Erickson Project

[Guest]

Okay so I've been chatting with Igor on this latest skull issue. Bottom line is that he has no knowledge of any such intended procurement. He said that it would also be illegal in Russia, but if it were legal, it would be Igor himself to decide such a deal. It sounds like there would be less problem if someone wanted to extract DNA for analysis, but the whole skull would not be needed for that either. Igor said he and Erickson did talk about a tooth this last April, but nothing developed from that.

So my guess is that either there is no truth to the skulls being purchased by Erickson, or if he did intend to purchase them, whomever his Russian contact was, lacked any such authority to be making deals. I suppose Igor would like to know if that were the case, but it doesn't sound like Igor has much concern about it. So I guess if there were further specifics, please share with me if you wish and I'll pass the information on. I don't see any basis for inferences that Russia has reneged on any contract either.

Oh and thanks Tautriadelta re the blog compliment. I know I have been lacking on posts there. The one that is next up is long and I just can't seem to get it reduced.

Edited October 3, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist

[Guest]

Okay so I've been chatting with Igor on this latest skull issue. Bottom line is that he has no knowledge of any such intended procurement. He said that it would also be illegal in Russia, but if it were legal, it would be Igor himself to decide such a deal. It sounds like there would be less problem if someone wanted to extract DNA for analysis, but the whole skull would not be needed for that either. Igor said he and Erickson did talk about a tooth this last April, but nothing developed from that.

So my guess is that either there is no truth to the skulls being purchased by Erickson, or if he did intend to purchase them, whomever his Russian contact was, lacked any such authority to be making deals. I suppose Igor would like to know if that were the case, but it doesn't sound like Igor has much concern about it. So I guess if there were further specifics, please share with me if you wish and I'll pass the information on. I don't see any basis for inferences that Russia has reneged on any contract either.

Oh and thanks Tautriadelta re the blog compliment. I know I have been lacking on posts there. The one that is next up is long and I just can't seem to get it reduced.

I do apologize, however, I was under the impression that Zana's remains were never located after she passed. People who had known her, could not remember where she was buried.

[Guest]

I am starting to doubt this DVD will ever come out.....

[Guest]

I do apologize, however, I was under the impression that Zana's remains were never located after she passed. People who had known her, could not remember where she was buried.

Yes you are correct Blobsquatch, there is question whether the remains thought to be Zana are actually hers as someone else mentioned and Igor has previously acknowledged I believe, I was just addressing the skulls as if they were belonging to the individuals in question.

[Guest]

When I was re-reading the articles on Zana & Khwit on Saturday, I thought of a much better way to approach locating her potential remains than what had been attempted in the 60's and 70's by digging in the general area with shovels. It is what I had previously thought of as a means of viewing the remains of Patrick, the alleged sasquatch-Colville Indian hybrid in Washington State without disturbing his remains or violating laws regarding buried human remains. I think that ground penetrating radar would be the way to go, because you can see into the ground and more readily view the morphological features of the skeleton and skull. Obviously this technology was not available when the Russian scientists were attempting to locate Zana's remains, but I think it would be and awesome tool to use and that it would yield the results we have all wanted to see in both the case of Zana and the case of Patrick. Law enforcement uses this technology regularly to search for remains, as do paleontologists and other scientists.

[bipedalist]

It sounds like a good tool. I hear it is very expensive if you don't have a cooperative university archaeology group or grant involved in such an effort however.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Are you all basically talking about what they used in the first Jurassic Park movie? It shoots a cylinder into the earth and "pings" back through the ground to a computer which "reads" what's under the surface?

[Guest]

Thanks for the update PT, am I surprised? No.

What I saw used once was similar to a metal detector. They were using it to locate lost graves also. I think it's a fine idea to try but your results would depend on how the skeleton is positioned. It can't be much different than looking at a baby inutero with an ultrasound.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Jodie

[Guest]

Yes you are correct Blobsquatch, there is question whether the remains thought to be Zana are actually hers as someone else mentioned and Igor has previously acknowledged I believe, I was just addressing the skulls as if they were belonging to the individuals in question.

Thank you for the clarification PT. Very interesting developments! I wish you luck in your search. I will be tuning in.

[Guest gershake]

Not really any spectacular news, but I thought it might be worth a mention. If it's not, just merge this with the Erickson thread. P:

You guys probably remember this picture from the Erickson Project website:

It is now called this_is_just_an_artists_rendering_dont_make_a_big_deal_out_of_it.jpg, but it used to be called matilda.jpg. People speculated that Matilda was the bigfoot from the legendary video that Erickson supposedly has. The new name of the picture reinforces that implication IMO. However I just stumbled by chance upon an email from Simone Erickson to someone who had emailed them:

"Hello in Germany.

No, the water colour art is just a fantasy drawing done by an artist years ago.

We needed a design element on the web page and I asked if you could borrow her drawing.

We are waiting for the DNA results ( see website for info on DNA ) this is

a very long process as there is no type specimen on file to compare it

to. When the scientists have come to a conclusion, we will release the documentary.

So for now we wait.

New info will be posted on the web site.

Kind regards

Simone Erickson ( Adrian's wife )"

http://www.paraportal.org/p302449-beweis-zur-existenz-von-bigfoot.html#post302449

[Guest Stubstad]

Hi, all.

After reading the above posts, I have to admit that Igor may well be correct. I recall Erickson talking about a (single) skull; but he could have been talking about a tooth or some other skeletal "part" as well. Frankly, I'm not sure, so let's go with Igor's explanation for now.

I talked to Erickson this morning, but I didn't bring up this particular issue; we frankly had more important things to discuss. I probably talked with him for 2 or 3 minutes max.; he is "balls to the wall" as it's called here in the Lower 48, with his declining business of selling real estate. I haven't spoken with him for more than 5 minutes at a time since around the spring of this year for the same reason -- he is simply doing nothing but trying to maintain his income through his only active money-making business: real estate. No sasquatch research or even ad-hoc decision-making whatsoever is taking place. And this applies to days, evenings and Saturdays alike. While polite etc. with me, he simply doesn't have any time (or more money) to spend on sasquatch. I have given the man enough respect to NOT call him on a Sunday. I have a feeling, though, it would more of the same if I did -- work, work, work.

On the other hand, it is likely I will be meeting with him face-to-face by the end of this year. If this takes place, of course I'll be able to ask about the Zana/Khwit "skull" or "tooth" issue -- whatever it may have been. I also recall him saying (maybe six months ago) that he had paid some kind of "deposit" -- ie. real money to "the Russians", whatever it was for. But it was probably not for two items, it was for just one.

On the issue of whether or not the Russians found the correct skull of Zana, please refer back to the same website I mentioned in an earlier post. In that report, there are two separate entries -- one for Zana and one for Khwit. While the Khwit one is certain, the tentative Zana skull checked out to have the same identical HV1 mtDNA sequencing -- and precisely the some polymorphic site: 16,189 (T -> C) as Khwit (who would have shared the identical mtDNA if Khwit was the son of Zana and Zana was the "creature" the Russians thought she was). I do not want to go into another statistical analysis of the chances of finding precisely the same HV1 sequence in two random individuals -- with the same identical polymorphic site -- but suffice it to say it very, very low unless the two were direct decendants of the same female -- or maternal sisters.

Bottom line: In all likelihood, the Russians really DO have the skull of Zana as well as Khwit.

BTW too; the very same website maintains that neither Zana nor Khwit "had any Neanderthal mutations." Sorry, but pair 16,189 is precisely such a mutation. All Neanderthals (3 of them from various locations) I have in my active database in EXCEL have this very mutation. What Zana and Khwit didn't have are a handful of other polymorphic sites within HV1 that would prove they were 100% Neanderthal on the mitochondrial side. Thus the researchers' conclusion: They were not Neanderthal, full stop.

What is true is ONLY that these two "folks" were not 100% Neanderthal on the maternal side. It says nothing about their paternal lineage. In fact, one explanation for the occurance of this polymorphism #16,189 is called "seepage" where the paternal side's mtDNA "seeps" into the maternal DNA. While this is still conjectural, according to the most educated sources it is a very real possibility that needs further research. The Khoisan, for the most part, also share this polymorphism (see my write-up on Sample 3 on my website).

I believe (but do not know for sure) the investigators in this case were from New York University and one of them was Todd Disotell. Even though Disotell was also involved in the investigation of the Skookum cast, my understanding is that he believes that cast was an elk, not a sasquatch.

He also (obviously) believes that both Zana and Khwit were ordinary modern humans.

While he may be right in both instances, I do not believe he is a very thorough researcher and has not pursued either investigation (neither Zana/Khwit nor the Skookum Cast) in a rigorous scientific manner: Obtain ALL necessary information before jumping to conclusions based on one's prejudices "going in".

One more tidbit about Zana. Although she lived in the Georgian village where she was initially held in captivity (and later allowed to "roam around"), she never learned a single work of the local language. She understood simple commands, but never responded with more than grunts or other emotionally-charged noises. Meanwhile, while being a "very strange" half-breed, Khwit learned to speak the local language with no problem. This doesn't prove anything, but it is something we should all consider as entirely possible, given the story of Zana appears quite credible, and very unlikely a total fabriction on the part of the entire village.

Richard

Edited October 3, 2011 by Stubstad

[Guest Stubstad]

Not really any spectacular news, but I thought it might be worth a mention. If it's not, just merge this with the Erickson thread. P:

You guys probably remember this picture from the Erickson Project website:

It is now called this_is_just_an_artists_rendering_dont_make_a_big_deal_out_of_it.jpg, but it used to be called matilda.jpg. People speculated that Matilda was the bigfoot from the legendary video that Erickson supposedly has. The new name of the picture reinforces that implication IMO. However I just stumbled by chance upon an email from Simone Erickson to someone who had emailed them:

"Hello in Germany.

No, the water colour art is just a fantasy drawing done by an artist years ago.

We needed a design element on the web page and I asked if you could borrow her drawing.

We are waiting for the DNA results ( see website for info on DNA ) this is

a very long process as there is no type specimen on file to compare it

to. When the scientists have come to a conclusion, we will release the documentary.

So for now we wait.

New info will be posted on the web site.

Kind regards

Simone Erickson ( Adrian's wife )"

http://www.paraportal.org/p302449-beweis-zur-existenz-von-bigfoot.html#post302449

Simone is correct in all regards.

My first comment when I saw this drawing on Erickson's website was: "Change it; this doesn't resemble anything ANYONE has seen, including you."

He proceeded to tell me he didn't WANT it to resemble any particular or actual sasquatch. Suffice it to say he had his reasons -- good, bad or indiffernt.

OaO,

Richard

[Guest Dudlow]

One more tidbit about Zana...she never learned a single work of the local language. She understood simple commands, but never responded with more than grunts or other emotionally-charged noises. Meanwhile, while being a "very strange" half-breed, Khwit learned to speak the local language with no problem. Richard

According to more recent cognitive science findings - essentially about how our brains are wired for learning - children must be intensively exposed to ongoing language usage by those around them within the first three years of birth or they will either develop a very stunted language articulation skill set or will not develop language skills at all. This echoes the few records (and a couple relatively recently) of children raised by animals who were unable to communicate using words, even several years after being introduced into society.

Whether Squatchy also follows this linguistic cognitive learning pattern is unknown, but at least Khwit was raised in a linguistically communicative environment.

Additionally, many humans are unable to learn a second language that they were not first exposed to in early childhood.

- Dudlow

[Guest]

Ahh Dudlow, you beat me to it.

[Guest Stubstad]

Ahh Dudlow, you beat me to it.

Yes, indeed. I think that is likey what happened to Zana. If so, the only remaining question is: Was she a real Almasty, or was she merely a feral human? Since evidently her skull exists and is in the hands of someone-or-other, the nuclear DNA tests -- if done properly -- will tell us the answer to that one, not the mitochondrial DNA alone.

Oh, and by the way, I'm an exception to NOT being able to learn a 2nd, and in fact 3rd and 4th language, all of them as an adult.

My second language was German (poorly, but even so ...) during my college years at UC Berkeley, 1964-1966;

My third one was Danish (fluent), 1970 to 1979;

Last but not least (4th) was Norwegian (recently, but merely as an extension or dialect of Danish), reading and understanding "bokmaal" but not speaking.

What this probaby means is: Zana had no "western" language at all from her upbringing. If she was distantly connected to the Kung (a Khoisan clan) from southern Africa from some 50,000 or 60,000 years ago as I suspect she was, she probably did have a primitive language of sorts, but not one decipherable to any European -- or probably not to any of today's Bushmen (Khoisan) either.

OaO,

Richard

Edited October 3, 2011 by Stubstad