Guest Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Hey everone, first post here. Iv been lurking this site for years and being from Ireland and living here i didn't feel i could bring allot to a bigfoot forum. But this topic has compelled me to post. I have to say im SICK of this 'erickson project' Iv been coming back to this thread for what seems like a lifetime waiting for a photo, video, even some good news, but so far nothing. Guys lets be real for a second, im just gonna come out and say it. These people havnt got ****. If they had as they say, got photos and videos of a unknown primate roaming the united states of america it would be the HUGE news, there would be no need for this DNA evidence. If the videos were that good, there would be no need for any DNA. And anther thing what in the blue hell will the DNA prove? Its not like we have a Bigfoot DNA sample to compare it too so we can say, look its a bigfoot. The absolute best we can hope for would be a conclusion of... its an unknown species, and that does nothing for proving bigfoot. When it all comes out, if it does, it will be a bad photo here a blobsquatch there and no answers on the DNA. And we all know it. Sorry about the rant, i just really wanted to get that off my chest. Im done with this Erickson nonsense. Laters...
Guest Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Well, I'm getting a lesson on things here. Thanks Richard for the info you wrote. My opinion on all this stuff, being a non-seeing bigfoot person is. Whoa! This is very interesting. I read the report of the two guys hunting and shooting the adult female and juvenile. That is pretty sad. Correct me if I'm wrong. The guy shooting.... I think there are laws to prevent shooting like a juvenile animal, and without a hunting permit. Is that why the guy freaked out and left the corpses in the woods? So he wouldn't get in trouble for hunting without a license, or because the BF were human looking... am I missing something? It's still a very sad story to me if it is true. I'd rather have photos. But, the DNA info is very interesting to me, Richard. I'm not sure what parallel DNA stuff is, but I get the idea of the entire thing you're saying. I do geneaology, and understand a very small bit of it with that. this is very cool to hear. I can understand why the DNA samples are hard to trace, if it is not following a known lineage and doesn't match anything. Is my thought on that correct, or am I way off base? I hope everything turns out with this in a positive way so everyone wins in the end, and some kind of protection on the part of BF is made, at least not shooting them. I'd rather have one captured and studied, but only for a little while, then released back in the wild. And pray there is no mental damage after coming into contact with a bunch of human scientists inspecting it and maybe put it on display for money. God, I hate that, especially when I see animals in a cage at a zoo, or mammals in some aquarium doing tricks and they are half mental and nervous wrecks. But, that's me talking.
BobbyO Posted October 8, 2011 SSR Team Posted October 8, 2011 Hey everone, first post here. I have to say im SICK of this 'erickson project' Im done with this Erickson nonsense. Laters...
Guest Fanofsquatch Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 In then out in one post, that has to be a record.
slabdog Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 yeah yeah yeah... we've heard that before.. "I'M OUTTA HERE!".... (slight delay) "I'm baaaaaaaaack..."
Guest Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I wrote the below on 10 July 2011 in the Sierra Shootings thread. Post number 78877 "Is it really a stretch for me to ask that everyone just trust me and my sources that the DNA and EP will amount to nothing? When I turn out to be correct, please just accept that I knew and thank me. That's really not much to ask for for getting the truth." It still stands.
Guest Fanofsquatch Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I think pretty much everyone here has hope for something but expects nothing out of the EP. If it ends up imploding and nothing happens then all sorts of people will jump on with the "I told you so" and "I knew it all along" posts. But you will get credit for the early I told you so. All that is happening here is discussing the possibilities of the unknown, most have been let down before and will be let down again.
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I wrote the below on 10 July 2011 in the Sierra Shootings thread. Post number 78877 "Is it really a stretch for me to ask that everyone just trust me and my sources that the DNA and EP will amount to nothing? When I turn out to be correct, please just accept that I knew and thank me. That's really not much to ask for for getting the truth." It still stands. Wow...another grand-stander in this thread with secret sources wanting us to trust in the exact opposite conclusion. Excuse me while I hold my applause. And quoting himself too. How humble!
BobbyO Posted October 10, 2011 SSR Team Posted October 10, 2011 In then out in one post, that has to be a record. He has a 100% positive rating with his Posts however which is impressive..
Guest Jodie Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) Hey Stubstad- I read an interesting article in Psychology Today about X heredity you might be interested in. I thought about Khwit's daughter when I read it and those red eyes she had. Here is the an excerpt from the article: By contrast, the X a woman inherits from her father is his one and only X chromosome, complete and undiluted. This means that a father is twice as closely related to his daughter via his X chromosome genes as is her mother. To put it another way: Any X gene in a mother has a 50/50 chance of being inherited by her daughter, but every X gene in a father is certain to be passed on to a daughter. It also went onto say that the Y chromosome has only 100 genes whereas the X chromosome carries 1200 genes, 120 of those genes that are related to intelligence. When the two X chromosomes combine in a daughter it is usually an uneven combination where one X can be dominant over the other as far as expression. I think the Russians are missing the boat on this, they need to be tracking down these ancestors to see if there is any father- daughter- father- daughter line instead of worrying about faking right side only footprints in a cave. You only get half the article unless you subscribe but here is the link: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201109/the-incredible-expanding-adventures-the-x-chromosome Oh by the way, I rolled back over to "booger" status. When you hit 3000 posts they do that and they also give you an all expense paid vacation to the location of your choice as long as it is related to cryptozoology in some kind of way. Guess where I chose to go!!! :lol: Edited October 15, 2011 by Jodie
Guest Alpinist Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) I'm expecting that a Northwestern USA or Southwestern Canada sasquatch will have American Indian mito DNA, if some of the stories from these Native Americans are really true -- abductions, etc. that is. Richard, thanks for the updates. My questions are; 1) how many samples total in Ketchums study 2) how many samples from Alaska 3) how many samples from British Columbia For what it's worth regarding the image - "this_is_just_an_artists_rendering_dont_make_a_big_deal_out_of_it.jpg" - the artist is Simone Erickson herself Edited October 16, 2011 by Alpinist
Guest gershake Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 - "this_is_just_an_artists_rendering_dont_make_a_big_deal_out_of_it.jpg" - the artist is Simone Erickson herself Now that's interesting. How'd you find out?
Matt Pruitt Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 Actually, the artist is a Regal Ridge associate named Arlet De Visser.
Recommended Posts