manner in which the study was released, it may have a slight chance, given in speaking with Derek Randles, that other scientists have agreed to take a closer, hands on look. Wonderful…maybe it still has some breath to it, for science to acknowledge it. But understand, it’s a long shot.
  • No one has addressed the primer issue as of yet. I would like to see how the primer was developed and third party research into the viability of the primer. Not to mention we do not see any third party testing of the primer, was it just sent to the labs with instruction to the particular primer. (My understanding, Dr. Ketchum has a patent on it, or is in process, so where does that leave the third party tested lab samples.)
  • Statements like "..because they only need to hear them and if they were to listen with an open mind," is indicative that you do not have an open mind, how can you discount a number of scientists, critics (not skeptics) who have weighed in on the interpretation of data to which they are truly the experts of? You can’t by saying Melba said this or that, saying is one thing, proving to the critics they are wrong. At this point it doesn’t matter what is said, it’s what can be proved in the eyes of science. The critics bring up questions, well the solution is simple; answer them with proof this was done. If the proof satisfies that, then where’s the argument?
  • What could be asked for more? How about submission to Gen Bank, the accepted protocol? They have not been sent to Gen Bank, by one of the study submitters own admission, which would clearly rule on the contamination issue, and most likely the primer issue. If it goes to Gen Bank and comes back as valid, I would feel more comfortable with it.
  • If people are not geneticists, people can comment on it, because there have been qualified people who HAVE read the report and commented on it. Open mindedness is a two sided thing. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, stop being angry at critics and open your ears, you may just be able to learn what may turn them around.
  • I understand the uphill battle Dr. Ketchum and the submitters have conducted, it now a matter of time, whether or not science will accept it or not. That’s not in my hands nor yours.
  • Dr. Swenson is an oncologist not a geneticist. (Education: B. S. (1970) in Biochemistry, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus, magna cum laude. Ph.D. (1975) in Experimental Oncology, University of Wisconsin, McArdle Lab. for Cancer Research.)
  • Richard Gibbs, merely states that he’s not sure that the evidence is compelling or not, just that there doesn’t appear to be fraud. Where in this blog do you see me state anything of that ilk?
  • If you are insinuating that I will be eating crow, you are sadly mistaken. I have no "skin in the game." I have warned as early as six months ago, people should not get 100 vested that this will be the "end all, be all." We still run into the argument of, "prove that it was a Sasquatch that left this DNA”  Which to me is the skeptics argument of last resort.
  • Instead of being close minded and belligerent, that we can no longer assist in proving the Sasquatch by DNA methodology other than this study alone, my suggestion is read what I have written in the past.
  • Collection techniques are a lot more than just properly putting a sample of DNA into a bag.,it’s the documentation and investigation into how it got there. which makes the difference. Remember in the scale of the courts, DNA is circumstantial evidence for just that reason.
  • Does anyone think for a second that the lack of answering some of the questions, may have had something to do in it not passing a peer review strong enough to make publication?

See I am not getting into the argument that Ketchum is defrauding us or any of that ilk. I am simply basing it on the facts of the matter. I see the folks in the study, beating their chest, saying "See..see" but the truth of the matter is what was wanted originally, scientific acceptance, was not attained, instead they had to settle for the report being put out there. (I will not say published because of the fine line of pseudo-science we will go if we say Denovo was an established scientific journal) Now the hard core study folks seem content and happy to settle.

And as I have been saying for years, we cannot settle. If the DNA is/was valid, why not go to the mattress with it? (Godfather term)

Why can’t we be just honest with ourselves, and acknowledge there is more to be done?

People going around triumphantly, over something science has not accepted yet?

I thought we got into this thing to prove to science the Sasquatch exists, which in turn would validate witnesses. Dr. Ketchum by her own admission has become a believer with her own experiences, and this maybe viewed by some in the mainstream populace as a desperate attempt to validate something she believes in. When do we move away from accusations like that?

It is compounded by the failure of getting published in an existing scientific journal, and the unorthodox manner in which this scientific study has been revealed, which now the mainstream is seizing upon just this morning by the Huffington Post. Again more validation of my points above.

Again thank you, Charles, for you well thought out, informative comment. Some of the resources and statements will prove valuable as readers make their own determinations.

Like I said in my previous writing on this topic, it was a close try, which may not even be done yet. But let’s stop getting all hard-boiled over it. I’m certainly not.

When are we going to stop realizing it’s not about what it is?

And realize it’s about we need?

Till Next Time,



In the last few days, Dr. Melba Ketchum has released her five year report so anxiously we were awaiting two years ago. I took some time to let reactions settle in the community and mainstream to make my assessment, as sometimes a pragmatic approach is the best.


Now my job here is not to slam Dr. Ketchum, but rather take an honest look at what exactly went wrong.

This is a look without basis for motive, or supposition, but rather a dry look at why the Ketchum Study has failed.

Make no mistake, it has failed, as it missed the mark in being published in an established scientific journal with peer review with some degree of scientific acceptance.

As painful as that sounds to many, that is the cold hard fact of the matter, and I won’t pull that punch.

I will comment however that her solution to not being published in an established scientific journal was a rather unique one.

Then charge $30 to get a copy of the paper? (I understand much time effort, blood, sweat, tears and money went into the study, so I understand the reasoning behind it.)

Does it seem dubious? It could be construed as such by some. And that therein lies part of the problem.

I’m not saying it is, but perception is reality.

I’ve been critical of the study for a while now, after first being an ardent supporter, but I do feel a sort of melancholy that this most likely become another facet of Bigfoot Lore. I’m not saying the conclusions in the paper are right or wrong, if they came from a Sasquatch or not, I’m merely saying that in a study of such scientific relevance to the world all your T’s must be crossed and your I’s dotted.

In this case it failed epically, and to me that is the biggest disappointment, because for the last few years some researchers banked that this would be it. 2013 was being billed as the “Year of the Sasquatch.” I too was hopeful and wished it would have succeeded.

In an older blog post, I stated that sometimes we all get caught up in the hypocrisy of it all, even faulting myself for wanting to hear, or Dr. Ketchum to say something as far back as August of 2011 about the study to quell the folks clamoring for more, in true opposition to the scientific process. I also stated that in reflection that I was wrong having that attitude. We must let science take its course.

But in a stunning turn of events, perhaps out of frustration, Dr. Ketchum decided to implement a unique solution, doing a complete 180, which appears to me a fumble, when you’re down by 5 in the red zone with seconds left on the clock.

In retrospect if I looked at this as an outsider, it looks to me as an act of desperation.

By Dr. Ketchum’s own words that may be more fact than speculation.

“Rather than spend another five years just trying to find a journal to publish and hoping that decent, open minded reviewers would be chosen, we acquired the rights to this journal and renamed it so we would not lose the passing peer reviews that are expected by the public and the scientific community. 

DeNovo, the new journal is aimed at offering not only more choices and better service to scientists wanting to submit a manuscript, but also reviewers and editors that will be fair, unlike the treatment we have received.

It has been a long and tedious battle to prove that Sasquatch exists.  We have had the proof for nearly 5 years but building enough data to convince mainstream science has taken a lot of time. 

Trying to publish has taken almost two years.  It seems mainstream science just can’t seem to tolerate something controversial, especially from a group of primarily forensic scientists and not “famous academians” aligned with large universities, even though most of our sequencing and analysis was performed at just such facilities.

We encountered the worst scientific bias in the peer review process in recent history.  I am calling it the “Galileo Effect”.  Several journals wouldn’t even read our manuscript when we sent them a pre-submission inquiry.  Another one leaked our peer reviews.  We were even mocked by one reviewer in his peer review.”                

                                                                          Dr. Melba Ketchum



Yes as Dr. Ketchum stated, there are people that are known as “scoftics” that exist and that is sad, not less than leaking the peer review. Very sad indeed. And I can understand and sympathize with the feelings associated with that. As researchers and investigators of this mystery we all know the feeling all too well.

But in the true nature of things, patience is a virtue, and it takes a very thick skin, as it took years for even Einstein to prove his law of relativity. One must think, you must pound down doors to get acceptance in science for something as controversial as the Sasquatch.

But do the mainstream skeptics bring up valid points?

As investigators and researchers we have to put aside our bias that the creatures exist, and take value at what some of the scientists are saying.

Gripes about the new journal

“However, geneticists who have seen the paper are not impressed. “To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid," Leonid Kruglyak of Princeton University told the Houston Chronicle. “Instead, analyses either come back as 100 percent human, or fail in ways that suggest technical artifacts.”

The website for the DeNovo Journal of Science was setup on February 4, and there is no indication that Ketchum’s work, the only study it has published, was peer reviewed.”



The Mother Nature Network

“DeNovo proclaims itself to be a peer-reviewed journal, but in her commentary, Ketchum says she is using peer reviews from a previous journal that rejected the manuscript.

In another odd twist that differentiates DeNovo from other scientific journals, it claims to be open access — which normally means that a publication’s papers are available to the public for free — yet it charges $30 to read the Sasquatch paper.

The news site Ars Technica paid the $30 fee for a copy of the paper and called it "a mess."


