Comments on: Bones, Bigfoot, and Biscardi

By: Kathy Strain

Kathy Strain — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:08:04 +0000

silvereagle - Biscardi can claim anything that he wants to, however there is no proof that the “government says the site does not exist” nor that he returned the bone (and it seems very odd that there is no mention of the return of the remains until after I brought it up in my article on Search for Bigfoot blog back in January, which is after he stated the government had taken over the site…so both events can’t be true). The only proof of anything is that he taped the excavation and is selling the DVD. Since he did not have a permit to do an excavation or to remove, be in possession of, and/or test any remains, all the evidence needed is right there.

(P.S. I don’t believe the excavation is five years old. Biscardi stated that the person who found the body found it while hunting for arrowheads, indicating the find was very recent. Wood could be there for a variety of reason…placed there at time of burial, later addition to the site (trash) or an old piece of wood used during the excavation).

By: silvereagle

silvereagle — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:40:23 +0000

If you can’t find the site, then you can’t prosecute him for anything. Secondly, if you do not have access to the alleged bones, then you cannot prosecute him. Biscardi is already pronouncing publicly that the government says that the side does not exist. So he is covering his bases in advance. No body then no crime. The condition of the wood protecting the grave, tended to indicate that the grave had been dug for at least 5 years. The wood was in an advance state of decay. So Biscardi did not likely have anything to do with the excavation itself. He allegedly borrowed some bones and then apparently replaced them, so there was no ultimate theft according to his statements. So any legal action in regard to these bones, appears to have some difficulty in prosecuting. So he skated on this one.

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:02:00 +0000

When tribes can hold up legitimate, authorized, archeological research for years with contentions over proper ownership, why can’t someone nail this bozo for the crime he’s so boldy filmed himself doing? Unless, and this is a big if…unless he DID get the right permissions to dig this site (Although how I wouldn’t even begin to tell you, I would think you’d at least have to be vaguely qualified to conduct an archeological excavation), which is why he so covertly mentions that the remains had to be returned due to NAGPRA regulations. Surely even if he did return the remains, but hadn’t gotten permission to take them in the first place, he would still be punishable in some fashion.

Well, if nothing else, we can now add “Graverobber” to our descriptions of this pathetic huckster…

By: fuzzy

fuzzy — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:41:28 +0000

Amazing how much of our collective energies are wasted in dealing with TBS - The Beckardi Syndrome.

To visitors reading this, please realize that Biscardi and his ilk are fringe elements in any Quest in which they appear - the wild, off-the-wall, idiosyncratic (”Deviating from the customary: bizarre, cranky, curious, eccentric, erratic, freakish, odd, outlandish, peculiar, quaint, queer, quirky, singular, strange, unnatural, unusual, weird…” Answers.com), unscientific, unprofessional side of the whole band of “enthusiasts”, the extreme end of the bell-curve, if you will.

There are also true scientific intellectuals on the other end of the curve, obscure folks who gather information for years and then write laborious tomes in a garret somewhere in Illinois, which are printed by tiny Psychology publishers in Portugal eleven years later, and which nobody ever reads.

Then there’s the rest of us, gathered in a disorganized heap forming the middle of the curve, serious and educated and intense and curious and creative folks who are sincerely interested in the Quest, in one way and to one degree or another - people who are just as shocked as newbies are at the unbelieveable antics of both fringe elements.

One would hope that we all understand this factoid, and that we maintain a holistic (”Emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts. Concerned with wholes rather than analysis or separation into parts…” Answers.com) viewpoint, as we enter this mystic realm.

By: things-in-the-woods

things-in-the-woods — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:42:18 +0000

Yeah, someone prosecute him- unlicensed digging of indigenous remains could get him in big trouble. And more than that I think someone should check out whether Biscardi actually purposefully damaged the remains. Not saying he did, but, for instance, the fact that the face portion of the skull seems to have been substantially damaged is kind of handy if you are trying to disguise the obviously human nature of the skeleton.

And apart from that, this is just an awful excavation. There is debris everywhere (including what appears to be bone splinters, although it could be wood), there is no sign of a standard archaeological or forensic recording system. Basically this is a farce.

While, as I’ve said before, archaeological remains might be one of our best sources of evidence, we really need to leave that to professionals.

I shudder to think what an idiot like Biscardi might do if, god forbid, he did actually come across a sasquatch skeleton. My bet is, he’d destroy half of the useful information, and contaminate the rest.

By: jimnypivo

jimnypivo — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:26:17 +0000

Buscardi–what a time-waster. Who supports this guy?

By: Kathy Strain

Kathy Strain — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:13:05 +0000

Neither Matt Moneymaker nor Erik Beckjord are involved in this issue with Tom Biscardi. Tom gets sole credit.

By: greywolf

greywolf — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 19:15:00 +0000

Well when the likes of T.B., M.M., E.B. are on the research team it seems that laws are broken or the truth is stretched or people are intimated or real bad fake pictures or body parts show up……sorry I’ll wait for the real truth provided by good research.

By: cal

cal — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 08:21:08 +0000

I love the scientific objectivity of his title “Possibly the Most Important Find in History”!

By: Allen Hazen

Allen Hazen — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 06:22:11 +0000

I rather liked Kathy Strain’s interpretation of the statement that the DNA was “closely related to Homo erectus” (viz., that since modern humans are closely related to H. erectus, this was a deliberately misleading way of saying “it’s human”).

For what it’s worth, Neanderthal DNA has been sequenced, but so far as I know none from H. erectus. (H. erectus is older than H. neandertalensis, so the chances of getting readable DNA out of erectus bones would be slimmer than that of getting Neanderthal DNA, and my understanding is that getting the Neanderthal sequences was just at the edge of the feasible.) So I would immediately doubt any claim that a DNA test showed a specimen to be specifically related to Homo erectus: closer to erectus than to modern Human. The information needed to make the comparison just isn’t, so far as I know, available.