slabdog Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 MNBRT radio 3-7-11 Interview with John Green 1 hr 22 mins Sharon Lee poses question to John Green regarding the Adrian Erickson project. SL - I have a question for you, this is regarding the Adrian Erickson project. I saw the trailer of that and you had a little intro, a little part in that trailer. And, have you had a chance to view any part of that documentary and what are your thoughts on that? JG- I’ve only seen a few clips of what may be Sasquatch and he’s stopped in here a few times and we’ve talked about it. I think its, you know, before anything is going to be earthshaking its got to be better than the Patterson movie which is pretty hard to imagine. But I’m waiting just like everyone else to see what he is able to put together. SL - OK, so you haven’t seen any of it even though you are featured... JG - I’ve seen what... uhh...I call his things “could be’sâ€... they may very well ...there’s dozens and dozens of photographs and even movies of what could be Sasquatches, but uh.. if there is any way that humans could be responsible for them they don't have any impact. He may well have things that are better than that and I am hoping he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest believer Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 REEL Productions looks like a straight-up group. They fall right in line with what Mr. Erikson is doing. I wonder who is publishing the inevitable book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted August 14, 2011 Admin Share Posted August 14, 2011 (edited) I think that if the EP had the "money shot", we would've seen it by now. This whole business about releasing the footage with the DNA evidence, IMO, indicates that whatever he has is not good enough to stand on its own. Don't believe the hype. I also reject the claim that no picture or video will ever be good enough for skeptics. If someone were to present something similar to the pic below, but of a BF, it would be accepted. Edited August 14, 2011 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest believer Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 If any of what we have been told is true or assume to be true. What is the comparable for the video and pictures. Other than the Moon, and a few other planets, we have pictures of places we have never been to in astronomy but assume they are accurate because someone said they are. But in this case, every skeptic and friend wants to know where is the body? You know what they can do with computers, etc. If there is accuracy to the Sierra situation, that may be what it will take to convince the planet. Sasquatch will continue on beyond all the names and places we speak of now. I pray that history will say that good and WISE men did the right thing. This project is not for us, the choir, it is for the rest of the planet. They don't have to convince us, we just don't like the time schedule:) I know I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 MNBRT radio 3-7-11 Interview with John Green JG - I’ve seen what... uhh...I call his things “could be’sâ€... they may very well ...there’s dozens and dozens of photographs and even movies of what could be Sasquatches, but uh.. if there is any way that humans could be responsible for them they don't have any impact. He may well have things that are better than that and I am hoping he does. Well, that doesn't sound very encouraging....... You would have thought if Erikson had "stopped by a few times" at John Green's place and bothered to show footage, he would not have have only shown the Blobsquatches. Green clearly seems to be saying that the PGF is the gold standard and what he's seen doesn't even come close to that level. I think we are in for a major disappointment with the Erickson footage. I really don't think it's anything like some have cracked it up to be. I saw Meldrum being asked about it on one of these TV shows and he appeared to become a little vague and non-committal on the subject, qualifying his statements with phrases like "if it's not hoaxed, it's convincing". Really, after all this time and with all our tech, I want David Attenborough/Nat-Geo HD-quality film. I never believed that really good video footage could not settle this argument. It's just that all the offerings so far have been so bloody awful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 14, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted August 14, 2011 We have activity/information/an Interview Ladies & Gentlemen.. http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/127560548.html Yah, it's the same one posted up over at Bobby Short's BF encounters site I read yesterday.....thanks for the ref though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest believer Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Here speaking at the conference favor that paper is complete and reviewed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 14, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted August 14, 2011 REEL Productions looks like a straight-up group. They fall right in line with what Mr. Erikson is doing. I wonder who is publishing the inevitable book. Source(s)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 14, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted August 14, 2011 I want David Attenborough/Nat-Geo HD-quality film Hmmmm.....***note to self***::wouldn't it be nice?:: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest believer Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Just a comment from their webpage and content. Nobody answered when I called. I will try again tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest believer Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I use a I-pad to type and the thing types for me if you haven't noticed the apparent syntax/ word combos Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billgreen2010 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 WOW the above replys are definetly heated intence about this ongoing situation buckle up to be continued...... indeedy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stubstad Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Hi everyone; I'm back from a few days off. Re. the "Sierra Kills", you all will have to go to other sites, primarily Lindsay's, for details. All I did was try to verify what he was reporting from two other sources; and pretty much the gist of what he says appears to be true -- even though I despise the very idea of it all. The murder of two hominids, partly human (or better), a mom and a toddler. Despicable. Anyway, I finally had to accept this as a fact; not just the word of Derek Randles, whom I don't trust at all. OK, he was probably telling the truth that these two sasquai were killed; but the "story" changed from time to time, oftentimes significantly, and probably will continue changing until the story comes out -- unless it is blocked somehow. Of course, I trust the shooter even less; I don't know who the pickup truck driver was, so I don't know whether to trust him or not. Hanging around with the shooter, I wonder. Richard Stubstad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I finally had to accept this as a fact; not just the word of Derek Randles, whom I don't trust at all. Why specifically don't you trust him? Did he lie about something, in your opinion, and if so, what was it? Seems to me he was just cleaning up the messes the 'journalist' was making. To say you don't trust someone at all, is a pretty heavy statement, and should probably be backed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stubstad Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I finally had to accept this as a fact; not just the word of Derek Randles, whom I don't trust at all. Why specifically don't you trust him? Did he lie about something, in your opinion, and if so, what was it? Seems to me he was just cleaning up the messes the 'journalist' was making. To say you don't trust someone at all, is a pretty heavy statement, and should probably be backed up. I don't trust him because he has a lopsided NDA with Ketchum. He simply isn't allowed to tell the truth. His story, lacking coherence, has changed several times in very important details during the past few months. My take, for what it's worth, is that Lindsay is partly telling what he perceives to be the truth and partly "reading between the lines" and taking plenty of journalistic license to be sure. But he is likely coming much closer to the actual sequence of events than Derek Randles ever did, or ever will, before the release of the actual sequence of events by Ketchum & her co-conspirators. It even remains to be seen if the actual truth of the matter is ever revealed, for legal reasons. For example, the shooter himself says that he shot the "kid" (toddler) for evidence, because the mother was too big (reportedly around 600 lbs). Then, he says he buried it. Huh? How about an 80 lb, 4' tall sasquatch youngster in a freezer somewhere, right here and now, today? Randles also told me -- on blog talk radio no less -- that he never visited with either the shooter, the driver, or visited the purported sight of the killings. Come to find out he did all three of these things in November of 2011. I have that from far more reliable sources than Randles himself. This is a theory, but -- how about the idea that Randles cannot be an accessory to a homicide if he has never even visited the site or the killers? The killer(s), meanwhile, probably didn't know they were dealing with at least a partial human -- a Homo sapiens. Randles and Ketchum did. Richard Stubstad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts