Rod Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Other than the forest colors ... what other skin tones do you see on the subjects face??? Also, what do you make of the location where Brisson put Igor in relation to where and how the head is seen in Brisson's photo? Looking at the photos, I see different white color tones to the right (our right) of the subject's left eye and below the mouth. Although not skin, there are variations of tones throughout the subject's hair. I'm not being drawn into (or diverting to) the fiasco of Igor's location. That is not my contention. I'm simply pointing out the differences in variations of tones throughout both photos. Now, if all the tones were exactly the same except for the skin tone that you pointed out, then I would say that you are onto something in that arena of the photo. Other than that, it's pure speculation on what that particular tone change is, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoothunter Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) name='Rod' timestamp='1314206007' post='94423']Looking at the photos, I see different white color tones to the right (our right) of the subject's left eye and below the mouth. Although not skin, there are variations of tones throughout the subject's hair. Yes, varying tones can be expected in digital images ... espeically when Brisson changed locations between photos, but I was particularly intersted in the skin tone seen on the face. I'm not being drawn into (or diverting to) the fiasco of Igor's location. That is not my contention. Is it the location of where Brisson places Igor in relation to the location of the subject's head in the photo that you are calling a fiasco or is it the point I have made about its logic? Or is it that you do not wish to offer an opinion on that particular matter? Edited August 24, 2011 by Bigfoothunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Yes, varying tones can be expected in digital images ... espeically when Brisson changed locations between photos, but I was particularly intersted in the skin tone seen on the face. Is it the location of where Brisson places Igor in relation to the location of the subject's head in the photo that you are calling a fiasco or is it the point I have made about its logic? Or is it that you do not wish to offer an opinion on that particular matter? I am starting to lose the point of this thread. What happened to discussing the EP? I know the guy you all are talking about has supposed ties. Are we sure he is still working with him though? Erickson sounds like a guy who had an experience that changed his life and decided to use his ambition, money, and resources to prove it. Along the way he has met all sorts of folks (like Standing, who has now been apparently removed from the EP)that are mixed up with the Bigfoot name and some aren't one of the "old school insiders"; which means he doesn't get all geeked out when someone throws their name out at him. He only is looking for evidence. I find it refreshing to have an "outsider" working on such a large project. Sometimes new eyes help. Also, it seems to me he is plenty smart enough to release what he has with solid DNA evidence. Doesn't sound like someone I wouldn't trust even if he was willing to listen and work with some guys who he thought had geniune and good intentions. And maybe the people in question did have these sorts of intentions. No one here is a mind reader. The overt criticism is useless in the long run. If you haven't noticed, this "stump picture" ain't all over the news being touted as proof. Why? Because it is just a freaking picture. Notice what the press is interested in? Video, DNA, bodies (see: Georgia Hoax). Just like they are in a criminal case. So you proved another blobsquatch is a possible hoaxed blobsquatch. And? What real barring does this have on the EP? Just curious here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bsal9872 Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 "like" ^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoothunter Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 I am starting to lose the point of this thread. What happened to discussing the EP? The connection between the two isn't hard to see if you have followed the EP from the beginning. At the time of the Summit, Brisson was still side by side with Erickson and we have not heard any evidence to the contrary to date. In fact, Eric's son had just been in GEP with from all signs (Brisson) to experince the rock throwing phenomenon. So until we find out differently, it's relevant in our view to discuss anyone conected and/or expected to take part in the EP documentary. Is Erickson aware of Brisson's hoaxing ... possibly so. We do not know that Erickson has studyied the alleged stump site as we have, thus we are obligated to share that information in all its detail. It will be up to Erickson to decide what to use and/or omit from his documentary. However, if he uses evidence shown to be less than credible, then that causes Erickson to be held to a higher level of accountability. Right now we are giving Erickson the benefit of the doubt by making this evidence known beforehand so later on there will be no 'I didn't know ... ' excuse to fall back on. Perhaps a look at the Brisson - Igor - McDonald rock throwing incident of late may offer some more insight. Edited to remove image at request of copyright holder. Chris B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steenburg Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 I think also that it is important to fully disclose what is known, especially when hoaxing is involved when it becomes evident that said hoaxing is to be included in an up coming documentary which so many in this field seem to be on pins and needles waiting for. Will the inclusion of such hoaxing degrade the final program upon it's release? Yes, but only to a point depending on the other evidence presented in the program. I fondly remember a very good documentary made in 1975, (David Wolper's, 'Monsters, Mysteries or Myths')witch covered some of the best information on the Sasquatch that had been gathered up to that time. I didn't dismiss the whole program just because 8 minutes of it were devoted to Ivan Marks and some of his many hoaxed films of the time. In the case of the EP there are so many rumors and red flags that several different cases of hoaxing and on going hoaxing are said to be included in the program. I hope like so many of you that those rumors do not pan out. But I hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Bill is right to post what he has concerning this man from Maple Ridge on this thread because it is relevant to the threads topic. For as far as I know there is still 1 golden rule in Sasquatch Research. Thou Shall Never Hoax! Its bad enough when a witness does it but when a researcher does it than that has to be exposed for what it is and not ignored. In this case I personally became involved because he tried to hoax me. He failed. So I think its only right when I hear that someone else is looking into evidence by this same person perhaps the the very same hoaxed evidence, than that person and the Sasquatch research community as whole needs to made aware of the facts. Thomas Steenburg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 I don't have a problem with that at all,you kept it civil, you showed your points of contention, it is relevant to the topic for those like me who are not die hard researchers to see both sides of the debate in order to make an informed opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 25, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted August 25, 2011 I still like Randy's NV videos's nevertheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) Miller and Steenburg, we will come on one more Time, we will say it again, Brisson is no hoaxer, he is the Erickson Canadian Part, He has the Vids, the Pics, The Hair, The other Evidence, The DNA. You Guys have sour grapes. Yes Erickson has been to the stump, Those Pics and the Video are Real, You and Miller, go on on year, after year, about this, No one cares, When it all comes out and is said and Done, you guys are going to look silly, IMO You have it in for him, You guys talk about if Adrian knows this or that about Brisson, They have had many encounters when Brisson was not even there. You should call Mr Erickson. Is the Darn thing even out there, We have only been in this 3 years and know they're Real, LOL, I think the pot is calling the kettle black. We cant wait for you to see the results, when the Doc, and DNA, Come out, They are Human, That's why Brisson Pics look Human. There are hundreds and hundreds of pics and Vids out there, but you go on and on about this Brisson. WERE IS YOUR PROOF OF ANY HOAXING? WE WANT TO SEE IT NOT HEAR IT. Edited August 25, 2011 by Jodie edited to conform to the forum R&G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 I don't have a problem with that at all,you kept it civil, you showed your points of contention, it is relevant to the topic for those like me who are not die hard researchers to see both sides of the debate in order to make an informed opinion. Agreed that they have kept it civil. Still not really sure why this is relevant though. What am I missing here? Being a Bigfoot researcher doesn't make Bigfoothunter Bill Munns. What makes him an expert in video analysis/evidence? If he is, sweet. I would feel better knowing that he is since he is leaving no room for anything but this being a purposeful hoax. If not, well, I can tear apart lots of stuff because I think different. Cool, they have an opinion on the subject and they have been Bigfoot field researchers. Everything else is still hearsay. Actually, I would like to hear Bill's opinion on this since it is important enough to call Erickson's judgement into question to some and he is is an expert in video analysis. This almost is to the point of deserving it's own thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steenburg Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Miller and Steenburg, We will come on one more Time, We will say it again, Brisson is no Hoaxer, He is the Erickson Canadian Part, He has the Vids, the Pics, The Hair, The other Evidence, The DNA. You Guys are Pissed its not you, This is your Backyard, And Your not involved, Yes Erickson has been to the stump, Those Pics and the Video are Real, You and Miller, go on on year, after year, about this, No one cares, When it all comes out and is said and Done, you guys are going to look like the fools you are, You have it in for him, You guys talk about if Adrian knows this or that about Brisson, They have had many encounters when Brisson was not even there. You should call Mr Erickson, than keep all this crap talk you guys say, Thomas what Researcher, Who has wrote books, and been involved in Bigfoot for 20 years or so, and call yourself a expert would say. Is the Dam thing even out there, We have only been in this 3 years and Dam well know there Real, LOL, you guys are the Hoaxers, We cant wait for you to see the results, when the Doc, and DNA, Come out, They are Human, Thats why Brisson Pics look Human. There are hundreds and hundreds of pics and Vids out there, but you go on and on about this Brisson, face the facts your Jealous, and cant take it. WERE IS YOUR PROOF OF ANY HOAXING, WE WANT TO SEE IT NOT HEAR IT. As i said before I will say again, GOOD LORD Thomas Steenburg. P.S. 33 years now not 20 or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 As i said before I will say again, GOOD LORD Thomas Steenburg. P.S. 33 years now not 20 or so. Actually, the guy does make one good point. Have you all tried to reach out to Erickson and explain your issues with him about the credulity of some of his contributors? I am sorry if you said so and I missed the post about it. There are more then a few discussions going on about anything tied to the DNA I have been keeping up with now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 The connection between the two isn't hard to see if you have followed the EP from the beginning. I think you would be surprised at how long I have been following this. I am no "Finding Bigfoot" bandwagon jumper. I can see the significance now, but like I said above, don't know why you are doing it here instead of trying to let Erickson know somehow. If you are, what have you tried to do to contact him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steenburg Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Actually, the guy does make one good point. Have you all tried to reach out to Erickson and explain your issues with him about the credulity of some of his contributors? I am sorry if you said so and I missed the post about it. There are more then a few discussions going on about anything tied to the DNA I have been keeping up with now. Erickson knows. Thomas Steenburg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) Erickson knows. Thomas Steenburg Oh man. Come on. Pages and threads of people saying things...please. I think after all the other writing you have done here you can type more than "Erickson knows." How does he know? Who told him, when did it happen, and how was it done? Over what form of communication and was it confirmed? I am sorry, but if you all can go posting pics and videos debunking someone's pics and videos and calling them hoaxes, surely you can give more detail into how you got the word to Erickson. I am not saying you didn't, I am really just tired of hearing about things with no proof. If you say you do on the record and how you did it, well, it would make a much greater impact if the vids and pics from this guy are on Erickson's final cut. Just sayin'... Edited August 25, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts