Guest gershake Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 It's a Girl they have footage of. & they've christened her " Matilda ".. Well in the Mary Green interview I linked earlier, she says that there was video of a male (which she didn't get to see however).
Guest Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 In the end, it will not make a difference how detailed the footage is, people like Kitakaze will claim it's a suit and Bob H. is in it. Anyone that thinks science will base research on footage of a "possible" bigfoot needs to realize, that despite photos, eyewitness accounts and more, that modern science would not believe that the mountain gorilla existed until several carcasses were delivered to the Academy of Science in London. Only then was it believed by science in general. It will take bodies for science to accept the existence of an unknown bipedal primate in North America. Any video or photos will have doubt cast on them with the fact that photoshop and CGI can produce anything these days. Anyone believing otherwise is fooling no one but themselves on that issue. JMHO
BobbyO Posted March 3, 2011 SSR Team Posted March 3, 2011 Well in the Mary Green interview I linked earlier, she says that there was video of a male (which she didn't get to see however). I don't know, i've only ever seen reference to a Girl.. This is what the Guy who made that Top 10 BF Vids Video had to say about, & he apparently HAS seen it.. The Kentucky Footage Soon to be Released as part of “The Erickson Project†Documentary I am one of the few people lucky enough to have viewed the best clip… Much more detailed than the Patterson/Gimlin Film Here is just some of what you are going to see: A full facial close-up: ~ nose similar to ours (but w/ larger nostrils) ~ slightly chapped, rosy lips ~ pink mouth, blackish tongue ~ pointed teeth, like fangs ~ deep set eyes that dart around and don’t blink ~ her head is round, shaped more like ours than a gorilla’s, but her brow is much more prominent ~ she has lots of fine, flowing hair on her head (dark reddish brown) and soft short hair on her face ~ when she walks away, she moves just like the female in the Patterson Film I can’t wait ’til everyone can see this.
Guest Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I'm very open minded, and it's not my intent to badmouth in any way. To each his own, live and let live, etc... but anyone who talks about interdimensional ufo-piloting sasquatches and vampires, I personally gotta take with a grain of salt. Darkwing, I see your point. However, that was 100 years ago, so in 2011 they may be able to get a few more scientists attention sans carcass with strong DNA evidence. Who knows... (fingers still crossed) Oh, and cheers back to you Squatch Detective! Short time no talk!
Guest Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Hi BobbyO! Just found this quote regarding the male. (Sorry I (the newbie) can't make your quote appear from your statement about only seeing reference to a girl. How does this quote function work? Anyone?) "I just know that S. had taken the close-up videos of the female and was told by Dennis that J. had taken a couple of good videos of the male. I did not get to see any videos of the male. Dennis did say that there was a resident male around at times and that he thought this female was its mate. I did not get to see any video of the baby either." Mary Green on the Kentucky footage.
Guest gershake Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Thanks Efrum. Here's the link again, because I find it really interesting: http://albertasasqua.../Read_this.html The quote function works like this: You copy-paste whatever you want to quote. Before it, you put [quÂote], and after it, you put [/quÂote]. Like this: [quÂote]"I'm tired of this ****."[/qÂuote] Which will then look like this: "I'm tired of this ****." If you want to specify who was quoted, it works like this: [quÂote name=A bigfoot skeptic]"I'm tired of this ****."[/quÂote] Which will look like this: "I'm tired of this ****." - Shake (There's also a way to get rid of the silly asterisks but if you do that, the mods will be quick to edit them in again...)
Guest Sallaranda Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 d b donlon (ex-blogsquatcher) has some comments on the Kentucky situation on his current blog. He was there way back when. Link: http://dapht.blogspot.com/ His blog is metaphysical/philosophical in nature. Very little on Bigfoot. I read it regularly! The Kentucky video piece is the 2nd one down (as of today). GK Honestly it sounds like this guy is just sour about not being on the project anymore. I think he knows that Erickson and co have something real in their findings, and he's trying to sabotage them.
Guest gershake Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I have no idea about the circumstances under which he has been involved in this, but he does make a fair point, doesn't he? 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.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
Guest Sallaranda Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 If the witness recorded full facial footage was determined to be a hoax, then it would no longer be the first "full facial footage" anymore. Erickson and crew could have then taken their own, legitimate, footage and called it the first full facial footage. Also, where is the proof that the original witnesses got this footage back in 2005? Where is this original footage?
BobbyO Posted March 3, 2011 SSR Team Posted March 3, 2011 So would we think the Video would be of this Picture ??
Guest Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 One thing that doesn't make sense is if the original video was lost or erased, how does Erickson now have it? I appreciate his input. It would make total sense that Erickson wouldn't just take the property owners word for it and try to reproduce the evidence. Also, Pfhol has said that "We filmed them on several occasions." I believe he also said that he was in a tree stand and was very close to it. So, either he is lying, or they did duplicate the footage.
masterbarber Posted March 3, 2011 Admin Posted March 3, 2011 Honestly it sounds like this guy is just sour about not being on the project anymore. I think he knows that Erickson and co have something real in their findings, and he's trying to sabotage them. I didn't get that impression at all. It sounded to me like someone, who had been there, was simply relating what he knew of the incident and research. His input is at least as valid as any of ours. The guy was pretty much a straight shooter when he had his Blogsquatcher site up.
bipedalist Posted March 3, 2011 BFF Patron Posted March 3, 2011 Honestly it sounds like this guy is just sour about not being on the project anymore. I think he knows that Erickson and co have something real in their findings, and he's trying to sabotage them. I don't think this former "blogsquatcher" dbd would operate that way. He pretty much only weighed back in on the matter because he has some history in the project prior to the property being sold apparently and he currently is writing a book about some paranormal matters (he provides one chapter on BF and UFO documentation on his new site apparently). At this point it is all a matter of conjecture, speculation and jockeying for position certainly not worthy of labels such as sabotage and jealousy. But hey this is the world of bigfootery so when you can't find the "big-" or the "-foot" of the subject of interest you start spinning wheels and biding time rehashing the "-ery" part of the world.
Guest gershake Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) One thing that doesn't make sense is if the original video was lost or erased, how does Erickson now have it? From my understanding of his blog post, the original witnesses shot both the "original footage" that was supposedly hoaxed according to him as well as the Matilda footage, which he says Gregg Clay told him was probably "the real thing". Donlon says the farm was sold to Erickson only afterwards.The original film (which is different from the film in question here), the cast of the footprint, and the tape of grunts and growls have all been lost. From the context, it is clear that what he means by "film in question here" is the Matilda footage. - Shake @ BobbyO: I definitely don't think so. Edited March 3, 2011 by gershake
BobbyO Posted March 3, 2011 SSR Team Posted March 3, 2011 @ BobbyO: I definitely don't think so. I accept Paypal if you want to bet..
Recommended Posts