Erickson Project

[Guest gershake]

I don't have PayPal but am willing to bet for trueness' sake. Maybe the pancake vid is in the documentary, but it's definitely not the Matilda footage unless Mary Green was full of it (she said it was shot in full daylight).

[Guest gershake]

By the way, does anyone know anything about Mary Green? Googling only really tells me that she's a bigfoot researcher of some sort and that her reputation is less than great?

[Guest]

I beleive Blobsquatcher to be the announymous poster on you tube of the top 10 bf videos where he then states the #1 to be the next big think and cant wait for it to come out. Now why do I think this...well for starters on his blog ...i think the 3rd or 4th blog down the page he has the same phrase as in the you tube desciption...an I quote "

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

"end quote...so as of today on that blog in the top post he beleives sum of the videos are the real deal and the older post one on down the page he said the original may be hoaxed (2009 notes he says). So Im confused if he is on board with this or not. The you tube video shows to be a beleiver.

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 Projectâ€

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.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Chad Triplett

[Guest gershake]

Googling found me more interesting info (from '09):

Hoaxed or not?

But it seems that not everything went the way Erickson wished to. D.B. Donlon, who maintains the "Blogsquatcher" website, speculated that they didn't get new footage after Erickson took over the case. "After the original witnesses sold the house to the Canadian the activity stopped,†he told me. “From what I heard, but this was early on, Leila Hadj-Chikh had not seen anything herself at the location." Donlon, who investigated the Kentucky case firsthand in 2005 when he was still with the BFRO, said that he had heard of five videos and had seen two. "All of those had been filmed either by or with the help of the original witnesses." They had other problems too: The notorious bigfoot hoaxer Tom Biscardi found out about the project. He went to the site but was eventually chased away by the former property owner.

Did the creatures move on? Is this the reason why Adrian Erickson bought another research area in Tennessee? As bigfoot researcher and author Mary Green told me, the Canadian paid a new house for the notorious bigfoot "contactee" Janice Carter in Tennessee in 2006. Green wrote about Carter's case in the much-debated book "50 Years with Bigfoot". But the Tennessee project was a failure for Erickson according to Green: "Janice couldn't furnish any footage or evidence to Erickson." Green guessed that Erickson established a second project because he wanted to back up his findings in Kentucky.

And there's the question of authenticity. Donlon thinks that at least one clip was faked. "The first video, the one I describe in my blog posts, was destroyed by the witness, and I believe it was destroyed because it was too obviously a hoax when shown on a larger TV in good resolution," he told me. "It's important to keep in mind that these witnesses were paid for their home, either 100,000 or 200,000 dollars, as a result of their videos. They had a very clear motive to hoax." Donlon found other evidence much more convincing. "A footprint had visible dermal ridges and was large." But the most persuasive sign for Donlon was the behavior of the dogs of the property owners. "I've never seen dogs act like that. They were truly deathly afraid of whatever was in those woods."

Another controversial piece of film coming from the Kentucky project is the "pancake video". It's a night-time video, showing a creature with a striking large head that reaches for a bait. It appeared on cryptomundo.com for a short time in 2007. "One researcher I know said that it might show a creature with dwarfism - the overlarge head and the short arms being a trait for that," said Donlon. "By my measurements, the creature could not be the lady witness, and she was the only one unaccounted for at that time." Alton Higgins, bigfoot researcher and biologist from Oklahoma, analyzed the footage also. He believes that it shows a person.

At least one video may be very conclusive according to Mary Green, whom Dennis Pfohl showed some clips. "You could see the creature from above her forehead somewhat and then down to about her waist. It was slowly walking through the woods and coming closer", she described to me. Green rules out that the creature was someone in a suit or a misidentified animal. "In my honest opinion it clearly shows a sasquatch."

Chris Noel spoke about another clear clip on the radio. "The woman was able to obtain daylight color high-definition video of this animal. It's a five and a half foot tall female juvenile sasquatch. This footage is going to blow the roof off the whole field." He said that it would be as least as convincing as the Patterson footage, if not a lot more. It's probably the same video Green told about.

via: http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1025337&tn=260 (Not sure where they have it from)

[Guest Sallaranda]

Okay, so let's suppose the video that Erickson himself has been hyping out was in fact filmed by the original witnesses. If this footage is remarkable and so clear that analysis only proves it to be legitimate - what will it matter in the end who filmed it? Sure, Erickson will have lied, but if he's got the goods that's all that really matters isn't it?

[Guest gershake]

I beleive Blobsquatcher to be the announymous poster on you tube of the top 10 bf videos where he then states the #1 to be the next big think and cant wait for it to come out. Now why do I think this...well for starters on his blog ...i think the 3rd or 4th blog down the page he has the same phrase as in the you tube desciption...an I quote "

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

"end quote...so as of today on that blog in the top post he beleives sum of the videos are the real deal and the older post one on down the page he said the original may be hoaxed (2009 notes he says). So Im confused if he is on board with this or not. The you tube video shows to be a beleiver.

Well I'm pretty certain that in his blog, he quoted the youtube video description to explain why he thinks that the good footage Erickson says he shot is just the Matilda video that the owners had shot. The youtube video description is not his description. He compares it to what was described to him by someone who has seen it afterwards. I guess the youtube video is what made him write the blog.

