Erickson Project

[Guest bsruther]

The Kentucky river is nowhere near the site, the Licking river is fairly close to it though. There are lots of cows near the Kentucky site as well. Kentucky cows are absolutely delicious, just had some for dinner. I hope Bigfoot doesn't find out how delicious they are.

[Guest Bigfoothunter]

On thinking more about HarryGreeks question to Bigfoothunter. Ether way the DNA tests go I still want to know the history of the sample and that it actually came from what someone claims it came from. You see I still can not see how any expert can say, This is Sasquatch DNA. Since there is no confirmed sample of this creature to compare it to? Under the present circumstances the best I think we can hope for is a declaration that DNA of some new and unconfirmed species has been discovered.

Thomas Steenburg

Gorillas have 98% of our DNA and no one fails to see them as a different species. If Sasquatch had 99% of our DNA, it still wouldn't mean its human.

[Guest]

Hairy geek- Possibly the reason why the Erickson clips are coming out is so that it would give more credience to an open-ended DNA report . i also agree with Thomas Steenburgs' summation that one might have to have a source reference to the samples to satisfy the scientists. Just a thought that has probably been stated several times already. ptangier

[Guest vilnoori]

For the record, I have no idea who Bigfoothunter is, or who Steenburg is, or any of these other people hashing things out. I think that gives me some objectivity that you won't find anywhere else on the forum. So far, what I have gotten out of this is the photo or video has questionable qualities.

I do know who Bigfoothunter and Steenburg are, since they investigate sightings in my corner of the world. They are very competent to do so and keep their skepticals firmly on, but if there is a good sighting, they know it and report it. There is an article of one such sighting report handled by them in my gallery if you want to get a taste and they did well.

The one thing they may fail to appreciate here though is that even though Brisson has been implicated in falsehood it seems to me he was just trying to pad the data, and may have had a good research area to begin with. The area he researches is ripe for it and I certainly would be surprised if something didn't come up as evidence there. Not because of who he is or how truthful he is, but because of the richness of other sightings and experiences in that whole area.

Also let's remember that so far the type of people who are habituators are not the same kinds of people that record and report (and publicize) many different sightings. Habituators are for the most part loners and not easy to socialize with. Accuracy is not as important to them as independence, if you know what I mean. That doesn't necessarily mean they have nothing of significance to offer the BF community. In fact when they do offer something of substance it will be very important and significant...someday. In spite of BFH and Thomas being open and accurate about their reservations, I think they are making a mistake to totally discard everything that Randy has to say. Staying neutral has it's benefits in the long run.

Edited August 28, 2011 by vilnoori

[Guest Bigfoothunter]

On thinking more about HarryGreeks question to Bigfoothunter. Ether way the DNA tests go I still want to know the history of the sample and that it actually came from what someone claims it came from. You see I still can not see how any expert can say, This is Sasquatch DNA. Since there is no confirmed sample of this creature to compare it to? Under the present circumstances the best I think we can hope for is a declaration that DNA of some new and unconfirmed species has been discovered.

Thomas Steenburg

Gorillas have 98% of our DNA and no one fails to see them as a different species. If Sasquatch had 99% of our DNA, it still wouldn't mean its human.

[Guest believer]

I have always thought the Ky. River played a role in the habitat.

Bsruther, I grew up south of Louisville.

Just a reference to the area on the way to Cincy and the Ky Motor Speedway, etc.

Hilly, rural, wooded.

And yes, plenty of cow flesh:)

Dave

I went to Mary Carter's place in Tennesse this summer.

That and the area of Ky. put me in "if I was a Sasquatch" mode when near both:)

[Guest]

The Kentucky river is nowhere near the site, the Licking river is fairly close to it though.

Anyone who followed the old thread about bigfoot using powerline clearcuts for quick travel may find this interesting. Walk a mere 277 feet through the Kentucky habituation site's wooded backyard... Powerline clearcut.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Steenburg, Bigfoothunter...we may need to revisit our argument from before. Something has come to me but I will wait to share it until I hear confirmation that it is OK to do so. In the meantime, did one of you mention video evidence of the rock throwing incident? Is it posted anywhere to view? Thank you in advance for your response.

Hairy geek- Possibly the reason why the Erickson clips are coming out is so that it would give more credience to an open-ended DNA report . i also agree with Thomas Steenburgs' summation that one might have to have a source reference to the samples to satisfy the scientists. Just a thought that has probably been stated several times already. ptangier

No harm in rehashing an important point ptangier. My question is, isn't an open-ended DNA report an exciting beginning and further along then where we currently find ourselves?

[Guest Alpinist]

For instance, we have another known hoax (nothing to do with Brisson) that we have not exposed publicly for it hasn't to our knowledge gone public. However, if it does ... we will expose it publicly.

Please document or link to the web site or newspaper publication where the Brisson images in question were first made available to the unwary public by Brisson himself, where in so doing he qualified himself as a hoaxer seeking public attention ....

Then document the date and time of your followup exposure claiming hoaxed photoshop manipulations and thereby saving the public from another deception.

Because as far as I can tell it's only ever been Bigfoothunter who has released Brissons copyrighted images into the public domain.

And who is it that is seeking attention here ? Brisson or Bigfoothunter ?

It's convient for his critics, that Brisson is banned and blocked by IP# from even viewing this forum isn't it.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Alpinist

[bipedalist]

It's convient that Brisson is banned and blocked from this forum isn't it.

Let's cut to the chase, if this member has ever registered and has been blocked or banned it has never come to the attention of many members here. In such a scenario, he always has the option to appeal to seek reinstatement if such is the case....... bffsteeringcommittee@gmail.com

[Guest believer]

After a google earth look, there are two main power line paths leading east/west from Crittenden.

All the power plants around there are on the Ohio and some tributaries.

I would think I-75 crossings are underpasses. It's a pretty busy highway.

Can't drive anywhere near there without scanning the tree lines.

Family thinks I am nuts:)

Dave

[Guest Bigfoothunter]

Steenburg, Bigfoothunter...we may need to revisit our argument from before. Something has come to me but I will wait to share it until I hear confirmation that it is OK to do so. In the meantime, did one of you mention video evidence of the rock throwing incident? Is it posted anywhere to view? Thank you in advance for your response.

No one mentioned filming Brisson throwing rocks that I am aware of. The evidence that Tom has mentioned was him and others who accompanied Brisson into the bush had actually saw him throwing the stones.

[Guest Alpinist]

Steenburg, Bigfoothunter...we may need to revisit our argument from before. Something has come to me but I will wait to share it until I hear confirmation that it is OK to do so. In the meantime, did one of you mention video evidence of the rock throwing incident? Is it posted anywhere to view? Thank you in advance for your response.

In the summer of 2010 while working at the Harrison Hotsprings Information booth, Bigfoothunter stated to a person known to Brisson, going by the initials M.N. that they had video of Brisson throwing rocks as a prank while on a hike with BFRO members.

Apparently this unrelated video is the damming evidence invalidating the Brisson copyrighted images currently viewable in Bigfoothunters posts on several threads right now. So what was previously denounced as a Brisson photoshop job by Steenburg / Bigfoothunter and then rescinded (correct me if I am wrong) as not being photoshopped is now qualified as a hoax, which though never publicly released by Brissonfor attention seeking purposes, but now because there exists a video of Brisson throwing rocks at BFRO members while on a hike in Golden Ears Park is sufficent evidence to overide all the other conclusions of the Brisson images as being genuine except for the Bigfoothunter / Steenburg conclusion ????.

I fail to see the connection between the photo and the pranksterism on the hike ? I fail to see anywhere on the internet the video of the pranksterism on the hike.

Does police image forensics work also factor in unrelated incidents into the image analysis ??

Please can someone clarify the exposeurs timelines and logic, I find this very confusing.

Is it not the moral obligation of Steenburg Bigfoothunter as legacy Bigfoot researchers to provide compatriot researcher Erickson with this incredibly damming rock throwing video evidence which purportedly puts the Erickson Project at risk ???

I fail to see how an unrelated video, or for that matter the shooters behavior, influences pixel study of an image, or the exif comparisons of the two photos, (we have yet to see Bigfoothunter release that part of his image analysis) of a photo, which was never publicly released by the shooter, Brisson, or the assumption that the legacy model of what a Sasquatch is or should look like what is in the photo.

Really what is the agenda here ??

Edited August 29, 2011 by Alpinist

[Guest Bigfoothunter]

name='Alpinist' timestamp='1314569778' post='95762']

Please document or link to the web site or newspaper publication where the Brisson images in question were first made available to the unwary public by Brisson himself, where in so doing he qualified himself as a hoaxer seeking public attention ....

Please point out where that was said? I redall people offering hypothetical possibilities as to his motives.

Then document the date and time of your followup exposure claiming hoaxed photoshop manipulations and thereby saving the public from another deception.

Our first experience with one of the photos was in Ruby Creek by a BFRO member. This was mentioned recently on this forum.

Because as far as I can tell it's only ever been Bigfoothunter who has released Brissons copyrighted images into the public domain.

I have posted that the image of at least one of the photos had been turned over to a member(s) of the BFRO. Brisson sent crops ofthye two head photos to Thomas Steenburg which were said to be in their original state right from the camera. We later discovered that they this was not true for they had been cropped. Neither in Ruby Creek to us, nor to Thomas Steenburg were these images said that they could not be shown to anyone.

And who is it that is seeking attention here ? Brisson or Bigfoothunter ?

We can only speculate as to Brisson's motives. I have not sought any recognition myself for merely investigating Brisson's story and images and offering my opinion.

[Guest]

It's like every other relationship on earth be it romantic, friendship, or professional, once you lie, it's over, the trust is gone. The motive would be moot.