Erickson Project

[Guest]

I find it difficult to believe that everyone who has seen the video was fooled by a Chewbacca mask. From what I have read on the story (and could be wrong about) is that the house owners called the BFRO about the inital habituation which then led to the pancake video being filmed then Erickson got involved purchasing the house and hired the rest of the team. Several people claimed that they saw Bigfoot's onsite while they were there (Bindernagel was one) and the EP team apparently has other film of them and gathered blood DNA evidence.

The idea that one piece of footage is an over the counter Chewbacca mask just doesn't seem to jive with everything else that went on down there. I find it even more difficult to believe that Erickson purchased the property without doing some serious vetting of the evidence that was gathered at that point.

Now... creating another video WITH a Chewbacca mask as a sort of "blind taste test" seems to make sense. If I was very protective of my film I would definitely be making a re-creation of certain events to keep the real stuff safe and sound until it was time to use the real deal in the final production.

Just specualating but hey THAT'S WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR RIGHT ??

Edited February 16, 2012 by rockiessquatching

[Bill]

If there's real footage of a real creature, nobody wants to see it more than I do. I'll call it real if my analysis leads to that conclusion. I'll call it indeterminate if I feel the evidence is insufficient for a conclusion. I'll raise questions if I find things odd or suspicious about the material, and I'll call it for a fake if my analysis leads me to such a conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt in my mind.

In this particular case, the footage I reviewed and stabilized has not been released to the public as much as i know. If it never sees light of day, neither does my analysis. If it shows up publicly released with any claim it is or may be real, I have no option but to release my analysis at that time.

That said, let the speculation continue, for those so inclined.

Bill

[Guest bsruther]

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?

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?

This was one of the red flags for me when I first read the blog as well. Actually "He said that she had been leaving food out for the creatures for years, and that she had learned to do this from her mother before her." I don't know how long ago her mother may have lived there, but the woods at the site is a very young, second growth woods. If her and her mother were feeding them as long ago as say, maybe 15 years, the area would have been thick brush, with very small trees.

Not only that, if my wife was carrying soup bones or a plate of pancakes into the woods every night, I'd notice and ask her where in the heck she was going, as would she, if I were doing the same. Many things in this story don't add up.

It is a second hand account though, so who knows how it really happened.

[Bill]

JRid:

"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?"

I'm not saying anything about the person who provided the material I analyzed, nor can I remark about who took it, who owns it or when or where it was reported to have been taken. And I do not know what footage Mr. Erickson is intending to use in his documentary.

Mary Green once remarked about some footage she saw, and she remarked about how the face looked like Chewbacca, but as I do not know exactly what she was shown, I tend to suspect, but cannot confirm, it is the same footage.

Candidly, people, I'm walking on eggshells here, so I hope you can tolerate my sometimes vague replies.

Bill

[Guest Strick]

Does anyone know if any convincing footage was taken by the two researchers Erickson hired to live at the property for an extended period? As has been mentioned, I was under the impression the best footage was obtained by the female householder. I suppose this is the 'Matilda' footage that Bill believes to be fake.

I am someone who has been a little skeptical of Bill's attachment to the PGF over the years and if he is telling me, however obliquely, that he believes the best of the Erikson footage to be fake then that's game over as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sensing that some here are not aware of Bill's expertise in this area. To them I would say, take a couple of days off work and familiarise yourselves with the 'Bill Munn's thread'.

This is really bad news.

[Bill]

Strick:

"I am someone who has been a little skeptical of Bill's attachment to the PGF over the years. . . ."

May I respectfully ask what specifically you are skeptical about me and the PGF, as the remark seems a bit ambiguious to me (at least in the context of the entire post of yours). I give you permission to be candid and call it like you see it, simply to clarify what you meant by the phrase. Not looking for an argument, just clarificaion on your outlook, which I will respect in any case.

Thanks.

Bill

[Guest]

I don't believe its fair at all to be tagging Bill as saying he believes the best of the Erikson footage is fake,its amazing how this happens. This is an example of why eyewitness's are unreliable hahahahaha

No offence Strick,just watching a rumor unfold right before my eyes here lol

Edited February 16, 2012 by JohnC

[Guest bsruther]

Lindsay is going to have some good material for his next blog.

[Big Stinky]

OK now I am really confused. I was under the impression that the Matilda footage was recorded by Pfohl/Hadj-Chikh of the EP as was other purported impressive footage including that of a huge male.

Was all this material recorded by the homeowners and purchased by Erickson ? If Erickson stands by the footage that Bill has scrutinized that would explain the interest in the Standing footage as well. Seems like things maybe going south in a hurry if this is true.

Bill can you comment on any of the above ?

Thanks

Stinky

[Bill]

If you'll notice in my remarks, I never use the name "Matilda", and I suspect that it may have become an umbrella for more than one filming sequence, and so two people could be using the name but referring to different footage.

As I've noted above, I do not know what footage Mr. Erickson intends to put in his documentary. Beyond that, what I've seen and analyzed has never been publicly released. I simply identified it earlier as a head/face shot. I do not know the details of it's origin, other than the person who brought it to me did not film the footage.

Bill

[Bill]

It was brought to my attention that the following was posted to Lindsey's blog:

"However, on Bigfoot Forums, Bill Munns said he was asked to review a videotape from the Erickson Project, presumably from Kentucky, that may have been thought by the EP to have been faked."

Once again, I must be clear that I do not know what footage Mr. Erickson is using for his project documentary, and the only thing that can be said with certainty is that a person asked me to analyze some video footage, and I did, and the origin of that footage I do not know. So the person who posted the above to Lindsey's blog is making assumptions.

Let Mr. Erickson release his documentary, and then judge him by what he releases. Reckless speculation does not help anyone but gossip monglers.

Bill

[Guest Strick]

Hi Bill,

I'm sorry my earlier post was ambiguous.

I am not skeptical about your research into the PGF but more the film itself. I'm just not convinced there's enough information in the original footage for me to come to a firm conclusion one way or the other on the nature of its subject. I in no way cast any aspersions on either you or the quality of your research. For me, the PGF is not the most compelling part of the Bigfoot mystery and, to be completely candid, the endless speculation has come to bore me.

Although, I tend to avoid discussion of the PGF, I am well aware of your reputation in the field, background and areas of expertise. In my opinion, your qualifications as a putative Bigfoot film analyst are second to none. That is why it is so significant to me that you believe the portion of Erikson footage you have viewed to be a person wearing an adapted Chewbacca mask. I realise other researchers have viewed the footage and commented but, to my knowlwdge, none of them are experts on the analysis of film.

JohnC,

I take your point and don't wish to be seen as a gossip monger! I realise that at no point has Bill mentioned that he's seen ALL of the Erikson footage or, indeed, 'the best' - and he has not specifically commented on the 'Matilda' sequence, which I think is generally believed to be film of a female Bigfoot sleeping in the forest and then waking up.

I understand that Bill has an obligation to his sources and doesn't want to break any confidences. It would be unfair to push him for specifics that he is unable to give. However, I find it unlikely that Erikson went to all the trouble to send Bill his 'B' footage while keeping the really good stuff up his sleeve. That would be kind of insulting to Bill.

It is a commonly held belief in Bigfooting that people have really good footage or pics sititing at home that they do not want to share with the rest of us for a variety of unconvincing reasons. I have never bought that argument - it's just the product of wishful thinking.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Strick

[Bill]

Strick:

Thanks for the reply. Some of the ambiguity about the PGF rests in the fact that there is footage of higher quality than we have now, but we don't have access to it, and I think that may change the game if it can be studied. Also, I think there is footage we haven't seen which does exist, and if found and studied, will clear up a lot of issues and strengthen a conclusion.

So think of it as a jigsaw puzzle where we obviously don't have all the pieces, so the "big picture" is not as clear as we'd like, but the pieces do exist and can be found and put into the puzzle board and will give us a clearer "big picture.

Bill

[Guest]

Strick, no one can fault you here,its all just how things go sometimes, the fault is in someone quoting it on a blog,without verifying the context first. Lets face it,threads wander,and have to revisit what was said for reference all the time, I am surprised that the blog post did not take that into consideration.

I find it humorous, although its a pain for Bill.....

[Guest Strick]

Bill, your post was very cryptic, almost zen-like, but I won't ask you to expand on it for fear I might find myself involved in a PGF discussion which, like bungy jumping and er, one or two other things, is something I don't like to do!

I was reading you-know-who's blog and found that not only was bsruther's post (#1808) eerily prescient, but one of my own questions from earlier was also addressed. Namely, that some of the Bigfoot footage from the Erickson property was obtained by

Dennis Pfohl and Leila Hadj-Chikh, the two researchers with excellent scientific credentials and photography skills that Erickson hired. The source of this was none other than Derek Randles on a Blogtalk show, though Derek acknowledges that he might have 'mispoken'. It is reassuring that not all of the footage is credited to the KP's original owners.

I'm not sure exactly where we are now in terms of the reliability and provenance of the Erickson video. I guess we'll have to wait and see. I recently reread the Blogsquatcher's account of his viisit to the Kentucky property a few years ago and it certainly makes enlightening reading as to the erratic set-up they had going on there. I think the Blogsquatcher was the kind of guy who liked to find the good in everyone, but reading between the lines..........

http://dapht.blogspo...abituation.html

ed: punctuation

Edited February 17, 2012 by Strick