This is correct. The reason is that Melba Ketchum and her loyal minions killed off most of my sources. That is, they outed them via counterespionage measures that I won’t go into here, and then they cut them off from all future information. So we’ve been in the dark.As we are a cutting edge Bigfoot blog that in general depends on hot news, underground rumor and leaks of not to be disclosed information from anonymous sources (along the lines of investigative reporters like Jack Anderson), we simply don’t have any Bigfoot news to report.Sure, we could report the regular Bigfoot news like Shawn at Bigfoot Evidence does so well, but that’s not what we are here for. We are here to do Anderson style investigative reporting along with all the skullduggery that goes along with it. No anonymous sources with hot news, no Bigfoot updates. Real simple.Nevertheless, have been able to dredge up some Bigfoot news lately, and we still have a source or two around, plus we might have gained one or two new ones.We can now report breaking news that the Ketchum DNA paper will finally be published, probably within the next 2 weeks. We would say definitely, but at this point, nothing is certain.Ketchum stated 6 weeks ago that the paper would be out in 6-8 weeks. Just recently, she made a final and very minor rewrite at the request of reviewers. The paper has more or less completely passed peer review, and the reviewers have only been asking for the most minor of rewrites and fixes. The paper will be released on a Thursday or Friday, so it will come out either April 19-20 or April 26-27.My opinion is that if it’s not out by the end of the month or so, just forget it. Maybe it’s never coming out, who knows?The name of the journal is a closely guarded secret and despite extreme efforts, we have not been able to determine the journal’s name.Ketchum was asked this question on her blog and she non-answered it in her usual foggy and obfuscatory way that makes it seems like she cleared everything up but that in reality substitutes an actual answer for half-truths, lawyerese and PR-speak.In other words, she answers the question and makes it seem like she answered the question in toto, but in reality, she didn’t really answer the question at all! Ketchum is an expert at this sort of talk.Our prior information was incorrect in a sense. The Yeti sample was tested by Ketchum and did reveal a result that was presumptive for Bigfoot or more properly presumptive for a non-human hominid closely related to Bigfoot. What she did not do is test the sample for either MtDNA or nuclear DNA.What she did instead was a “quick and dirty” DNA test on the sample that reveals something called male and female peaks which I do not understand at all. Humans get a certain male-female peak that is around 105-115, and the Bigfoots all get a different male-female peak that is close to human but is decidedly nonhuman.However, to prove the existence of the Yeti further, it would be nice to have some MtDNA and nuclear DNA testing done. As is, I do believe that Yetis exist based on footprints and the preliminary DNA testing. Ketchum is correct that preliminary testing used up the whole sample and that the Yeti findings will not appear in the coming paper.There is also a drawing of the baby Bigfoot, but I haven’t been able to get ahold of that one. Both drawings will be used in the upcoming book about the Sierra Kills currently being authored by Mike Green. Green is very smart and writes well, so the book should be well written.These renditions have been floating around for a while now and some people do have them, but they are very hard to get. I have been trying to get one for a long time now, but the people who have them would never give me a copy.It has hard to describe the rendition, and I am not allowed to publish it. It has a coned head that is covered with hair. The hairless area is around the eyes and nose as with Patty. The hair on the coned head is sparse for some reason. Also the “beard” has sparse hair similar to Patty.What does it look like? It looks like a man! Like a hairy man. Trying not to be racist, I would say that it looks like an elderly Black man. I keep thinking I have seen a Black man that looks like this, but I can never find a photo that resembles the drawing.Getting even more exact, one might say that it looks like an elderly Black man with a very primitive or archaic phenotype. The phenotype is so archaic looking that I am not certain there are any existing Blacks around who look like this. But it definitely looks like a man, not an ape. It’s so human looking that it’s downright creepy!We reported earlier that Ketchum has been seeing Bigfoots at Arla Williams’ place in the Honobia region of Oklahoma. We now believe she is seeing them in Texas. She has obviously leased land either at a habituation site or next to one, and this is where she is seeing the Bigfoots. There is definitely a habituation site in East Texas that may or may not have been part of the Erickson Project.The EP movie has always been slated to be released in tandem with the Ketchum DNA project.The agreement between Ketchum and Erickson has not been torn up. It was only amended a bit so that Erickson could release information about some of the samples that he collected in Golden Ears Provincial Park in British Colombia. They are still seriously locked together and it would not surprise me if Ketchum has been threatening Erickson with lawsuits over this and that if he’s not a good boy. These threats were probably behind the scary language on Erickson’s site.Rumor has it that Erickson is in Vermont these days, doing God knows what. Chris Noel does live there, and Chris is the Lord of the Bigfoot habituation scene. Whether or not Erickson is seeing Noel is unknown, but I think Noel knows quite a bit about the Erickson Project and has probably even signed NDA’s.In discussions with an expert who works in a museum, the expert affirmed for me that the Hovey photo is surely not a man in a suit. It can’t possibly be. First of all, that is real hair in the photo, not synthetic hair as is used in all suits. Also, no suit has been produced that looks like this.It’s quite dubious that a human subject had multiple insect infestations, bleeding injuries and skin disorders either. However, a taxidermy-type model cannot be ruled out. If this is a taxidermy model, it would have to be one of the finest ever done and would have to had to have been done by one of the masters in the business such as Bill Munns.Personally, I’m quite sure that that is a photo of a real Bigfoot, but we need the other photos in the series to prove that, and they do exist.[...]