Erickson Project

[Guest vilnoori]

Hmmm How about Homo sapiens sasquatchii...no confusion there and no quack quack! However, there is really no way we can tell that it isn't the original Homo erectus. Since there is no DNA analysis of Homo erectus, and since the sightings and descriptions of Sasquatch are very similar to Homo erectus--the asian form, it could actually be the same thing. How would we really know, unless someone finds one frozen in ice somewhere. The only way to know I guess is if we find sasquatch bones and can compare them to known erectus skeletons (and other hominins too, I guess).

Edited September 26, 2011 by vilnoori

[Guest]

Dr. Ketchum said the paper is not in peer review yet. After much back and forth about that, I think that is what I remember someone saying after interviewing her for a blogtalk show.

[gigantor]

http://sasquatchthequest.com

Notice the date this thread started, October 2010, a year ago and nothing yet.

[Guest Stubstad]

Sure I'd like to join, but what is it exactly that I'd be joining?

Thanks for the compliment on my book. I didn't mean "impossible"

literally, though; the title's meant to be ironic, like...most people

think such visits would be impossible, but look at all these

accounts to the contrary...

What about the NE footage as compared to the Kentucky footage? Can you

give us a "word picture" sneak peek?

Chris:

Thanks for the quick response, sir.

Yes, I knew by reading the book that "impossible" turned out to be possible after all. Still, without DNA evidence I would not have believed any of those stories, even Rachel's, without supporting evidence such as DNA. After all, like other scientists, I know it all. The difference is I know I knew it all and now I know I didn't know it all after all, and now I know it all once again. Am I talking myself into another Cartesian dichotomy here?

I cannot legally give you any more information or a "sneak preview". Similar to your book, however, I wouldn't have believed ANY of the footage I've seen without supporting DNA evidence. Especially today, when ANYTHING can be hoaxed.

The P-G film hardly could have been hoaxed after-the-fact, but according to some experts it could still be a "man in a suit". We'll never know for sure (no DNA).

At least Bob Gimlin is still alive to testify; I have a tendency to believe him more than all these detractors or debunkers, however. He simply strikes me as an honest man, "simple" or basic as he may be.

What you would be in on now? TRYING TO GET SAMPLES TO ME; PREFERABLY SALIVA OR BLOOD, BUT HAIR WITH ROOTS IS OK TOO, IF THERE ARE ENOUGH STRANDS.

We will be taking these samples to Europe in November, where we have a lab lined up to test them, objectively and without political or financial involvement. I just hope the American fist doesn't extend to (most of) Europe, too.

Richard Stubstad

[Guest Stubstad]

Richard- there isnt really a problem linking to your site. The BFF would prefer that you put a link or some other kind of promotional spot on your site to these forums- so that its kind of a two way street so to speak.

For example- if you were going to leave your link in your signature at the bottom of each post...

If your putting a link to research material, and not to promote your website, then its not so important.

I'm sure myself and a couple other staff would probably take a peek, and if there's any problem- you'd be contacteds. Not going to "get you in any trouble" though....

Aside from that, the only other problem with any link you put up would be in relation to objectionable/offensive content, and i'm sure there's nothing to worry about in that regards.

Have a good one.

Art:

I will try to put a link to BFF on my website; and maybe a couple other links. My problem is that I'm quite computer -- and especially web-based -- unsavvy. Then, I'll give you my link. All three articles I've posted to-date are definitely non-political and non-commercial; they are about sasquatch and sasquatch DNA, along with some personal interests I have like travel & fishing. The only folks that didn't like these articles are folks that have signed Melba's new NDA, because they feel the data and analyses belong to her, not any of the rest of us. At the end of the day, data are data and they should belong to everyone.

The main questions are: Are these data accurate? And: Is my (or anyone else's) analysis of these data correct?

Still, in deference to Melba, I haven't published the actual sequencing.

Richard

[slabdog]

Notice the date this thread started, October 2010, a year ago and nothing yet.

Yeah....with our luck, the video will be released the day after the last day on the Mayan Calendar

[Guest billgreen2010]

mr stubstad everyone soon as i see these new sasquatch filmfootages involved with situation ill feel more confertable but until then hmmm to be continued....indeedy im patient

[Guest]

Stubstad said: The name we agreed on was: Homo sapiens sesqueqiensis. The spelling "sesquec" came from a plains American Indian tribe which is probably already extinct. We changed the "c" to a "q" so it would be pronounced correctly. The choice of "sesqueqiensis" as opposed to "sasquaqiensis" was simply to make it sound less corny: 'quack, quack' if you know what I mean.

The nomenclature of these beings is a relatively important subject matter to me. Mainly because I don't want to see it become something that leaves out indigenous people's input. They lived with them here for thousands of years. It would be a travesty in my opinion to not have some connection, being their ancestral views on the old ones have not been a priority with US government. I realize that Native people also haven't stepped forward with more, but I understand their reasons as well.

