Guest jimmy simpson Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I'm not sure of exactly why Erickson would want to be linked to Todd Standing, but I think Standing did promote the recognition of the Sasquatch species by the Canadian government awhile back. It was a failed attempt of course and probably more to do with publicity than anything else. That may be the link between them, aside from both living there, Erickson may be planning to take over where Standing failed? It's a given that Standing is a hoaxer IMO, so I can't logically see any other connection besides the species recognition angle. Personally, I'd be running from any connection with Standing. Erickson may have such an absolute collection of evidence he's unconcerned about any possible ridicule about Standing? I certainly hope he has the goods. Chris B. Thats a good point. If Erickson knows he has undisputable evidence he wont care about being associated with Standing... The whole Standing trying to get species protection however was a joke.... i actually sent him an email he sent me a petition to get signatures... it was a United States petition though... Doesnt hold any water here in Alberta.... And it came with a copy of the skamania county ordinance protection page .... It was a joke....how he figured that would do any good in a canadian court ... i have no idea...
Guest Sallaranda Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I wouldn't be surprised if Erickson has that link up in order to display his confidence. I think he's perfectly aware of Todd Standing's reputation, why would he intentionally associate with a hoaxer if he too is trying to hoax? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the Erickson Project was a giant hoax, then Erickson would continue to align with the most legitimate individuals possible - and would most certainly refrain from having any connections to known hoaxers.
Guest Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 The standing connection is a mystery to me too. It is exciting to hear confirmation about the DNA. Thanks for the update. Sasquatch is similar to humans, but different enough that their DNA should yield unique results. If these unique results are replicated from multiple samples from around the country then the contamination possibilities begin to shrink. Why could a case not be made that there is something similar to humans but also nothing we have ever seen before. Even if you don't believe it is a BF you would have to conclude there is something out there undiscovered. If scientists came to that conclusion that would be good enough for me. Is a type specimen necessary to go this far? Orang
Guest Sallaranda Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 The DNA evidence CAN, and likely WILL reveal to be from an unknown species. At that point, what does it matter what the species actually is? Shouldn't that be enough to encourage the scientific community to search for said species? Whether it turns out to be a Bigfoot or something completely different is irrelevant. Am I right?
indiefoot Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Wry sense of humor maybe??? I thought the same thing, maybe a little " This'll give 'em something to talk about".
Guest Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I agree Sallaranda. I don't think a having a type specimen should matter. I new species should have any scientist's mouth water.
Cisco Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I wouldn't be surprised if Erickson has that link up in order to display his confidence. I think he's perfectly aware of Todd Standing's reputation, why would he intentionally associate with a hoaxer if he too is trying to hoax? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the Erickson Project was a giant hoax, then Erickson would continue to align with the most legitimate individuals possible - and would most certainly refrain from having any connections to known hoaxers. I starting to think that there's a bit more to the Sylvanic link. Erickson is not an idiot and I really don't believe he's deliberately linking his website to known hoaxers, with the intent of showing how confident he is about his research. If that were true, he would have added Biscard's site. Erickson has spent the last 5-6 years and a considerable amount of money on obtaining video and DNA evidence. What he claims to have, could be the greatest scientific discovery in recent memory. So; why would he create a link to Todd Standings's website? Many people, including myself, have seen Standing's recent video and believe that it was a hoax. It shows very clear video of "something" with wavy auburn hair, unblinking eyes, pinkish lips and a fuzzy face. Sound familiar? 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. The only logical conclusion, that I can arrive to, is that Erickson must believe that Standing's video footage is legitimate. I really don't think Standing's legislative efforts are what Erickson is interested in. There are many counties/ cities that have passed laws protecting Sasquatch. Why would Standing's efforts be that monumental? The answer is easy; they were not. They failed and since then, he has had no success in getting any kind of protection passed. The only thing that remains is Standing's footage. What if the subjects in Erickson's videos resemble Standing's? It certainly adds another level of intrigue to this whole thing. Also, Standing has been very quiet about the association. It makes me wonder if he knows something.... Cisco
Guest jimmy simpson Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I starting to think that there's a bit more to the Sylvanic link. Erickson is not an idiot and I really don't believe he's deliberately linking his website to known hoaxers, with the intent of showing how confident he is about his research. If that were true, he would have added Biscard's site. Erickson has spent the last 5-6 years and a considerable amount of money on obtaining video and DNA evidence. What he claims to have, could be the greatest scientific discovery in recent memory. So; why would he create a link to Todd Standings's website? Many people, including myself, have seen Standing's recent video and believe that it was a hoax. It shows very clear video of "something" with wavy auburn hair, unblinking eyes, pinkish lips and a fuzzy face. Sound familiar? The only logical conclusion, that I can arrive to, is that Erickson must believe that Standing's video footage is legitimate. I really don't think Standing's legislative efforts are what Erickson is interested in. There are many counties/ cities that have passed laws protecting Sasquatch. Why would Standing's efforts be that monumental? The answer is easy; they were not. They failed and since then, he has had no success in getting any kind of protection passed. The only thing that remains is Standing's footage. What if the subjects in Erickson's videos resemble Standing's? It certainly adds another level of intrigue to this whole thing. Also, Standing has been very quiet about the association. It makes me wonder if he knows something.... Cisco Could you imagine if Todd Standing has been legit the whole time.... i doubt it... highly doubt it ... but just imagine...
Guest ajciani Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I certainly agree that Erickson has plunked down a considerable sum for his project, and he certainly deserves to profit from it. As I understand, he has bought considerable acreage in KY, hired professionals (PhD's) to do the observation, and he had to buy those hoaxed "pancake" and "Amelia" videos to keep a hick hoaxer (boyfriend of former land owner) and Tom Biscardi from ruining the project (or at least the project's image). As to the media, I have heard that Erickson is trying to aim for a multi-part documentary series on one of the major cable networks, such as National Geographic or Discovery. As I have heard, he has more than enough material to span a 3 to 5 hour presentation; including interviews with big names in the field, local history, project history, documentation of the research efforts, and results including DNA, audio, and video. From what I have heard (third hand), he has several hours of HD quality video of the creatures in various amounts of cover, filmed by his crew. It is something along the lines of Bluff Creek, or better. The only choices will be to claim that it is all Hollywood, or accept that bigfoots exist.
Guest Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 My guess would have to be that Erickson is not familiar with many elements of Standing's past claims that led to his present place. However they are fellow Canadians, and that may well be something that resonated with Erickson. He may even have noticed how others 'appear' to rebuke Standing's claims and therefore think this is one of those instances where a witness was 'crucified by the gang'. Unfortunately he probably does not know of the contradictory claims that exist. If he knew, there's no way he'd risk so much through the association. His interest may be superficial and that its based on what can be seen on Standing's website and even follow up discussion, of which I can only imagine. Mr. Erickson may want to do a little more thorough research. Remember all, it was a "2' X 2' hole through a mountain chain".
Guest ThePattyArcade Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I'm interested in seeing in the Erickson footage. I think we should give him a chance to show what he has. It's pointless at the moment to say whether the whole thing is a hoax or not. We should stay neutral until we see it
BobbyO Posted March 7, 2011 SSR Team Posted March 7, 2011 I'm interested in seeing in the Erickson footage. I think we should give him a chance to show what he has. It's pointless at the moment to say whether the whole thing is a hoax or not. We should stay neutral until we see it I'm gonnna twist a Golfing term around a little here & say.. - Video's for show, DNA for dough $$..
Guest Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Hi Jimmy! The only way I could see why Standing is linked is possibly explained in my post # 149 on page 5 of this topic. Read on from there for a page or so and see what you think. Who knows...
Guest gershake Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I'm interested in seeing in the Erickson footage. I think we should give him a chance to show what he has. It's pointless at the moment to say whether the whole thing is a hoax or not. We should stay neutral until we see it Where's the fun in that... - Shake
Recommended Posts