Erickson Project

[Guest]

There is always the possibility that the ones that are supposedly captured, shot, or seen aren't at the top of the intellectual totem pole for their kind either.

[Guest]

Yup, Darwins theory working, The Dumbest get killed, and no progeny, while the smart ones hide and live to Propagate the species.

[Guest]

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?

That is one, but it is the more expensive kind, and would probably not be cost effective and would prob also be too destructive to use in a human burial site.

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.

That is the kind I have seen used by law enforcement. I am not sure what the resolution would be now that I think about it. Looking for difference in Patrick's remains, for example, while they are buried 6 feet deep in a casket might be more than the device is capable of, while the more expensive unit that Hairy mentioned would reveal detail but would doubtless not be allowed to be "fired off" in a Native cemetery.

[Guest Bsal9872]

Who cares about the documentary or the dna results.... just post the freakin' videos of sasquatch on YouTube!

That's all..

[BobbyO]

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:

Hi Gershake, you've confused me a little..

That JPG was always called this_is_just_an_artists_rendering_dont_make_a_big_deal_out_of_it.jpg

Or at least it was in February when i downloaded it..

[Guest]

Here are the purported skulls of Zana (left) and Khwit (right). Khwit's skull looks like maybe something interesting happening in his genetic background, though Grover Krantz examined it and said that despite some robust features that it was within the normal bounds of modern humans.

Zana's skull (if that is truly hers), looks even more modern.

Edited October 4, 2011 by tsiatkoVS

[Guest gershake]

Hi Gershake, you've confused me a little..

That JPG was always called this_is_just_an_artists_rendering_dont_make_a_big_deal_out_of_it.jpg

Or at least it was in February when i downloaded it..

I don't know when the name changed, but it was definitely called matilda.jpg initially. Evidence of this: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=1037&view=findpost&p=42315

[Guest Stubstad]

Here are the purported skulls of Zana (left) and Khwit (right). Khwit's skull looks like maybe something interesting happening in his genetic background, though Grover Krantz examined it and said that despite some robust features that it was within the normal bounds of modern humans.

Zana's skull (if that is truly hers), looks even more modern.

Recall please that three out of three mtDNA complete sequences were also "within human ranges" in the broadest sense of the word. And that's pretty broad.

I'm pretty sure that sasquatch is at least partly human (but not all that modern, obviously) and maybe totally within human ranges but with quite a lot of genetic differences between MOST of us and the sasquatch (pl.) on the nuclear side.

Patience please, folks !

Based on the HV1 mito testing done on both Zana & Khwit, I'm almost positive that they have the real Zana. Whether the particular skulls in the pictures are even supposed to be Zana and Khwit, I wouldn't know. Ask Igor -- he'll know!

Thanks,

Richard

Edited October 4, 2011 by Stubstad

[TimB]

Unfortunately, Richard, the patience quotient has been used up on this endeavor in my life. We've been hearing about it since you first brought it up In March? Yet we are no closer to confirming that there are papers being put out or DNA testing being done. You have probably put more out there than anyone else, but even you have nothing definitive. What's the motivation for releasing a picture of a pile of hair? It seems like all of this is designed to keep people engaged without ever coming through with anything definitive. It seems like another shell game- I have no idea why someone would do that but it seems like it. Please understand that I'm talking about the bigfoot evidence and not anyone's personal motivation.

Tim

[Guest Stubstad]

Unfortunately, Richard, the patience quotient has been used up on this endeavor in my life. We've been hearing about it since you first brought it up In March? Yet we are no closer to confirming that there are papers being put out or DNA testing being done. You have probably put more out there than anyone else, but even you have nothing definitive. What's the motivation for releasing a picture of a pile of hair? It seems like all of this is designed to keep people engaged without ever coming through with anything definitive. It seems like another shell game- I have no idea why someone would do that but it seems like it. Please understand that I'm talking about the bigfoot evidence and not anyone's personal motivation.

Tim

OK Tim, fair enough. I doubt whether you or most anyone else is more frustrated than I am, or Adrian Erickson and his wife for that matter too.

Again, I do have 3 mitochondrial sequences (complete) and 3 MC1R gene nuclear sequences, but I will have to check with several others to see if I can release these data. Personally, I would like it if someone else would look at these data afresh, but I have to tread lightly here for now. Here's why:

We (a small group of us who are not longer connected with the Ketchum study that we started back in January of 2010) have arranged to take new, purported sasquatch samples to a public European research lab around the middle of November (next month). We will likely only have about a half-dozen viable samples, plus a few questionable ones. We already have an appointment to spend two or three days with the lab during November (the exact dates don't matter, but they are cast in stone).

This European lab is likely to begin DNA testing "right away", whatever that means over there. We won't know until we discuss the entire state of affairs with them vis-a-vis earlier and/or ongoing work, and mainly the data I have used to reach some pretty exciting conclusions on the mitochondrial side. I've posted these conclusions on my website, as you know, but sans the actual data (for now).

I will report back on this thread: 1) How many samples we actually end up with by the time we head across the pond, and how many are likely from actual sasquatch (pl.); 2) How quickly we are likely to hear about test results from the Lab during our meetings with them; and 3) The European lab's likely interest in publishing a peer-reviewed Journal article on their findings, including an expected release date of this peer-reviewed paper or article.

Meanwhile, rumors float about re. Ketchum's study, and many of these rumors are frankly self-contradictory. I have absolutely zero knowledge about how she's doing with the study, let alone whether or not she has actually turned in a paper on sasquatch DNA to a peer-reviewed journal, and if she has, which journal? The bottom line with Ketchum is: Let's all wish her the best of luck with her work, and hopefully this work will concur with the "parallel" DNA study in Europe that is about to begin. I honestly believe that neither "her" study nor ours will be enough to convince a highly skeptical world that, indeed, sasquatch exists. This particular battle is just the beginning of a likely uproar, especially amongst the so-called scientists who have obviously formed their opinion a priori -- or the vast majority have, that is.

I believe that Erickson will release his video, or at least part of it, concurrent with either the conclusion of Ketchum's study (and we have no idea when that will be), or the conclusion of our European study, whichever comes first.

That's about the best I can do, ladies and gentlemen. Everything is lined up on the "transparent" side of things; the not-so-transparent work ongoing in one form or another, let by Ketchum, is a total unknown at this point in time.

Richard

Edited October 5, 2011 by Stubstad

[Guest slimwitless]

Unfortunately, Richard, the patience quotient has been used up on this endeavor in my life. We've been hearing about it since you first brought it up In March? Yet we are no closer to confirming that there are papers being put out or DNA testing being done. You have probably put more out there than anyone else, but even you have nothing definitive. What's the motivation for releasing a picture of a pile of hair? It seems like all of this is designed to keep people engaged without ever coming through with anything definitive. It seems like another shell game- I have no idea why someone would do that but it seems like it. Please understand that I'm talking about the bigfoot evidence and not anyone's personal motivation.

Tim

Wouldn't it be easier to just say you're tired of waiting? Personally, I don't think Ketchum has any responsibility to keep a tiny audience of enthusiasts apprised of her ongoing work. Now, it this thing actually does drag on longer that what one might normally expect for a groundbreaking study, I'd be worried. Remember, the CERN folks were measuring the flight time of neutrinos for three years before revealing their unusual results to the world.

Edited October 5, 2011 by slimwitless

[Guest HairyGreek]

TimB is a good guy Slimmy, but you are wasting your breath. He thinks Ketchum has this all planned out as a scam to do...what exactly I don't know. It was the people who broke their NDAs and ran their mouths before everything was ready that opened up this can of worms. Then fed the worms to some dip with a blog and all...heck...broke loose. Now it is all Ketchum's fault and people with an axe to grind won't correct that fallacy.

Edited October 5, 2011 by HairyGreek

[Guest Stubstad]

Wouldn't it be easier to just say you're tired of waiting? Personally, I don't think Ketchum has any responsibility to keep a tiny audience of enthusiasts apprised of her ongoing work. Now, it this thing actually does drag on longer that what one might normally expect for a groundbreaking study, I'd be worried. Remember, the CERN folks were measuring the flight time of neutrinos for three years before revealing their unusual results to the world.

On the other hand, the Max Planck Institute folks with some 20 world-wide coauthors wrote up the two sequences found in the Denisovan relics. The paper is nothing short of perfection & thoroughness.

Several "releases" on the subject were made during the entire process that lead up to the publication of a NEW hominid or subspecies. Including the publication in GenBank of the complete mitochondrial genome.

In other words, we were all kept appraised of the progress DURING the preparation of the paper.

Richard

[Guest HairyGreek]

Axe, meet grindstone...

[Guest jtorres3995]

OK Tim, fair enough. I doubt whether you or most anyone else is more frustrated than I am, or Adrian Erickson and his wife for that matter too.

Again, I do have 3 mitochondrial sequences (complete) and 3 MC1R gene nuclear sequences, but I will have to check with several others to see if I can release these data. Personally, I would like it if someone else would look at these data afresh, but I have to tread lightly here for now. Here's why:

We (a small group of us who are not longer connected with the Ketchum study that we started back in January of 2010) have arranged to take new, purported sasquatch samples to a public European research lab around the middle of November (next month). We will likely only have about a half-dozen viable samples, plus a few questionable ones. We already have an appointment to spend two or three days with the lab during November (the exact dates don't matter, but they are cast in stone).

This European lab is likely to begin DNA testing "right away", whatever that means over there. We won't know until we discuss the entire state of affairs with them vis-a-vis earlier and/or ongoing work, and mainly the data I have used to reach some pretty exciting conclusions on the mitochondrial side. I've posted these conclusions on my website, as you know, but sans the actual data (for now).

I will report back on this thread: 1) How many samples we actually end up with by the time we head across the pond, and how many are likely from actual sasquatch (pl.); 2) How quickly we are likely to hear about test results from the Lab during our meetings with them; and 3) The European lab's likely interest in publishing a peer-reviewed Journal article on their findings, including an expected release date of this peer-reviewed paper or article.

Meanwhile, rumors float about re. Ketchum's study, and many of these rumors are frankly self-contradictory. I have absolutely zero knowledge about how she's doing with the study, let alone whether or not she has actually turned in a paper on sasquatch DNA to a peer-reviewed journal, and if she has, which journal? The bottom line with Ketchum is: Let's all wish her the best of luck with her work, and hopefully this work will concur with the "parallel" DNA study in Europe that is about to begin. I honestly believe that neither "her" study nor ours will be enough to convince a highly skeptical world that, indeed, sasquatch exists. This particular battle is just the beginning of a likely uproar, especially amongst the so-called scientists who have obviously formed their opinion a priori -- or the vast majority have, that is.

I believe that Erickson will release his video, or at least part of it, concurrent with either the conclusion of Ketchum's study (and we have no idea when that will be), or the conclusion of our European study, whichever comes first.

That's about the best I can do, ladies and gentlemen. Everything is lined up on the "transparent" side of things; the not-so-transparent work ongoing in one form or another, let by Ketchum, is a total unknown at this point in time.

Richard