The science of the report known for breaking down scientific papers had the following analysis, breaking down why the study may have failed the peer review process to me what may be more indicative why than just bias or controversy alone:

“To begin with, the mitochondrial DNA of the samples (when it can be isolated) clusters with that of modern humans. That isn’t itself a problem if we assume that those doing the interbreeding were human females, but the DNA sequences come from a variety of different humans—16 in total. And most of these were "European or Middle Eastern in origin" with a few "African and American Indian haplotypes." Given the timing of the interbreeding, we should only be seeing Native American sequences here. The authors speculate that some humans may have walked across the ice through Greenland during the last glaciation, but there’s absolutely no evidence for that. The best explanation here is contamination.

As far as the nuclear genome is concerned, the results are a mess. Sometimes the tests picked up human DNA. Other times, they didn’t. Sometimes the tests failed entirely. The products of the DNA amplifications performed on the samples look about like what you’d expect when the reaction didn’t amplify the intended sequence. And electron micrographs of the DNA isolated from these samples show patches of double- and single-stranded DNA intermixed. This is what you might expect if two distantly related species had their DNA mixed—the protein-coding sequences would hybridize, and the intervening sections wouldn’t. All of this suggests modern human DNA intermingled with some other contaminant.

The authors’ description of the sequence suggests that it’s human DNA interspersed with sequence from some other primate—hence the interbreeding idea. But the best way to analyze this would be to isolate the individual segments of non-human DNA and see what species those best align with.

If the authors have done that, they don’t say. They also don’t mention how long the typical segment of non-human DNA is. Assuming interbreeding took place as the authors surmise, these segments should be quite long, since there hasn’t been that much time to recombine. The fact that the authors don’t mention this at all is pretty problematic.”



The Houston Chronicle spoke with two geneticists.




Dr. Leonid Kruglyak, (Kruglyak Lab, Princeton University)

“To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid. Instead, analyses either come back as 100% human, or fail in ways that suggest technical artifacts.

They make the bizarre claim that the failures might be caused by novel, nonstandard structure of the DNA (“Electron micrographs of the DNA revealed unusual double strand – single strand – double strand transitions which may have contributed to the failure to amplify during PCR.”) which would mean this DNA was different from DNA in all other known species.

There’s also the strange statement they couldn’t deposit sequences in GenBank because it’s a new/unknown taxon — GenBank does that no problem.

The tree in Fig 16 is inconsistent with known primate phylogeny and generally makes no sense.”

 Figure 16, of the report. Source:


trd Dr. Todd Disotell, (SUNY at Syracuse, Geneticist) well known for his attempts at sequencing possible Bigfoot DNA, and MonsterQuest alumni, also has these stinging words to say,

“It’s clearly a fake Vanity Journal with lots of ShutterStock pictures, misspellings and it was only created on 2/4/13. I’ve only read the abstract and conclusion and neither makes any sense.”

Given these statements, I with a heavy heart say, it has to be time to go back to the drawing board on this one.

And I know, personally, several of the contributors with skin in the game, that by me saying this, it may hurt their feelings. My purpose here is not to hurt anyone’s feelings, or any of the contributors for that matter, but rather understand the shortcomings and hopefully in turn will motivate you to move on with a new course, and new attitude and to continue the hard work that brought us this far to date. At least there was an attempt. 

And while I think it was a noble and righteous attempt, it fell far short of hitting the mark, so what can we harbor from this as a teachable moment? 

  • Better collection and evidence gathering techniques. If researchers and investigators enter the forests, and you wish to collect forensic materials, be prepared and familiar yourself with good evidence collection procedures.
  • Document, Document, Document. I cannot emphasize that more. Be prepared to take plenty of pictures and video as well of the sample pre-collection post collection. Write an evidence log with time, date and location, GPS coordinates if not exactly sure where you are.
  • Finally, a brief synopsis on what brought you there to collect the evidence, witness sighting, history of sighting reports, anything to substantiate the claim that the sample may have come from a Sasquatch.

Till Next Time,


The Real Moral Compass

In my last post I spoke of what was thought to be a respected researcher, Chris Noel, who asked me to lie.

According to a statement to him I lack a moral compass, or possess any investigative or logical skills.

Statement from Christopher Noel:
"Steve Kulls has publicly released private information about my close friend, and about me. This behavior shows his true colors. Anything he says to try to discredit the truth of Rich Dyer’s claims about events in San Antonio should now be seen in the context of a complete lack of a moral compass. It has already been clear that Kulls does not possess any investigative or logical skills, but only a deep need for attention. And now we can add yet another layer of information about his character: He has zero regard for privacy or human dignity."- Source: Dyer’s blog.


Mr. Noel shows exactly how tilted his moral compass is.

See I follow the Five Tenets of Bigfoot Research I created in 2011 to avoid such dilemmas as Mr. Noel has placed himself in.

Read Tenet Number 5.  It’s been there for at least two years.

Sadly his response was that of pointing fingers, and name calling rather than even explaining why he would ask someone to lie.

And what private information have I released about you Mr. Noel? That you asked me to lie?

Expose the Charlatans.

Now Mr. Noel acts like I have done something dubious when really he needs to look in the mirror.

When I exposed FB/FB I was following Tenet Number 5, Expose the Charlatans,  which is directly correlated to Tenet Number 4. Responsibility to Educate.

Mr. Noel asked me to lie, and he expects me to keep secret his true ill mannered, and ill tempered nature which is apparent by the exchange. I came to him peacefully, even humbly to come to an understanding. Had he had been nice about it, perhaps I would have removed the post in question.


Moral Compass?

Mr. Noel should read Tenet number 3. (Always tell the truth)

Instead, he not only makes it a condition, to take it down the post, but to lie about it as one of those conditions.

Moral compass indeed!

And then he expects me not to say something about it. Never mind explaining his misguided attempts at establishing my moral compass, what about his own?

And then he lies, by saying I invaded his privacy, why? Because not only have I just caught you in a lie by stating such, but by establishing, it’s okay for people to lie publicly?

As for Noel he has gone from respected researcher to acting like a kindred spirit of the rest of the hoaxers, by name calling without fact, and asking people to lie, or in other words hoax.

His friend, the owner of FB/FB he has defended, has not even asked me as much, in such a dubious manner.

Investigation and Logic

Has it been clear that I do not possess any investigative or logical skills as Mr. Noel states.

I was able to track down the Real Musky Allen, and his friend whom he destroys his own credibility to defend.

To find the lies and name the names behind either the propagation of this hoax or compliance with it, the refusal to listen to any logic or dissenting opinion.

Logic? I’m not the one getting in bed with folks who claim, EVERY FILM is a real Bigfoot, or who calls a known repeat hoaxer such as Dyer, the “Researcher of the Year!”

Getting Personal?

If anyone noticed, in that post Mr. Noel wants me to remove, did a I tag the owner of FB/FB’s name so his name turns up on the Google/Search Engine world? No.

Did I post everything about him that I know, including personal stuff?  No.

There was a conscience effort to minimize some of the outing. But a losing side fails to see any light.

Even with what lies, and personal or otherwise have been told about me, I chose to take the high road. Believe me if I wanted to get personal, I could.

But merely stating facts and truth, always sends the hoaxer camps into more lies and personal attacks, sadly such as Mr. Noel has now bent to and show who he really is.

Mr. Noel does not understand, if I wanted to get personal, I would.

Mr. Dyer and I stated we would not get personal, however, I remained to the facts, but they have been so damaging to Dyer’s hoax, that he claims I have violated that.

No Mr. Dyer is just mad that I have the goods on him. So he spins it that it’s personal.

But if continued, to be lied about and attacked, by Issleb,  I just may. And that would be very embarrassing for Mr. Dyer, and his compatriots, especially Mr. Dyer.

I will give props to FB/FB for staying out of the fray as far as trying to attack me. Yes I exposed who’s behind FB/FB, and as if things remain civil, I see no need in repeating the name over and over again.

Unfortunately they dug themselves in deeper in a very conveniently timed award to Rick Dyer, in an attempt to legitimize him.  

Remember this quote from 2010?


“You win the argument of facts and logic, when your opponent resorts to name calling.”  – Steve Kulls, 2010 (in response to Biscardi’s attacks on him.

My suggestion to all, is if you have a body, PROVE IT! All we’ve seen are tall tales, gullible people, and facts, which very conveniently have some huge holes in them. 

Put up or shut up…quit the grandstandin’ and braggin’

That would be the ultimate damage control, now a special desperate radio show now wouldn’t it?

Till Next Time,


In releasing the information about FB/FB, my supposed “friend” Chris Noel, has been taking some snarky shots at me on his site.

The true gentleman I am, I reached out to him, that perhaps we can come to some sort of understanding.

This is the exchange:




To me, this man has just lost all respect from me. So he is asking me to LIE.


And the hypocrisy of it,  he considers me outing someone who has been proclaiming themselves as an authority for accountability purposes immoral, yet and he considers lying, IN THIS FIELD acceptable?

To me he has no credibility any longer. Very sad, to see someone get so invested in this hoax to the point he would ask someone to lie.

Now let’s see, who less than honest and who’s not?

Till next Time,



Sometimes I just love my friends…thanks ole’ buddy!!!



According to the Minnow site it is to air on BBC Channel 4 (Storyville).

Till Next Time….


%d bloggers like this: