Guest Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Ya know, speaking of this project and future ones like it, I got to thinking. People in the Bigfoot world like Erickson in general. Seems a stand up guy. He gets respect in the field and forums. What would happen if Erickson hypothetically released a statement something like the following: "First I would like to thank (such and such and such) for the years of hard work they put in with me on this project. (Goes into long explanation of what they did, including the equipment, techniques as well as the amount of money put into it). Now ladies and gentlemen I would like to announce the results. It pains me to say that we could find no compelling evidence for the creature described as Bigfoot or Sasquatch. We wanted it to be real as much as anyone, and invested heavily in the hopes that it was. The uniqueness of my project and all that was put into it, affords me the credibility to say that unfortunately, I do not believe Bigfoot is real at all. I know a lot of people were hoping for results that were different. And while one can never prove a negative, I feel my investigation was comprehensive enough to arrive at the logical conclusion that they are simply not living, biological creatures." So the question is, would all of you out there instantly turn on him? Call him a liar? Claim the government shut him up? Claim he was an evil skeptic in disguise all long? Sadly I think a lot of the believers here would.
Guest Silver Fox Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Ya know, speaking of this project and future ones like it, I got to thinking. People in the Bigfoot world like Erickson in general. Seems a stand up guy. He gets respect in the field and forums. What would happen if Erickson hypothetically released a statement something like the following: "First I would like to thank (such and such and such) for the years of hard work they put in with me on this project. (Goes into long explanation of what they did, including the equipment, techniques as well as the amount of money put into it). Now ladies and gentlemen I would like to announce the results. It pains me to say that we could find no compelling evidence for the creature described as Bigfoot or Sasquatch. We wanted it to be real as much as anyone, and invested heavily in the hopes that it was. The uniqueness of my project and all that was put into it, affords me the credibility to say that unfortunately, I do not believe Bigfoot is real at all. I know a lot of people were hoping for results that were different. And while one can never prove a negative, I feel my investigation was comprehensive enough to arrive at the logical conclusion that they are simply not living, biological creatures." So the question is, would all of you out there instantly turn on him? Call him a liar? Claim the government shut him up? Claim he was an evil skeptic in disguise all long? Sadly I think a lot of the believers here would. It's a ridiculous question because we already know that Erickson believes in BF. He has seen them 2 times, and that's what set him on this quest in the first place. He thinks that his Kentucky videos show real BF's and his DNA studies prove that BF exists, so it's a silly question to ask. If you are talking about believers who turn skeptic, happens all the time. We don't get excited about silly people like that. People have a right to their silly notions. But what happens a lot more is skeptics turning believers.
indiefoot Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Ya know, speaking of this project and future ones like it, I got to thinking. People in the Bigfoot world like Erickson in general. Seems a stand up guy. He gets respect in the field and forums. What would happen if Erickson hypothetically released a statement something like the following: "First I would like to thank (such and such and such) for the years of hard work they put in with me on this project. (Goes into long explanation of what they did, including the equipment, techniques as well as the amount of money put into it). Now ladies and gentlemen I would like to announce the results. It pains me to say that we could find no compelling evidence for the creature described as Bigfoot or Sasquatch. We wanted it to be real as much as anyone, and invested heavily in the hopes that it was. The uniqueness of my project and all that was put into it, affords me the credibility to say that unfortunately, I do not believe Bigfoot is real at all. I know a lot of people were hoping for results that were different. And while one can never prove a negative, I feel my investigation was comprehensive enough to arrive at the logical conclusion that they are simply not living, biological creatures." So the question is, would all of you out there instantly turn on him? Call him a liar? Claim the government shut him up? Claim he was an evil skeptic in disguise all long? Sadly I think a lot of the believers here would. You mean believers would treat him the way skeptics have been? I doubt it.
Guest Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) I do have a question, and opinion is welcome as well as - especially, actual insight if anyone knows. My feeling at this point is at the borderline between anticipation and aggravation waiting for this. I can understand the wait but there is one thing I just don't quite understand. My question is - why the total silence on status? Sure - the NDA prevents talking about any details, but why not at least give us the current status, or even updates that say - "no change, still waiting for peer review to complete"? Why nothing? It makes me feel like the persons involved really could not care less what we think, or know, or feel about what they are doing. Edited June 9, 2011 by Harry
Guest Silver Fox Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) I do have a question, and opinion is welcome as well as - especially, actual insight if anyone knows. My feeling at this point is at the borderline between anticipation and aggravation waiting for this. I can understand the wait but there is one thing I just don't quite understand. My question is - why the total silence on status? Sure - the NDA prevents talking about any details, but why not at least give us the current status, or even updates that say - "no change, still waiting for peer review to complete"? Why nothing? It makes me feel like the persons involved really could not care less what we think, or know, or feel about what they are doing. You want an update? I'll give you one. It's still in peer review. And unfortunately, it could be for quite some time. This process could theoretically go on for up to 18 months. Edited June 9, 2011 by Silver Fox
Guest gershake Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) Yeah, but we'd like an update from someone directly in the know, not someone like you not disclosing your sources (again, where are the Kentucky video durations from?). In other words, not third-hand information. Edited June 9, 2011 by gershake
BobbyO Posted June 9, 2011 SSR Team Posted June 9, 2011 Ya know, speaking of this project and future ones like it, I got to thinking. People in the Bigfoot world like Erickson in general. Seems a stand up guy. He gets respect in the field and forums. What would happen if Erickson hypothetically released a statement something like the following: "First I would like to thank (such and such and such) for the years of hard work they put in with me on this project. (Goes into long explanation of what they did, including the equipment, techniques as well as the amount of money put into it). Now ladies and gentlemen I would like to announce the results. It pains me to say that we could find no compelling evidence for the creature described as Bigfoot or Sasquatch. We wanted it to be real as much as anyone, and invested heavily in the hopes that it was. The uniqueness of my project and all that was put into it, affords me the credibility to say that unfortunately, I do not believe Bigfoot is real at all. I know a lot of people were hoping for results that were different. And while one can never prove a negative, I feel my investigation was comprehensive enough to arrive at the logical conclusion that they are simply not living, biological creatures." So the question is, would all of you out there instantly turn on him? Call him a liar? Claim the government shut him up? Claim he was an evil skeptic in disguise all long? Sadly I think a lot of the believers here would. If that happened i'd be under the impression that there was more to it than meets the eye as he has gone on record in saying he has seen them twice i believe.. Unless he was lying about that & was also in the habit of dropping tens of thousands of $$ on rural Property in KY that i doubt he'd make a Buck on..
Guest Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 You want an update? I'll give you one. It's still in peer review. And unfortunately, it could be for quite some time. This process could theoretically go on for up to 18 months. Yes - that we all know. I wasn't asking for an update. My question was, why no official word of status? Why the complete silence - not on the details (we understand an NDA) but no word about the progress toward release from any "official" source? That is all, just "why".
Guest Silver Fox Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Yeah, but we'd like an update from someone directly in the know, not someone like you not disclosing your sources (again, where are the Kentucky video durations from?). In other words, not third-hand information. You want sources for the Kentucky video durations?
Guest gershake Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Yes, as I said before. For the peer review status as well please.
Guest Silver Fox Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Yes, as I said before. For the peer review status as well please. There are a number of good videos, ranging from 1-14 seconds. The killer video of the young female is 14 secs long. Source: Facebook Find Bigfoot (not sure if that is good enough for you.). There is a good video of a female BF sleeping in the woods that lasts "several minutes." Source: Mary Green. And I can't give you anything about the peer review stuff.
Guest Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 I'm boycotting Paulides and all his books. Check this out. I'm quite willing to wait patiently for whatever comes out of the Erickson Project but I'm not holding my breath. LAL, Thank you. This book is now *off* my to purchase list. I sincerely appreciate the *heads up* about this person and anything that he writes or has to say.
Guest Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 You mean believers would treat him the way skeptics have been? I doubt it. You're right. They wouldn't treat him the same way as skeptics. They'd treat him worse.
Guest Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 It's a ridiculous question because we already know that Erickson believes in BF. He has seen them 2 times, and that's what set him on this quest in the first place. He thinks that his Kentucky videos show real BF's and his DNA studies prove that BF exists, so it's a silly question to ask. If you are talking about believers who turn skeptic, happens all the time. We don't get excited about silly people like that. People have a right to their silly notions. But what happens a lot more is skeptics turning believers. Oh come on! Get with the program! Here' I'll think for you. Imagine a guy named Frankie Farnsworth with the exact same project except he hadn't seen one. Same amount of respect Erickson get's - all that. I think if Franke made the announcement I wrote up believers would skewer him mercilessly, calling him a Biscardi ect..ect...I'd bet on it. In fact, within months after Ericksons stuff and the DNA come out, Erickson will be the new believer whipping boy. Remember I predicted it here - I will.
Recommended Posts