Guest Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 He was at the end of a trail and he drove in and out with his truck. Doesnt sound like 5 days into the wilderness to me. I agree with Bobby though. Human or Sasquii.
Guest Silver Fox Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 If you talk to Melba again, just ask her what stage the paper is at. That will give a good indication of how much more time. BTW, the end of Spring is still about 3 weeks away. Paper's done. It's been done for some months now. It went out for peer review at some point. February? She was expecting it to breeze through by late Spring. We still have 15 days to go. It's out of her hands. It boils down to how long the peer review folks take. Unfortunately, they could take quite some time. Silver Fox, This IS exciting, if it plays out the way you present it. I do have a personal question: why all the angry references to skeptics ("scoftics") in your posts? It seems that many of your posts, no matter what the subject matter, include a brick thrown at skeptics. If the Erickson Project and Paulides are set to advance the issue positively in favor of the existence of a real biological entity, that would be great news for all of us interested in Bigfoot phenomena. Also, have you considered if these upcoming developments will force not only skeptics to change their mind, but may also confute popular advocate and true believer ideas concerning Bigfoot as a relic giant ape? I dunno. Shouldn't a skeptic be saying "I don't know if BF exists."? To me, a scofftic says, "BF doesn't exist." What's so scientific about that? Any skeptic would be excited by proof of BF gets extra special super points in my book. I'm thinking that the scofftics will be furious, or they will dig in their heels. I guess I don't care though. BF exists, I'm sure of that, and we will prove it at some point, hopefully before I am did. So we will win, and they will lose. I am quite certain that BF is not a relict great ape. What it is, I am not so sure, but I believe it is in the Homo line somehow. BF is a man. Shout out to the skeptics who will leap for joy if and when BF is discovered. Hey maybe you could also ask them if they tried to track the Bf's? or thoughts of live capture or even a bang bang mystery solved ending? Hey I sure i am not the only one who's thought about just getting it over with? As harsh as that sounds all we need is one. Then all the BS about "if they exist" is flushed down where it belongs. Then we can move on to the studying and protecting stage where we should be at this point. just saying JMO tracker The Erickson Project is not dealing with the kill or capture question at the moment. Apparently they think that the new video plus the DNA paper will be enough to prove. But I'm pessimistic and not so sure. Jeff Meldrum is talking about tracking one down. He is talking about using tracking dogs to trail one. Live capture is very difficult. Opens up a gigantic can of worms. So is use of tranquilizer darts. thanks Bob, who knows maybe she heard stuff? I have communicated with Melba Ketchum, and she has an extremely closed type of mouth, which is good for her. I'm a journalist and used to prying stuff out of people. I don't even want to try with her. She's locked down pretty good, professional all the way. A little birdie, unfortunatley, just passed on some news. Fairly reliable source too. According to her (source) the video from Erickson is actually not as compelling as has been claimed, and the PG film is still the best (**** it!). If that wasn't enough, the DNA evidence is far, far from convincing. Difference: I got sources. You got nothing but a birdie. Plus I do research. I'm a trained journalist, remember. In researching this film, I looked up all the reactions I could find to it, and then evaluated them. They were all positive, none negative. Based on quotes from Jeff Meldrum, Mary Green, Chris Noel, Leila Hadj-Chikh and John Bindernagel, the footage is impressive indeed. In all my research into this footage, I haven't found anyone who said the video was no good. Keep in mind that there are a number of videos, say 20 of them. Plus 3-4 hours of footage. Now, out of all of that, supposedly there is at least one seriously crap/dubious video. In fact, some even thought that one was hoaxed! Plus most of that 3-4 hours is of unknown quality. However, there are two videos that are said to be killer: 1. 4-5 minutes of BF sleeping in a forest 2. 14 seconds of closeup HD video of a BF walking in the woods 1. in particular is supposedly the blockbuster. The other 18 videos I believe are unknown quality, though I think one is said to be good, shot by Hadj-Chikh and Pfohl. It may involve a female BF with one or more younguns. Same BF in both, a young female named Matilda. Both shot in Kentucky, by the former owners of the property a while back, maybe in 2005. EXACTLY!!! That was my point. All this conjecture by Silver Fox is no different than what I just did. Not at all. Want me to name my sources on the Kentucky video? No problem. 1. Chris Noel 2. Jeff Meldrum 3. Leila Hadj-Chikh 4. John Bindernagel 5. Mary Green Other folks I can't think of at the moment. And all you got's a birdie. Do you remember the incredible thermal image recently of a supposed BF taking a candy bar off a stump? That was supposed to be ground breaking, stunning. It is both groundbreaking and stunning, but the Kentucky stuff will be better because it's daylight. The candy bar video is one of the top 10 BF videos of all time. Of course the scofftics just laughed at it.
Guest gershake Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 Thing was, they were 5 days back into the woods without a soul in sight for many miles around in dense forest. The bipedal animal was in the deep, dark woods and came and took the candy bar. There's no way a human could have been stumbling around in the woods with no flashlight, and the video shooters don't hoax. Plus, it was very tall and looked like a BF. And how can I know that that is what happened?
Guest Silver Fox Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 And how can I know that that is what happened? Go to the BFRO site and there is an article about the candy bar movie along with Mike Greene's statement about the circumstances of the shooting. I think there was more to it than that. They actually left the scene for a couple of hours that night because the BF didn't want to come around when people were there. He came back a couple hours later, looked at the tape, and the BF had come to eat the candy bar when the people were gone. I do not believe that Mike Greene hoaxes videos.
Guest tracker Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) The Erickson Project is not dealing with the kill or capture question at the moment. Apparently they think that the new video plus the DNA paper will be enough to prove. But I'm pessimistic and not so sure. Jeff Meldrum is talking about tracking one down. He is talking about using tracking dogs to trail one. Live capture is very difficult. Opens up a gigantic can of worms. So is use of tranquilizer darts. Yea live capture will never work during and after. So Meldrum said he wants to use dogs and go for a kill? Strange because dogs are no good for hunting Sasq and i didn't know he was pro kill. I understand why some might change their minds since we got a group consistently visiting one area AGAIN. I have my own ideas but since were so close to the finish line I'll keep them to myself. JMO tracker Edited June 7, 2011 by tracker
BobbyO Posted June 7, 2011 SSR Team Posted June 7, 2011 I do not believe that Mike Greene hoaxes videos. Nor do i, at all.. It's one of the reasons why that Video, for me, is a good one.. As like i said before, Human or Sas, & i find it more difficult to believe that it's a Human as opposed to a Sassquatch based solely on how the subject acts in the Film added to the fact that i don't believe Greene is a Hoaxer at all..
Guest Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 Not at all. Want me to name my sources on the Kentucky video? No problem. 1. Chris Noel 2. Jeff Meldrum 3. Leila Hadj-Chikh 4. John Bindernagel 5. Mary Green Other folks I can't think of at the moment. And all you got's a birdie. No, those people are who you say are your sources. That's no better than my little birdie. I think you're about as much a journalist as Sakeptic is a scientist. 1). You consistently throw out stories as if they were facts. 2). You think the white bigfoot video is real. (ridiculous) 3). You admitted to being a propagandist. Now take all of that and then reread your posts about the Erickson project. Can you see why you have absolutely no credibility?
BobbyO Posted June 7, 2011 SSR Team Posted June 7, 2011 Difference: I got sources. You got nothing but a birdie. Plus I do research. I'm a trained journalist, remember. In researching this film, I looked up all the reactions I could find to it, and then evaluated them. They were all positive, none negative. Based on quotes from Jeff Meldrum, Mary Green, Chris Noel, Leila Hadj-Chikh and John Bindernagel, the footage is impressive indeed. In all my research into this footage, I haven't found anyone who said the video was no good. Keep in mind that there are a number of videos, say 20 of them. Plus 3-4 hours of footage. Now, out of all of that, supposedly there is at least one seriously crap/dubious video. In fact, some even thought that one was hoaxed! Plus most of that 3-4 hours is of unknown quality. However, there are two videos that are said to be killer: 1. 4-5 minutes of BF sleeping in a forest 2. 14 seconds of closeup HD video of a BF walking in the woods 1. in particular is supposedly the blockbuster. The other 18 videos I believe are unknown quality, though I think one is said to be good, shot by Hadj-Chikh and Pfohl. It may involve a female BF with one or more younguns. Same BF in both, a young female named Matilda. Both shot in Kentucky, by the former owners of the property a while back, maybe in 2005. & out of all that you wrote there, which i thank you for writing publically SF by the way, you know what the majority will pick up on won't you ?? T'is the nature of the Beast rightly or wrongly..
Guest Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 Yes, Erickson had the good video 2-3 years ago and was going to release it. He thought that was going to prove BF once and for all. Then he realized, sensibly, that for the scofftics skeptics no video is ever going to be good enough. It will always be a guy in a monkey suit, no matter what. So he decided he would need more evidence than just the video. That's when he started the DNA project. A 1-2 punch. Personally, I don't think even that will be enough for the s]scofftics[/s] skeptics, but I think it will convince some people anyway, and it's going to "blow the lid off the field." That's what Chris Noel said about the Kentucky Project video: "It's going to blow the lid off the field." Others are saying: "Better than the P-G film." ****! This is so exciting! Please tell me that the Erickson project is doing double blind research testing results. Unless it can be shown as double *blind* testing scientists and the skeptics will *not* accept the evidence. I can understand them not accepting anything less than double blind. I understand some will never accept the evidence, but at least us believers could hold our heads up, and I can tell hubby "I told you so!"once again due to the scientific evidence *this* time.
Guest Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) Sasky said: Any "Erickson/Standing relationship" has nothing to do with the Erickson Project and speculation about it is honestly a waste of time. As I have said before, there is no "hype" being perpetrated and no "milking" of the project, the Erickson Project is in an agreement with Ketchum to release simultaneously. **** Real research takes time. ***** Susi says: The starred sentence I highlighted above is causing me concern. The scientist's involved are putting their *entire* careers in jeopardy. Bf has always been considered junk science, and these brave scientists could be risking a huge backlash unless they have strong re-verifiable evidence. Will all of these scientists be willing to support and *publish* their findings? I am not surprised that they are taking their time to publish their evidence. Now I'm wondering if they will just bow out and walk away, or just *never* finish their verification. We could then be mired in this peer review process for months to years, could't we? The peer reviewers are taking their time from what I'm reading here, and I'm beginning to think that they may not be willing to associate themselves with this project. ****What do you scientists who are members here and reading this posting think?****** Do I have a valid reason to be concerned? Edited June 7, 2011 by SweetSusiq
Guest Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 It is incomprehensible to me that someone with the 'Money Shot" would set on it for 5 years. Everyday that passes without making money on the "money shot" is a risk that someone beats you to the punch. How interested would you be in a money shot being released at some unknown date in the future if someone dragged a body out for the CNN cameras?
Guest Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 That part scared me a little. I saw the head turn out of the corner of my eye and I jumped. I had to pause the show so I could collect myself. I'm so glad that something startled you too. Bill did a great job creating those heads, didn't he? I just adore Bill, and I was happy to be able to see some of his work posted here.
Guest Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 Yeah Bigfootnis. Who would risk such a thing as to sit on the best BF clips ever and risk someone else beating you to the punch? That's just another thing that doesn't make sense. Prediction: The film, alone, cannot stand on it's own and is just another (maybe clearer) clip of PG similar over-all quality. Prediction: The DNA cannot stand on its own either. It's inconclusive, with some saying they think there's something to it to others saying there isn't to even more saying there IS something to it! It's HUMAN! Back to square one. So what might someone do? Get together and release the results at the same time. That's what. Prop each other up so the weak film and weak DNA results can't be beat up or laughed at individually. There might be a reason Erickson wasn't in such a rush to release this supposed incredible film. Maybe after five years he knows there's nothing out there for someone to film and release before him.
Guest Ufo Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 I got some questions : 1 ) If I understand correctly, this movie is coming out in the following days (or months) ? 2 ) Will we be able to watch this online by a paying website or something ? Thanks
Guest Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 Yeah Bigfootnis. Who would risk such a thing as to sit on the best BF clips ever and risk someone else beating you to the punch? That's just another thing that doesn't make sense. Prediction: The film, alone, cannot stand on it's own and is just another (maybe clearer) clip of PG similar over-all quality. Prediction: The DNA cannot stand on its own either. It's inconclusive, with some saying they think there's something to it to others saying there isn't to even more saying there IS something to it! It's HUMAN! Back to square one. So what might someone do? Get together and release the results at the same time. That's what. Prop each other up so the weak film and weak DNA results can't be beat up or laughed at individually. There might be a reason Erickson wasn't in such a rush to release this supposed incredible film. Maybe after five years he knows there's nothing out there for someone to film and release before him. Are you saying that you are a skeptic, and that you are in *the know* regarding the Erickson films? Please tell us what you know about all of this if you can.
Recommended Posts