That said, I believe 'sesque' sounding names have their origination with the Salish Indians, whose territory extended on up the coast of BC and down through Washington to Oregon. They may have had some limited PNW high desert plains travels, but they were primarily a Coastal tribe from what I know. I'm not an expert mind you and maybe Hairyman will pop in and provide added perspective. I don't believe the name 'sesquec' would have originated from a Plains American Indian tribe as you stated. It is worth clearing up however. I also don't believe the US has the market cornered with respect to species nomenclature either. However, since the Salish historically occupied both Canada and America, if a name were selected by the powers that be which takes this region's tribe into account, it may be a win/win in the end for all. Especially since the modern term 'Sasquatch' (however badly mispronounced from the true names) did originate from what the Salish people called them.

Here are several examples of alternate Salish names for bigfoot. Sasq'ets, Sesq'ec, Sesqec, Sacsquec, Saskehavas, Sesquac Source It also easy to see how JW Burns would mispronounce any of these and come up with 'Sasquatch'. Hopefully Ketchum and others will read this thread and give this more thought. I just don't believe there is any extinct lower plains tribe that Sesque can be attributed to however, but if there is, I would encourage validation of such a tribe, and if not, refocus the premise to the Salish connection.

Edited September 27, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist

[gigantor]

Yeah....with our luck, the video will be released the day after the last day on the Mayan Calendar

yeah, we got to wait another year...

[Guest]

Ironically, Native American Storyteller Esther Stutzman of the Kalapuya Tribe stated to me in a conversation at the first Oregon Sasquatch Symposium in Eugene (I can't recall if she also said this during her presentation however) that when the Sasquatch are proven to exist, is when the world will end.

The timing sure is interesting ain't it. What day does the Mayan Calendar end?

[Guest Thepattywagon]

Richard, Your answer to my question in post 1507 was "Yes". Later, you said, "I wouldn't have believed ANY of the footage I've seen without supporting DNA evidence. Especially today, when ANYTHING can be hoaxed."

Your first answer implies that the footage was totally convincing, and did not require any corroborating evidence. However, that apparently is not the case, as evidenced by your later statement.

My guess is that whatever video footage you saw, however authentic looking, could be hoaxed. In other words, it's either not clear enough, or the creature(s) in the film(s) are not displaying in a way that could not be duplicated by a human.

Any way you can clarify your two statements? Thanks, Richard.

[gigantor]

You're too old to believe storytellers...

[BobbyO]

Notice the date this thread started, October 2010, a year ago and nothing yet.

I bet you make a lousy Fisherman G ??

[Guest Stubstad]

Richard, Your answer to my question in post 1507 was "Yes". Later, you said, "I wouldn't have believed ANY of the footage I've seen without supporting DNA evidence. Especially today, when ANYTHING can be hoaxed."

Your first answer implies that the footage was totally convincing, and did not require any corroborating evidence. However, that apparently is not the case, as evidenced by your later statement.

My guess is that whatever video footage you saw, however authentic looking, could be hoaxed. In other words, it's either not clear enough, or the creature(s) in the film(s) are not displaying in a way that could not be duplicated by a human.

Any way you can clarify your two statements? Thanks, Richard.

Oh -- I meant that the footage(s) I've seen are TOTALLY convincing (and very clear), but then again so was the "footage" in Avatar. Knowing nothing else as I did when I've seen such footage, such as the DNA, the players, the lack of Hollywood-style funding to hoax or mislead, I would have written the footage off as more of the same Hollywood bunk -- even though it "looked really good".

Briefly, I am not an anatomical expert by any stretch. I am probably the poorest judge of authenticity of media "proof" simply because of today's advanced Computer Enhanced Graphics or whatever it is called. The footage I have seen is "raw", however, so yes it can stand on its own and is utterly convincing in that regard. The word "raw" however means that I know the players well enough to know they didn't hoax these "takes" using computer graphics or some such.

P-G is another example. When I see the footage from that 16-mm film, and see the "proof" that the creature was over seven feet tall, the muscle movement, etc., I'm pretty convinced (say 70%) that Patterson and Gimlin were at the right place and at the right time. The counter-arguments, however are almost equally convincing (say 30%) that I have to admit I may have been fooled. I even went as far with my P-G research to find out where Nate Thurmond (center basketball player for the San Francisco Warriors at the time) was on October 20th, 1967. He was on the east coast playing, well, basketball! He indeed could have been the "man in the suit", but he wasn't "in town".

The difference is we have DNA evidence from the current studies, whereas there is no DNA from the P-G "study" so we'll never really know -- even though I'm 97% sure that SASQUATCH EXISTS.

Richard

[yowiie]

As sasaquatch/BF and yowies are the same type of animal with all the same traits. Lets say that I find a yowie before any of the Ketchum report comes out. Being from Australia the name given to the animal discovered should be based solely on the discoverer or the area it the find was found

Should yowie/BF animals from differnt parts of the planet have different scientific names and yet be the same animal