Guest Posted June 7, 2011 Share 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 If Erickson is making a film out of this info, will there be a wide movie release shown in theaters across the country, and then the world? Will it be pay per view on cable? Surely those decisions have been made by this time. I was ready 30 years ago for this release, and it is time to have a conclusion. We put men on the moon, but we can't validate a BF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I think you're about as much a journalist as Sakeptic is a scientist. Help me to understand. You don't believe Saskeptic is a scientist or you believe Silver Fox is a journalist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 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 I don't know when the movie is coming out. It's timed with the DNA release. The DNA release was supposed to be through peer review in 2 weeks, but it could be much longer. Much longer. Will be released as a DVD. However, I think they are also doing some sort of a deal with a TV station. I think you will see the video even if you don't buy the DVD. 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? The family doesn't care about money. They shot this video in 2005 and hardly anyone saw it. They used to show these videos to their friends at parties. They sold the videos to Erickson and Erickson bought their house. That's good enough for them. I am not sure how long Erickson has had the video. Erickson doesn't care about making $ off BF either. All he's been doing WRT BF is losing money. He just wants to prove they are real, that's all. Erickson doesn't care if someone releases a better video or even if someone drags out a body. He'll probably be happy because then he can stop sinking $ into this money loser. Sasky said: 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? I believe there is only one scientist publishing findings, and she is willing to risk it all. She started out a BF skeptic, but now she is 100% that BF exist, at least in the Pacific NW. Peer review is done blind. No one knows who they are, only the journal publisher. No one's going to find out who they are. It's low risk for them. 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? Thx for your input. Re: #3, I don't tell lies regarding BF. You can phrase non-lies in various ways. Some ways enhance the position of my side, others soften it. I choose to powerful phraseology to sharpen my side's arguments. You're quite the propagandist yourself, sir. 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. I doubt Erickson has had this film for 6 years. Erickson believes strongly in BF. Even more so now, I assure you. P-G film is the ultimate blockbuster BF video. Comparing any video to that one is a compliment. I know nothing about the DNA results. Ketchum thinks they are good results and they will sail through peer review. Other than that, we don't know how good they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 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. Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted June 8, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted June 8, 2011 The family doesn't care about money. They shot this video in 2005 and hardly anyone saw it. They used to show these videos to their friends at parties. They sold the videos to Erickson and Erickson bought their house. That's good enough for them. I am not sure how long Erickson has had the video. Erickson doesn't care about making $ off BF either. All he's been doing WRT BF is losing money. He just wants to prove they are real, that's all. Erickson doesn't care if someone releases a better video or even if someone drags out a body. He'll probably be happy because then he can stop sinking $ into this money loser. That's a very naive outlook on things there SF, you're of course entitled to beleive that but i personally highly, highly doubt the highlighted parts are true as AE i'm 100% sure would know EXACTLY how much $$ is portentially in this Subject, & it's a LOT.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 That's a very naive outlook on things there SF, you're of course entitled to beleive that but i personally highly, highly doubt the highlighted parts are true as AE i'm 100% sure would know EXACTLY how much $$ is portentially in this Subject, & it's a LOT.. Well maybe, but he's been doing nothing but losing $ so far. He's a very rich man as it is. Why does he need more money? Sure, money is nice, but I've never suspected this is a strong motivation for Erickson. I've seen a lot of scofftic posts about "Erickson is in it for the money." Well, then why has he lost a bundle so far. My view: Erickson wants to see BF discovered by science. Now, if there is any $ to go along with it that too, I'm sure he does not object. He's a successful businessman after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Well maybe, but he's been doing nothing but losing $ so far. He's a very rich man as it is. Why does he need more money? Sure, money is nice, but I've never suspected this is a strong motivation for Erickson. I've seen a lot of scofftic posts about "Erickson is in it for the money." Well, then why has he lost a bundle so far. It's called an investion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Help me to understand. You don't believe Saskeptic is a scientist or you believe Silver Fox is a journalist? I don't believe either one are what they claim to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted June 8, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted June 8, 2011 Well maybe, but he's been doing nothing but losing $ so far. He's a very rich man as it is. Why does he need more money? Sure, money is nice, but I've never suspected this is a strong motivation for Erickson. I've seen a lot of scofftic posts about "Erickson is in it for the money." Well, then why has he lost a bundle so far. My view: Erickson wants to see BF discovered by science. Now, if there is any $ to go along with it that too, I'm sure he does not object. He's a successful businessman after all. I'm sure he does want it to be discovered by Science, i certainly don't disaggree with that. But rich people generally get rich because they have a very healthy appetite for money & rich people get even richer because that appetite very rarely ceases.. They don't get rich by dropping x amount of $$ like you say he has, & just write it off.. & again i'll say it but if done correctly, the Person who blows the lid off this Subject could be looking at 7 figures profitwise easily, i have no doubt of that at all.. The demand for this Subject should be there for all to see & has been grossly overlooked by many i believe.. 1.3m Viewers is not to be sniffed at, nor is 1.25m who have viewed a youtube Video ( Spokane ) that got decent exposure less than a fortnight ago.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) I don't believe either one are what they claim to be. You're a wonderful person. I have a Bachelors Degree in Journalism from California State University Long Beach, 1981. I've also worked a bit in the field for money, but I mostly did other things. I was an editor of a large US magazine for a while in the 1980's. Not sure what you need to be a journalist. A degree would make anyone one. Working in the field would help too. Edited June 8, 2011 by Silver Fox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I believe there is only one scientist publishing findings, and she is willing to risk it all. She started out a BF skeptic, but now she is 100% that BF exist, at least in the Pacific NW. Peer review is done blind. No one knows who they are, only the journal publisher. No one's going to find out who they are. It's low risk for them. Silver Fox, I sincerely *thank you* for answering my question. There are some journalists that I highly respect for their honesty and integrity ,and you are now at the top of my list! I feel so much better now that I understand how this peer review process is being handled. This knowledge is now giving me a lot of hope regarding the revelations that are coming, sooner rather than later I Hope! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 The family doesn't care about money. They shot this video in 2005 and hardly anyone saw it. They used to show these videos to their friends at parties. They sold the videos to Erickson and Erickson bought their house. That's good enough for them. I am not sure how long Erickson has had the video. Erickson doesn't care about making $ off BF either. All he's been doing WRT BF is losing money. He just wants to prove they are real, that's all. Erickson doesn't care if someone releases a better video or even if someone drags out a body. He'll probably be happy because then he can stop sinking $ into this money loser. Silver, Would he continue to lose money if he *first* releases the info and the movie? Most people, even if filthy rich, do not like to just waste nor throw money away. Is the DNA peer review the *only* thing that is being waited on so that Erickson can reveal his evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I believe there is only one scientist publishing findings, and she is willing to risk it all. She started out a BF skeptic, but now she is 100% that BF exist, at least in the Pacific NW. Peer review is done blind. No one knows who they are, only the journal publisher. No one's going to find out who they are. It's low risk for them. Do the peers who are doing the reviewing of the evidence understand that this is related to the BF species, or are they just saying that the results that they re-tested and reviewed are correct? Sorry, I'm just a nurse, this is something that I don't know a lot about at all. Let me say that I know nothing about verifying something as huge a deal as this happens to be.IMOVHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted June 8, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted June 8, 2011 She started out a BF skeptic, but now she is 100% that BF exist, at least in the Pacific NW. I don't know what that says for KY then.. It sure says a lot for Dave P but KY isn't sounding too great huh ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I don't know what that says for KY then.. It sure says a lot for Dave P but KY isn't sounding too great huh ?? KY is included in the study as well and has contributed greatly to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts