February 2, 2007

Biscardi, again.... by Kathy Strain

According to Ray Crowe (writing on the Bigfoot Forums), Tom Biscardi and Java Bob gave a talk at the International Bigfoot Society meeting in January. Ray writes, “Tom and Java Bob giving a good portrayal of things they have done via video documentary, Bigfoot Lives! There has apparently been some controversy concerning the finding of the large skeleton from Paris, TX. Seems Tom's crew was in the area and as the skeleton was unusual they were called in. Just photos were taken of the work in progress. A piece of bone was recovered for testing. C14 indicated 2900YBP, mitochondrial DNA indicated the skeleton was closely related to Homo erectus. Remaining material was returned after copy/casting due to NAGPRA and other federal regulations.”

As a professional archaeologist/anthropologist in charge of Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) for my forest, and the co-author of the standard NAGPRA agreement used by the U.S. Forest Service and Native American Tribes, I assure you that if a bone sample came back with a DNA match as or close to Homo erectus, NAGPRA would not apply (as the remains would not be Native American). I suspect highly that Biscardi is up to his usual tricks…do something seriously unethical, make wild claims with no proof, and ignore any and all questions asked. But I have some questions for you Tom, since it’s clear you read this blog.

Why the mention of federal laws? Is the land with the remains federal land? Why radiocarbon test the bone? What difference does it make how old the bone is if it’s bigfoot? Why copy or cast the remaining material? It’s not the same as the originals and proves nothing (you can’t do DNA analysis on a copy). Got any proof that the bone is close to Homo erectus? Want to clear your name? Feel free to send any proof you have to either my email account at or to my address at PO Box 4372, Sonora, California, 95370. I will gladly look it over and give an unbiased scientific opinion of it.

(I hope the readers realize that I don't expect to see any mail. Tom and I both know what the truth is. The sad part is, only one of us cares about it.)

*Join in the discussion at*


  • At 12:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    hey melissa & everyone wow this is definetly a very interesting new article about the tom biscardi situation by kathy strain. im sure we will see more updates as they accure. interesting indeedy. thanks bill

  • At 2:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    A contradiction has possibly arisen, in that the presumable Ray Crowe minutes of the Biscardi speech, did not match what I personally heard in the same presentation. Perhaps Ray's notes were the result of information that was transmitted later, from Tom Biscardi. A curiousity of Biscardi's fairly well edited film, was that the entire length of skeleton was not shown in any one frame, nor was anyone photographed measuring it and say, bringing the tape closer to the camera in order to authenticate the length. So we must take his word for the length of 9 feet.

    Additional notes in regard to Biscardi's presentation, the supposed Bigfoot hand, has had the entire last joint of each finger removed. Conseqently, any fingernails could not be examined. Furthermore, the tiny hand had no unusual size that could imply a Bigfoot which several casts owned by others, depict as 2 to 4 times larger than a man's. It appeared to be actually closer to the size of possibly an ape or large chimpanzee. Those body parts would likely be available for sale in food markets in Africa. No hair was attached to the hand. No DNA analysis was represented to have been performed on this hand, during the presentation as I recall.

    Not to be overlooked was video of a leg assembly comprised of a large foot, lower leg and a short section above the knee. The muscle was still on the foot and the bones had enough cartilage remaining to connect them. The claim was that this assembly was a Bigfoot. Unfortunately, the length of the lower leg, was barely longer than the length of foot itself. These proportions are not what I was under the impression that the Bigfoot have otherwise they would look somewhat sawed off and quite long waisted in order to achieve their normal adult heights. Some persons have judged that it appeared to be that of a large bear, which could be easily obtained by a hunter. No DNA analysis was represented to have been performed on this leg assembly, during the presentation as I recall.

    Consequently, the complete scientific documentation of the skeleton, the hand and the lower leg assembly, was somewhat lacking. The presentation was not geared for scientists, nor for experienced bigfoot researchers. But it was good professional entertainment and showed how often boring Bigfoot presentations can be livened up by a speaker with good stage presence who doesn't sweat the details. Upon completion, one felt like one should have paid for this entertaining evening, even though it appeared to be lacking in the department of authenticity.


Post a Comment