bipedalist Posted February 2, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 2, 2012 Good point........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted February 2, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted February 2, 2012 Looks like Lindsay pushed it a bit far. He better lawyer up if the big money is really behind it like he says it is. Agreed, my bet is he's well out of his depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Maybe you can show us how you came to this conclusion from what was on the website? I didn't see anything about her benefitting financially from the success of the documentary. This is a for profit enterprise. Dr. Ketchum is a memeber of the team. Obviously, she is getting paid for her services. She applied for a three patants. All three are related to the docmentary. The more people who see the documentary the more people who purchase her publications. What makes you think that she does not have a fincial stake in the enterprise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I hadn't seen this before, it is about a year old now. Donlon is an ex-bigfoot blogger who was respected in the community. He gave it up, with some bitter remarks about fakes. In this post he shares some of his knowledge and insight and hunches about the video (and other) claims of the Erickson Project. Here is one of the central thoughts of the piece: The original filmmakers filmed at least four bits of film and the one mentioned by Cryptomundo sounds exactly like what Gregg described to me back in 2005; if it is the same film, that would mean that it was filmed by the property owners and not Erickson's crew. Here he explains: Erickson: "After many months of frustrations the knowledge gained by the team’s experiences enabled it to finally achieve success in capturing several video clips of different Sasquatch, including the first 'facial' footage ever recorded" .Note the part that I bolded there. We know that the original witnesses recorded a "full facial video" of what they said was a bigfoot before Pfohl and Hadj-Chikh were onsite for the project, because Gregg Clay saw it and described it to me in the Summer of 2005 well before the home had been purchased and Leila took up residence there. [Note: I have updated the below to cut down on confusion some of my wording had caused, and to add a bit more info.] I believe this is the video that Erickson is making reference to in his description. If it is, why has he misrepresented it as the product of a scientific effort? Because that video was produced by the original witnesses by themselves. If he is referring to video obtained later it is striking that it is described using terms almost exactly like those that Gregg used to describe it to me in 2005. if you read the piece, he goes on to list the similarities. Discuss/rebut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Is there any first hand information in his piece? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Nobody really knows for sure when Erickson and folks arrived on scene. I have read something to the fact that the home owners were not exactly rich so perhaps they were given assistance in getting the facial footage with video cameras, gear, etc. I don't think it's really that big of a deal who got the footage. A scientific effort means gathering evidence and gathering the video is perhaps what they did. Pretty irrelevant if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Is there any first hand information in his piece? Only this - http://dapht.blogspot.com/p/kentucky-bigfoot-habituation.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 "We know that the original witnesses recorded a "full facial video" of what they said was a bigfoot before Pfohl and Hadj-Chikh were onsite" It's a fake with a modified Chewbacca mask, sadly. Don't get your hopes too high. Sorry I can't explain why I know, but that's what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 So this video that bill knows is a fake is used in the erickson project? Or is that just a guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 My understanding is that the author of the blog doesn't believe that Erickson took any new footage. Was there anything else to learn from his opinion piece? Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 If you can't explain why you know then you don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Rockiessquatching the real world is not that simple. Sometimes we are silent not for lack of knowledge but for lack of permission to speak. Bill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Both of those were great reads so thanks for posting. It is as usual a very strange story and there are so many things that make it questionable. Some of it though seems credible. Maybe I misunderstood, but did it say the lady had been going out into the woods for many years and feeding them? How could she have been doing that and her husband have no idea until he saw one and she confessed to it? Did I read all of that correctly because that just doesn't seem possible? Also, it seems odd that they decided to go out searching while the wife is out in the woods and the husbands brings up wood knocking. It seems very logical that she stayed back and was answering his knocks. Bill are you saying that the homeowners face video is a fake and that is the only footage of a face or did Erickson also get video of a face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I cannot speak for anything Mr. Erickson may or may not use in his anticipated DVD. I can only say that what I have seen, I do hope is not part of his release. If it were, it would damage the credibility of any other content. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 The full facial video was shot by the female home owner, dressed in a ghillie suit, and then it was purchased by Erickson. It remains by far the best video in the collection, though there are several other genuine clips. Bill (or his source) is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts