Erickson Project

[Guest]

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

STOP IT

Richard your post is meant to be inflammatory, which is why you posted it.

B. Trolling (purposely posting messages designed to alarm, antagonize, or provoke other users) will not be tolerated. The staff -- not the users -- will determine if someone is trolling. The Staff encourages members to report posts that may be considered trolling.

Derek and The General are both members of this forum, you will not be allowed to attack them. You will afford them the same courtesy as everyone affords you. You have a right to your opinion about their story but absolutely no right to judge the character of either one of these members.

2. Do not make things personal. Attack the argument, not the arguer. No name calling. Terms like ‘liars’ and ‘idiots’ are beyond the pale and will not be tolerated here.

3. Remember at all times that this forum is here to discuss the subject of Bigfoot, not to discuss other members. If you don't have something nice to say about someone, you might want to consider not saying anything.

[Guest Stubstad]

STOP IT

Richard your post is meant to be inflammatory, which is why you posted it.

B. Trolling (purposely posting messages designed to alarm, antagonize, or provoke other users) will not be tolerated. The staff -- not the users -- will determine if someone is trolling. The Staff encourages members to report posts that may be considered trolling.

Derek and The General are both members of this forum, you will not be allowed to attack them. You will afford them the same courtesy as everyone affords you. You have a right to your opinion about their story but absolutely no right to judge the character of either one of these members.

2. Do not make things personal. Attack the argument, not the arguer. No name calling. Terms like ‘liars’ and ‘idiots’ are beyond the pale and will not be tolerated here.

3. Remember at all times that this forum is here to discuss the subject of Bigfoot, not to discuss other members. If you don't have something nice to say about someone, you might want to consider not saying anything.

OK, fair enough.

BTW, what exactly is trolling? Apart from a fishing acronym -- using a physical lure or minnow?

Thanks,

Richard

[Guest]

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted". While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, mass media uses troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

But the easiest way to remember the rules is by following Thumper's advice.

[Guest billgreen2010]

hey jodie & stubstead when is this erikson project going to finaly solved or over to be continued

[Guest]

I wish I knew Bill, I guess it just depends on when everyone else releases their project information. It looks like they are trying to do it all at the same time, whenever that time is.

[Guest believer]

Somewhere there is a squatch family starting their day and impervious to what we do.

Happy, content, not burdened by greed, envy and our human faults,

the way nature intended.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Jodie
removed religious content

[Guest believer]

Does Dr. Ketchum speaking in Oklahoma on DNA bode well for the peer review process?

[BobbyO]

OK, fair enough.

BTW, what exactly is trolling? Apart from a fishing acronym -- using a physical lure or minnow?

Thanks,

Richard

I think that's Trawling..

[Guest Thepattywagon]

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

What specifically is "lopsided" regarding his NDA with Ketchum?

I don't recall anything from General stating he shot the small one for evidence because the Mother was too big. As I recall, he said he shot it because it got too close. And I don't think he said he "buried" it. I believe he stated that he covered it up with brush,and didn't dig a hole and cover it up with dirt. He wouldn't have had time to dig a hole and bury the body in 90 seconds or less.

They say there's not a body and I'll accept what they say, even though it would be reasonable to think that General would have kept the young Sasquatch for a myriad of reasons.

I just realized this thread is supposed to be about the Erickson Project. Sorry this is a bit off topic!

Edited August 15, 2011 by Thepattywagon

[Guest]

"Come to find out he did all three of these things in November of 2011."

Time travel ... kewl!!!

[Guest]

<Sigh> Very overly dramatic and amateurish. I don't know who this person is, and I am not trying to be ugly (it would be really great to see some good footage), but I get a real Biscardi vibe from "Sasquatch the quest." The title doesn't even seem to be grammatically correct....How long has there been a "buzz" about this "Kentucky Project," anyway? I know that real research takes time and some amount of secrecy (esp. when it comes to a habituation), BUT....

He has it backwards:The Quest for Sasquatch sounds better, but that name may have been used someplace or sometime else.

I never could locate the film you guys watched. I searched and could not locate anything.

[Guest]

Wow, did I say that last year? I did. Dang, sounds harsh. Well, that was when there was nothing more to the website than the title page, and no vids posted... (well, maybe one and that was what I was commenting on)??? Definitely looks more professional now. And yeah, I still like the ring of "The Quest For Sasquatch" better than "Sasquatch the Quest."

Shouldn't it be "Sasquatch: The Quest" ?????

Curious about why this appeared, Susi, or is a mod trying to merge some threads?

Edited August 15, 2011 by notgiganto

[Guest]

Nobody merged the thread lately, the last time it was done was over a month ago. Maybe Susie was backreading from the previous merge?

[Guest Stubstad]

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted". While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, mass media uses troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

But the easiest way to remember the rules is by following Thumper's advice.

OK, JODIE, I THINK I SEE (FINALLY). JUST TO FURTHER CLARIFY YOUR OWN TAKE ON TROLLING, HOW ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ENTRY FROM A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO? IS THIS TROLLING?:

Posted 19 June 2011 - 11:02 AM

Richard, this Derekfoot "guy or gal" isn't some armchair researcher. My name is Derek Randles and I'm the co-founder of the Olympic Project. I've been in this game for 27 years and have worked with everyone from Meldrum to Krantz. I don't speak un-truths or fabricate anything. You see sir, I don't have an agenda here. We are reaching for species verification and then protection. I'm not up for all the drama and I will not engage with you any further on this or any other matter. Why should I? It doesn't do any good. Yes I know I started it, but I have a low tolerance for BS. The Bigfoot world is full of it. It's a shame you couldn't keep you mouth shut but I understand you felt jilted.

In this day and age everybody wants everything now. No patience. I can also assure you I'm well informed on this study to date, but unlike you, I can keep my mouth shut. I don't care about you and Melbas dealings early on. I simply can't sit back and let people run her down at every chance. That woman has literally worked her tail off trying to make this happen. She has my respect big time. Maybe it pissed me off because to me, It's not about MONEY. It's about the science. For Gods sake, LET HER FINISH THE FREAKING STUDY WITHOUT ALL THE CRAP!!!!!!!

Derek Randles.

( Question edited out of post)

RICHARD STUBSTAD

Edited August 16, 2011 by Jodie
Removed indicators for curse words

[Guest]

That post was back on June 19th. The rule regarding the allusion to curse words was just issued a few days ago, but since you reqouted it, I'll need to edit out your post.

No that is not trolling, he is not attacking you as a person or your character, he is mad at you for talking about the study.

Your post was a direct dig at General's character, off topic, and posted to get a response from other posters.i.e. trolling.