Erickson Project

[Guest]

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

I imagine that at least the subspecies would be different due to being isolated so far away for so many eons.

[Guest Forbig]

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

That would be great because I'm at just 50% and DNA will take me straight to 110% (the extra 10% is for all those years I waited.) The way this is getting built up on here I sure hope it's true because there's gonna be a lot of disappointed people. Saskeptic and KitKaze will be strutting around here like a spring gobbler, just the thought of it makes me sick.

[Guest]

I don't think it will be a dud, Forbig, but I do think the results will be questioned. The strutting will continue regardless.

[Guest Primate]

They can focus all their energies on debunking PGF..

[BobbyO]

Saskeptic and KitKaze will be strutting around here like a spring gobbler, just the thought of it makes me sick.

Even if this particular Project doesn't bear the Fruit that it seems it wants to, they can strut anywhere they want & it wouldn't bother me in the slightest, because they don't know the truth..

[Guest Stubstad]

Bobby O:

Can I take your statement to mean that you know the truth?

Has your version of truth been patented yet?

Bobby O:

Sorry, I didn't see before I sent the last entry that you are on the Steering Committee.

Please scratch the entire entry, accordingly. I've leaned not to mess with you folks who are in charge.

Richard

[Guest]

Has your version of truth been patented? I guess yours hasn't been either, so for right now, everyone is on an even playing field if you consider the search for sasquatch a competition. Not everyone does.

[Guest Stubstad]

I have no version of The Truth. Truth is a pathless land, as Krishamurti once said so succinctly.

My sasquatch "truth": I'm 97% convinced these hominids exist based on some statistical calculations. "Truth" is 100% certain, not 99% or 97%.

Further, I don't know what their etiology is, even assuming my statistical calculation prove to be 100% upon the addition of further evidence.

Competition? -- no way, I trust that most of us are trying very hard to connect the dots.

Richard

[Guest]

I have no version of The Truth. Truth is a pathless land, as Krishamurti once said so succinctly.

It has certainly been convoluted in this situation, I will give you that.

My sasquatch "truth": I'm 97% convinced these hominids exist based on some statistical calculations. "Truth" is 100% certain, not 99% or 97%.

Those that have seen sasquatch are 100% certain. The study will possibly give their knowledge more mainstream validity, but I doubt that any questionable or inconclusive results will dissuade them.

Further, I don't know what their etiology is, even assuming my statistical calculation prove to be 100% upon the addition of further evidence.

No one knows, and I don't think Dr. Ketchum's study will give us a definitive answer on that unless the entire genome is sequenced.

Competition? -- no way, I trust that most of us are trying very hard to connect the dots.

You could have fooled me when you first started posting here, but I'm happy to hear you are moving forward with your own study. I know I enjoy reading what you post, although I am not convinced that you know what you are talking about in regards to genetic analysis most of the time, nothing personal intended in that, it's just an opinion.

Richard

[Guest]

I have no version of The Truth. Truth is a pathless land, as Krishamurti once said so succinctly.

My sasquatch "truth": I'm 97% convinced these hominids exist based on some statistical calculations. "Truth" is 100% certain, not 99% or 97%.

Further, I don't know what their etiology is, even assuming my statistical calculation prove to be 100% upon the addition of further evidence.

Competition? -- no way, I trust that most of us are trying very hard to connect the dots.

Richard

So after seeing "Totally convincing" video and subsequent DNA you still find it necessary to rely on statistics to be 97% positive the species exists? Are the video, still images and DNA factored into these statistics or are you talking about something entirely different?

I for one choose to believe the Erickson project is onto something big here. Not that I have "seen" any compelling video or immutable still photos i.e "sleeping female Sasquatch photo" someone on another site proffered that it looks like a sleeping 50lb dog, I just don't know. My minds keeps coming back to a simple fact, a cosmic truth that has proven itself time and time again. I saw it played out daily in Iraq and Afghanistan with everyday people forced to make decision that carried ultimate consequences, decisions such as speaking to us about what they knew, who did what and why, or when they did it and how. These people had much to lose by opening their mouths, and with every word the epitaph grew longer and longer. I said that to say this...there are famous names with prestigious careers involved in this project, people with everything to lose, Erickson not the least among them being an established mainstream businessman. Academics with impressive resumes. Who in their right mind would sign an NDA regarding something they saw as a hoax? It would be career suicide; Especially in light of what happened with the Georgia Boys and TB and how the whole thing was a media blowup with legal consequences.

[BobbyO]

Bobby O:

Can I take your statement to mean that you know the truth?

Has your version of truth been patented yet?

Richard

Bobby O:

Sorry, I didn't see before I sent the last entry that you are on the Steering Committee.

Please scratch the entire entry, accordingly. I've leaned not to mess with you folks who are in charge.

Richard

Excuse me ????????

WT* is that supposed to mean ??

I truly hope you're not insinuating that just because i am part of some people on this Public Forum who just so happen to volunteer their own personal time in trying to make the Forum a better place for everyone, that i'd have special privelages & such & couldn't " be messed with " ??

Me & you need to have a Beer/Coffee/Steak together Richard, you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried..

Edited September 29, 2011 by BobbyO

[BobbyO]

Oh & to answer your question, for your 97%, i raise you my 100% because of my own eyes..

[Guest Stubstad]

Excuse me ????????

WT* is that supposed to mean ??

I truly hope you're not insinuating that just because i am part of some people on this Public Forum who just so happen to volunteer their own personal time in trying to make the Forum a better place for everyone, that i'd have special privelages & such & couldn't " be messed with " ??

Me & you need to have a Beer/Coffee/Steak together Richard, you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried..

BobbyO:

What does "WT*" mean?

All I wanted to do with withdraw my post after-the-fact because I didn't realize who you were.

Honestly, the beer/coffee/but not the steak sounds good, because by now I have absolutely no idea whatsoever of the "truth" you refer to (is it sasquatch in general; Ketchum; the term "Moderator"; DNA; mtDNA; nuDNA; etc.?

Thank you for volunteering your time. I know how it feels.

Richard

So after seeing "Totally convincing" video and subsequent DNA you still find it necessary to rely on statistics to be 97% positive the species exists? Are the video, still images and DNA factored into these statistics or are you talking about something entirely different?

I for one choose to believe the Erickson project is onto something big here. Not that I have "seen" any compelling video or immutable still photos i.e "sleeping female Sasquatch photo" someone on another site proffered that it looks like a sleeping 50lb dog, I just don't know. My minds keeps coming back to a simple fact, a cosmic truth that has proven itself time and time again. I saw it played out daily in Iraq and Afghanistan with everyday people forced to make decision that carried ultimate consequences, decisions such as speaking to us about what they knew, who did what and why, or when they did it and how. These people had much to lose by opening their mouths, and with every word the epitaph grew longer and longer. I said that to say this...there are famous names with prestigious careers involved in this project, people with everything to lose, Erickson not the least among them being an established mainstream businessman. Academics with impressive resumes. Who in their right mind would sign an NDA regarding something they saw as a hoax? It would be career suicide; Especially in light of what happened with the Georgia Boys and TB and how the whole thing was a media blowup with legal consequences.

The 97% figure is only based on my (albeit simplified) mtDNA analysis, including a tidbit of data from a single gene within the nuDNA genome.

Since I have seen some of the Erickson (and other) video evidence, in truth I should increase my 97% figure somewhat; but not 100%. This could be an army of hoaxers, along with the ostensible army of podiatrists that have hoaxed all those well-vetted footprint casts, all of whom are "out to get us". Not very likely but, well, in deference to the skeptics and debunkers among us I'll give it an honest percent or two that we are ALL fooled. Ie. that every single bit of circumstantial evidence for the existence of sasquatch has been hoaxed or a mistake or an inadvertent misidentification. In addition to the known hoaxes, such as the "Georgia Boys" fooling the most gullible person in the entire business: Tom Biscardi.

Meanwhile, I'm very sure I have actual sequencing data from the "Ketchum" study, so that was not hoaxed. The labs that did the mito testing were not her lab, but labs that do such sequencing routinely. They didn't even know that the specimens were purported sasquatch (meaning the plural form of the word).

Richard

The genetic study. You're right; I'm a scientist & researcher & statistician & engineer, but not a geneticist. All I've reported is statistics and some logical conclusions that arise from the actual mtDNA data. While I have seen a tidbit of nuDNA data from a single gene, and while I believe that made me even more convinced that sasquatch really exists, I haven't spoken about this because I have practically zero knowledge about the nuclear DNA genome.

All this is why we've elicited a neutral DNA research laboratory -- in Europe -- to do further work; because I am NOT imminently qualified.

Still, being researcher by trade, data to me is data and certain conclusions follow from that data, generally within some confidence level, which I have reported. So I do not think I have stuck my neck out too far here, with some VERY tentative conclusions pending further data and collaboration with real geneticists.

For example, while I believe that sasquatch is a subspecies or subhuman that goes back in time at least 15,000 or 20,000 years, and more probably as much as 60,000 years, I can see from the data that if this "ancient" theory is correct, the sasquatch (plural) has mated with ordinary Homo sapiens sapiens from time to time and place to place.

This entire scenario will not be know until the entire nuclear genome (or most of it) is sequenced. After this is accomplished, it could turn out that sasquatch is NOT really ancient as the theory I've proposed postulates; it may be a much-more modern "feral human" who has simply grown tall, hairy, and very large over a few hundred generations or less. The data I have seen do not eliminate that possibility entirely.

Really, the most interesting thing I've noticed is that all three complete mtDNA genome data sets and three single-gene data sets are not perfectly matched anywhere in GenBank -- none of them. A statistician can see this; you don't need to be a geneticists to analyze data & use GenBank's search engines.

Richard Stubstad

PS: The above post was written to Jodie.

Richard

[Guest]

For example, while I believe that sasquatch is a subspecies or subhuman that goes back in time at least 15,000 or 20,000 years, and more probably as much as 60,000 years, I can see from the data that if this "ancient" theory is correct, the sasquatch (plural) has mated with ordinary Homo sapiens sapiens from time to time and place to place.

If proven correct this would certainly give credence to various Native American legends and anecdotes

[Guest COGrizzly]

Stubstad - I can see how BobbyO may have found that remark almost offensive...I was a little offended. And I truly am not brown-nosing here, but the admin, steering c., and mod staff are totally fair here. That's been my experience and also what I have noticed from other situations.