Guest believer Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 We should call all answers as "Meldrumism's" Seems he answers that way on everything I have seen. I think he and Dr. Bindernagel make a good pair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest believer Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 In reference the Dr. Haji-chik:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy simpson Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Actually I was referring to the post by "Bigguysquatch" who said that Randy Brisson is the only one who has collected "Great Evidence" from Canada. Brisson is the guy who shot the head-over-the-stump pics which are - in my opinion - hoaxes. Understood.......i just thought id throw my 2 cents in ... tonnes of evidence, and not an ounce of proof.... I believe in the possibility of their existance and have had experiences that lead me to believe they are out there... but i have no proof....and i agree with you, head over the stump is a hoax.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 (edited) ...seriously, lose morality for a day. If you have time to point a video camera at one and get hours of footage... you can put a bullet in one... then call national geo graphic... 150 years ago Europeans were ok with shooting "red indians" and Australian aboriginals and black africans to bring home bodies to put in museums. We are not longer in that century and we have come a long ways in our collective morality. I truly hope you are not serious. These days people even think twice about bringing home dead great apes for museums. It is simply not done, and really, habituation studies are a lot more valuable anyway! Remains of already dead specimens (particularly bones) combined with good DNA and film evidence is quite enough to prove them, there is no need to go to extremes. Edited August 22, 2011 by vilnoori Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy simpson Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 150 years ago Europeans were ok with shooting "red indians" and Australian aboriginals and black africans to bring home bodies to put in museums. We are not longer in that century and we have come a long ways in our collective morality. I truly hope you are not serious. These days people even think twice about bringing home dead great apes for museums. It is simply not done, and really, habituation studies are a lot more valuable anyway! Remains of already dead specimens (particularly bones) combined with good DNA and film evidence is quite enough to prove them, there is no need to go to extremes. I appreciate your position..... and yes i am serious.... Im fine with habituation studies if they are done by someone with some serious international clout in the field being studied ... not a real estate agent.... and yes i know he claims to have top notch scientists running all his tests.... thats good, im happy for him. Im hoping the erickson project is legit, and produces proof, not evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Im fine with habituation studies if they are done by someone with some serious international clout in the field being studied ... not a real estate agent.... and yes i know he claims to have top notch scientists running all his tests.... thats good, im happy for him. Well.....since we don't seem to have a long line of "serious international" types with "clout" begging to do a BF habituation study.....Erickson, his team and his biologist will have to do in the meantime. I don't have a problem with him spearheading this effort at all. If he's onto something...good for him! I just want the dang thing to finally come to fruition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy simpson Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 The PGF is my benchmark for what a sasquatch looks like. There is no mistaking what it looks like. Especially if you could watch one for hours. Since they are able to film them in a habitat for lengthy periods of time im suggesting that 1 be killed. Actually I suggest tranquilizing one but it seems thats always disagreed with to.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy simpson Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Well.....since we don't seem to have a long line of "serious international" types with "clout" begging to do a BF habituation study.....Erickson, his team and his biologist will have to do in the meantime. I don't have a problem with him spearheading this effort at all. If he's onto something...good for him! I just want the dang thing to finally come to fruition. Agreed, there is not any line up of serious international types with clout begging the do a habituation study.... Erickson is a big game hunter, he likes big real estate projects, he likes big trophy animals, he has let this whole project leak and put a big trailer on the net, its dragged on for years.... he likes attention. Id be okay with erickson spearheading a trophy hunting expidition to shoot one... it would be the trophy of a life time. He can even tranquilize it as far as im concerned... if he did what he claims to be good at, which is big game hunting, We would have a line up of serious scientists to do a habituation study.... and if he tranquilized it... there would be a live specimen to study. And both anti kill, and pro kill squatchers would be satisfied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoothunter Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 (edited) Actually I was referring to the post by "Bigguysquatch" who said that Randy Brisson is the only one who has collected "Great Evidence" from Canada. Brisson is the guy who shot the head-over-the-stump pics which are - in my opinion - hoaxes. Not only hoaxes, but his story about that event has several versions. In the Igor Youtube piece, Brisson went as far as to say that the shoulders of the alleged Sasqquatch are hidden behind the stump. I can only assume that he is unaware that this places the head even further above the shoulders atop of the neck. If someone feels that his great evidence should be accepoted after giving varying details and physical attributes to the Sasquatch that only humans have, then they are only going to fall under fire themselves. Edited August 22, 2011 by Bigfoothunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 (edited) Bigfoot Encounters does a pretty good job of debunking the stump/head hoax. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/films/brisson-mcdonald.htm I guess it was MK Davis that debunked it and BFE used his analysis. Edited August 22, 2011 by bsruther Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billgreen2010 Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 i hope we see the possible sasquatch filmfootages from the erikson project soon or near future & other stuff to be continued indeedy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoothunter Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 (edited) Bigfoot Encounters does a pretty good job of debunking the stump/head hoax. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/films/brisson-mcdonald.htm I guess it was MK Davis that debunked it and BFE used his analysis. Some history probably needs to be told so people can better understand the truth about this hoax of Brissons. Steenburg, Blount, and myself were originally shown a black and white print out by a BFRO member while in Ruby Creek and we were asked our opinions about it. Everything in the print was gray and only the head was very black ... almost jet black as I recall. The head was vertical to the ground and yet no shoulders were seen. This was very odd to me personally because a Sasquatch is well known for having the appearence of having no neck. So we dismissed the photo as being of little evidentuary value. At some point after this, Steenburg receieved three photos of the stump by email from Brisson ... two of the head over it and another of just the stump. The story Steenburg was given was that Brisson took two photos from the hip without the use of his viewfinder as the subject was seen behind this stump. The third photo was just of the stump with an explanation that the subject had ducked behind the stump and for what ever reason - Brisson took a photo of a stump with nothing there. Brisson was said to have heard a 'hiss' come from behind the stump which spooked him, which then Brisson left the area immediately. (The new and improved version to Igor was that Brisson stood and watched the subject run off away from the stump) I then did a transparency overlay of the two photos that Brisson had provided Steenburg which made it obvious when animated that Brisson had moved between photos. One photo showed the stump to be closer to the camera than the other, but when I boxed in the head ... the head size didn't appear to increase with the stump size. It was then that I susdpected that the head may have been PhotoShop'd into the picture. Following that opinion being discussed on several Bigfoot/Sasquatch forums .... a study had been conducted whereas Brisson's photos had been submitted for pixelization study. It was determined that the head had not been PhotoShop'd into the image as I first suspected. Steenburg and myself went out to Golden Ears Park where we were told by the BFRO as to exactly where the images were taken which were not in the deep forest of Pitt Lake as the Russian article had claimed it to be. I had Steenburg stand up behind the stump so his head was as we saw the subjects head in Brisson's photos. In Brisson's photos the subject's head has the edge of the tree directly behind in the foreground and overlapping the head seen over the stump. Steenburg is 5'8" tall and yet Brisson said in his new version of the story that his subject was around 6'9". The distance between thr tree behind the stump to the stump was less than two feet if I remember correctly, thus the subject had to be within this space which didn't account for the size variance between Steenburg's height and the height described by Brisson in the new version. I then did transparency animations by overlaying the stump from my and Brisson's photos so they were equal in size and I found that the subject in Brisson's photo had a head that could fit - hair and all - into the face of Steenburg alone. So now we also had a claim whereas Brisson now claims he saw a 6'9" Sasquatch (a detail not mentioned in the original story) that obviously wasn't as tall as the 5'8" Steenburg and the Brisson subject had a smaller head than that of Thomas. None of this was making any sense ... it was almost as if the Brisson subject had the head size of a small man or a young teenage child. Instead of the story coming together ... it appeared to be raising more questions. I then went back and did overlays of the two stump views in Brisson's photos and I animated them which allowed me to see that someone 'was' standing behind the stump and in front of the tree. In fact, I believe this% Edited August 22, 2011 by Bigfoothunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoothunter Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 (edited) would the moderators kindly delet the previous post #1318 for the images disappeared during an edit. Bigfoot Encounters does a pretty good job of debunking the stump/head hoax. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/films/brisson-mcdonald.htm I guess it was MK Davis that debunked it and BFE used his analysis. Some history probably needs to be told so people can better understand the truth about this hoax of Brissons. Steenburg, Blount, and myself were originally shown a black and white print out by a BFRO member while in Ruby Creek and we were asked our opinions about it. Everything in the print was gray and only the head was very black ... almost jet black as I recall. The head was vertical to the ground and yet no shoulders were seen. This was very odd to me personally because a Sasquatch is well known for having the appearence of having no neck. So we dismissed the photo as being of little evidentuary value. At some point after this, Steenburg receieved three photos of the stump by email from Brisson ... two of the head over it and another of just the stump. The story Steenburg was given was that Brisson took two photos from the hip without the use of his viewfinder as the subject was seen behind this stump. The third photo was just of the stump with an explanation that the subject had ducked behind the stump and for what ever reason - Brisson took a photo of a stump with nothing there. Brisson was said to have heard a 'hiss' come from behind the stump which spooked him, which then Brisson left the area immediately. (The new and improved version to Igor was that Brisson stood and watched the subject run off away from the stump) I then did a transparency overlay of the two photos that Brisson had provided Steenburg which made it obvious when animated that Brisson had moved between photos. One photo showed the stump to be closer to the camera than the other, but when I boxed in the head ... the head size didn't appear to increase with the stump size. It was then that I susdpected that the head may have been PhotoShop'd into the picture. Following that opinion being discussed on several Bigfoot/Sasquatch forums .... a study had been conducted whereas Brisson's photos had been submitted for pixelization study. It was determined that the head had not been PhotoShop'd into the image as I first suspected. Steenburg and myself went out to Golden Ears Park where we were told by the BFRO had said the images were taken (not in the deep forest of Pitt Lake as the Russian article had claimed it to be). I had Steenburg stand up behind the stump so his head was as we saw the subjects head in Brisson's photos. In Brisson's photos the subject's head has the edge of the tree directly behind the stump overlapping the head over the stump. Steenburg is 5'8" tall and yet Brisson said in his new version of the story that his subject was around 6'9". The distance between thr tree behind the stump to the stump was less than two feet if I remember correctly, thus the subject had to be with this space which didn't accound for the size variance between Steenburg's height and the height described by Brisson in the new version. I then did transparency animations by overlaying the stump from my and Brisson's photos so they were equal in size and I found that the subject in Brisson's photo had a head that could fit - hair and all - into the face of Steenburg alone. So now we also had a claim whereas Brisson now claims he saw a 6'9" Sasquatch (a detail not mentioned in the original story) that obviously wasn't as tall as the 5'8" Steenburg and the Brisson subject had a smaller head than that of Thomas. None of this was making any sense ... it was almost as if the Brisson subject had the head size of a small man or a young teenage child. Instead of the story coming together ... it appeared to be raising more questions. I then went back and did overlays of the two stump views in Brisson's photos and I animated them which allowed me to see that someone was standing behind the stump and in front of the tree. In fact, I believe this person's right shoulder is visible and that he is not behind the stump as Brisson claims it to be in the Youtube video with Igor. (see below) When Brisson obviously got wind of the Steenburg image standing between the stump and the tree and how it played out against Brisson's alleged 6'9" Sasquatch .... hhe added a new twist to his tale and posted this image below showing that the sasquatch was standing behind the high side of the stump and now where Steenburg stood which was between the edge of the low side of the stump and the tree directly behind it. (see below) In the Youtube video with Igor, Brisson has Igor move to a location behind the high side of the stump which is also at a lower elevation than the ground level between the stump and the tree directly behind it. In that video, Igor raises his right hand which can be seen just above the stump near the Steenburg location. This is how Brisson attempted to dodge the height problem. Brisson goes on to mention that the Sasquatch was leaning over to its right and this is why the head is seen between the stump and the tree directly behind the tree. Thomasburg raised an interesting question upon listening to Brisson's description from the Youtube video and that is 'How if the shoulders of the sasquatch is not seen in his photos (according to Brisson), then how does Brisson know where behind the stump the Sasquatch was standing??? I have only come up with Brisson having the ability to see through stumps like Superman! So what is wrong with Brisson's latest claim one may ask .... let me answer it by asking the following question. Question: How can a 6'9" Sasquatch lean over to its right far enough to have its head between the stump and the tree and still have its head seen in a perfect vertical position? Then ask how this could be done with its shoulder not being seen as Brisson claims because that raises the head even further above the shoulders, which goes against the bull-neck descriptions given to the Sasquatch. The creature I saw had its head sitting down in the shoulders ... Patty's head is down in the shoulders ... but if we believe Brisson, then his Sasquatch must have a head sitting on a very long goose like neck! But go back to the Brisson image where I say I can see the right shoulder ... this places the subject where Steenburg stood and now way over behind the high side of the stump where igor was placed in the video. This also means that the subject was nowhere near as tall as Brisson claimed it to be and it also explains why its head is so small compared to Steenburg's. All the evidence points to a hoax story that has been created and morphed by its author as evidence against it has been made known. Because of image limitations per post, I will post two more images to go along with what I have said here. This evidence before you is not all that we believe to be evidence of a hoax, but its certainly enough to justify are believing that it was just that. Add this to Brisson being caught throwing Rocks by several witnesses and then blaming them on a Sasquatch ... that such rock throwing only seems to happen when Brisson is along on the hike ... that his original head at the stump story was that when the creature ducked behind the stump and hissed, which scared Brisson and caused him to leave the area immediately, that it was not see again to it now being seen running off into the forest in the Igor Youtube piece ... just to name a few things we have detected in this tale ... what other sensible conclusion can one reach other than to see it was a hoax from the onset. Edited August 22, 2011 by Bigfoothunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoothunter Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 (edited) One of the Brisson images sent to Steenburg and said not to have been altered. The insert is a magnification of the head that I added to the image. Steenburg behind the stump ... Edited August 22, 2011 by Bigfoothunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted August 22, 2011 Admin Share Posted August 22, 2011 I think that ends the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts