Guest gershake Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Yeah, but speculation is fun and it's one thing we can do to bridge all of the waiting time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I've been following this thread for a few weeks now and have found the subject to be pretty interesting. The views of this thread seem to be steadily increasing every day, which makes me think it's captured the attention of a lot of others like myself, who don't follow the whole Bigfoot thing on a regular basis. And I think a big reason that it's gaining interest is the level of credibility of the project. As far as I know, there has never been anyone that has brought evidence on this subject forward, in such a professional and scientific manner. As far as I can see, Erickson is doing everything right. He seems to have a carefully thought out plan and is following it to the letter. The only hype I can see is, hype being fueled by speculation, which is quite understandable, since he's being so tight lipped about it. I think that if I was devoted to the study of Bigfoot and the search for proof of existence, I'd be going absolutely nuts with anticipation, at this point. This is Erickson's only chance to get it right and he seems to be fully aware of it. I think part of getting it right is the money that could be made, or not made. I don't see any way that he could charge per-view to watch the documentary and still retain credibility. If he makes money from it being viewed, it will have to be from a TV or Cable network and even that would make people question his motives. If he truly wants the world to believe that this animal actually exists, he needs to go for broke and just put it all out there. If he is successful, there will be other ways for him to make money, after the proof is shown. What intrigues me the most about this project is that the location of the non-profit organization that Leila Hadj Chikh is allegedly doing her field study work and where I would assume the Kentucky videos were made, is only 25 miles from me. It could be a diversion on Erickson's part, but if such is the case, I'd be totally dumbfounded by something of this nature happening in that location. It's on the outskirts of a metro area, with a population of about 3 million people and that just makes no sense at all to me. In the podcast that Erickson called in to, he actually mentioned that the area was close to a city of that size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 3, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted March 3, 2011 http://albertasasquatchsightingreports.com/assr/Read_this.html Mary Green's descriptions of the face uses similar language as the fb site and others at the link above too. It goes into greater detail though than the top ten youtube vid. The language style of analysis of the Matilda description of "first place" in the top ten youtube vid. is consistent with that of the author of the fb site on his other youtube vids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 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. Ha! I caught that too Chad. I thought the descriptions sounded very familiar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 3, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted March 3, 2011 ...The you tube video shows to be a beleiver (sic). If dbd wrote the text for the captions and/or authored that top ten vid. I'd be surprised, but he always came across as a believer on the Blogsquatcher and blogtalk radio products he was involved with. If he is NOT a believer, he sure has put on a good act. Apparently the Green description I referenced at the site in an above post was from a Bigfoot forum (I assume maybe one that Mary Green frequents or administers perhaps). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Thanks Shake. I see. So he believes that the footage of the face is also from the original property owners. I guess it all depends if they shot independent film. Up until this point they have claimed to have done so. If it is the same creature then I guess the description would be the same. We will see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted March 3, 2011 Share 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. Well I don't know him, but I've read his stuff for some time and listened to the radio show he and Billy Willard had, and I don't think I'd label him as 'sour'. I think he's just in posession of some knowledge and opinions on the affair having investigated it,and now that the Erikson Project has popped up so prominently on our collective radar he weighed in. I think he's just doing his bit to nail down facts. IMHO. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) Just to make this clear: I did the interview with Mary Green. It has been posted on several sites and forums without permission or reference. Like several others here I too have the impression that the descriptions of the "full facial video" by "Anonymous" were taken from that interview. Edited March 3, 2011 by SwissChris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted March 3, 2011 Admin Share Posted March 3, 2011 I agree that since portions of your interview are quoted they should be referenced: http://www.sasquat.c...n-englisch.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Just to make this clear: I did the interview with Mary Green. It has been posted on several sites and forums without permission or reference. Sorry, I had completely forgotten that that was by you! Great job by the way!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) Heres a direct qoute from the blog and read what I highlighted in red and you will see he is not refferring to the top 10 you tube video but rather a video from Erickson's site. and i think he uses the same wording cause he made the top 10 video. Thats my hunch and its just a hunch but Im still doing sum homework on this. "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" As does this site (lower half of the page): http://www.cryptomun...o-news/matilda/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: Edited March 4, 2011 by Chad Triplett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Heres a direct qoute from the blog and read what I highlighted in red and you will see he is not refferring to the top 10 you tube video but rather a video from Erickson's site.There aren't any videos on Erickson's site (yet). The only thing there atm is a trailer, which is the snippet Donlon is referring to. Later he is copy/pasting the description from the youtube video which I still think he has from here. As I said, if you read the following paragraph, I think it's clear that the youtube video description is not from him: 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.)Why would he have left out that information from the youtube video if it was him who did it?- Shake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Shake here is another quote from Donlon on the same page where he is listing important points....clearly states he is comparing what is descibed by Greg to the crytomundo description . I think he is refferring to how Erickson is portraying the video on his web page not the youtube top 10. Thats my take. QUOTE" 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 and he may not have made the you tube top 10....I did say I could be wrong but that was my hunch based off the same wording & fonts. But it is clear he isnt refferencing the top 10 video @ all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 . I think he is refferring to how Erickson is portraying the video on his web page As I said, Erickson isn't portraying any video on his website except for the trailer which shows no actual bigfoot at all. Sorry for having been so persistent. It would have confused me very much if Donlon had made the youtube video. - Shake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts