Erickson Project

[bipedalist]

Guess the proof will be in the peer review paper and media "to be released". Anywho, it should all be better than possum parts in a freezer for sure.

[indiefoot]

That's a great listen bipedalist, thanks much. The finding, testing and reporting on possible Bigfoot tissue and hair isn't nearly as incredible as Bigfoot organizations cooperating. I'm going to need to see some solid proof of that before I believe it.

[Guest]

Do we have good evidence that Erickson has spent a significant amount of money on this project? If so, I'm wondering about motive. If he has money and has spent a lot on this then I doubt this is for making a profit. If it is a hoax or terrible video, then it won't sell well. He would likely lose money on the project. It would be nice to know. This would enable us to take a get rich quick scheme off the table.

Orang

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Orang, I know of two properties Erickson has bought related to Bigfoot habituations.

One was in KY. You can read a little about it here:

http://www.searchingforbigfoot.com/The_Mystery_Of_The_Clandestine_Project

The other one I know of was in TN, Janice Carter/Coy place. Here's a real good 2006 investigation report by a Coleman (those Colemans make good camp stoves and some also write pretty good) It tells you a good bit of history about the place. Keep in mind this was before the purchase by Erickson:

http://www.prairieghosts.com/carter_farm.html

Unfortunately the KY site is wayyyy over on the other side of the state from me, so I don't have a large number of local contacts there. But, this is Ky, he he he, the inside from rumor control says that after Erickson bought the property there, the creature(s) bugged out. There was a biologist living at the old house on the property. Cashing paychecks and handing out nondisclosure agreements from Mr Erickson. She stayed and waited for the creature(s) to return. Supposedly there was a return of the creature(s) and some video footage made. (far away footage) The biologist routinely used a ghillie suit to try to obtain better video. Some big name PHD type folks who's names you already know viewed the footage collected and one for sure was so impressed, he went there for a visit. He supposedly saw a creature while there, how convenient, (from farrrrrr away that is) The other big name PHD type fellow didn't think very highly of the footage he was shown. Meaning it was not "the" money shot. The question I'm anxious to see answered is : Have they really got a money shot now? I hope so. It's a safe bet Adrian Erickson has invested a large sum into this project. Alot of money was wasted on the TN site, I just hope the KY site has panned out some gold for Mr Erickson. Chris B.

[Guest UPs]

Try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hMrfpUy3L4&feature=related

or this: http://www.blogtalkr...t-busters-radio

First is coast to coast in six parts with Paulides/Ketchum (at 10:45 in 3 of 6 they mention bone and tissue)

Second is BTR/Bigfoot Busters archived show with Paulides/Ketchum/Erickson

Thank you for posting that bipedalist. Very interesting interview and I hope they both are successful with the testing, no matter how long it takes. This is the kind of thing I am here at BFF for. Will finish the rest of it after some shut eye. UPs

[Guest]

Chris,

Thanks for the info. From what your saying I am not smelling hoax like some are. Why invest all this money for a hoax? I am also not sensing blobsquatch either. I tend to think they do have actual footage but probably not an undeniable money shot. This is probably why they are waiting to coincide the release of the footage with Dr. Ketchum's DNA analysis. This will make the cumulative case stronger. If they had national geographic film quality they wouldn't need to wait. So, my guess is that the quality will be somewhere in between.

Orang

[MagniAesir]

Here you go kids.

Adrian Erickson

adrain@regalridge.com

250-486-0006

He is the developer of a very beautiful section of British Columbia called Regal Ridge.

Plus he is big game hunter.

Just Google- regal ridge British Columbia

Osoyoos is a very nice little town, close to the US border.

The only desert area of Canada is just outside of Osoyoos

http://www.desert.org/

[Guest UPs]

Did any of you listen to Dr. Ketchum on the blog talk radio link? She answers many of the questions about DNA that have been asked on the BFF. Some highlights for me were:

1. Destination Truth hair. This hair had fibers mixed in and very little root structure with the unknown hair. The hair roots are what she can get good DNA out of. She used up all of the this material.

2. Her team is preparing an article for peer review and has been extremely thorough on using accepted scientific procedures throughout the process. Hinted that they have many DNA samples and that the science behind this is very straightforward. She sees no reason for this article to be rejected as her team has been though this process before. She is a bit concerned that the process may be dragged out and because the science behind it was done very thoroughly and documented properly, only a bias by the peer group would cause it to be rejected. If this happens, she can submit it to another publication.

3. She explains the difference in obtaining DNA from mitochondrial vs. nuclear and why it is much easier to obtain results from mitochondrial DNA.

4. When she first started testing for DNA from samples that were sent to her (1995 timeline?), all samples were of known animals and she did not expect unknown DNA to be found. She was asked now if she believes bf does in fact exist and she replied, yes.

5. She would not/could not get into specifics until the article is published and peer reviewed.

Is there any reason not to be excited about this? It sounded to me like bf could be/would be identified and accepted as a species soon. For those scientists that have rejected the idea of bf existing, can or will they reject peer reviewed DNA evidence because they do not have a body? Should bias play even a small part in rejecting accepted scientific evidence?

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

UPs, I thought the info was awesome. But without a body the skeptics will charge forward with: Recombinant DNA (rDNA)

Since there's no body, the DNA must have been engineered, they'll say.

Still no proof of Bigfoot. I'm excited about the results from Dr Ketchum too. But I'll bet we're gonna hear that same old story. Chris B.

[Guest UPs]

Thanks Chris. Do you think this rDNA argument is valid? Is this why she is soliciting more DNA samples and would more separate DNA samples negate the rDNA argument? Although Mr. Erickson did not get into specifics, he did hint that they have a bone and other evidence. This is not a body, but wouldn't a bone be almost as good as a body? Even if a peer group uses the rDNA argument to deny publication of this article, would there be enough 'science' within the article to change minds of some scientists so bf existence would be at least seriously considered instead of treated as a myth or joke? This result alone could lead to discovery by bringing in funding and getting scientists to look at prior evidence objectively.

If this is rejected after peer review, would the rDNA argument (or another) further strengthen the argument that bf does not exist? How would politics within science affect the peer review process? For example, a scientist involved in the review process has openly discouraged evidence of bf existence in the past. This to me would indicate a bias within the review process. There appears to be plenty of scientists that have remained neutral as to the existence of bf and if they were involved in the review process, it would be difficult to argue any bias result. I would think a publication based on DNA evidence would be either black or white.

[bipedalist]

Good summary UPs. If they (Ketchum et al.) had/have an ironclad article, the first shot should be to a "blind review process" editorial committee on a peer-reviewed journal (not all of them are). Now that that there is a track record of who is involved it probably still would not be "blind" but at least they could play that card should there be bias and rejection in the editorial/acceptance process involving a hopefully bullet-proof article. Just a thought that I'm sure they have considered. They may be aiming low (instead of shooting high) first to minimize friction and the chances of rejection.....only they know. I'll have to research recombinant DNA arguments more before I can comment on that line of thinking --- along those lines just so the terms are properly understood see this: http://www.chem.qmul.../misc/rDNA.html

My view at this stage is if somebody has the time to hoax by using recombinants.....they could have proven the creature exists a lot easier and much sooner traditionally. Using such an argument to denounce somebodies research who used sound methodology accepted by the field to prove the existence of an undiscovered primate or hominid on that basis would be "bottom fishing" in my mind and would be very transparent to the readership by and large (especially if the bone produced viable DNA to validate that derived from other sources, hair follicles, etc.).

Edited November 19, 2010 by bipedalist

[Guest UPs]

I read that reference bipedalist and will use the correct term in the future as to not cause any confusion. I did read a condensed version of what recombinant DNA actually refers to. For those of you laymen like myself, recombinant DNA refers to DNA that has been altered or combined and has been used in cloning among other things. Here is a link that explains it in a bit more detail....

[Guest River]

I'm less than encouraged hearing the names Janice Carter and Mary Green associated in any way with this. If you've not been around long enough to know who they are, or their story - please take the time to check it out. Perhaps you will share my lack of enthusiasm. Also I've seen a copy of the "pancake video" before and it was.........

If this is all related to those circumstances, I have little doubt that this will turn out to be less than its boasted to be.

Edited November 20, 2010 by River

[bipedalist]

I read that reference bipedalist and will use the correct term in the future as to not cause any confusion. I did read a condensed version of what recombinant DNA actually refers to. For those of you laymen like myself, recombinant DNA refers to DNA that has been altered or combined and has been used in cloning among other things. Here is a link that explains it in a bit more detail....

Thanks for the reference..........but link didn't show up?

[masterbarber]

I'm less than encouraged hearing the names Janice Carter and Mary Green associated in any way with this. If you've not been around long enough to know who they are, or their story - please take the time to check it out. Perhaps you will share my lack of enthusiasm. Also I've seen a copy of the "pancake video" before and it was.........

If this is all related to those circumstances, I have little doubt that this will turn out to be less than its boasted to be.

Yeah, I'm on board with this. Erickson buys Carter's property and all of the Bigfoot activity goes poof. Maybe Fox, Blackie and Janice loaded up the truck and moved to Beverly.....Hills that is....