As I said before the "original footage" that according to him may have been hoaxed is not the Matilda footage anyway.

- Shake

[Guest gershake]

Okay, so let's suppose the video that Erickson himself has been hyping out was in fact filmed by the original witnesses. If this footage is remarkable and so clear that analysis only proves it to be legitimate - what will it matter in the end who filmed it? Sure, Erickson will have lied, but if he's got the goods that's all that really matters isn't it?

I definitely hope so. :3

[Guest]

dont forget Donlon also stated Erickson could have obtained footage since he was there in the early stages. He is only stating what he knew during his brief contact with the project several yrs ago. Erickson might well have additional footage hence he didnt lie. Just food for thought.

[Guest Sallaranda]

dont forget Donlon also stated Erickson could have obtained footage since he was there in the early stages. He is only stating what he knew during his brief contact with the project several yrs ago. Erickson might well have additional footage hence he didnt lie. Just food for thought.

Exactly.

I heard an estimate that Erickson has over a dozen pieces of quality footage that he is planning to release in this documentary. If anyone knows where I heard this please do tell - I can't remember for the life of me.

Shake,

I think you're right. The Matilda footage and the footage in question in that blog entry are separate. The Matilda footage is also more recent.

[Guest]

I think ur mistaken Shake and heres why....he typed it word for word and used the same style of fonts and spacing as in the video...I could be wrong but thats what Im leaning towards or the possiility the fb/fb page did it cause its very similar in what they do when anaylis (sic) Below I have copy and paste the quote Taken direct from the blog...its not referencing the top 10 you tube video as you say...he is recounting what

Gregg Clay

had told him in 2005. Read what I highlighted in red and you can see he is talking about Erickson video from

his site

not the top 10 youtube vid...Here is the quote: Donolon states:

"Now, the reason I bring all this up is because of the way that Erickson is presenting this video.

Here's a snippet from his site that describes the project and how the video was obtained

:

In 2005, I started the Erickson Project. The objective was to conduct the first long term study that would once and for all, prove the existence of the sasquatch. In order to do so I asked Dennis Pfohl and Leila Hadj-Chikh to join me, and we set out to try to awaken the scientific community, attempted to bring awareness to the general public, while silencing the armchair critics, and tried to vindicate the tens of thousands of witnesses who have been ridiculed for speaking out. With only a handful of short video clips ever previously recorded of a sasquatch, the team focused on acquiring more and better video, especially close ups.

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.

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

:

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

Well I'm pretty certain that in his blog, he quoted the youtube video description to explain why he thinks that the good footage Erickson says he shot is just the Matilda video that the owners had shot. The youtube video description is not his description. He compares it to what was described to him by someone who has seen it afterwards. I guess the youtube video is what made him write the blog.

As I said before the "original footage" that according to him may have been hoaxed is not the Matilda footage anyway.

- Shake

[masterbarber]

Okay, so let's suppose the video that Erickson himself has been hyping out was in fact filmed by the original witnesses. If this footage is remarkable and so clear that analysis only proves it to be legitimate - what will it matter in the end who filmed it? Sure, Erickson will have lied, but if he's got the goods that's all that really matters isn't it?

If that were to be the case, most reasonable people would consider that a red flag

[Guest]

So has the facial shot been around since 2005, or they have other videos from 2005 and on and the facial shot is new? Not that it matters really... This whole thread is giving me a headache, why not just post up the video and let people decide for themselves, who cares who shot it or or who owns it, it doesn't mean anything if the footage is fake...

[Guest gershake]

Shake,

I think you're right. The Matilda footage and the footage in question in that blog entry are separate. The Matilda footage is also more recent.

No, what I was saying was that the Matilda footage is the footage in question. The Matilda footage, however, is not what Donlon describes as the "original" and possibly hoaxed footage.

Sorry for the confusion

- Shake

[Guest gershake]

I think ur mistaken Shake and heres why....he typed it word for word and used the same style of fonts and spacing as in the video...

As does this site (lower half of the page): http://www.cryptomun...o-news/matilda/

Below I have copy and paste the quote Taken direct from the blog...its not referencing the top 10 you tube video as you say...

He doesn't explicitly mention it, but I'm sure it's what he refers to because he says "it is striking that it is described". (Nobody described the video anywhere else than in the youtube video, so where do you think he is referring to?) He goes on to copy/paste the youtube video description and afterwards explains the similarities to Gregg Clay's description of the video to him in this paragraph:

More information that Gregg gave me which isn't on this list is this -- you never see the creature's lower legs as this is obscured by brush, and, that he thought the face looked very much like an orangutan. (He also told me that he saw the same creature, or a similar one, in real life through a night vision scope on the witnesses' property, though he only saw the head at that time. Gregg also told me that he was convinced the film in question was legit.)

[Guest wudewasa]

Here lies the problem with speculation- we don't know the clarity of the footage until the DVD is released. As far as who filmed it, and how many segments of the video exist, no one but Erickson and those involved with the project and DVD production know this information.

This slippery slope of judging supposed evidence and purported scenarios by those claiming to have been there or in the know is getting old. I appreciate the comments, but let's look at ALL the evidence before judgement is cast.

For many of you, I am aware that this is exciting news and many are hopeful that this DVD will have breakthrough footage to spur mainstream acceptance of sasquatch. Again, hope is not a plan.